Sitting of 3 August 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAXEK in the Chair.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 28th July, 1916, sanctioning the Sale of certain Kingstown Harbour Property to the Dalkey Urban District Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES).
Copy presented of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations as to Pay, Noneffective Pay, and Allowances sanctioned during the year 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WAR PENSIONS, ETC., STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Draft Regulations (Part I.) for Grants to supplement pensions, grants, and separation allowances payable out of public funds, and for other grants and allowances, made by the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation constituted under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if an agreement is being negotiated on the Pope's initiative, that all prisoners who have been confined for more than eighteen months and are fathers of three children and over will be sent to Switzerland and
    466
    interned there whether disabled or not; and if Germany accepted the proposal on the 7th July and France has also agreed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): We understand that a proposal in this sense has been made through the good offices of the Pope to the French and German Governments; neither the French nor the German Government appears to have replied at present; we are asking His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris for the details of the proposal.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent murder of a British captain of a merchant ship, and of the ill-treatment of British civil prisoners in Ger many, he will reconsider his decision not to agree to the German offer to send the 4,000 British civil prisoners back to this country and allow the 26,000 alien enemy prisoners to be sent back to Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have made a proposal to the German Government in the sense of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, on the 15th July. This proposal, if accepted, will secure the release from Germany of all the British civilians now interned there.

    PANAMA CANAL.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information regarding the state of the Panama Canal; and if he has any information showing that the American Government contemplate abandoning it and that American engineers are now in this country investigating data regarding a canal route through Nicaragua?
    Lord R. CECIL: Our information is that although the movement of shipping through the canal is occasionally delayed for a short time owing to the necessity of dredging after landslides, the canal traffic is otherwise proceeding normally. His Majesty's Government have no information with regard to the last part of the question.

    MRS. BURNYEAT'S RELEASE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary why and under what conditions Mrs. Burnyeat was released from internment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Chippenham.

    ALIENS' CHANGE OF NAMES.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to advise His Majesty's Government to withhold consent, at least during the period of the War, to applications from persons of obviously alien origin for changing their names?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It has been frequently explained, in answer to questions on this subject, that while alien enemies are prohibited from changing their names under the Aliens Restriction Order, the law imposes no restrictions with regard to changes of name by other persons; and I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for any alteration of the law in this respect.
    Mr. BOYTON: Is it proposed to alter the law?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have answered that.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MAJOR PRICE.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether Major Price, now one of the chief advisers of Sir John Maxwell, is the same gentleman who at Newmarket, in county Cork, some seven years ago, as inspector of police, ordered the police to fire on the people during an election riot when there was no necessity for such action, with the result that one innocent man was killed and several wounded; and, if so, who recommended this gentleman for the position of responsibility which he now occupies?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Major Price, who was appointed to his present position on the recommendation of the late Inspector-General, had no connection whatever with this matter. It was another officer, with the same surname, who was in charge of the police on the occasion referred to.

    RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary (1) when the following pri-
    468
    soners at Reading are likely to be rr-leased: Arthur Griffith, Dublin; Ernest Blyth, Dublin; William' O'Brien, Dublin Trades Council; J. J. O'Connell, Cork; Terence M'Swiney, Cork; Denis M'Cul-laugh, Belfast; Shaun T. Kelly, town councillor, Dublin; C. Shannon, Belfast; P. T. Daly, town councillor, Dublin; Herbert Pirn, Belfast; John Milroy, Dublin; ex-Alderman Cole, Dublin; and M. J. O'Connor, Tralee; whether they have yet been tried by the Advisory Committee; if so, what are their recommendations; and (2) whether he will consider the advisability of releasing or allowing out on parole from Frongoch Mr. P. T. Daly and Mr. William O'Brien, ex-president of the Dublin Trades Council, to enable them to attend the trades congress at Sligo on Monday and Tuesday, 7th and 8th August: and if he is aware that both are labour men, holding official positions in the Irish Labour movement, and that their presence at congress is of importance to Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUEL: William O'Brien, Denis M'Cullagh, and Herbert Pim. have been released on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. As regards the other persons mentioned, the Advisory Committee have dealt with their cases and have recommended to me that they should remain interned. I regret that I cannot authorise the release of P. T. Daly on parole.

    HARDINGE COMMISSION' (EVIDENCE).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the whole of the evidence taken in private before the Hardinge Commission is to be published in the forthcoming volume on the subject?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The volume of evidence was published on Monday. It does not contain the evidence taken during the private sittings of the Commission.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in the minutes of evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland, reference is made to the notes handed in by Sir Mathew Nathan of a talk he had with Lord Midleton; whether, with the exception of one extract read by the Chairman, the notes were treated as a secret document; will he say why the said notes were not published in the appendix; is he aware that, according to the minutes, Sir Mathew Nathan answered thirty-six

    469
    questions in private and that Viscount Midleton answered thirty-two questions in private; whether he is aware that, to certain questions in the evidence, Sir Mathew Nathan, Viscount Midleton, Major-General Friend, Mr. Richard W. Booth, and County-Inspector Sharpe are represented in the text of the minutes of evidence by merely the numbers of the questions followed by asterisks; will he say whether these omissions are due to the censorship; and whether, in the public interest, he will give instructions that Sir Mathew Nathan's notes of his talk with Lord Midleton, the evidence given in private, and the questions deleted from the Report, together with the answers, shall be published as a supplement to the minutes of evidence?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir; this was a matter which was within the discretion of the Royal Commission, and I am not prepared to interfere with their discretion.

    ALLEGED COMPLICITY OF CIVIL SEEVANTS.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Home Secretary whether the Special Commissioners he has appointed to inquire into the cases of Government officials suspended for alleged complicity in the recent rebellion are to hold their sittings in private; whether they have shorthand notes kept of the proceedings before them; and whether they allow legal assistance to be obtained by the persons into whose cases they are inquiring?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Commissioners themselves take such notes as are necessary. The investigation is a purely administrative one in each case such as the head of a Civil Department would conduct. There is nothing in the nature of legal proceedings, no request for legal assistance has been made, and nothing has, so far, happened to indicate that legal assistance is desirable for the elucidation of the facts or for the benefit of the suspected official.
    Mr. LUNDON: If they apply for legal aid will they be able to get it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No request for legal assistance has been made.
    Mr. LUNDON: If a request is made?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Commissioners will have to consider it.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will each of these men get a statement of the charges made against him, and by whom?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Commissioners decide their own procedure. The procedure is more or less informal, and there is not the smallest doubt that the men know-perfectly well what are the acts on which the charges are founded.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Commissioners the advisability of giving each one of these men a copy of the charges made against him, and by whom, so that it may be known who are making the false charges against these men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will convey to the Commissioners the hon. Member's suggestion.

  MUNITIONS.

    CASES OF POISONING.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary (1) whether there has been a considerable increase in the number of cases of poisoning and of anthrax and toxic jaundice reported to him under the Factory and Workshop Act for the six months ending June, 1916, as compared with the same period of the previous year; whether the number of deaths was thirty as compared with eighteen of the same six months of 1915; whether he can state to what this increase is due and how far it is attributable to relaxed factory inspection; what action, if any, he proposes to take; and (2) whether the number of anthrax cases has increased from twenty-nine in the six months ending June, 1915 to fifty-three in the six months ending June, 1916; and what steps are being taken in this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The figures for lead poisoning for the periods in question show a slight decrease, but there has, unfortunately, been a considerable increase in cases of anthrax. There has been no slackening of inspection for the purpose of enforcing the Regulations, and the increase can only, I am advised, be accounted for by the fact that, owing to the heavy demand, manufacturers have been forced to use all kinds of material. The problem of prevention is being thoroughly investigated by the

    471
    Departmental Committee appointed for the purpose, and there is good reason to hope that they will be able to put forward effective proposals. The notification of toxic jaundice—that is, jaundice due to tetrachlorethane, or certain other poisonous substances used in explosive works— was made compulsory for the first time this year, and this is the chief reason for the apparent increase in reported cases of poisoning. The number of persons employed in the factories concerned has also been constantly increasing. These factories have been subject to frequent inspection, and much has been done by improved mechanical ventilation, medical examination of the workers, and other precautions, to minimise the danger. As regards poisoning from dopes containing tetrachlorethane, this danger should very shortly be eliminated altogether by the substitution of the non-poisonous dopes now being brought into use.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the hon. Gentleman state any specific time when the Bill regarding poisoning will be brought in, and is it not the fact that jaundice has increased most largely in the factories where they use dope for varnishing aeroplanes?
    Mr. BRACE: I believe that is so, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will endeavour to get him full information.

    BUILDING REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been called to a practice which, during the last few months, has become common, namely, the service by numerous lessors of property in London of notices of dilapidations and wants of repair, accompanied by claims for damages and costs, and threats to reenter upon the property, compliance with which would entail hardships upon lessees during war time; and whether he will take steps to prevent the labour, money, and material necessary to comply with such notices being used at a time when they could be much better employed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The permission of the Ministry of Munitions has to be obtained for the execution of work on repairs or alterations to buildings so far as these involve the use of constructional steel or cost
    472
    more than a sum of £500. Numerous applications of this nature are being received, and are carefully considered from the point of view of the labour and materials that would be required for the purpose before a licence to do the work is granted. As at present advised, I am not prepared to extend the scope of the Order beyond its present limits.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of Munitions, in view of the notice given by him forbidding any building without a licence, whether he can say when a licence was given for the building of a villa, for sale on easy terms, at Seaview, in the Isle of Wight?
    Dr. ADDISON: No licence has been given for the building of a villa at Sea-view, Isle of Wight. An application has been received for a licence to continue the building of a house at Seaview, which was started before the 20th July, the date on which the Regulation took effect. Inquiry is now being made into the circumstances attendant upon the work in question, with a view to deciding whether or not a licence should be granted.
    Major HUNT: Did not the Ministry of Munitions issue a warning on 30th March that buildings should not be started without consultation with the Ministry?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, we issued a number of warnings and we only had recourse to licences because we found ourselves unable by the other way to get labour or material.
    Mr. RENDALL: What is the limit of value prescribed?
    Dr. ADDISON: Five hundred pounds.

    EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the workers in a controlled factory partially engaged in the manufacture of munitions come, in all cases, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act, and are thus all debarred from leaving their employment without the permission of their employer or a munition tribunal, or whether Section 7 only applies to those of the workbrs who are actually engaged in the manufacture of munitions?
    Dr. ADDISON: The provisions of Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act as to leaving certificates apply only to persons who are engaged on or in connection

    473
    with munitions work and are engaged in an establishment to which the Section has been applied by order of the Minister of Munitions. Both these conditions must be fulfilled, so that persons engaged on private work are not subject to the provisions of Section 7, even though employed in a controlled establishment or other establishment to which the provisions of Section 7 have been applied by Order of the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Seeing that that very important fact is not known to large numbers of workpeople and to even a considerable number of employers, can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it more generally known?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, we will do so.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will take steps to see that the provisions of Order 447 shall be fixed at the entrance of every factory to which the provisions of that Order have been applied, and in such other parts thereof as he may from time to time direct, and be constantly so kept fixed in such position as to be easily read by the persons employed in the factory or workshop?
    Dr. ADDISON: I propose to issue as soon as possible a circular to the establishments in question giving effect to the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    ENGINEERING FIRMS (DUBLIN).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether any orders for munitions have been placed in the hands of Dublin engineering firms within the past three months; if he is aware that two engineering firms that built machinery for the manufacture of munitions are about to close down for the want of orders; and if he is aware that an English firm have offered to buy their machinery to carry out an order that has been denied to Dublin?
    Dr. ADDISON: Numerous orders for munitions have been placed with Dublin engineering firms during the past three months. I have no information that any engineering firms in Dublin are about to close down for want of orders, although I understand that in certain cases contracts for shell components which are no longer required have not been renewed. In all such cases, however, endeavours are made to offer other work to the firms in question as far as possible. I have no
    474
    information as to the statement contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. BYRNE: If the shells are no longer required, can the right hon. Gentleman say why English firms have offered to buy the machinery which makes the shells?
    Dr. ADDISON: The machinery may be useful for many other purposes; I do not know what it can be used for.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if he has statutory powers of control over the policy or proceedings of the Central Control Board; if so, what those powers are; and, if he has no such powers, will he state to which of the Ministry such powers belong?
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister (1) by what method effective Parliamentary control is intended to be exercised over the proceedings of the Central Control (Liquor) Board; what Minister is responsible to this House for the policy of the Board; whether, if no effective Parliamentary control over the Board exists, he will take measures to secure it; and (2) if he is aware that the authority of the Ministry of Munitions in relation to the Central Control (Liquor) Board is limited to the scheduling of areas to be placed under the jurisdiction of the Board and does not extend to any control over the Orders issued by the Board for such areas; and whether he will issue a Regulation extending the authority of the Ministry of Munitions in this respect so as to bring the proceedings of the Board under effective Parliamentary control?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Central Control Board is established by an Order in Council under statutory powers. The appointment of its members rests with the Minister of Munitions, but beyond that he has, under the Order in Council, no control over the proceedings of the Board. The Order in Council is, of course, made on the responsibility of the Cabinet and could be amended or revoked on their advice. The scheduling of particular areas is a matter for an Order in Council. Within these areas, subject to the powers conferred by the Regulations, he Central Control Board can make Orders and impose restrictions without reference to the Minister.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are the Regulations made by the Control Board or by the Ministry of Munitions?
    Dr. ADDISON: By the Control Board.
    Major HUNT: Is there any control at all over the Control Board?
    Dr. ADDISON: By Parliament, I suppose.
    Mr. WATT: Has the Minister of Munitions power to remove any member of the Control Board it he should be dissatisfied with his action?
    Dr. ADDISON: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MOLTENO(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions whether the Central Control Board have given ten days' notice to the parish council of Annan that it proposes to take possession of their offices at the expiration of the notice, and that it proposes to use them for the extension of an hotel; whether he will state under what Act the Board has this power; whether he will undertake to arrange that this notice is not carried out until the Board has provided other offices for the council and agreed to provide compensation for any loss sustained by the removal; and whether he will make the same provision for any other tenants of the same premises?
    Dr. ADDISON: In response to an inquiry into this matter a telegram has been received this morning stating that the matter has been satisfactorily arranged. I may say also that every possible consideration will be shown to those whose premises have to be taken over. I have not been able since the receipt of the hon. Member's question to get the answer to his inquiry on the point of law, but if he will be good enough to put another qnestion down an answer will be given.
    Mr. MOLTENO: May I say that I have received a telegram from Annan, dated 2.55 this afternoon, saying that no settlement has been made. In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this notice shall not be carried out until some arrangement is made?
    Dr. ADDISON: All I can say is that I have the telegram in my hand from which I quoted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] It is earlier than that; it is 10.20.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Minister of Munitions has any control over this Liquor Board?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not think he has.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the. Government consider whether it ought not to disestablish this Board of Control?

    OMNIBUS SERVICES FOB WORKERS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has promised the London General Omnibus Company any guaranteed payment, for the two new omnibus services put on at his request for Woolwich workers between Woolwich and Brockley and Woolwich and Penge; if so, can he state on what basis such a payment is made; and is it on the mileage run?
    Dr. ADDISON: No arrangement has been made with the London General Omnibus Company as regards any guaranteed payment for the two new omnibus services referred to in my Inn. Friend's question.

    CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that out of 1,369 military contracts only twenty-four were placed in Ireland, or a percentage of 1.27; whether the same facilities for tenders and equal advertisements for articles manufactured in Ireland are afforded to Irish contractors as those given to British contractors; whether he is aware that the absence of an examining and receiving depot in Dublin, as sanctioned by the local military authorities, contributes to this disparity of custom; and whether he pro poses to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: So far as he Ministry of Munitions is concerned, the policy followed is one of equal treatment of all parts of the United Kingdom, and every endeavour has been made to make the best use of the engineering resources of Ireland as of other parts of the United Kingdom. A depot has been established in Dublin for the reception and examination of supplies ordered by the Minister of Munitions. If the hon. Member refers to contracts placed by the War Office, his question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that an increased salary to Irish prison warders has been sanctioned by the Treasury since last April, and that although almost four months have elapsed since then the warders have received no advance; if he is aware that the cost of living has in creased by nearly 100 per cent., and that prison warders are paying indirectly a large portion of their salary towards the carrying on of the War, and that they are only receiving the same salary now as they did two years ago; and will he say when the Government intend to increase the salaries of these officers?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer to the reply which I gave on the 24th ultimo to a question of the hon. Member for South-East Cork. I am informed that the proposals of the General Prisons Board for giving effect to the decision of the Treasury in this matter are about to be submitted by that Board to the Irish Government I have urged them to expedite the matter.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will that apply to female prison warders?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have already replied to the effect that I hope he will be able to do so.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been given to the proceedings of the Stepney Local Tribunals and the number of exemptions given there to licensed victuallers; whether he is aware that the military representative has stated that licensed victuallers appear to be the only exempted occupation in Stepney, and that the licensed trade has undue weight on this tribunal; whether he will instruct this tribunal to extend equal consideration to other small tradesmen who have worked hard to build up their businesses, and who now are being informed by this tribunal that they ought to sell up and get into the Army, and whether he will make it known to all tribunals that the licensed trade has no special claims for exemption which are not equally applicable to other businesses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend
    478
    has made inquiry of the Stepney Tribunals, and on the information supplied there does not appear to be any justification for any of the statements made in the question.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that at least one-fifteenth of the members of this tribunal are in the licensed trade, and does not that introduce an undue proportion?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: There is no justification, so far as we can ascertain, for a single one of the statements in the question, and this is one of the statements. I believe that no members of the licensed trade are on this tribunal.
    Mr. KING: I will refer to this matter again.

    CIVIL PAY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Treasury, on the 11th August, 1914, issued a circular promising civil pay to Civil servants who joined His Majesty's Porces and that, in the earlier part of the Derby scheme, certain clerks in the Scriveners' Department of the principal Probate Registry, Mr. Cawse and Mr. Byng amongst others, were told that if they attested this circular would apply to them, but that the grant would be based on their average earnings for the time that they had been in the service; whether he is aware that, on the faith of that, these clerks attested; whether now the Treasury refuses to pay them on the ground that ' they were not called up any sooner than I they would have been if they had not I attested and gone under the Military Service Act; and, if so, whether he will explain why the Treasury has not kept the promise made to its servants?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The circular referred to does not apply to Mr. Oawse and Mr. Byng since they entered unestablished posts after the outbreak of war, and the information given to them was incorrect. As this incorrect information did not in fact result in their being called up earlier than they would have been in any case under the Military Service Act, they in fact suffered no actual injury through the mistake, and I do not think any special concession to them would be justified.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that his Department made a statement to two of its

    479
    clerks, on which statement they attested, and the right hon. Gentleman now comes down and refuses to carry out the promise?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; they made inquiry as to their position and were told by a subordinate official that their position was so-and-so. As a matter of fact, they were not taken under that, but only at the same time that they would have been compelled to enlist under the Military Service Act. If they had suffered any real injury and been put in a worse position than they would have been but for information given them, although I could not assent to the proposition that the Treasury must be bound by every statement or advice given by subordinate officials, I should have thought it was a matter for inquiry, but, as a matter of fact, they have not suffered any injury, as their position is no worse.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.
    Colonel YATE: Is it a fact that Civil servants called up under the Military Service Act do not receive the full amount of their civil pay?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It will arise on the Adjournment.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to a case where a man named Mates was discharged from the 3rd Con-naught Rangers on 23rd July, 1915, certified as unfit for further military service, suffering from a disease contracted while so serving; if this man, who was in perfect health when accepted and at the time carrying on the business of a painting contractor at Dublin, has, since his discharge, owing to and arising from such disease, been quite unable to perform any class of work, has been refused either a pension or compensation, and not having other means of support, his sons being also serving, has been obliged to dispose of his stock in trade, together with his household effects, in order to provide food for his family, and is at present practically destitute; why this man has been made to suffer such indignity; and how it is
    480
    proposed to deal with such cases having such injurious effect upon recruiting in Ireland?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am having inquiry made into this case, and will, in due course, let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he could inform the House as to what is the exact meaning of the instruction issued by the War Office to recruiting officers in connection with the re-examination of men formerly found to be medically unfit, more especially the provision in that instruction which says that men concerning whom the recruiting officer is satisfied that there is no possible doubt will not be summoned for medical re-examination?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I will have the reply circulated in the OFFICIAL EEPOET. [See Written Answers.]
    Mr. HOGGE: If it is printed, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it gets into the Press, not for my sake, but because it affects 300,000 men all over the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I will make a special request.

    DISTINCTIVE MARKS AND BADGES.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the advisability of awarding to officers and men who have served for a certain time with the British Armies in the field, whether in France or elsewhere, some distinctive marks or badges such as are used in the French Army in similar cases?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 20th July to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight Division?

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information respecting Frederick Murfin, who was arrested at Tottenham under the Military Service Act; whether he was one of the thirty-four men sent to France and there sentenced to death for disobedience; whether he is now in Winchester Gaol; and whether, in view that

    481
    there is no question as to his genuine conscientious objection to military service, he will see that he 's released to do some work of national importance under the new scheme?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Central Tribunal will no doubt deal with this case in due course. It is, I fear, impossible to make reports as to the precise position in which the case of individual conscientious objectors stands from day to day. The general principles have now been settled and will, of course, be applied with all possible promptness.
    Mr. KING: Will this man's case only come up for review when his sentence of ten years' penal servitude has been completed?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend knows that that is not the fact.

    "MORNING POST" EDITORIAL STAFF.
    Mr. NUGENTasked whether Mr. Ian Colvin, of the "Morning Post" editorial staff, is of military age; whether he has been exempted from military service; whether that exemption is temporary or absolute; whether he has been exempted on grounds of physical or mental unfitness; and, if not, on what grounds his exemption has been conceded?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that an application in respect of Mr. Colvin is at present before the Westminster Local Tribunal, and will shortly be heard. Mr. Colvin is of military age.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who has asked this question is opposed to Conscription for his own country?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that Mr. Colvin has advocated it for this country?
    Mr. NUGENT: I asked what were the grounds upon which exemption was claimed for a gentleman who has been advocating Conscription all over the country for everybody?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TREASURY REGULATIONS.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government
    482
    Board whether he will direct the Statutory Committee to indicate what special circumstances within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915, the Committee have had regard to in considering offers of assistance as local committees from boroughs of a population of less than 50,000, and in what respect, or respects, these special circumstances were absent in the cases of the following boroughs whose applications have been refused: Bromley, Chesterfield, Dover, Folkestone, Glossop, Guildford, Harrogate, High Wycombe, Hove, Leamington Spa, Llanelly, Mansfield, Reigate, Richmond (Surrey), Scarborough, Shrewsbury Taunton, Torquay, Tunbridge Wells, Worthing, and Winchester?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would point out to the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is not empowered to give directions to the Statutory Committee of the kind desired. I understand, however, that the Committee think that a hard and fast rule cannot be laid down as to what should be regarded as "special circumstances" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Act, and that the question whether special circumstances exist in any particular case must be determined by a consideration of all the facts of that case.
    Mr. WARDLE: Have the Regulations been issued?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Not all the Regulations; some of them.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Treasury has yet given its approval to the scale and Regulations governing the award of supplementary pensions by the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; and whether he can now inform the House as to the general financial position of the Statutory Committee in relation to the Treasury?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, Sir. A letter containing the approval of the Treasury to the Regulations (including the scale of pensions) was sent to the Statutory Committee yesterday afternoon, and is now before, them. The general financial position of the Statutory Committee in relation to the Treasury may be stated as follows:

    1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will ask Parliament to place six millions (including the million already granted) at the

    483
    disposal of the Committee, so as to provide the full estimated cost of supplemental pensions to widows and dependants of non-commissioned officers and men and "to totally disabled non-commissioned officers and men, and a provisional sum for partially disabled non-commissioned officers and men who have received a permanent pension from the Chelsea Commissioners, or the Admiralty, and the cost of administration. The Chancellor had already agreed (apart from the six millions) to bear the cost of supplementary separation allowances given in accordance with the Kegulations previously approved.

    2. The sum of six millions is based on an estimated number of deaths amongst non-commissioned officers and men not exceeding 250,000. If this-number is found to be larger, the six millions will be increased proportionately.

    3. An additional Grant will be made for the supplementary pensions in respect of commissioned officers and of men whose general and financial circumstances are like those of commissioned officers.

    4. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that out of the £6,000,000 a sum of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 will be available, which, after providing for the expenses of the Committee's administration, will more than cover the cost of the permanent partial disability pensions on the numbers awarded hitherto, and will be available towards temporary allowances in the cases of partial disability, in which pensions are awarded conditionally.

    5. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that the estimate of number and cost of partially disabled men should be revised before the end of 1918 in the light of the facts then ascertained, and that the financial provision should then be placed on a permanent footing.

    I desire to draw special attention to the fact that the calculation upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate is made is based upon a smaller number of deaths than had been submitted to the Actuary by the Statutory Committee, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing that his estimate should be revised, should it be found that the number is too low.
    The promises now made by my right hon. Friend show a substantial advance upon his previous announcement, and should cover the supplements to all permanent pensions, assuming that the Actuary's figures are borne out by the facts.
    484
    I hope that the Statutory Committee will feel justified in putting their Regulations into immediate operation, and that in doing so they will receive the cordial co-operation of the local committees.
    Colonel YATE: Will these Regulations apply equally to commissioned officers as well as to non-commissioned officers and men?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Another estimate is to be submitted to meet the case of officers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consider that estimate and find a further some of money, and special Regulations will be issued hereafter to meet the case of officers.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will these provisions be embodied in a Bill, or how else will they be laid before the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "They must be."]
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The House will have an opportunity for debating the scale of Regulations on an early date next week, when the Vote which covers the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee will be put down for discussion. Then afterwards a Bill will be required to cover the £6,000,000 of money which is to be advanced to the Statutory Committee for this purpose and on that again another debate can take place.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when in future he has such a long and important statement to make to try if possible to make it in Government time or circulate it with the Votes. I am sure he will see that by his long statement he is cutting out a great number of questions to-day.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am very sorry. I had to make it at short notice indeed, and it was a statement greatly desired. A meeting took place this morning. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my apology for taking up so much time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How was the question down?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the capital as well as the interest be available for the supplementary pensions?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The £6,000,000 are given for supplementary pensions.
    Major HUNTasked whether the Government have definitely settled what pensions non-commissioned officers and men are to receive for the loss of arms

    485
    or legs and for total disablement, and what pensions the wives and dependants of men who have been killed or died of disease in the Service are to receive; and, if not, when the Government are likely to be able to publish their decisions on these matters?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rates of pension for a private soldier who has lost an arm or a leg vary from 10s. 6d. to 25s. a week according to the nature of the amputation and the degree of incapacity, 2s. a week is added for a corporal, 4s. for a sergeant, etc. The general rates and conditions for the grant of pension to disabled soldiers are published in Army Order 212 of 1915, and for widows and children in Army Order 213 of 1915. The Regulations for gratuities or pensions for other dependants of deceased soldiers are contained in Army Order 85 of 1916.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty propose to take to prevent William Connor, 117, Foley Street, Dublin, a naval pensioner now almost blind, from becoming destitute; and if he will request the Admiralty to award this man who has had ten years' service in the Navy, a permanent pension sufficient to enable him to live without appealing to charity?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am having inquiries made into this case.

    "BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL" (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. BOYTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any supervision or previous inquiries made as to the source from which advertisements come when offered for insertion in the "Board of Trade Journal"; if so, why are advertisements which appear in the July number accepted from the Hol-born Surgical Instrument Company, Limited, of 26, Thavies Inn, London, E.C., and the General Surgical Company, Limited, of 147 and 149, Farringdon Road, London, E.G.; and if both these companies were only recently incorporated and previously owned by persons bearing German names?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The goods advertised in each case
    486
    are of British manufacture, and while the two companies are permitted to trade in this country I see no reason for refusing to publish their advertisements in the "Board of Trade Journal." The Hol-born Surgical Instrument Company, Limited, was registered in 1903. The General Surgical Company was registered this year, and of its directors one, Mr. Goldschmidt, was naturalised twenty years ago, and the other, Mr. Schmerl, is a natural-born British subject.

    ENEMY TRADING.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will supply a report of the reasons given by the War Office, the Admiralty, and his Department to the Advisory Committee on enemy trading, with a view to suspend or stay the winding-up or sale of the forty-six cases mentioned in their Report under headings (4) and (5)?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The War Office informed the Board of Trade of the nature of the supplies they were obtaining from certain firms which they considered it inexpedient to close, and the Admiralty informed the Board of Trade that it was considered inexpedient to close certain businesses from the point of view of naval interests. These communications were referred by the Board of Trade to the Advisory Committee. There were, as stated in the Report, only nine such cases. No representations have ever been made by the Board to the Advisory Committee with a view to postpone the winding-up or sale of any enemy business.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: If in consequence of representations from the War Office and the Admiralty the winding-up of these companies is stayed, ought not arrangements to be made so that the profits of the businesses should flow into the British Treasury and not be carried on through transactions with the War Office for the benefit of German firms?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think that is probably being done. If the hon. Member will give me notice, I will give him definite information on the point.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring in a Bill to provide that all profits of the forty-six concerns which are permitted to continue trading by the Advisory

    487
    Committee shall be treated as excess profits, and collected on behalf of the general revenue of the country without any deduction except salaries and expenses?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that such legislation would be advisable. In suitable cases the profits are already under the Trading With the Enemy Acts vested in the Public Trustee to be disposed of as may be thought proper after the declaration of peace.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: Is it not a fact that the profits of these companies amount to at least £500,000, permitted by the Government to be made on behalf of German firms? Would it not be a considerable accession to our revenue if that sum were brought in from these German firms?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The money is in the hands of the Public Trustee, and will remain in his hands until determination is made by Parliament to make disposal of the money, but I do not think excess profits is at all a suitable way to deal with it.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: Is it a fact that the Public Trustee merely holds these moneys as bankers on behalf of the Germans?

    BALTIC EXCHANGE (REINSTATEMENT OF MEMBERS).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the firm of William H. Müller and Company, Limited, London, were reinstated as members of the Baltic Exchange at the instigation of the Board of Trade; and whether his Department interested themselves in any way in regard to the reinstatement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

    AIR SERVICES.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the officers or persons responsible for co-operation between the Air Services of the Navy and the Army during an enemy raid over the United Kingdom?
    Major BAIRD(repiesenting the Air Board): It would be undesirable to give the names of the officers or persons who, under the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief Home Forces, on the one hand, as exclusively responsible for Home defence and the Board of Admiralty on the other, as responsible for the defence of our shores, are engaged on the duties which the hon. Member describes. But the hon. Member may rest assured that there is effective co-ordination between the two services.
    Mr. BENN: If I can show that there was not proper co-ordination between the two services the night before last, will the Government take action to see that in future there is?
    Major BAIRD: Undoubtedly we shall be grateful for any information showing how the arrangements can be improved.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCES.
    Captain BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his at-tenton has been drawn to the increased height at which the newest Zeppelins are now able to fly; and if, although it may be undesirable now to let the public or the enemy know whether the effective range of the anti-aircraft guns now in use at home is sufficient to serve any useful purpose against Zeppelins flying at altitudes over 12,000 feet, he can reassure the populations chiefly concerned by a disclosure as to whether we may expect any genuine improvement in the real adequacy and efficiency of our anti-aircraft defences outside the area of London in the near future?
    Major BAIRD: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. As was recently indicated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Mile End, the development of the air defences of the country is proceeding as rapidly as the manufacturing output and the needs of the Navy and of our forces in the field permit. This development applies not to the London area only, but to the country as a whole. I am afraid that I cannot add anything to that statement.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there a range-finder in these Eastern towns?
    HON. MEMBERS: Do not answer!
    Major BAIRD: I should like notice of that question.

    HIS MAJESTY'S GIFT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state to what use the Government propose to put the Royal gift of £100,000?
    The PRIME MINISTER: After a review of the various other suggestions, the Government have come to the conclusion, of which His Majesty has expressed approval, that his generous gift would be most appropriately devoted to the general purposes of the War.

    GERMAN PRINCES (PROPERTY IN GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether the Duke of Albany, the Duke of Cumberland, or the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein own any land or house property in this country; and, if they do, whether such property is vested in the Public Trustee and how much of it is land and how much house property?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is, I am informed, in the negative; the rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    COMMITTEE ON POST-WAR TRADING.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the Committee on Trading after the War will report on the possible output of this country, since in creating a demand it is essential to know the potentialities of the supply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion to Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee.

    LORD KITCHENER (NATIONAL MEMORIAL).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the Government, in deciding upon the best and most appropriate national memorial to Lord Kitchener, will consider the desirability of establishing throughout the Empire Kitchener hostels and training colleges for the children of officers and men killed or disabled in the present war; and, if so, whether the Gov-
    490
    ernment will take the initiative and invite the co-operation of the principal provincial centres in this country and of the Overseas Dominions in the promotion of this project?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of a national memorial to Lord Kitchener is, I am informed, in the hands of a Committee of which Queen Alexandra is president and the Lord Mayor of London, treasurer. The Committee will no doubt consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the Government have no control over the matter, which is quite distinct from the proposal of this House to erect a memorial to Lord Kitchener out of public funds.

    REGISTRATION.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister if he can now definitely state when the, new registration proposals will be communicated to Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I can only say that these proposals will be announced to the House before the Adjournment.

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
    Captain BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister whether, as apparently an entire fleet of Zeppelins has again been permitted to fly, with one exception, unmolested over several English counties and towns, he will consider the desirability of introducing fresh legislation to permit of a more equitable system of State-aided insurance against risks of injury or loss by enemy air raids; and, as although in contradiction to official prewar prophecies there appears to be no immediate likelihood of preventing enemy aircraft from inflicting injury and loss upon the non-military populations concerned, if he will also consider the question of State obligation to compensate near relatives of persons who may be killed and injured by Zeppelins or other aircraft?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think fresh legislation is called for on this matter. I may point out that in the two latest raids no casualties and no substantial damage were caused.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a certain Royal Naval Air Service establishment was not

    491
    informed of the Zeppelin raid on the night of 28th July; whether, in consequence, no machines were sent up though they were ready; whether this was owing to no instructions from the Director of Air Services having been received; whether explosions of bombs were distinctly heard and assumed to be gun practice; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The attention of the Admiralty was at once called to the omission referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question by the officer in charge of the air station. The Admiralty immediately proceeded to deal with it.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister when the new terms to old age pensioners will be issued to the House of Commons?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I presume that my hon. Friend is alluding to certain administrative measures which the Government has from time to time taken in connection with old age pensioners. I hope to have a statement of what these measures are circulated next week.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what instructions have been issued to old age pension officers to put into practice the policy of the Government to encourage old age pensioners to undertake work without their earnings being taken account of so as to reduce their pensions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 31st July, in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Louth Division. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has any definition of these instructions been issued?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier.

    SCRABSTER TO SCAPA (MAILS).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state on what grounds the Admiralty refuse to carry mails only from Scrabster to Scapa, or to allow any other person to carry mails only; if this action on the part of the Admiralty is purely bureaucratic; and, if so, will he present an appeal to Admiral
    492
    Jellicoe to relax the conditions which are crippling the entire trade and commerce of an important county?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: His Majesty's ships have their naval duties to perform, and cannot carry the civil mails.

    FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received a complaint that the firm of Messrs. Thomas Hinshelwood and Company, Glasgow, are not observing the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause in the wages paid to the coopers in their service; and, if so, whether inquiries are being made with a view to the Fair-Wages Clause being complied with?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to both parts of my right hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative.

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE FIRM.
    Major WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty give to contractors the name of a firm called Trubridge, of Milburn House, Newcastle-on-Tyne, as suitable makers of manganese bronze and gun-metal ingots; whether he is aware that till recently the name Trubridge was Keiffenheim: whether he is aware that this firm advertise that their ingots are made economically from scrap castings; and whether the Admiralty knows of and agrees to the use of ingots so made, provided the castings pass the usual tensile and chemical tests, generally or only in the case of this firm?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, except that a firm of engineers was granted, some considerable time ago, permission to use the castings of the company. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative. As regards the fourth part of the question, the Admiralty does not in all cases specify the use of new metals.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this firm of Trubridge is allowed to use scrap castings for making ingots, and other firms are not so allowed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I think not. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman

    493
    will look at the answer. If it is not quite clear I shall be glad to confer with him. That is not the intention.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Do the Admiralty allow scrap castings to be used in any
    case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We do not specify new metals in every case—that is new in reference to this, or any particular firm.

    LOCAL LOANS ACT (BANK COMMISSION).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statistics showing how much remuneration has been paid under Section 18 of the Local Loans Act of 1887 to the Bank of England out of the Local Loans Fund during the last five years in respect of loans made to public authorities in Scotland; and, if so, will he say what this commission amounted to?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir. The remuneration paid to the Bank of England from the Local Loans Fund for the management of Local Loans Stock depends on the amount of that stock outstanding, and not on the amount of loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners from the Local Loans Fund to any particular part of the United Kingdom in any particular period.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Bank of Scotland is not utilised for loans in Scotland in the same way as the Bank of Ireland is utilised in Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If my hon. Friend will read my answer, I think he will see that he is labouring under a misapprehension.
    HON. MEMBERS:No, no!

    SHELL-SHOCK (TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of non-commissioned officers and men temporarily affected mentally by shell-shock, and in view of the present crowded conditions of asylums, he will consider the desirability of making an application for £100,000 from the Prince of Wales's Fund for the purpose
    494
    of providing convalescent homes in country districts for these men, and so of giving them a chance of being restored to health?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport on the 27th July, and also to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 18th July.
    Major HUNT: Is there anything in this idea that could not be carried out? Is the right hon. Gentleman fully aware of the great importance of this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter is of great importance, and is being very carefully watched.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that the soldiers on discharge have to go to the asylums?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. I do not think there is any truth at all in that suggestion.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Where are they sent on discharge?

    COLOURED TROOPS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister (1) what is the coloured population of the British Empire overseas; what percentage has been raised to fight in this War; why have steps not been taken to increase the supply of these British subjects serving in His Majesty's Armies: (2) whether, seeing that there are some millions of coloured fighting men in South Africa, Cape Boys, Zulus, Basirtos, Matabele, Swazi, Mashonas, Barotze, Bechuana, and other tribes in Cape Colony, will he take steps in conjunction with the Union Government to start recruiting among these British subjects; (3) whether his attention has been directed to the fact that large numbers of good fighting men of coloured stock can be readily raised and trained in East Africa to be ready for active service in the summer of 1917; whether His Majesty's Government have yet considered the desirability of increasing our fighting strength by the employment of these British subjects; and (4) whether His Majesty's Government will now sanction the enlistment and training of fighting

    495
    tribes in German East Africa now subject to our rule; and whether he is aware that many of these tribes are anxious to fight against the Germans owing to the oppression and injustice they have suffered under German administration?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer these questions. To give the percentage of coloured men actually fighting to the whole coloured population would be of no value, and would be a slur on these races. The question of climate limits to a very great extent their employment, as also the conditions under which they would be called upon to fight. Steps are being taken to ascertain to what further extent these coloured races can be employed—and it is hoped that the result of these inquiries from those who have had practical experience in commanding these troops may be satisfactory.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that the South African Government have refused the offer by the Barotse and other tribes who have expressed their willingness to fight for us, and why, therefore, has His Majesty's Government delayed the matter for two years, when it has been said that it is the last million men that will bring the War to an end?
    Mr. FORSTER: Really it is a very difficult question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Of course it is, all the more reason—
    Mr. FORSTER: I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be carefully considered, and it was very carefully considered. But in the light of recent representations, like those of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Wedgwood), who has just come back from where these black troops have been employed, further inquiries are being made by those actually in command of them.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Is it true that we have actually refused two divisions of Basutos?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have not any information to that effect.
    Mr. DILLON: Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House of Commons that this policy of bringing over a large force of African
    496
    natives to fight in Europe will not be embarked upon without giving the House of Commons an opportunity to consider it?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the House be given an opportunity of considering why there is no recruiting in Ireland?
    Mr. DILLON: That is a most insolent and offensive remark.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is a proper term to use.
    Mr. DILLON: With all deference to you, Sir, was it a proper expression for the hon. Member to say that there was no recruiting in Ireland?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: No compulsory recruiting!
    Mr. DILLON: In the first place, it is false; in the second place, it is most insolent!
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is improper to compare Irish with blacks.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sometimes expressions escape from hon. Members more quickly than I can stop them. If I could have stopped the hon. Member I certainly should have done so. The remark was quite irrelevant, and it was provocative.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Am I not entitled, when an hon. Member asks why other British citizens should not join in the fighting, and when the French Government are using coloured battalions in every brigade, to ask why compulsory service should not be applied to Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask such a question. These matters are more properly raised in Debate, and not at Question Time. The object of questions is to obtain information and not to make charges across the floor of the House.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Can we have an opportunity of debating this question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Can we have an opportunity of discussing this, perhaps on the Vote for the Colonial Office to-night?

    SIR SVEN HEDIN.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that Sir Sven Hedin has justified and aided the Germans in their course of rapine

    497
    and murder, he has taken any steps to deprive this man of the honours conferred on him by this country and, if not, will he do so; whether he has any information that Sir Rudolph Slatin is fighting in the Austrian Army; and does he therefore propose to deprive him of the numerous honours conferred on him by this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not been able to obtain any certain or recent information as to the present activities of the persons mentioned in this question, but I will look into the matter and consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    PRIME MINISTER'S PRIVATE SECRETARIES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister if he will say how many official private secretaries he employs and the salaries paid to those gentlemen; are any of them of military age; whether he is aware that important communications made to him by Members of Parliament are at times not even acknowledged, though the said communications have been sent by him or his secretaries to other Departments of State; and will he direct his secretaries to acknowledge in the future the receipt of communications addressed to him by Members of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I employ three private, secretaries, and their salaries amount in the aggregate to £2,360 per annum, which includes in the case of two of them, who are Civil servants, their salaries as officers of their respective Departments. Having regard to the quantity and quality of the work they are called on to perform, they are not, in my opinion, over remunerated. The answer to the second part of the question is two, one of whom has twice been rejected for military service on medical grounds. I am sorry to learn the facts stated in the last part of the question, and can assure my hon. Friend that the omission was quite accidental and due only to pressure of work.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to take it, then, that in the Department of the Prime Minister it is necessary to bring before the House the fact that three communications of great importance sent to him remained unanswered for a period of nine weeks?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I think it is a most ungracious complaint.
    498
    Private secretaries, like everybody else, are very much overworked. If there was an omission in a particular case to answer a particular letter, it was due, as I have said, to pressure of work.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the Prime Minister aware that there were three separate communications, which were forwarded to the Departments concerned, without the trouble being taken to acknowledge them?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many men of military age the hon. Baronet employs to make his enormous profits as a colliery owner?

    MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether, in considering what steps should be taken in regard to the continued brutalities of Germany, as exemplified by the murder of Captain Fryatt, he will keep in view the desirability of estreating German property in this country and holding it until those who are responsible have been brought to justice; and has he any information showing that the German Emperor was a party to the court-martial's decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, the Government are carefully considering what action they should take in this matter, and will not lose sight of my hon. Friend's suggestion. With regard to the last part of the question, we shall endeavour to obtain from the American Embassy a full account of the circumstances.
    Sir E. CARSON: May we hope to have an announcement before the Adjournment of some definite action on the part of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that there is no subject more earnestly engaging our consideration. I hope we shall be able to do so.

    GOVERNMENT MESSENGERS AND PORTERS (WAGES).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the average scales of salaries paid to messengers and porters, temporary and permanent, serving in Government Departments; and also

    499
    whether these salaries are considered by the Government to be adequate, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the refusal to grant a war bonus to such classes of Civil servants, although a war bonus has been granted to those Post Office employés receiving up to £3 a week?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There are a number of different scales of salary for messengers and porters in Government Departments, and for information on this point I would refer my hon. Friend to the annual Estimates. As regards the question of a war bonus, I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich on the 17th and 26th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

    TIMBER PLANTING EXPERIMENTS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked where any information can be found as to the obtaining of a profit in a less period than fifteen years by the planting of certain kinds of timber; and whether any experiments in this matter have been or will be made on any of the woodlands owned by the Crown?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As I stated on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 12th July, when I was at the Scottish Office, I was advised that, under certain conditions, returns from planting timber could be obtained in less than fifteen years. I understand that, according to reliable information, poplar, Douglas fir, and Japanese larch will yield a return for pitwood at from ten to fifteen years. No experiments specially directed to this point have been made on woodlands under the Office of Woods, but I understand that arrangements for experimental planting with poplar are being made in Scotland.

    WOODLANDS (TAXATION).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, in view of the importance of independent evidence as to the costs and profits of forestry in relation to the taxation of woodlands, the State forest at Inverliever is annually assessed to Income Tax under Schedules A and D in order to show a true comparison with woodlands in private ownership?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The State forest at Inverliever, like other lands in the actual occupation of the Crown, is not assessed to Income Tax.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it might be desirable, in order to get some practical experience in a problem which is a very difficult one—the assessment of privately owned woodlands to Income Tax—to assess the forests under State control?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know. That is a very large question raising a general proposition, which I could not answer.

    HARVESTING (EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS).
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the shortage of labour in the country, he will let boys of twelve years and over, if applied for by farmers, be excused from school during hay and 'corn harvest?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr Herbert Lewis): I am not prepared to give any such general permission as is suggested. The policy of the Government was explained by the Prime Minister in his speech on 4th March, 1915, and is fully set out in the Board's Circular 943, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. It is, of course, open to local education authorities to arrange school holidays with a view to the requirements of the harvest, and I have no doubt that they have done so.
    Major HUNT: In view of the fact that in some places they have not, would it not be for the public benefit that those boys over twelve should be allowed in all cases to help in getting in the harvest when labour is so short? Surely it is common sense the Board of Education might help.
    Mr. LEWIS: It is a matter for the discretion of the local education authorities, who, of course, are the best judges of local circumstances.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions to the local education authorities to do this? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Have not the local education authorities already the choice of doing this if they wish?
    Mr. LEWIS: Yes, in the terms set forth in the circular to which I have referred. The policy was clearly laid down by the Prime Minister.
    Major HUNT: Could not the hon. Gentleman see that they do it?

    PARCELS TO SALONIKA (DELAY).
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that complaints have been made by Irish soldiers serving in Salonika about not only the delay but the non-delivery of parcels sent by their families from Ireland to their sons in Salonika; and whether he will say why there is this delay, and why parcels sent weekly were in many cases not delivered?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): Letter and parcel mails for the Salonika Force are forwarded from London by the most expeditious routes at the disposal of the Post Office, and-there is no avoidable delay in their transmission. The period of transit for parcels is necessarily longer than for letters, but as a rule does not exceed three weeks. Various reasons may account for a delay or the non-delivery. The non-delivery of a parcel is frequently due to the address being either incomplete or incorrect, or to insufficient packing.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one particular case which has been brought to my notice, where a parcel has been sent out each week, but not 25 per cent, of the parcels have been delivered to the soldier at the front?
    Mr. PEASE: I should be very glad to have any case inquired into if the hon. Member would give me the dates when the parcels were sent off.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I will send the communication to the right hon. Gentleman.

    AGRICULTURAL PRICES (FERTILISERS).
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that farmers have to pay full market price for their
    502
    feeding stuffs, manures, and other necessaries, he is aware that there is dissatisfaction amongst them at the price of their wool being cut down by the Government below the prices of 1915; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I am aware of the feeling among farmers to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The Board of Agriculture has made repeated representations to the Army Council on the subject, and it was, no doubt, after a consideration of them that the concession in price which was recently given was announced. The hon. and gallant Member is not quite correct in stating that the farmers have to pay full market price for their fertilisers, as I am informed that sulphate of ammonia makers have recently announced their willingness to sell sulphate to manure mixers and farmers at prices considerably below the ordinary market prices likely to prevail for export, which represent an increase on average pre-war prices considerably less than that which the farmer will receive for his wool. I hope that farmers will take advantage of this position in placing their orders for sulphate in good time and for large quantities.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he present price of sulphate of ammonia is £17 10s. a ton— that was what was recently charged— which represents an increase of 40 per cent, on the pre-war cost?
    Mr. ACLAND: That is why I call attention to the fact that the makers are now offering it to farmers at £15 a ton up to 1st October, and £15 10s. for the rest of the season.
    Major HUNT: Are they doing it all over the country?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I believe so—all the makers who are within what is called the Sulphate of Ammonia Association.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Financial Secretary has informed us that the excess price over the price ruling in 1914 represents £2,000,000? Is not that sufficient plunder in these days of equality of sacrifice?

    SWINE FEVER.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of

    503
    Agriculture if he will give the number of outbreaks of swine fever in England and Wales during the six months ending 24th June, 1916, and the number for the corresponding period of 1915; and is he satisfied with the result of the serum treatment of the disease?
    Mr. ACLAND: The numbers are 2,538 and 2,306, respectively—an increase of 232. There is no evidence to connect this increase with the use of serum, and the results so far obtained are not sufficient to enable a definite statement as to the effects of the serum treatment to be made. There is, however, no doubt that when the owner sends prompt notice of the suspected existence of disease so that the treatment may be given before +he disease gets hold of his herd serum has had a marked effect in the saving of pig life. Owners will therefore be acting in their own interest and in that of the country if they will always make the earliest possible notification when disease is suspected.

    SOVEREIGNS (MELTING DOWN).
    Mr. HUME - WILLIAMSasked whether a circular embodying the recent Order in Council prohibiting the melting down of sovereigns has been issued to those engaged in the manufacture of jewellery; what is the maximum penalty for breach of the Order; and have instructions been issued to the police to compile a list of those known to have been hitherto engaged in such practices in order that domiciliary visits may be paid to them from time to time?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think manufacturers have sufficient opportunity to become acquainted with the new Regulation without the issue of a special circular. The maximum penalty for a breach of the Regulation is a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment or both. I will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question.

    WOOL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
    Mr. MOONEYasked whether an order has been issued by the Wool Purchase Department of the War Office from the Dublin branch, directing that any wool bought, paid for, and which was delivered prior to the order of the 8th June, 1916, in the districts of South Armagh,
    504
    South Down and Newry, is to be sent to Messrs. John Robson, Limited, Chichester Street, Belfast; that it will be there valued and taken over by a competent buyer appointed under the wool purchase scheme; and, if so, whether he is aware that this will lead to diverting to Belfast all the wool grown in South Armagh, South Down, etc., from Newry, which is the natural market town of the district; and whether, under these circumstances, he will appoint a special receiver of wool at Newry, where it could be taken over by the Government, and so preserve the normal flow of business to that town?
    Mr. FORSTER: The instruction referred to relates only to a comparatively small portion of the Irish clip which had already passed from the farmers into the hands of dealers and wool buyers before the Order of the Army Council, of 8th June. It does not apply to wool in the hands of farmers, which wool it is anticipated will be consigned by them in the ordinary way through the market town where it is usually handled. There is no reason to expect that wool which is usually marketed at Newry will be diverted elsewhere, and it therefore does not appear necessary to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. JOYCE(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office wheither, in the case of wools bought before the Government restrictions came into force, paid for and sold again, permits will be granted to forward them to destinations within the British Islands?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have not received any notice from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. JOYCE: I sent it u> him three hours ago.
    Mr. FORSTER: But I think that I can answer this question. Where wool has been sold before 8th June, and where delivery has been taken, it will, be bought by the Government wool buyers, and the market price will prevail.
    Mr. JOYCE: I desire to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment of the House on Monday.

    INVALIDED WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the possibility of wounded soldiers invalided and

    505
    belonging to the North of England being sent on to hospitals in the North, as the cost involved travelling South of wives and parents is beyond the financial means of working men and women?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The considerations bearing on this matter were stated at length in an answer given on the 27th January to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. With my hon. Friend's permission I will refrain from repeating now what was then said, but I can assure him that instructions have been issued in the sense he desires, and that what he asks for will be carried out as far as possible.

    RUSSIAN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of a Russian doctor of medicine, a graduate of a Swiss university, who has been serving in this War in Serbia and only left when Serbia was evacuated by the Allies; why have the medical services of this doctor been refused by the War Office; will he say why he is being pressed into the ranks as a private; and whether, in view of this Russian doctor having served with our Allies, the Serbians, it is intended to deport this gentleman to Russia?
    Mr. FORSTER: With the information contained in the question I can only satisfy my hon. Friend on one point. It is impossible to commission medical men who are not British subjects and whose degrees are not registrable in this country. If my hon. Friend wants me to make an inquiry on the second point of his question he will no doubt be good enough to furnish me with the name of the doctor in question. My hon. Friend has no doubt considered whether he should not advise this Russian medical man, who appears to have behaved very gallantly, to offer his services to the Russian Army through the Russian Consul-General.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Member not aware that I furnished the name two days ago with a number of others, giving specific details?
    Mr. FORSTER: That has not been brought to my notice.

    CIVILIAN CLERKS (PAY).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received an application for an increase in their present rate of pay from the civilian clerks employed at the Army Pay Office, Beggar's Bush Barracks, Dublin; and if, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, he will favourably consider their request?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. These clerks were taken on since the outbreak of war, and are considered to be adequately paid without increase.
    Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the War, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving these men a war bonus?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I am precluded from doing that by a rule of the Treasury.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the rule of the Treasury entirely determine the amount of pressure brought to bear on the Government?
    Mr. FORSTER: That does not arise out of the question.

    SIR FRANCIS VANE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to utilise the services of Major Sir Francis Vane in active work at the front or else where and, if not, for what reason?
    Mr. FORSTER: Sir Francis Vane's proper rank is honorary captain, not major. This officer served in a regimental capacity in a battalion of the New Army from September, 1914, to September, 1915, when as a result of most unfavourable reports as to his military capacity furnished by his commanding officer, his brigadier and his divisional general, he was called upon to relinquish his commission, and was gazetted out of the service in January, 1916. In view of these reports it is impossible to employ him at home still less abroad.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will those reports be available for the inspection of Members of Parliament; and seeing that the War Minister is in his place, might I say that I put down this question rather to have a personal answer from him, because it is one which requires a broad mind and a certain amount of public spirit?

    MR. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has information of the clothes, watch, valuables, papers, and other effects which were on the person of Francis Sheehy-Skeffington when he was murdered by Captain Colthurst on 26th April in Dublin; why were none of these things returned to Mrs. Skeffington till 6th May; why, when Mrs. Skeffington asked for her husband's walking-stick, was she first put off by the statement that the Royal Irish Rifles had taken it as a souvenir to Belfast, and only obtained it on the 6th June; whether he is aware that the doctor who took the ring from the hand of the murdered man only returned it to the widow through Major Moule on 23rd May; why were the papers in the pockets of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and the badge on his coat never returned to his widow; whether the projected inquiry will allow sworn evidence being submitted to explain these facts; (2) whether he is aware that two days after the murder of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington the Royal Irish Rifles raided the house 11. Grosvenor Place. Rathmines, Dublin, and took away a large amount of documents, books, household and personal effects; by whom was this raid ordered on the house of Mr. Skeffington, who was murdered on 26th April by Captain Colthurst; whether Captain Colthurst was in any way connected with or responsible for this raid; (3) whether he is aware that on 28th April, two days after Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington was murdered, men of the Royal Irish Rifles raided his dwelling and took away among other things a picture of historic value, the Kilmainham roll of honour; whether he is aware that Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington was told by a detective on 9th June that he had seen the picture at Richmond Barracks on the previous day; why, when papers and other things were returned to Mrs. Skeffington on 10th or 12th June, was this picture not returned with it; whether this picture, which was returned on 20th July, was regarded as suspicious or seditious; (4) whether he is aware that two days after the murder of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington, on 26th April, his house was raided and his papers taken away; why was this raid ordered; whether it was necessary, in view of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington being already two days dead; whether he will inquire why amongst his effects when returned were a number of soldier's clothes,
    508
    Sinn Fein documents, and blood-stained garments, which are asserted to have been placed there in order to throw suspicion on an innocent murdered man; and (5) whether he is aware that Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington was murdered on 26th April and Captain Colthurst court-mar-tialled on 6th June; why, though Mr. Skeffington's widow was told that his papers were irrelevant and quite tiresome to go through, they were detained when she asked for them; why, on applying after the court-martial, were they sent from Richmond Barracks to Dublin Castle and not returned to her; why, when she applied at Dublin Castle, was she informed that they were not there; why, after several days and visits to Major Moule, the detective department, and Mr. O'Brien, was Sergeant Hearn told to look for the papers and other property; whether Mrs. Skeffington was then told that they were back at Richmond Barracks; and whether he will make inquiries into the delays and excuses of the officials who were applied to in vain for the missing papers?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no definite information on the various detailed points-raised in these five questions, but I presume that the majority, if not the whole, of them could properly be brought up before the inquiry which is referred to in the latter part of Question No. 7. In these circumstances it has not been thought necessary to call for a detailed report on those matters.

    BUTTER SUPPLY (IRELAND).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Callan Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Limited, Callan, county Kilkenny, consigned twenty-boxes of butter on Easter Sunday to Messrs. J. Leonard and Sons, Little Green Street, Dublin, invoiced at £39, which were commandeered by the military; that the military authorities have only offered £28 in payment for the same; that there was not any danger of depreciation in value, as another parcel dispatched on the same day was not delivered until five weeks later to the consignees, and was then in perfect condition and sold at Is. 7d. per lb; that the military authorities are treating other creameries in a similar manner; and what steps will he take to prevent this injustice?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am having inquiries made into the facts of this case and will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.

    HOLIDAYS (POSTPONEMENT).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the postponement of the holidays, and the proposals of the Government to substitute a system of periods of rest in relays?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions has appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, to consider and report on the question of allowing rest periods in relays. That Committee is sitting day by day, and is hearing evidence from both employers and the employés. The problem is a large and complex one, but the Committee are doing everything possible to avoid delay in the issue of their recommendations, and they hope to present an Interim Report on Monday or Tuesday next week. Pending the issue of the Report I would appeal, on behalf of the Government, to ail classes throughout the country to postpone their holidays and do everything they can to discourage the creation of a holiday spirit.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Committee inquiring only into the principle whether the holidays should be taken en masse or in relays, or into what method should be followed, or into both?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think both.

    MR. EDGAR JONES.
    Mr. KEATING: On a point of Order. I want to know if it is in order for an hon Member of this House to use the medium of the Question Paper for making insinuations reflecting upon the conduct of another hon. Member. My reason for asking is to be found in Question No. 100. The hon. Member referred to has made a statement in this House that he offered to enlist in the Officers' Training Corps and was not passed as fit for active service, and in view of that statement I want to
    510
    know if it is in order for questions of this kind to be put down reflecting upon the conduct of an hon. Member?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did consider this question. It was handed in, and I felt some doubt as to whether it ought to be admitted or not. Then I looked at Question 98. One of the hon. Member's colleagues had asked a question with regard to an outsider, and it occurred to me, if it were permissible to ask questions as to outsiders, that there was no reason why they should not be asked with regard to Members of this House.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the estate of Mr. B. Morrow, situate in the eastern division of Ballintogher West, union of Sligo, was some years ago purchased by the Congested Districts Board; whether the tenants have been paying their annuities under the terms of that purchase agreement ever since; if so, by what authority this landlord sued and decreed these tenants for rent; and has the sale been repudiated by the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative and accordingly the other parts do not arise.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain local pension officers in Ireland are disqualifying old age pensioners who are in receipt of poor relief in workhouse infirmaries; if he is aware that the increase in the prices of the ordinary necessaries of life has reduced the purchasing value of old age pensions by approximately one-half and in consequence some of the pensioners are driven to seek relief in workhouse infirmaries, for which they have willingly paid their full pension and are willing to continue to do so; if he is aware that this sum is quite inadequate to pay in full the cost of such relief, especially when estabment charges have to be included in their cost; if he is aware that the boards of guardians consider it unfair to disqualify these old people from receiving their pensions by a stringent application of regulations framed at a time when normal conditions prevailed and evidently in the belief that the amount of the pension was

    511
    sufficient for the pensioners' support; and will he take steps to postpone a rigid administration of the Old Age Pension Act, 1908, with regard to the matters above referred to until after the conclusion of the War?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Wexford on the 24th July last.
    Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Clayton Aniline Company (Railways) Bill [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Consolidated Fund (No. 4) Bill,
    Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
    Public Works Loans Bill,
    Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
    Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
    Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order Bill,
    Land Drainage (Lilleshall) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment;
    Amendments to—
    Colchester Gas Bill [Lords],
    Ferndale Gas Bill [Lords],
    Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend certain enactments relating to the government of India, and to remove doubts as to the validity of
    512
    certain Orders in Council made for India." [Government of India (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill intituled, "An Act for charging on the inheritance of the estates in the counties of London and Middlesex known as the Craven Estates certain incumbrances now affecting the life interest of Augustus William Craven therein and for the rearrangement of certain policies of assurance on his life; and for other purposes connected with the said estates." [Craven Estates Bill [Lords].

    CRAVEN ESTATES BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Army Act (Amendment) Bill, the Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment —No. 2) Bill, the Law and Procedure (Emergency Provisions—Ireland) Bill, the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and the Committee stage of Bills that have received Second Readings, but not the Acquisition of Land Bill.
  On Tuesday wo shall take in Committee of Supply the Vote for the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I will announce on Monday the Business for the rest of the week.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Regulations issued by the Statutory Committee with regard to supplementary pensions will be printed and circulated to Members by Tuesday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise, but I will do my best.

SUPPLY.— [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
SUPPLY.— [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.— [Progress.]
  [Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  COLONIAL OFFICE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,850, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration. [NOTE.— £23,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  4.0 P.M.
  I rise to draw attention to a question of extreme gravity in connection with our
  530
  Colonial Empire, to which this House as yet has given no attention. I refer to the very serious riots which took place in Ceylon at the end of May and in the early part of June last year, to the method of dealing with them by the Colonial Government and by the right hon. Gentleman, and to the resulting condition of the island since they occurred. The House would have heard a great deal more about the riots—they were the most serious that have occurred in Ceylon at any time, and some of the most serious that have occurred in our Colonial Empire—but for the condition of war in which we find ourselves. Even now, though I am bound to raise it, I feel that the question is one requiring a great deal of discretion in the handling, and I hope that nothing I may say may do any harm to any of the vast interests involved in our Eastern Empire. I think I shall satisfy hon. Members why I desire to raise it at the present time. I should like to say that in all the statements which I shall make I shall base myself on the Blue Book issued by the Government in reference to these disturbances in Ceylon. The Blue Book is not only remarkable for what it contains, but also for some of its omissions. It is not very easy in this country at the present time to find out exactly what has happened in Ceylon, or in any other distant part of the world, but it is quite evident that in the Blue Book we have not got the whole truth about the riots. There is quite enough, however, to justify us, and, indeed, to make it our imperative duty to realise what has happened there, and to express our opinion to the Government in regard to the disturbances. Now what happened is, as I gather from the Blue Book, that on the 29th May, on the occasion of a Buddhist procession—it was the anniversary of the birthday of Buddha, a day corresponding to our Christmas Day, a day on which it is the custom of the Buddhists to have a great procession, with singing and a march to their temples—the procession was interrupted on its march to the temple, and there was a collision with some Mahomedans who were standing by, and the riots began. There was fierce fighting, and there was killing and wounding as the result of the riots. We have not been unfamiliar with such rioting on holidays and feast days in other parts of our Empire; but in this case the

  531
  rioting was not purely local; it spread rapidly from one end of the island to the other in the western province, and the riot which began, as I say, with the interruption of this religious procession was one in which a number of people joined who could not be in any way described as religious or taking part in religious festivals, and there was a great deal of looting of shops in different parts of the island. For five days the riots went on, and on 2nd June the Governor proclaimed martial law throughout the western province, and the rioting was put down with a stern hand. Now I hope that in nothing I say can I be understood to offer any justification whatever for any of the rioting or of the attacks on the shops of the Moormen, the Mahomedan in different parts of Ceylon. I recognise that the riots were of a most grave character and especially considering the times in which they occurred when we are involved in a war. I quite recognise the seriousness of the problem with which the Government of Ceylon was concerned, and when they found that these riots went throughout the western province they proclaimed martial law, a state of affairs which lasted until 30th August. Many executions took place, and severe floggings without, as far as I can make out, a trial, and there were many arrests and imprisonments.
  As showing the serious character of the riots, the Blue Book records that the total number of people killed during the riot was about a hundred. On page 47 of the Blue Book, according to the figures supplied by the Registrar-General, the total number of deaths attributable directly to the riots was 106, and according to the figures of the Special Commissioners 116. The Governor says that probably slightly over 100 were killed in the course of the riots, sixty-three being killed by the military and police, thirty-nine by the rioters, and four by persons unknown. The Governor adds that possibly we have not got the whole total of the killed, but his estimate is of about a hundred. It was obviously a very serious riot and a most anxious time on the island, and the Government repressed it with a very stern hand. Under martial law there were 412 trials by court-martial. This is recorded on page 39 of the Blue Book. Out of these 412, fifty-four were acquitted, and of the remainder eighty-three were sentenced to death by the Court. But the death sen-
  532
  tence was commuted to penal servitude or rigorous imprisonment in the case of forty-nine, and in the result thirty-four were executed. In addition 248 persons were sentenced to various terms of penal servitude, twenty-five to imprisonment with hard labour, and two without hard labour. There were also various fines. In addition, Special Commissioners were sent throughout the island to investigate matters, and before the various Courts in the island 8,736 persons were charged with offences, and of this number 4,497 were convicted and sentenced to various punishments. I think the Committee will agree that the riot, however serious, and I do not want to minimise its seriousness, was, at any rate, very sternly suppressed by the courts-martial and other Courts under the Proclamation of martial law. But they did not stop, and quite rightly they did not stop, at the punishment of the rioters.
  The Government of Ceylon said that the damage done by the rioters should be made good to the victims of the riots, and I make no complaint of that. But I have some complaint to make, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this point, of the method in which the compensation to be paid to the victims of the riot was assessed upon the villagers and upon the people throughout the island. Damage done was assessed by the Special Commissioners appointed by the Ceylon Government, and the method adopted was, not to do as you would do in this country if there had been a riot of assessing it upon the ratepayers. In Ceylon the conclusion was come to that the attacks had been made by the Sinhalese population upon the Moormen, and the assessments were placed on the Sinhalese population in the villages. At first no exceptions were made at all; there was no attempt to make the guilty pay the computation to the rioters. The Government of Ceylon simply said "that the Sinhalese had been guilty of riots against the Moormen, that they had attacked and looted their shops, and that the damage was estimated at 5,500,000 Rupees. It was estimated at much more at first, and the Governor admits that there was a great deal of exaggeration as to the damage done, and it was all assessed on the whole of the Sinhalese population. I venture to say from the Blue Book, and from other communications which I have, received, that the great mass of the Sinhalese population have no share whatever in the riots, and, in fact, disapproved of

  533
  them. I think I can prove that from the Blue Book itself. Some of the Sinhalese are Roman Catholics. On page 25 of the Blue Book there is a most interesting letter from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Colombo, in which he protests against this method of assessment of the damages. The Roman Catholic Archbishop says:
  "Thank God, all my missionaries fulfil their duty of teaching their flocks to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's, to serve God and honour the King, to keep God's commandments, of which the fourth enjoins loyal obedience to those who are legitimately invested with temporal authority in the State for the material well-being of its citizens."
  The Roman Catholic Archbishop goes on to deprecate, as I deprecate, all these racial riots directed against men of another race, and he points out that the Roman Catholic Sinhalese took no part whatever in the riots, and should, therefore, not have punishment inflicted upon them as a result of the riots. Many of the Sinhalese are Protestant Christians. The Anglican Bishop of Colombo writes— this will be found on page 27 of the Blue Book—begging the Government not to insist upon punishing the whole Sinhalese population by inflicting all the assessment of damages upon them. But the Government were deaf to all appeals of this character, and in the end they assessed upon the Sinhalese population throughout the district affected the whole of the burden of making good the damage which had been done by the rioters. This was done in two ways. My right hon. Friend will find on page 16 of the Blue Book in the paper sent by Mr. J. G. Fraser, one of the Special Commissioners, an account of the method of assessment in the Western Province. He says the system was

  (a) Paying, or giving security for the payment of, the amount of indemnity and costs fixed by the Commissioner.

  (b) Awaiting the levy of a rate on all property in the village belonging to Sinhalese to cover its share of the indemnity and costs."

  I do not find in the Blue Book any justification for having imposed upon the Sinhalese inhabitants of these districts, upon them alone, the burden of paying compensation assessed to make good the damage done by the rioters. It was a very strange proceeding and it had very strange results, because when an assessment like that is put in the hands of a Special Commission and each village has to assess on individuals the amount of payment which each has to make, that
  534
  lends itself to all manner of duties. Of course, I recognise the great difficulty of the task that the Government had before them, but I am afraid that the Commissioners did not escape doing a considerable amount of injustice in certain cases. But there is worse than that. Mr. Fraser, in describing the scheme, says that it is not proposed to seek to apportion the amount of indemnity due amongst the various villagers, and that this can best be done by the villagers themselves. He goes on to say that if any of the rioters fails to pay his share the amnesty—intended only for persons who make reparation—will not extend to him, and the other villagers should hand him over to the Special Commissioners to be tried. There is thus a direct incentive to black- mail among these villagers. I must call the attention of my right hon. Friend— and this is one of the commissions from the Blue Book—to the form of receipt given by the Special Commissioners to the men who paid the fine which was levied upon them. In the humble memorial which was addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from a public meeting of Sinhalese, held in Colombo, on 25th September, 1915, most remarkable receipts are shown. One case is given as follows:
  "Aron Fernando, of Magamwana, in Karawan-ella, was arrested and made to pay the sum of 10,000 Rupees. A case had been instituted against him and several others for rioting and committing theft, but upon his payment of this sum all the accused were discharged."
  He was given the following receipt, which, it will be noted, is signed by a military officer. The receipt is as follows:
  "Received from Aron Fernando the sum of ten thousand Rupees in full payment of Riot Damage A/c."
  That is what would be called in this country compounding a felony. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What else was it? These people had been guilty of rioting, but had not been brought to trial, yet, because of the rioting, they had to pay 10,000 Rupees, or to collect that sum, and no further proceedings would be taken against them. Here is a worse receipt than that:
  "D. C. Lewis, of Welikada, Colombo, after acquittal by the District Court of Colombo, was rearrested by order of a Special Commissioner and made to enter into a bond for the payment of Rs. 5,000."
  He was given the following receipt:
  "Don Cornelis Lewis, of Welikada, is to-day giving a bond for the payment of Rs. 5,000 to the Riot Fund in five instalments of Rs. 1,000 each. Upon the faithful performance of the terms of

  535
  this bond and full payment of the money, Don Cornelis Lewis hereby purchases amnesty from all further or pending criminal charges in connection with the recent riots."
  That man is shown there to have been already acquitted by the District Court. What is the meaning of that fine which is charged against him? It is signed:
  "C. V. Brayne, Special Commissioner."
  That is a most extraordinary proceeding in dealing with this case. I do not know what my right hon. Friend has heard, but I have received much evidence in regard to cases where this extraordinary power vested in the Special Commissioners has led to the blackmailing of the wealthier members of the Sinhalese community and pf the villages affected, and "to a great deal of malpractice and dishonest and dangerous proceedings among the lower classes of the population. I have shown the reasons for the riots, and have shown with what a stern hand and even terrific severity the Government dealt with the rioters and the people in the districts where the rioting took place. I come now to the origin of these riots. After all, that is a matter which should determine very largely the action of the authorities in dealing with the after effects of the rioting when once order has been restored. I find no evidence in the Blue Book, and certainly all the other communications I have received point to the same thing, that there was anything like an organised system of outbreak throughout the island. It is perfectly true that it spread rapidly from place to place, but there is nothing to show that it was organised except a phrase in the very letter, from which I have already quoted, of Mr. Fraser. He says:
  "Thus every village, or almost every village, took part in the riots, not only in the village, but elsewhere, in accordance with a preconcerted plan."
  It is said there was a preconcerted plan. There is no other evidence of it throughout the Blue Book, and nothing that I have been able to learn in regard to the condition of the island justifies us in supposing that there was anything like a preconcerted plan to bring about these outbreaks. They were the accidental result of a state of feeling on which I shall offer some evidence in a moment. They were in no way prepared; there was no conspiracy; and it is exceedingly important that we should not imagine that in this very loyal island of Ceylon there
  536
  has been anything in the nature of a preconcerted outbreak or outrage against any section of the population. The second point I wish to make is that I cannot gather that the outbreaks were really racial in character. It is quite true that the two parties concerned belong to different races, and that it was in its inception a riot by Sinhalese Buddhists against the Moors, who are Mahomedans. It was a religious dispute in its beginning, and not a racial dispute. Illustrations of that are not unknown in other parts of the world, and there are disputes in regard to religious questions in islands much nearer to us than Ceylon. It was not a racial quarrel. I insist upon that, because the Government do rather persist in saying that it was a matter of attack by the Sinhalese against the Maho-medan race. Again, it was not in anyway an attack upon or a revolt against the British Government of Ceylon. The evidence on that is important. For instance, on page 3 of the Blue Book, Sir Robert Chalmers, the Governor of Ceylon, in the second telegram he sent home in reference to these affairs, says—and I think the Committee should bear this well in mind:
  "I do not attach political significance to the outbreak, which, with one possible exception, is now, I think, well in hand. There is no feeling against Government, nor any desire either to molest Europeans or to damage railways or non-Moslem property."
  He does not modify that position when he comes to the dispatch in which he gives his opinion as to the origin of the rioting. There is only one place in this Blue Book where it is suggested that there was something in the nature of an attack on the Government. That is in a very curious place. I would ask my right hon. Friend to explain the presence of this particular document in the volume at all. It is on page 8 of the Blue Book, where the Governor sends home to the Colonial Office a copy of a letter from a Mr. Markar, a leading Mahomedan, in regard to the riots and the damage caused. It appears from that dispatch that Mr. Markar made a tour of the island, a sort of what in Elizabethan days would have been called an "inquisition" of the parts of the island over which he travelled. He furnished the Government of Ceylon with an account of his journey and the sufferings which his brethren had incurred through the riots, and he called for summary vengeance on those who had done these things. That was natural enough.

  537
  I do not in the least complain that a Mahomedan of standing should have been greatly roused to anger by what took place, but it is very extraordinary that the Government of Ceylon, having to deal with a dispute between these two parties, should have sent one of their number, or at any rate should have made use of the report of one of the parties as if it were a document by an impartial observer who had been through the area affected. That Mr. Markar was not impartial, anyone who reads the letter will see. He winds up, for instance—I hope the Committee will attend to this point—by saying:
  "While thanking the authorities for quelling the disturbances and for the timely services rendered lo my community, I sincerely believe that our benign Government will mete out such punishment to the perpetrators of this great crime, so much so, that even after a century the Sinhalese people will not even think of an attempt of such an outrage as has been done in the present case …."
  That cry for vengeance would be much better omitted. It is only in that letter that there is any charge made of disloyalty to the British Government.
  "A very significant utterance by Durmabundu, a chief mover, was also related to me by Mohamed Zainadeen, Mahomedan priest of Kalutara."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "That is hearsay!"] Yes, it is hearsay reported by a Mahomedan priest of what a Buddhist priest is alleged to have said. He goes on to say:
  "This leader is said to have stated, in the presence of a large gathering of Moors, that the time has come to do away with the Moors in Ceylon—"
  and substitute, I suppose, Buddhist rule. That is the only case. I am justified in insisting that this was not a racial disturbance, that it was not organised, and was not directed in any way against the Government of Ceylon. I take the evidence of the Governor himself to show-that it had a twofold origin, that it was partly religious, and partly economic. The people against whom the riots were directed are described in the Blue Book as "transitory aliens" Transitory aliens are never popular anywhere, especially if they are small shopkeepers and moneylenders, and if prices are very high and times are rather hard among the villagers. There is no case on record of an attack by Buddhists upon Mahomedans. Sir Robert Chalmers says that it is the first outbreak of its kind, and that it was not directed against Mahomedans as such, but it was directed against particular Mahomedans who came over every year or two years. It was an attack upon a particular class of shopkeeper
  538
  very unpopular among the inhabitants when times are hard. Sir Robert Chalmers says:
  "It was the combination of creed and purse which gave the outbreak its strength and universality."
  He goes on to say:
  "Whatever may be the ultimate object of those who directed the crusade against Mahomedans, the rioters certainly neither did nor wished to include Europeans or Government in their attack. Indeed, in many places the rumour was industriously spread that, as Turkey was at war with the United Kingdom, Government really wanted the Mahomedans roughly handled and eventually removed from the island."
  It is significant that the writer of the letter I quoted a short time ago to the House was the late Turkish Consul in the Island of Ceylon. At this point I desire to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another aspect of the case which is brought out in Sir Robert Chalmer's letter, in which I take a rather paternal interest. It is a charge made against the temperance societies in Ceylon of having instigated in some degree the rioting. The charge is to be found on page 35 of the Blue Book in Sir Robert Chalmer's letter. He says:
  " The ground had been prepared for animosity against Mahomedans by articles printed in vernacular newspapers and by oral exhortations at meetings of village societies, which, although originally formed to promote temperance, have long since been extended to other purposes."
  I read that with some misgiving. I have made inquiry so far as I could in regard to it, and the information which reaches me is that there is no foundation whatever for associating these temperance societies with anything in the nature of a seditious propaganda. The other object to which they have devoted themselves has been to things like penny banks and educational matters, and in no case have I been able to get any evidence of disloyalty or anything like a movement against the Government as such in connection with these temperance societies.
  There is one point I wish to impress upon the Committee in this matter, and that is that the Buddhist population, and, in a minor degree, the Mahomedan population, are very seriously against the Government in their Excise policy, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he and those associated with him who are responsible for the government of Ceylon are doing a very dangerous thing when, in the eyes of the population, they allow the Government to become identified with the liquor trade. The Government has

  539
  now become a distiller on its own. It has set up Government distilleries, and more and more the Cingalese population are coming to associate the Government with the trade in liquor. I do not know if that is going to prevail in this country and if we are going to associate the Government with the carrying on of the liquor trade. I speak with some anxiety, for I foresee that I, a most loyal supporter of the Government, when denouncing their wrong policy, as I think it, about the liquor trade, may suddenly find myself accused of disloyalty and bad feeling towards the Government of my country. In Ceylon, after all, temperance with the Buddhists and with the Mahomedans is a matter of religion, and when the Government deliberately associates itself with the sale of liquor, when it sets up its own distilleries, lends its authority to putting pressure upon the Buddhist landowners to give their land for the setting up of taverns, when it declares illegal resolutions of associations, it is running a very serious risk, and I appeal to them with all earnestness not to go through with this policy of identifying themselves with the liquor traffic. I know they realised this some years ago. It is only three years since the Ceylon Government, in an official document, declared that it was the most genuine temperance organisation in the country. Can they say that to-day? There was that famous Proclamation that headmen were not to be members of temperance societies. It is true it was withdrawn, but not before it had done mischief. There is now a declaration that school teachers must not join societies which are directed against Government policy, and part of the Government policy is the maintaining of distilleries and the carrying on of the liquor sale in Ceylon. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend on this point particularly to take care as to the direction in which the Government is moving. I have asked him, and other people have asked him, to produce evidence, and I want evidence, not hearsay, not statements by one person of what someone else said at a meeting where he was not present, but I want evidence that the temperance organisations in Ceylon have had anything to do with either disloyal or seditious propaganda or had any share whatever in these riots. Many temperance leaders were arrested under martial law. Some of them were set free, and to one the Government offered an apology
  540
  for having arrested him. In another the order for release came too late. One, at least, was dead in prison when the order for release arrived.
  I have got through my story, and I leave it to the Committee. What I ask of the Government is to deal with the matter anew. I have not attempted to minimise the gravity of the riot. I recognise to the full the dangerous world situation in which we are placed. But fourteen months have parsed since these riots took place. There has been no recurrence of the disorder. The processions which led to the disorder in this particular case on 29th May have taken place again. Other similar processions have been held on other religious festivals and there has been no disorder. The riots when they arose were put down with a stern hand. In the necessity of dealing with them strictly, without full investigation, in the face of an outbreak of unknown dimensions caused by unknown agencies and actors, the Government necessarily bad to take hasty action. Some injustice was admittedly done to individuals. It is believed at present that many innocent persons are still in prison. Others have been released with a stigma resting upon them which is odious. I urge upon the Government, what has been urged in the Legislative Council of Ceylon, that the time has come for a thorough inquiry into these proceedings— an inquiry not by officials of the Government out in Ceylon, but by an impartial Commission, of which at any rate there should be some members sent out from this Island with no previous connection with the government of Ceylon, to inquire into all the circumstances of the rising. I ask that these sentences, imposed hastily by Courts set up under martial law without the possibility of full investigation, and under the bias of a panic lest these things should spread further and further, may now be reconsidered in the light of a year of perfect peace in Ceylon, and that reparation may be made to all those innocent people who have suffered injustice. By yielding to this appeal I think the Government which put down the rising with a stern hand, will help to blot out the memory of all the unhappy proceedings in connection with this outbreak.
  Sir J. D. REES: "and incidentally blot out the Government of Ceylon."
  Mr. JONES: I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable. It has been put forward by Ceylon and by this country, and I think the Government, instead of doing what the hon. Member says, would really help the Government of Ceylon by removing the sense of rankling injustice which is undoubtedly in certain minds in the island at present, and would remove, as I think, a just feeling of indignation which the loyal Cingalese feel at being accused of disloyalty and sedition. Ceylon has been very loyal in all its history to British rule, and such action as I propose would do much to restore confidence in the Government to the islanders, and to strengthen and not weaken British rule in Ceylon.
  Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £35,750 be granted for the said Service."
  Mr. MACMASTER: I wish to speak of the administration of the Colonial Office itself, and I am going to suggest that in the interests of the best possible administration of the office, the Secretary of State for the Colonies should, if possible, visit the different Dominions and Dependencies, and in that way he will get firsthand knowledge which will be of very great benefit to us, and much better than he can get through any written communications. While I say that, I quite recognise that at this time it would be very difficult for us to spare the right hon. Gentleman, especially in the midst of a War when he is required here for very important purposes of administration, but, speaking generally, it seems to me that the Colonial Secretary should be as much as possible free from controversial politics in this country and that in going to the Colonies he might be regarded not so much as a political partisan as one who takes a very close and a very deep interest in their success and in their welfare and no doubt they would all be impressed by the fact that he had paid them a visit. I recognise that that is not quite possible at the moment, but quite recently the late Under-Secretary, Lord Emmott, did make a visit, and I consider that the information that he acquired on that occasion would have been of great value to him in discharging his duties, but unfortunately he was removed to another office immediately after he returned, which, to a certain extent, deprived us of
  542
  the great benefit of his experience and his observations at a time when he was in touch with Colonial matters.
  I do not join in the discussion for the purpose of giving actual effect to a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, because he has discharged his duties most efficiently, but I wish to refer to another subject which was recently given great prominence owing to a statement made by the Prime Minister himself that the fabric of the Empire must be refashioned after the War. That being so, of course it is very properly a subject for discussion. What the Prime Minister said on that occasion was most apposite from every point of view. He said:
  "When the War comes to an end, when the reign of peace is re-established, we shall have to take stock as an Empire of our internal relations, Never in history has there been a more moving spectacle than the eager loyalty and unsparing profusion with which our Dominions have lavished their help to the Mother Country in a war which they felt to be waged in a just and righteous cause, but in the making of which the had no voice. Australia and New Zealand have given us in the now familiar word Anzac a name which for generations to come will make bright schoolboys thrill with pride. (Cheers.) Canada—(Loud cheers)—has again and again been in the forefront in the battlefields of France and Flanders, and during the last fortnight her sons have been waging a gallant and stubborn struggle in the bloodstained Ypres salient where we rejoice to learn they have won a striking success. (Loud cheers.) In the south-west and in East Africa General Botha—(Cheers)—and General Smuts have conducted, and are conducting, for the Empire, with the utmost skill and tenacity, masterly campaigns. With such an Imperial record it will never be possible, in my judgment, to revert to our old methods of council and of government. (Cheers.) The fabric of the Empire will have to be refashioned, and the relations not only between Great Britain and Ireland, but between the United Kingdom and our Dominions, will, of necessity, be brought, and brought properly, under close and connected review. Such at least is my own opinion, and I respectfully commend this consideration to my countrymen both in this Island and in Ireland."
  It does seem to me that if seem to me that it one gives adhesion to these splendid sentiments we must give proper consideration to the question of what the refashioning is to be. It is evident from the cheers which greeted the Prime Minister's remarks, and from what is happening in other parts of our great Empire, that there is unity of opinion with regard to this subject, and we can look for evidence in other respects. This speech of the Prime Minister's was made on the 14th June last, and on that same day there was this remarkable coincidence that an ex-Prime Minister, far distant from Ladybank, addressed to me a communication in which he practically expressed the same views. He had not the benefit of having a telegraphic dispatch of the views of the Prime Minister. This is what he said:
  "Yes, my Imperialistic ideas grow stronger every day. This war, and Canada's Australia's New

  543
  Zealand's and South Africa's Imperialistic action in the present contest will hasten the event of a closer union of the outlying portions of the Empire than has ever existed in the past. The feeling is growing that those who have to assist in the fighting and the paying in order to preserve the Empire from annihilation must, in justice and equity, have something to say in the affairs of the nation. Patriotism and devotion to Empire is with many a sentiment, and must he made something more solid and substantial, if the glorious old Empire is to continue her hold upon her children."
  These were the views expressed on that day by the right hon. Sir Mackenzie Bo well, an ex-Prime Minister of Canada. About the same period there was an expression of opinion on the same subject coming from the representative of Australia, the right hon. Andrew Fisher. On the last day of; January he pointed out that if he had remained in Scotland and was a voter there he would have an opportunity of heckling his Member, and of having questions addressed through this House with regard to the position of our foreign policy, or other matters of interest to the Empire. He said:
  "I should have been able to heckle my Member on questions of Imperial policy, and to vote for or against him on that ground. I went to Australia; I have been Prime Minister, but all the time I have had no say whatever about Imperial policy— no say whatever. Now that cannot go on. There must be some change."
  Sir G. REIDmade a remark which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. MACMASTER: That may change too. I will now quote a sentence from an opinion expressed by Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada. He said:
  "When Great Britain no longer assumes sole responsibility for defence upon the high seas, she can no longer undertake to assume sole responsibility for, and sole control of, foreign policy, which is closely, vitally and constantly associated with that defence in which the Dominions participate."
  Seeing what we have seen with just pride and satisfaction, the way in which our great Dominions and Dependencies have come to the aid of the Mother Country in the gigantic struggle in which she is now engaged, and have poured forth their treasure and their blood in a cause sacred us and sacred to them, there can be no doubt whatever that these observations which I have quoted, emanating from our own Prime Minister and from other Prime Ministers of the Dominions, must command our very close attention when the change is at hand or is in fashioning. What is that change to be? Hon. Members will observe that none of these gentlemen suggests a scheme. There can be no doubt that any scheme must be surrounded with
  544
  great difficulty. I do not disguise from myself this circumstance, that upon the whole the Dominions have gone on well under self-government. They have gone on well up to the present time, but now there appears to be a new stage arising, and that there must be a change in those respects which have been put so much better in the quotations I have made than I can indicate. Of what nature must that change be? Even at this stage it seems to me that it is very difficult to make any very serious change in what may be called structural formation, either in the constition of the United Kingdom, or of the self-governing Colonies. For the moment I leave out of account India, the Crown Colonies, and Egypt. Once we commence to tamper with the actual written Constitution of the Dominions, or to make any vital change in what has become to us—
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It shows the interest in Colonial affairs.
  Mr. WATT: When the affairs of the Empire are being discussed.
  House counted, and forty Members being found present.
  Mr. MACMASTER(resuming): I was pointing out that even at this time it is difficult to make structural changes in the Constitution of the self-governing Dominions, or in the Constitution of the Mother Country, but I think it is possible with a very moderate degree of change to give effect to the general idea of refashioning the Empire. I want to make a suggestion in that connection. My suggestion is not that we should interfere with the Constitution of this country and have a Parliament overlapping the Imperial Parliament, and not that we should impinge upon the autonomy of the self-governing Dominions, because I firmly believe that the self-governing Dominions would be unwilling to part with any portion of the rights of self-government that they now enjoy, but that we might find some via media—and I am convinced that we can— by which we can accomplish the object of producing greater consolidation, greater unity, and greater co-ordination, and enable the different parts of the Empire to contribute what may be their reasonable contribution towards maintaining the forces that are essential to protect the Empire and its interests throughout the world. It seems to me that we have a

  545
  beginning in the Committee of Imperial Defence, although the scope of that Committee is not large enough for the purpose I am about to suggest, it does seem to me that if that Committee was enlarged, or if a new Committee could be created having the powers that I am about to suggest, the objects in view could be accomplished without impinging upon the rights of self-government in the Dominions Overseas, and without interfering with the well-recognised Constitution of this country.
  What I suggest is that the Prime Minister in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a representative from each of the Departments of the Munitions and Air Services should, in the Committee that I am suggesting, form the representation of the United Kingdom, and that from each of the five self-governing Dominions the Prime Minister and one of his Ministers should sit on the Committee as representatives of the Dominions. I would suggest that the Minister who with the Prime Minister of each Dominion would represent that Dominion should be the High Commissioner of that Dominion in this country, and should reside here permanently for the term of his office. Without discussing for the moment whether it would be possible to include India, Egypt, and the Crown Colonies, I would point out that if we have representatives of the self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country as I suggest, we should have a Committee of eighteen. My proposal is that that Committee of eighteen should be constituted a Committee of Defence and Foreign Relations, having to do with everything that relates to defence and foreign relations, and it might possibly have to do with communications, by sea, by land, and air, and possibly also with the development of resources that might be regarded as vital to the Empire as a whole. For the purpose of carrying out its duties I suggest that the Committee should have power to consider and report what contribution in money should be paid by the Mother Country and the Dominions overseas, and that upon the report being made as to these respective contributions the responsibility would be with the respective Governments of the Mother Country and each of the Dominions to procure the money through the imposition of taxation in such a manner as they thought proper
  546
  in their respective countries. In that way we would have representation on the Committee, and the money acquired by way of contribution being afterwards assessed through the Overseas Parliaments themselves the taxation would be imposed by the Overseas Dominions themselves, and, therefore, there could be no complaint on that score. The only objection there could be to this suggestion would be that the Overseas Dominions might say, "Is this a proper proportioning of the responsibility?" "Are five millions too much for Australia, or seven millions too much for Canada? I am using these figures simply for the sake of illustration. It is true that the figures might be criticised, but, on the other hand, when you came to justify them in the respective units of the Imperial partnership you would have the authority of the Committee of Defence and Foreign Relations in support of it, and you would have the support of the individual Governments which had taken responsibility upon the report of their own representatives that that was a proper proportion.
  5.0 P.M.
  It seems to me that this would be a better and safer course to adopt than any attempt to have a Parliament overlapping this Parliament, or to impose on this Parliament the great responsibility of facing here at first hand the imposition of taxation which would be necessary for every part of the Empire, in order to maintain the Imperial purposes to which I have referred. I know something of the Dominions, and I have no doubt whatever that upon the recommendation of a Committee of that character, and upon the endorsement of that recommendation by the individual Parliaments, you would get the taxation to secure the contribution, and the contribution would be obtained with certainty and regularity. That is the substance of the suggestion that I make. The Committee might require to sit at least once every year, perhaps several times a year, and as it might not be possible for the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions to be here, I would suggest that the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominons who could not possibly be here on every occasion should have the right to nominate one of their other Ministers, in addition to the one who might be High Commissioner in this country, to represent them on the occasion of the assembling of the Committee. At all events, is it not perfectly obvious that a Committee of that kind

  547
  would be the best way imaginable for getting first-hand accurate information not only with regard to affairs in this country, but affairs throughout the world and the Dominions and Dependencies with which we are concerned? I do not ask the Colonial Secretary to give assent to my plan. I know that he has got grave responsibilities on hand at this moment. What we all want to do now is to get on with the War, but, as the Prime Minister said, this matter must be dealt with after the War, and it is time now for all of us to give it careful consideration.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I hope the hon. Member will not consider me disrespectful if I do not follow him on the line which he has taken in his most suggestive speech. I have no doubt that a great many of us are thinking of the subject about which he has been speaking. There is just one central idea in his speech of which those of us who are not so familiar with the Colonies as he is must take note—that is, his opinion that the Dominions would not be ready to allow the central Imperial Parliament to tax them. That, I think, is really the kernel of the subject, and as I think it will be a very delicate operation to settle this question of taxation, I welcome the opinions of the hon. Member, who is acquainted with opinions from the outer borders of our Empire.
  Before turning to one or two subjects connected with this Vote, I wish to express my sympathy with the hon. Member who has spoken about the Ceylon riots. I will not go into detail, because it has been gone into very fully already, but it strikes me, after interviews with the delegates from Ceylon, and reading many of the documents, that there are charges supported by evidence which those of us who are interested in maintaining the high ideal of British justice cannot allow to go unanswered. Men appear to have been arrested and shot who were not actively participating in the riots, and they were punished either without a trial or after a trial at which they were not represented and whose proceedings possibly they did not understand. People were flogged who were possibly innocent. Women and children are stated to have been held as hostages, men were condemned to death on evidence which was subsequently proved to be false, and arbitrary fines were inflicted and immunity from prosecution purchased.
  548
  In ordinary times I should demand with all the force that I possess that there should be an inquiry of a most searching kind. At present I feel that I must be very moderate in my demands on the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman must consider not merely the position in Ceylon, but the position in connection with some of the religions in Ceylon and in the East. I must not be too positive in my demand for an inquiry, but I shall feel that we have not got to the bottom of the thing unless there is something more than we see at present. Sir John Anderson's concession has made a difference. It does seem to offer a means whereby those who are innocent may cease to suffer penalties which have been unjustly inflicted upon them. The Colonial Secretary says that he has no doubt that Sir John Anderson will make any inquiry which he thinks necessary into these matters which are brought to his notice. I throw upon him the responsibility of refusing an inquiry which I feel ought to be held.
  I desire also to say a word or two about the cultivation of cotton within our Empire. I think that there ought to be no slacking of our efforts in regard to this matter, and no petty cash savings. I regret that the Government art; not able to continue the Grant of £10,000 a year to the British Cotton Growers Association. The Government have acknowledged the services of the association by giving them a grant of £1,000 for the current year, but I feel that if the £9,000 which is thus saved is not spent upon extensions and experiment, such as have been conducted by the association, the benefit of the saving will be very doubtful. The council in their last report placed on record their thanks to Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Steel-Maitland for the interest which they have taken in matters connected with cotton growing in the British Empire. In this connection I would wish to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hands if he has to have a little tussle with the Treasury. The point of view of many in Lancashire is this: the world's consumption of cotton is growing more quickly than its supply. The United States, which supply more than half the cotton, are getting now to the point at which they use possibly half that which they grow themselves. In our own Colonial spheres there has been a little set-back in production in the year 1915. If energy is slackened in those extensions which come from the Government experimental farms and seed distribution, it is not merely a

  549
  loss of one year's production, but the loss of increase. We lose not merely this year's egg but next year's goose, because the increase goes on at an increasing rate.
  For instance, there has been a change in Southern Nigeria. A variety which is more suitable for English use, and which has the advantage also of paying the native better has been introduced. In the report of the British Cotton Growing Association it is mentioned that forty acres were devoted to cotton on the Government experimental farm at Ibadan and various other places. The forty acres cultivated in 1915 would make seed for 700 acres in 1916, and for about 12,000 acres in 1917. That is entirely too golden a prospect. No one could possibly expect such an extension, and even in the matter of cotton seed, the sins of the father descend on the children, even unto the third and fourth generation, and we find seed degenerating and going back. I am glad to say, however, that there also are splendid experiments being made in India in cotton growing, from which much most valuable information, I hope, will be obtained. But to take a more moderate view, I may refer to a letter from Mr. Lamb, the director of agriculture in the Northern Provinces of Nigeria, addressed to the British Cotton Growing Association. It states that he had just returned from a tour in one of the best cotton growing districts where the Government have introduced this improved variety of cotton, and that the natives seemed most enthusiastic over this variety as compared with the native cotton, and were no less pleased with the high price it commanded. Mr. Lamb estimates that whatever is the output of long-stapled cotton this season the quantity next year will be fivefold at least, if only the association can maintain the buying price of 1¾d. per pound. So that the benefit is not merely an addition, but there is a multiplied benefit. I would suggest in this connection to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be some interchange of opinions between those scientific investigators in India and those who are serving in various parts of the Colonies.
  I come now to a less pleasing subject. There has been recently a Committee on edible and oil producing nuts and seeds. In many respects their Report is a very admirable Report. It is most useful for agriculturists, and I think that all British agriculturists would do well to read certain portions of it. We learn that a form
  550
  of palm kernel cake definitely increases the amount of milk fat by 16 per cent. to 34 per cent.; that it is very good for summer feeding as it produces firm butter and better milk, and it is also very good for bacon, and produces cheaper bacon. Our want of progress in regard to this trade has been very largely due to the fact that British farmers have not found out what was good for themselves, and actually those nuts that came to England and were crashed here—the feeding-stuff that was produced from them was sold to Germany, and German farmers recognised their value before our farmers did. There were a number of difficulties connected with the development of this trade. I am sure that everyone is in sympathy with efforts to effect improvement in that direction. The extension of this trade is a very proper subject for Government activity. Our machinery was not adapted to this object, but that is being remedied. There are certain faults which I dare say the British farmer soon finds out, and perhaps he is too easily stopped by them. The cake was said to be rancid. It was tested chemically, and Professor Wood, of the Cambridge School of Agriculture, made a number of very valuable suggestions. The Committee wisely suggest further co-operation between the school of agriculture and seed crushers. Other matters which affected traders were the German system of banking, and the fact that the Germans ship in bulk, which is said to be an advantage of from 3s. to 5s. a ton. Liverpool is said to be a dearer port than Hamburg, as there is an advantage of 2s. 7d. in favour of Hamburg. Our system of inland carriage is expensive compared with the inland waterways on the Continent, where the goods are put into lighters and go from the lighter direct into the mill, whence the oil, having been expressed, goes back into tank barges and goes from the mill to the margarine factory. All these, I am sure, are difficulties which organisation can overcome. The Committee has not overlooked it. It lays stress on many of these things.
  "Many of the difficulties," they say, "are simply the result of an industry having developed along certain lines and in certain places. Trade channels once dug tend to deepen unless some special circumstances arise, whether of design or not, to arrest the flow in the old direction or to give a special impetus along a new course. Once a market is created in the United Kingdom the security of supplies should be as great as in Germany. If kernels were carried there in bulk they can be carried here in bulk. Port and other dues may be high in Liverpool, but they may be decreased by handling through elevators and by

  551
  lighterage, or the cargoes can come to other British ports where the charges before they reach the mill should be no higher than they were in Germany. What is true of the raw material is also true of the products. Palm kernel cake had been unfamiliar to our farmers, and the farmer is said to be a conservative person.… By the assistance of the Press, the Board of Agriculture, and the Imperial Institute, the attention of farmers was drawn to what was to them a new feeding material. As a result, there has been no difficulty in disposing of all the cake and meal produced and this feeding material has thus been widely introduced to farmers. Since the appointment of the Committee steady progress has been and is being made, and the evidence which they have received has shown that large quantities of kernels are being crushed here and the products satisfactorily disposed of to British manufacturers and farmers."
  I do not think that it is quite to our credit that we were so late in discovering the value of this product, whereas the Germans recognise that half a ton of oil is worth 10s. more, and half a ton of cake is worth from 10s. to 15s. more than the market price in England. Why? They know its value. There is one small point in connection with this Report that I should just like to interpolate here, and that is in regard to sending spirits as a return cargo. The Committee say:
  "Mr. Moore's views must not be taken as representing those of the Committee."
  I am very glad indeed of that, and I consider that any means that are taken to encourage the supply of spirits to the natives of Africa would be a move very much in the wrong direction. There is a general international agreement, which I hope we will extend and favour, not to degrade the natives by this traffic—and it seems to me not at all creditable to us that we should discourage this traffic, and then say, "But if there is any profit we will have it." Whatever is done in connection with this, I hope that idea will not be pursued further. I will not go more into the details of this very interesting Report, but I should like to say that none of the reasoning founded upon this exhaustive examination seems to me to justify the Export Duty. This, to me, is a rather unfortunate incident in the midst of this great War. Here we are exhibiting ourselves to our Allies and neutrals as unable to utilise to the best advantage the resources of our Empire to such an extent that we must forbid the sale to them of some of those things which are produced by us. It is practically a suggestion forbidding purchasers going into the market, because, although the duty is only £2 at first, if it is inadequate the further suggestion is made that it shall be raised. The objections are both economic and
  552
  political, and in my opinion its effect on the Colony must be depressing. That appears to me to be recognised by the Committee, as they recommend that Colonial Governments should be able to abolish the duty if advantage is taken of it to depress the prices paid to native producers. The right hon. Gentleman himself has recognised the possibility of the duty being made use of to depress prices. Surely the exclusion of the French, Dutch, and German purchasers must depress prices. If you remove a number of purchasers demanding the article from the market, the experience of anyone who attends markets is that it must tend to depress prices, and that is an extremely serious matter. In the action we are taking we shall put the native producer at a disadvantage and advantage ourselves in the use of the article that they produce. It is a new departure, hastily made, without public discussion, and is taken in a Colony which is subject to our arbitrary rule.
  It appears to me that the idea has arisen of putting it into force there only because of the fact that the overwhelming number of the population of blacks are not directly represented. If the system is good, why not let us recommend it to some of our Dominions? We are short of wood pulp—let us ask Canada to put an Export Duty of £2 on wood pulp sent to the United States. I do not know why you should arbitrarily apply to one of the Crown Colonies for the benefit of Imperial trade measures that you would hesitate to suggest to some of the Dominions. And the Dominions are going to get the benefit of this Export Duty; they are to be allowed to come in and buy without paying the £2 duty. The natives, it appears to me, suffer twice, both economically and in the method of the Government. The native has hitherto been quite confident that the action of the Government is for his protection. We have set our face against direct exploitation of the native, and I think, in general, the Home Government has also set itself against indirect exploitation. We seek to show him how to grow cotton, and we give him a market price, the transaction being of mutual benefit. But now we are restricting his market for our benefit. The lack of demand, owing to his great customer being shut off, the shipping difficulties from which he suffers as well as others, are already having an adverse influence on the native. The lack of confidence on his part, if he

  553
  finds his goods commandeered by the Government, and the Government not guaranteeing him a good price, but £2 below the market level, may have a very bad effect on production, not on this article only but on many, and beyond the limits of the Colonies in question.
  Another very doubtful expedient in taxation is taxation by Order in Council. I should like to know where else there is taxation by Order in Council. If £2 is ineffective—if Dutch, French and German buyers are not kept out of the market by this £2, and if they are willing to give our price and the £2 duty, then an Order in Council is to be possible of issue in order to banish them expeditiously. The Order in Council has been adopted because it is an expeditious way of imposing a higher tariff. What will be the effect in that case on the market? Three foreign buyers and three British buyers are in the market, say, and to drive out the three foreign buyers—an Ally, a neutral, and an enemy—you will put on a higher duty of £5 a ton against them. Then will the British buyers give the same price? It is an advantage, certainly, to the British buyer, who will give less, if not by the whole £5. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with France in this matter? I am sure I do not know. If one considers the principle of the Paris Conference, I am hoping, though possibly I am too optimistic, that the result of the sentiments expressed at that conference will be rather to lead to destruction of barriers.
  But we are erecting a barrier here against one of our Allies, and at the same time giving the broadest possible hint to Holland that her only hope of getting fair treatment as regards her imported raw materials is to join Germany. By thus creating a new British monopoly in an important raw material, we bring upon ourselves inevitable retaliation, if not from Allied nations, at all events from neutral Governments who have any interest in the matter. I have no confidence in the device. It appears to me that it will be costly and difficult to maintain, that it will check the flow of kernels towards our Colonies, and provide a prop for an expanding trade which may fail it in difficult times. It seems to me that it may reduce reliance on science, on mechanical skill, and on enterprise. By the measure of its effect in driving custom from our Colonies it will encourage development in other spheres, as, for instance, in South America and other places where our
  554
  export duty would practically become a bounty. What this trade requires is more science, more energy in the agricultural and forestry departments, improved organisation in banking, in shipping, and in home carriage, and a wider knowledge of the riches of our Empire, and a more careful study of their uses. These, in my opinion, are the avenues of progress. Our efforts should be directed to making wider and deeper our own channels, and not damming those of our neighbours. Above all, there is one thing that I think Englishmen are proud of, and that is our treatment generally of what are sometimes called the inferior races. Above all, the inmost secret of our usefulness—I hope the House will not think I am lacking in reverence—is our Divine mission to govern, wherever our power extends over backward races, in their interest and for their good, and never to prostitute our power to selfish ends.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies rises to reply on the Debate he will, among other subjects, address himself to the important question of using for fighting purposes some of the native populations of the Crown Colonies. My right hon. Friend knows well, as I addressed him on this subject more than a year ago, what my views are. I must say, frankly, that I greatly regret that a whole year has passed away without effective steps having been taken to develop the very large and diverse resources which are possessed by the British Crown—
  Mr. DILLON: On a point of Order, Sir. I wish to know whether it is in order on this occasion to raise this very difficult question. I imagine that it is one for the War Office, but I make no objection to the Debate being raised now if it is clearly understood that we shall all be at liberty to pursue the subject.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: On the point of Order, Sir. While the question is partly one for the War Office, am I not allowed to seek from the Colonial Secretary some assurance connected with the supply of men for the field?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: On the point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I say—
  The CHAIRMAN: Let me state my view on this point of Order. I think that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is right, that this is a subject which must necessarily come first before the War Office. The question as to whether native

  555
  troops should be employed is a military one for the War Department, and I feel bound to rule that the question ought not to be raised on the present Vote.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I venture very respectfully to remind you, Sir, that I raised this matter at Question Time today. There were a number of questions on the Paper on this subject, and I understood the Prime Minister to assent to the fact that this would be an opportunity, probably the last this Session, when this matter could be debated.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is the first I have heard of it. I think my decision is right.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Then I understand your ruling applies not only to War Office aspects, but Colonial Office aspects. For instance, suppose I wished to complain that the right hon. Gentleman—and I am putting purely a hypothetical case—had not facilitated the action of the War Office in regard to the raising of these troops, surely that would be relevant!
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I must say that I think the War Office Vote is naturally the place to raise this question, which is a big question. There are certain things which arise in connection with the Colonial Office, but I do not think that is what my right hon. Friend desires to deal with, and that he means the employment of troops in Europe, which is clearly a War Office question.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There are two general principles on which, broadly speaking, are laid the foundations of the British Empire. The first is self-government for all white races, and that our Dependencies should be governed solely in the interests of the governed. We are able to hold our heads high in our own estimation, but we do sometimes have lapses. We saw the Prime Minister, a lifelong adherent of Home Rule for Ireland, putting aside self-government as a dangerous experiment and sending to govern that country a gentleman of affable manners as a Chief Secretary. But that is not the point I wish to pursue to-day. I wish to raise the question of government in West Africa. The day has gone by when the administration of our Colonies is purely a commercial affair. The administration of the British Empire was, according to Arthur Young, entirely commercial, a traders project, and the spirit of
  556
  monopoly pervaded every step of its progress. Since the days of Warren Hastings the fundamental principle of British Government and Imperial policy has been that the natives have rights and the Europeans obligations. I think that with regard to West Africa we do not always keep those ideals as prominently before us as we ought. If I were to say that the output of palm kernels was founded on the supply of cheap spirits to West Africa, I should be accused of exaggeration, but there is plenty of evidence in this Report that it seems to be the accepted doctrine in Nigeria that it is not possible to have a proper output of palm kernels unless a bottle of gin is dangled before the nose of the natives. Here is the evidence of Mr. Cowan:
  "If the import of liquor into these districts were prohibited do you think it would stop the volume of trade?—Undoubtedly very largely.
  Is the native a great drinker?—No, not individually; it is a luxury, and if it were taken away from him, and he wanted it, he would destroy his palm tree for the sake of getting it to begin with, and he would not turn over the same amount of produce. There would not be the same incentive.
  What do you mean by drinking individually?—There is a large quantity of liquor imported into the country, but the amount consumed per head is not great.
  You think that if liquor were prohibited, the native would not be able to collect so many kernels?—It is not a question of not being able, I am sure he would not.
  Why would he not?—There would not be the incentive. He looks upon drink as a luxury, and if he wants it, he has to get produce in order to be able to buy liquor.
  One enterprising member of the Committee, Mr. Moore, enlarged upon that theme, and unfolded a project of Empire which I am very glad to say did not commend itself to the Committee. In the Report there is a memorandum from him lamenting that the restrictions on the manufacture of cheap spirits and the absence of modern plant, and the extra cost of the cases and bottles, have enabled the Germans to capture the trade of cheap spirits in West Africa. He goes on to advocate that a higher tax should be placed upon cheap spirits coming from Germany, and other countries, and that preference should be given to British spirit imported into West Africa in order that the British importer might have a monopoly. What I want to know is, what is the policy of the Colonial Office with regard to this import of gin and cheap spirits to West Africa. When is gin a luxury, and when is it a necessity? Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will explain what is the exact amount of gin which it is necessary to administer to a native in order that he may turn out a profitable

  557
  amount of kernels. It seems to me, if you want to deal a blow at German trade, you cannot do better than put a swingeing tax on spirits, and shut them out altogether from West Africa, and, to my mind, that is a thing that ought to have been done long ago. With regard to the proposed Export Tax on palm kernels, let me say I have no prejudices in the matter at all, or to the putting on of this tax or that tax. As long as the interests of my Constituents are not injured, and the cost of their food is not increased, or of their raw material, personally I am quite indifferent as to what tax the Government of the day puts on or takes off. Nor have I any prejudice as to capturing trade in Germany. I think it is a capital idea, but I think we should not try to capture trade in Germany by exploiting natives who are under our control.
  There is a wrong and there is a right way of capturing this trade of palm kernels. There is a way which is in conformity with, and consistent with, the traditions of the British Empire, and there is a way which is inconsistent with the traditions of the British Empire. I am very sorry to say that the Colonial Secretary proposes to adopt a system which I cannot help thinking is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the British Empire. It is urged in defence of this Export Tax that there is already a monopoly, a German monopoly. That may be so, but I cannot see that two wrongs make a right, or that the native will be in any way benefited by exchanging a German monopoly for an English one. The inevitable result, of course, will be that combinations will be effected, and that the shipper and the merchant and the crusher will reap all the benefit, while the price to the natives will be rigidly controlled, so that they shall not get too saucy. It is said in the Report that there is no evidence of there being pools or combinations. Though there may not be, it is apparently more polite to say that there are understandings. For instance, Mr. Cowan was asked, "Have there been in your experience any pools as to the price payable to the natives. He replied that there had been understandings, but they did not last any great length of time." It stands to reason that if there is an opportunity for making an understanding or a pool or combine, whatever you like to call it, that it will be made. I really think that the only fair way of capturing
  558
  this German trade is to study the means whereby the Germans have acquired the trade and follow the same course. For instance, the Germans have been able to capture this trade chiefly because their crushing plant is modern and up to date. They have a system much superior to ours of sending these palm kernels to Bremen, Hamburg, and Rotterdam. We have an extra charge, at least, if we want to send beyond Liverpool. The port charges of delivery cost from Liverpool 2s. 7d. per ton more than in Hamburg, and Germany has a superior system of shipping in bulk, whereas we ship in bags. It seems to me to be quite obvious that the proper way to capture this trade is not to exploit the, native and put a tax upon him, but to improve our own methods, and to follow the German plan of improving our crushing plant and our transit facilities.
  One gets considerable support of that view by a paragraph in the Report which says that this German superiority is not due to any natural disability in the British position, but to vis inertiae which a special stimulus would overcome. There is no doubt there has been vis inertiae, and if it is to be overcome I submit that the proper way is not to tax the native, but for the British manufacturer and the British importer to buck up themselves. This is part of a very large question, and the increase of our resources and the development of our resources will become a most tremendously urgent problem if we are to pay the enormous debt which is being incurred. But it seems to me that the proper way to develop our own resources is not to put this petty tax on or that petty tax on, but to adopt proper methods, that is, to organise our own resources so that we can get the greatest amount of supply in the cheapest possible way. I do submit that the proper way of capturing this trade of palm kernels is first of all to encourage a larger production in the country, and then to appoint responsible and impartial people to pay the natives and marshal them and to put the supply on shipboard, and the shipping rates to be reduced to the lowest possible limit. That is, I think, the proper policy and that we ought to be most jealous indeed as to the way we treat natives. Here we have thousands and thousands of people dying for us every day, and coming from all parts of the Empire, and we ought to be most careful that the Empire does really represent our highest ideals

  559
  To my mind it is a departure from our highest ideals to effect this monopoly by putting a burden upon the native and not on ourselves who are going to profit.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I wish to ask the indulgence of the Committee for a short time to pursue the subject that has been opened by my hon. Friend behind me and pursued a little further by the Noble Lord (Colonel Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck)—the question of this extraordinary Report upon the edible and oil producing products in West Africa. I am sure the House was very much struck last night when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies told it that he was very often suspected by his late colleagues that he was not having sufficient influence with his new colleagues in the Cabinet. I have never come across such an example of base ingratitude on the part of a man's colleagues than apparently the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from at the present moment. Judging by this Report which is now before us the right hon. Gentleman is dominating the economic and political policy of the Cabinet. We had yesterday a very interesting and a very important Debate upon the Paris resolutions. I do not think I am very far wrong if I say that that Debate was confined very largely to generalities with the exception of one or two speeches, notably that of my right hon. Friend who used to be at the Board of Trade (Mr. Robertson). But on the whole that Debate was one of generalities. To-day we have got a footnote to those generalities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) appealed yesterday for details. To-day we have got them. The first detail is the £2 Export Tax—so-called; it is not an Export Tax at all, but we will leave that for a moment—the £2 per ton Export Tax upon edible fruits, particularly palm kernels grown in West Africa. In these Debates the Committee is very often strangled by the wealth of the subjects hon. Members may discuss, and we are in that position to-day.
  This is a tremendous departure in colonial policy. It is a departure that ought not to be discussed in connection with this Report. This Report is a very small illustration of the departure. This House ought not to allow these large questions of Imperial relationship and Imperial government to be discussed outside, but ought to claim its right to have
  560
  general principles raised here in a proper way, so that the House may in a leisurely and intelligent fashion guide Ministers not so much in details as upon general considerations. The bulk of the Members of this House, I am sure, are not aware—on account of the very worrying and multitudinous duties that are now put upon the shoulders of hon. Members—are not aware that this is the beginning, not of a new policy, but the revival of a very old policy, one that has been condemned by every party in the State on account of the experience that the Empire; has had of its pursuit. What are the facts? They have been given in a somewhat piecemeal way already, and I leave them there. The export of these oil-producing nuts has become very important to-day on account of the development of margarine production particularly. The nuts go to Germany, in the main, but some go to France, some to Holland, and some come here. This Report candidly says that the Committee considered the problem for the purpose of capturing trade in Germany. There was no question of Colonial policy, there was no question of the well-being of the natives, there was no question of the regularisation of the market; the one purpose was, "How are we going to capture for the British Empire the export of these kernels that now go to Germany?" The Committee are perfectly candid about it. I have down here seven reasons—and they are not exhaustive. They are given in order to explain why the trade docs not come here. My hon. Friend behind me has referred to them. Three of the causes offered are: bad business organisation, inefficiency of machinery, a poor market (or something of that kind)—everything relating to conditions internal to ourselves end nothing whatever to do with the Colonies and Dependencies.
  This proposal, in effect, says, "All these things might be remedied, but we are not quite sure that they may be remedied, and we are going to adopt a new policy, we are going to say to Germany and to France—because it is not merely Germany—we are going to say to Germany, France, Holland, and America, "Not one single palm kernel are you going to take from West Africa unless you are prepared to pay £2 a ton more for it than we ourselves are to pay." That is how it will work out. I venture to say that the accommodating harmony which must be in the mind of the Prime Minister when he, as a Free Trader, can accept that as a way of capturing foreign

  561
  trade is a perfect marvel to me, and reaches a state of perfection that I have been hitherto unable even to imagine. This is an ordinary, rather commonplace, unforeseeing application of the crudest Protective ideas to an exceedingly simple problem. It must be remembered that this is not even a key industry. If this new method of using our Colonies had been adopted on account of the importance that is now put upon this new classification, this sort of new scale of industrial importance, one might have understood it. But this is an insignificant industry, an absolutely unessential industry. If it had been applied to a key industry, I do not say something might not have been said for it; but this is just an ordinary industry. A key industry with such an insignificant export might matter, but it is simply absurd to talk about this as a key industry. It is just one of those industries where A, B, and C (merchants) are benefited against the whole of the consumers of the goods that they produce and handle. It is nothing but this: A, B, and C (manufacturers, oil crushers) make a complaint that they cannot capture the German trade, and they go to the Colonial Secretary and say, "Will you appoint a committee of officials and ourselves"— because that is the committee—"will you appoint a committee of officials and ourselves and give us a chance of telling you how, by using your political power as the sovereign authority in this State, we are going to put money into our pockets and establish an industry that we have failed to establish hitherto on account of our own neglect and inefficiency?"
  That is the position of affairs. The kind Colonial Office, having got such a report from such a committee—with the exception of my hon. Friend who is behind—immediately sends out to the governing authorities of the Colony a dispatch which is published on notepaper that has the heading of the Tariff Reform League upon it. This is Protection in its very first form. It is not a protection which the consumer or the protected country is going to pay for exactly. It is a protection which is going to be paid for largely by the natives, who have no voice in this matter or in the Government which settles the economic conditions under which they have to live. As a matter of fact, when we take what it means, and take the position of the Committee, it reminds us of what Adam Smith wrote about a similar sort of method. It was, I am very
  562
  glad to say far more common 150 years ago than now, but this Report rather shows it is going to be still more common in the future than it has been in our lifetime hitherto, that interested persons are going to be appointed on Committees that are to report upon how their own interests are to be conserved and advanced by political authority at home. Adam Smith says:
  "Of the greater part of the Regulations concerning the Colony trade, the merchants who carry it on, it must be observed, have been the principal advisers. We must not wonder, therefore, if in a great part of them their interest has been more considered than either that of the Colonies or that of the Mother Country. In their exclusive privilege of purchasing all such parts of their surplus produce as could not interfere with any of the trades which they themselves carried on at home, the interest of the Colonies was sacrificed to the interest of those merchants."
  That is exactly what is happening now, and that is the sort of thing I think the House of Commons ought to consider as a principle and not merely as an expedient. But the same issue is raised by the Report and by the dispatch which the Colonial Secretary sent out after he had received it. I said that this is not an export duty. The Committee that drafted the Report does not appear to understand what an export duty is. It referred to the Malay export duty on crude tin. I am perfectly certain if the Committee had known anything about the history of the export duties of the Malay States imposed on crude tin they would have known they were proposing something which would have exactly an opposite economic effect, to that produced by the export duty on Malay tin.
  6.0 P.M.
  You can have an export duty for the purpose of revenue as the export duty of plumbago in Ceylon or the rice export duty in India and elsewhere. That is an honest, straightforward method of raising State income. It may be justified or it may not, it may be sound or it may be unsound, but it is a perfectly simple thing, it is an export duty pure and simple. Or you may have an export duty like the Malay duty. The Malay tin deposits were attempted to be exploited by two or three monopolists who were going to take them away from the Malay States in a crude state and treat them away from that State. Rightly or wrongly the Malay States Government said, "We are not going to allow you to exploit these deposits of crude tin, we will impose an export duty upon you, and so compel you to smelt the tin in the Malay States and supply opportunities of labour for us." The Malay case is quoted

  563
  in this document actually as if it were the same thing as this document does propose. What does this document propose? The form of this proposal was the system of duty which was imposed upon the Philippine Islands by the United States Government when the United States Government imposed a certain export duty upon hemp, but when the hemp was sent direct to the United States ports then no export duty was paid. That is what is happening here. Not a single farthing of the £2 per ton proposed by this scheme is effective, and of course the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office want the scheme to be effective. If it is effective, not a single farthing will go into the Exchequer of the West African Colonies, because all the nuts will come to the British Empire, and, consequently, all the deposits of £2 per ton will be given back to those upon whom they have been levied. The idea is that the £2 shall be nominally an export duty, but that everyone importing nuts into the British Empire and crushing them in the British Empire shall, upon the production of the certificate that the nuts have been crushed in the British Empire, claim a rebate of the £2 which has been left as a deposit. That is not an export duty at all. Given the inequalities in other directions, given inefficiencies at home, given the continuation of the ten or twelve impediments mentioned in this Report as reasons why we have not been able to use these nuts hitherto—allowing these to exist—even then we are going to take these nuts, and use them as monopolists do, for our own special benefit, not for our national purposes, but for the purposes of the few crushers and manufacturers. These gentlemen represent five or six members of a group of West African merchants and shippers—Maypole, Margarine, Lever Brothers, and so on. They are looking after their own interests. This particular method of making improvements without any outside competition coming in to upset their ring and shipping arrangements, and for no other purpose whatever, is not bad. They say to us, in the most naive sort of way, that of course they must face the question, Will the native be affected or injured by it? The native is bound to be injured by it. You limit his market. They say, "Oh, but you have taken the German State and added it to the British State." That is not a market
  564
  which affects the price of these nuts. It is the demand on the spot, and if you reduce the width of the competition on the spot for the purchase of the nuts, it does not matter how wide you make your market for the consumption of the products. They mix the thing, and, of course, they are business gentlemen. They prefer to make a reply which does not touch the point at all. The effect of this is that you limit the thing to one nationality and to one group of men—men whose business in this country is mixed up together through the banks and shipping arrangements, and through the crushing, and margarine, and soap arrangements, and you limit the purchase of the nuts on the spot to those who represent these men, and then, forsooth, they come and tell us, "You are adding to the British market the German market, and therefore you do not release the economic forces which are contained, but only reduce the price of the nut." The language in which it is expressed is very amusing. I will trouble the Committee with one extract. The Committee admits that there is the risk for the natives. This is what they say about it, on page 23, about the middle of the first paragraph:
  "In any event the Committee are of opinion that whatever risk there is in this matter is worth taking for the proposed term of years in view of the objects to be obtained."
  That is a very delightful sentiment. See what it means:
  "In any event the Committee are of the opinion that whatever risk there is in the matter—"
  Whose risk is it? It is the natives' risk. They are dealing with the natives' risk as a matter of fact. The text shows that. The "proposed term of years in view of the objects to be obtained." What objects are to be obtained? The capture and the setting up of certain crushing mills in England. Therefore, there is a proposition that it is worth while for the native to risk the loss of the price of his nuts in order that there should be two or three new crushing mills opened in England. I hope the business capacity is better than the method, which shows in passing the gravest and most obvious economic difficulties attending these proposals made to the Colonial Secretary.
  There is another security. They say if this ring is going to be formed, then the duty can be reduced. If we find that prices are going down, somebody—I do not know how or who, but some authority

  565
  —it is not very clear what—can reduce this so-called Export Tax, and then the foreigner comes in over the top of a lot of others. We can imagine a gentleman who has sunk thousands of pounds in crushing mills in this country when the price of nuts and kernels goes down and the Colonial Office, or some persons in it, explain to him why the prices have fallen in the West African market. Their ingenuity will be perfectly equal to the occasion. They will prove to him up to the hilt that no operation of theirs has had anything whatever to do with the lowering of the price of kernels. The ring will continue its operations. Profits will be made. The native will continue to take the risk of the low prices in order to establish these two or three mills. The guarantee that there will be no movement in this Export Tax once it is started is a guarantee that it will move the other way. We know perfectly well sometimes there is less danger of foreign competition in the purchase of these kernels. For the moment merchants, quoting Adam Smith, will be busy—it is a thing which has happened in every State in the world which has adopted this method. I am not blaming our own country more than others. The same thing happened when America adopted this method of taxation in regard to hemp in the Phillipines. Once you establish a connection between the personal interests of a few rich men, the Colonial Secretary, and the general political administration of the Colonies, it is absolutely impossible to dissociate the Colonial Secretary from that influence, or so long as this pernicious system of strangling and limiting the market is pursued as an approved Colonial policy. There is the shipping side. We know perfectly well how the trade of these districts is dealt with. The shipping interests are very well united.
  Mr. HOLT: Quite united!
  Mr. MACDONALD: I will take my hon. Friend's remark and say, quite united. There is the ring. There is no competition. What happens? Anyhow, we are told in this Report that at the present moment the German and British ships both go. I am told that even that is a bit of make-believe so far as their competition is concerned. I do not know. I am a very innocent person, indeed. At any rate, so long as you have got the two there is the possibility that friction may
  566
  crop up, and that some justice will be done to the public in reference to these enormous profits. There is going to be no danger of that. They are, I think, all under one management, with common directors, a common chairman, and a monopoly of the market. Mr. Moore suggested that you should bring home kernels and take out whisky in order to preserve the balance. This is commerce divesting itself of everything which is decent in order to increase commercial efficiency, and to accumulate profits even in such times as these, when one does not want to think of these things at all. We may make this departure. We are living at the present time in an atmosphere which is created by atrocities, hatred, ill-will, and feelings of the sort, and by the horrible things which are going on all round. The detestation in which we "hold certain acts of our enemy legitimately makes every man think of some form of punishment for those upon whose back punishment ought to rest. In that atmosphere and under those circumstances this Report should be accepted by this Committee. The dispatch sent by the right hon. Gentleman may be accepted by this Committee. This pernicious policy which begins its new departure in Colonial policy may be inaugurated. This is the first effect of the Paris resolutions. These may be approved and accepted. Of this, however, I am perfectly certain, when those times go by and we are in a position to consider what we have done this afternoon—if we give this Report our approval—we will see we have done two things: We have sacrificed the interests of the natives that we ought to have guarded, and we have deteriorated the honour and conditions of the Colonial policy of this Empire.
  Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I have listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. It is a very fine exposition of the doctrines of the obsolete Manchester school. From the way he dealt with the matter one would have thought it was a matter of absolute indifference to the hon. Member whether or not we brought trade from Germany to England. When he goes down to address the working men of Leicester, I think that they, and especially their colleagues when they come home from the War, will not have quite the same opinion of the hon. Gentleman's views. In any case, I believe that the working men will

  567
  hold a very different view of the gentlemen, whether Members of this House or not, who endeavour to increase the trade of Great Britain. I am not ashamed to say that I am chairman of the British lines trading to West Africa. In that position I succeeded the late Sir Alfred Jones. The hon. Member has given the impression to this House, and is endeavouring to give the impression to the country, that British shipowners in the West African trade are making enormous profits. I can only say—I was going to use a word which was not Parliamentary—that it is absolutely untrue. The position is that, since the beginning of the War, the British lines trading to West Africa have carried palm kernels, which, it may interest the House to know, are a bulky article, and occupy considerably more tonnage space, going about 13 cwt. to the ton in measurement, and we have carried those kernels for twenty-four months of the War at £2 a ton, or a little over pre-war price. The difficulty is that when we have to go into the market and get outside tonnage to meet the requirements of the merchants, we have to pay an equivalent of £6 or £6 10s. per ton, and I do not think, in view of those facts, that the inferences drawn by the hon. Member for Leicester from the British companies carrying on their trade are fair, and I think that when the hon. Member has had time to think over and read his speech he will come down to the House and apologise for it.
  Owing to the nature of my business I know something of the West African trade, and I think I am not behind anybody in my keenness to help the West African natives and develop the West African Colonies. West Africa is practically dependent on two things. It is dependent on cocoa, and it is dependent on a palm tree that only grows in West Africa. It does not grow in any other part of the world, the reason being that it can only grow where there are 120 inches of rainfall, and that is only for a certain distance from the seaboard all down the West African Coast. This palm oil produces two valuable products—the palm kernel, which is crushed, and the palm oil of commerce. Between these two the export from the British West African Colonies is about 350,000 tons, to the value at present of over £6,000,000, and it is a trade that is likely to increase as the Colonies are opened up by railways and
  568
  otherwise. I know it does not interest the hon. Member for Leicester, but three-quarters of that trade before the War was done by Germany. I do not want to do him an injustice, but I gathered he said it was of no interest to him.
  Mr. R. MACDONALD: There must be some misunderstanding. I did not say that.
  Captain Sir O. PHILIPPS: I accept the hon. Member's statement Why did it go to Germany? Well, the trade began in a small way, and the German: discovered that the palm kernels made very good feeding cake. When crushed, the kernels became half palm kernel oil and the rest feeding cake. They discovered the feeding cake had certain qualities. English chemists advised the English farmers that nothing they could give a cow would increase the amount of butter fat in the milk, at least for more than a few days; but the Germans discovered that palm kernel cake given to milking cows would increase the amount of butter-fat by as much as over ¼ per cent., so the result was that by giving it to their cattle they were able to get as much butter from nine cows as before it took ten cows to produce. For that reason throughout the German Empire for many years palm kernel cake has been more valuable than it has been in this country. In former years the oil was used for soap purposes, but latterly they have found it much more valuable for making nut butters, and the German chemist may have been a little in advance of the English chemist on that subject. Anyhow, those two things together kept the trade as a German trade.
  What the Committee appointed by the Colonial Secretary had to consider was what they could propose, with due regard to the interests of the West African natives, that would bring this great trade of the British Empire away from Germany. That was the proposition, and by the proposal of an Export Duty of £2 a ton they felt that it would get over, in the first instance, the fact that the whole of the efficient mills in Germany could deal with this. I should explain there are plenty of mills in England that can crush palm kernels, but the pressure of mills that are constructed specially to crush linseed or cotton-seed is not great enough to get the full quantity of oil out of palm kernels, and, therefore, although there are a very large number of mills in England

  569
  that can crush palm kernels, there are to very few mills at the present time in England that can crush them economically. What you want is something to start the industry fairly in this country, and if it is once here, I believe it can hold its own; but if we are going in all these cases to turn to old ideas that have been shown to be obsolete, and not look at these matters in a practical way, then the result of the resolutions passed at the Paris Conference may be written off as useless. The hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham was evidently very concerned that the natives might lose under this arrangement put forward by the Committee. All I can say is that we went very fully into that matter, and we had the benefit of the views of two of the principal local Governors on the Committee, and, unless I had been personally absolutely satisfied that the natives would obtain in the future at least as good a price as in the past, I, personally, would not have signed the Report.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Did the Governors sign the Report?
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: It is not for me to speak. I have no authority to speak for the Governors. They had left this country before the Report was signed, but I did have the benefit of discussing the matter fully with them before I formed my own personal opinion, though I do not think it would be right for me to say in this House what the opinions of the Governors were.
  Mr. R. MACDONALD: The Report says one of these.
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: I think that is because there is a memorandum from that particular Governor in the Appendix, or it was going to be printed; but I can only say I have discussed the matter very fully with both of them, and without saying what their particular views were, the discussion certainly helped me to arrive at a decision, and I believe that if what we recommended is carried out, the net result will be that there will be a much larger demand for palm kernels in the future than there has been in the past. There is this other very important factor that influenced me in arriving at that decision. To everyone connected with West Africa anything is of enormous interest that increases the output from West Africa, and the native turns his attention to that article which produces the greatest profit. For instance, it may not be known
  570
  to many Members of this House that twenty-five years ago the natives in West Africa exported one ton of cocoa; this year they exported 77,000 tons. It is by giving the West African producer a good price that you get the greatest output, and I am satisfied that our recommendation will lead to a greater output of palm kernels from West Africa than even there has been in the past, and, on the whole, it has been steadily increasing for some years.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I think one may say that probably the deepest rift there is between the two sides in the economic controversy lies in this—I do not think it is putting it unfairly—that those who hold what they consider the orthodox faith refuse to count one great fact as economic, which we, on the other side, consider to be one of the greatest economic facts in the world, and that fact is war. I am going to apply that to this particular case, but may I say in passing that it seems to me if we consider the cost of this War to this Empire as being some £5,000,000,000 or £6,000,000,000—we do not know exactly what it will be, but it will be something of that kind—that in all the economic considerations and calculations of the last generation, if you had thrown that fact, or insurance against that fact, into the scales, you would have altered very greatly many of the conclusions that you drew from purely economic arguments. Applying that idea to this case, what do I find in the Report of the Protectorate of Nigeria in the Colonial Office Series for 1914, which is, I believe, the last Report available? I find this statement, that Germany provided a market for 44 per cent. of the products of Nigeria. I find also the statement that trade with Germany, which ceased on the outbreak of war, declined by £900,000 as compared with 1913. That is to say, trade was cut off to a value representing £2,000,000 a year owing to the fact that the trade had been conducted with a country that became our enemy. We hold command of the ocean, and had that trade been conducted with this country the inhabitants of West Africa would not have suffered loss at the rate of £2,000,000 a year during the first portion of the War. I have not the statistics of what has happened in Nigeria during the long period that has followed, and I simply say that during the first five months of the War there was a loss of £900,000 due to the fact that the market was cut off.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is that a loss to the Colony or to German trade?
  Mr. MACKINDER: It is a loss to the Colony.
  Mr. JONES: And nothing to make it up?
  Mr. MACKINDER: No, there was a great decline in the total trade. When I look into it I find in the matter of palm kernels that in 1913 the value was £3,100,000, and in 1914 it fell to £2,500,000, or a loss of £600,000.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Member give the quantities.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I must be allowed to argue the case in my own way. My argument turns on values and not on quantities. The value of palm kernels exported in the last full of year of 1913 was £3,100,000, and the value, in the incomplete year of 1914 was £2,500,000, in round figures. That is to say there is a decrease of nearly £600,000 in values. This duty which it is proposed to put on is, I understand, taking normal prices approximately, a 10 per cent. duty. If you take the value for the whole year, amounting to over £3,000,000, and assume for the sake of argument, and for no other purpose, that the natives are going to pay the whole of the equivalent of that duty of 10 per cent., which will be about £300,000, then it will amount to one seventh of the loss which they experienced in the breaking away of the German market. If we adopt the line of argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and assume the most rigorous line of what I will call the Free Trade argument, the economic effect of introducing was is that you alter the whole aspect of the case, and for a small protected country in the position of one of our Crown Colonies or Protectorates, it is immensely to their advantage to trade with the protecting country, rather than the country that may become its enemy. That is a single instance' of many cases that might be put in regard to this business. It is a portion of the dislocation that comes from the fact that you have attempted in past years to separate your economic sphere in politics from your sphere of foreign policy and war.
  War is one of the greatest economic factors in the world. The attack made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite is based wholly on the fact that they consider this is the first instance in detail of the
  572
  infringement of their dogmas under the policy of the Paris Resolutions. But they think in the present case they have got a special instance of controversial value from their point of view, because you are going to inflict a loss on the native. I want to consider not merely one year, but a group of years in this matter. After the announcement made by the Prime Minister' yesterday, I think I may say that we have adopted the Paris Resolutions as our policy, and also the second portion of those resolutions, but not the third part, which may become the subject of longer controversy afterwards. The second portion applies immediately after the War. I think it is agreed that the raw materials of the Allied countries and Colonies shall be reserved for the use of those Allies. If that is going to be your policy, then in the interests of the producers in West Africa the sooner you get to work to stimulate the investment, of capital in this country for the purpose of utilising those products the better it will be for those in West Africa. You are not going to get that capital which is a costly investment in up-to-date crushing machinery unless you give some promise of security. If you are going to adopt that policy in the interests of the inhabitants of West Africa, do it at once, and let them have the full advantage of the period of peace which is to follow. It is doubly in the interests of these people, because the War has taught you that you cannot leave war out of your calculations, and economic suffering has fallen upon the Protectorate of West Africa, and therefore you OWJ it to them to bring them into line with the new policy which you have announced, and which you should adopt at the earliest possible moment.
  I go further than that. I say that those who have fought in this War from our land are entitled to a portion of the prosperity of West Africa. They have fought, and in fighting they have fought to maintain the peace and administration of the Niger regions. A German going to that region paid nothing except certain import duties as compared with what we paid to the administration of Nigeria. You must always include in your estimate the cost of the protection of that country by your large fleet of ships that keeps open communications between that country and Europe. The Germans who traded there did not pay proportionately for the maintenance of that administration. I say that the men of our own race who have fought

  573
  in Europe to maintain the security and the peace of our vast tropical protectorate—because that is the indirect result of what they have done—are entitled to have a portion of the advantages which are to be derived from West Africa.
  That seems to me to be the broad policy governing the whole situation. You have no right to apply your ordinary Free Trade theories which may be applicable to the ordinary highly civilised States in Europe to such territories as those vast countries which are now more than half empty, and are of enormous wealth in the centre of Africa. Those regions ought to be treated as an asset of the Empire. If they are so treated and developed with the help of our war-like expenditure, an expenditure in money and in life, if we keep the pax Britannica throughout vast areas of the world by that expenditure, then we are entitled to treat those regions as being Imperial estates. It is our bounden duty to see that steadily we have progress in the condition of the savage and barbarous inhabitants of those regions who number some 25,000,000 in the Nigerian area. But our duty is not limited to them. Our duty is towards our own race and mankind. Our duty is to develop those vast regions, and a portion of the results we are entitled to take for ourselves and for civilised mankind, for that civilised mankind which in the course of some generations probably the people who inhabit those regions will be able to join. We are entitled to take it, because we have fought and spent that which cannot be estimated in cash and that ought to be taken into your economics. It has cost us the lives of our men, and we have spent millions on our Fleet and on those great forces which in various portions of the Empire are called upon to defend our possessions. Do not let us think those charges are entirely paid for locally.
  Even the men who are sent out there to take command are men who have been trained hero before they go. The payment of their salaries and wages there is a small portion of what is the real cost, and the main cost is contributed here and only here. Therefore, we are entitled to a considerable proportion of the advantages that come from those regions, provided that we treat the welfare of the inhabitants as part of the development of those estates. I say that at all times, but now above all times, and at the end of this War we shall be entitled to treat those
  574
  regions as a vast estate. My view is that this small beginning of the policy is amply justified. If you take war into account, if you take into account the cost of maintaining those regions, what I have suggested is justified if you regard us as trustees for those great potentialities of the local inhabitants, and we do this not merely for them but for mankind, but above all for that vast portion which is in our Empire and which holds the pax Britannica in those regions.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the vast subject which he has opened up. He is obviously dealing with the great question of national policy after the War, and that is a question which has no relation whatever to the conduct of the War. He has advocated a policy which involves a reversal of our attitude towards the Crown Colonies, and there may be much to be said for making them contributory States. That, however, is a subject which cannot be decided in reference to some small petty article like palm kernels, but it must be decided in view of the broad and general consideration of national and Imperial policy. I rose for the purpose of supporting the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) for some kind of inquiry into the origin and the subsequent measures taken in connection with the riots in Ceylon. The hon. Member has gone over the evidence which is available on that subject in such full detail that I will not trespass further upon the time of the House in that connection, because I know that there is only a single day to be devoted to Colonial affairs, and there are many other hon. Members who want to raise questions in detail which have not yet been discussed. I merely desire to press the demand for an inquiry. This I am not doing in a hostile spirit or with a critical intention, but it is being pressed upon the Colonial Office as the best means of strengthening the hands of the Colonial Office and enabling it to carry out and discharge its duty towards the Empire in this matter.
  I will refer only to three aspects of these riots with regard to which, I think, inquiry is necessary and essential in the interests of the Colonial Office itself, and the control which it ought to exercise over the administration which is subject to it. In the first place, there is the question of the

  575
  origin of these riots. We have had evidence given to us by the hon. Member who first dealt with this case that there was no treasonable origin whatever. Yet that suggestion has been made and was present in the mind of the officer commanding the troops in Ceylon in suppressing the riots. He had in his mind at the time that these riots possibly and probably had a treasonable origin. That matter requires investigation. Secondly, investigation is necessary into the question of the suppression. Were the best methods adopted? Were the Government prepared? Were the measures that were taken by the Executive effective measures? Were the rioters allowed to get out of hand? Could the riots have been delimited and circumscribed and lessened if more efficient measures had been taken to suppress them? Is the local Executive free from Censure in this matter?
  Lastly, inquiry is desirable with regard to the punitive measures adopted after the riots were suppressed. This is quite a distinct thing from suppressing the riots. There was a very dangerous crisis in some respects, quite apart from the question of the origin or motive of the riots. There was no seditious origin in these riots. The circumstances, with this exception, resembled the situation in Ireland. Did the Executive Government, by its bad preparation and dispositions, let the crisis completely get out of hand? Apart from the actual use of force in the suppression, were the punitive measures adopted after the riots were over, and there was no further danger, wise and prudent measures? Take in the first place, a very important matter, the manned of raising the funds necessary to pay compensation to the injured persons. Levies were imposed on persons throughout Ceylon. If these levies were not wisely made, if full consideration were not given to all the issues involved, if they were rough and ready military measures imposed on the spur of the moment, it is possible that great injustice may have been done to individuals and, quite apart from the origin and the religious motives underlying the riots, that a new sense of injustice may have been created in the minds of many people. It is important that the Colonial Office, which is the guardian of the rights and interests of the people of Ceylon and of the interests of the people of this country in
  576
  that Colony, should be well informed as to whether these measures of levies were wisely and prudently taken.
  There is the question of the courts-martial and the sentences imposed under court-martial. Martial law was prolonged for months after all danger from the actual riots had passed away. Was it wisely prolonged? We have the opinion of a high judicial officer, given in a case where martial law was challenged on a writ of Habeas Corpus, that martial law was not imposed in Ceylon on account of local conditions or anything arising out of the riots, but was justified solely and simply because the Empire itself was at war. The Empire being at war, it might be desirable to maintain martial law in Ceylon. Was this wisely done? It is desirable to inquire into that matter. I asked a question last Session as to whether it was desirable when there was a complete state of peace, and when the established Courts of Justice were still sitting, to refer these cases to courts-martial. The answer was that, first of all, cases were referred to the ordinary Courts, and then, if they seemed grave and difficult, they were referred to courts-martial. I should have thought that the argument was all the other way. If they were grave and difficult cases raising important questions of law and evidence, if there were complete peace, and if the ordinary Courts were sitting, sitting sufficiently to hear the preliminary inquiries, I should have thought that it was desirable that they should have been heard in the ordinary Courts. The more difficult they were, the more desirable it was that they should be heard in the ordinary Courts. We know, on the Report of the Governors, that there was no treasonable motive in these riots. We know that they were purely religious riots between the sects, and that there was no desire to attack Europeans or the Government. What were the charges that were made against these people who were tried by court-martial?
  Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod (Captain T. D. Butler) having come with a message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  MR. SPKAKER resumed the chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 4) Act, 1916.

  2. Gas (Standard of Calorific Power) Act, 1916.

  3. Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916.

  4. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1916.

  5. Public Works Loans Act, 1916.

  6. Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916.

  7. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1916.

  8. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1916.

  9. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1916.

  10. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1916.

  11. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1916.

  12. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1916.

  13. Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1916.

  14. Land Drainage (Lilleshall) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1916.

  15. Aberdare and Aberaman Gas Act, 1916.

  16. Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1916.

  17. Colchester Gas Act, 1916.

  16. Ferndale Gas Act, 1916.

  19. Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Act, 1916.

  SUPPLY again considered in Committee.

  COLONIAL OFFICE.—Class II.
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £35,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration." [NOTE.— £23,000 has been voted on account.]
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT(resuming): When the message came from another place I was dealing with the last of the
  578
  aspects of the riots in Ceylon which I thought made some investigation by the Colonial Office necessary, and that was with regard to the kind of tribunal which was set up for the passing of the necessary punitive measures when the riots had all passed away and been completely suppressed. I pointed out that it was agreed, on the showing of the Governor, that there was no treasonable or seditious motive whatever in the minds of those who were engaged in these riots. They were bad riots, as bad as they could possibly be, but the motives of those who engaged in them were purely religious and not treasonable, yet the charge made against these people was a charge of treason and of constructive treason for being engaged in these riots. Now I would ask the Colonial Secretary whether if is wise to brand with treason so large a number—for there was a large number—of the people of Ceylon, who had no seditious and no treasonable thought, but were loyal to the Empire and had no desire to attack the Empire, and many of whom, on the showing of the Governor, engaged in these riots through the mistaken belief that all Maho-medans were at war with the Empire, and were therefore lawful prey. But these people were no more treasonable in their motives than people of this country are in getting up anti-German riots. Is it really desirable that these people should be branded with the word "treason," and should be sentenced for treason? Will this not give rise to misapprehension and to soreness in the future? I have before me here in the Official Report four pages of names of people who have been sentenced. These are not death sentences, though there were a large number of death sentences; these are the names of people who have been sentenced to imprisonment. I have not looked into it closely, but it seems to me that the average sentence was about fourteen years' penal servitude. And here are four pages of closely printed names of people so sentenced. I would ask again whether it is desirable that all these people should be branded with the word "treason"? I think there is a full case for the Colonial Office itself to institute an inquiry. I do not say this in any hostile or critical spirit; I do not desire to force an inquiry upon the Colonial Office, but I do think that it is desirable, and that the Colonial Office may be strengthened for the very

  579
  purposes for which it exists if it institutes an inquiry into the manner in which this serious crisis has been dealt with.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think—and I am sure the Committee will agree with me—that this would be a suitable time to attempt to make one of those surveys of the whole work of the Colonial Office which were a feature of the tenure of that Office by my right hon. Friend beside me. What makes it unsuitable for this House to deal at this time with matters relating to the development of the Colonies is that they are all engaged in this War. A large part of the staff which conducts their work has been fighting from the beginning, and therefore measures for development are, to a considerable extent, held up. But I hope, when the War is over, that either I myself, or some other Colonial Secretary, will have an opportunity of reviewing what is the position of all our Colonies then. I think, almost without exception, the Debate to-day has been confined to two topics. Although our Colonial Empire is very large, the interests of the House of Commons, like those of every human being, are apt to be centred upon particular things which interest them for the moment, and this has happened in this case. The two subjects which have occupied my hon. Friends who have spoken have been the Ceylon riots and the subject which was dealt with before the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) spoke last, namely, the terrible crime of the Colonial Office with regard to palm kernels which come from West Africa. Apart from these, the only other point was raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder), who urged that the Colonial Office should do what it could to foster the production of raw materials in our Colonies. In that respect he is really knocking at an open door. The Colonial Office as a whole, and the individual who happens to be at the head of it, realise as fully as anyone how important it is, from the point of view not only of the Colonies but of the United Kingdom as well, that we should not be so dependent, if we can avoid it, as we have been in the past upon foreign countries to supply us with raw material which are so essential to the life of such a large portion of our population. We are fully alive to the requirements of the public, and a good deal is being done both in the Colonies and in England.
  580
  I come now to the question of the riots in Ceylon. I do not complain of the tone with which that subject has been broached, either by my hon. Friend who spoke last or by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who introduced the subject. He was certainly right in saying that had it not been for the War we should have heard a great deal more of that subject in this House; and I think it is very likely that the Colonial Secretary would have had pretty bad times occasionally in connection with this. I think that is very likely, and I must say that hon. Members have shown commendable restraint in the way in which they have dealt with the subject. But among all the evils which the War has inflicted upon us, it is not an evil, from the point of view of Ceylon itself, that this subject has not been thrashed out in the way some subjects of the same kind have been thrashed out in the House of Commons. I feel as strongly, as I am sure my hon. Friends who have spoken on this subject feel, that one of the things to which, as a nation, we have most reason to be proud—it is really one of our greatest heritages—is that in dealing with what are called subject races we have always, I think it is not flattering ourselves too much to say so, to a greater extent than any country which possesses an Empire, made it a rule that those who govern those countries should look first at the interests of the countries they govern and not at the interests of the Mother Country. That has been invariably our rule. I should be very sorry, and I have very good reasons for saying it, that either in connection with the Ceylon riots or palm kernels, if I should be the first Colonial Secretary to depart from that principle.
  The Ceylon riots were very serious. All the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the subject have admitted that. They were of a nature which could, very easily have become dangerous, and with which it would have been extremely difficult to deal. That is undoubted. Indeed, the charge which at first was made against the Governor of Ceylon was not that he had shown too great severity, but that he was not severe enough. I have examined as carefully as I could everything connected with that subject which has come under my notice, and I feel compelled to say that, on the whole, in a very difficult situation, Sir Robert Chalmers, who is well-known to many Members of this House, and who certainly could not be

  581
  accused of using arbitrary or tyrannical methods, dealt with that dangerous situation with great fairness, with great wisdom, and, I think, with great success, considering all the difficulties connected with the situation. It has been described correctly, I think, by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, as mainly a religious riot. It was that very largely. I think it is true to say, as was said by him, that the Sinhalese belonging to the Christian tribes to a large extent kept out of it. But it was a racial question very largely. It was a question of the Sinhalese thinking that Ceylon should belong to them. That was one of the main motives in connection with it. The hon. Member said there was no evidence of premeditation. It is very difficult to get at the truth of that, as anyone who has ever studied a subject of this kind knows, but I think everything pointed to the fact that it had been premeditated. I will read here an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, which I intend to lay upon the Table of the House of Commons, and which, I think, not unfairly represents the truth on that point:
  "In the history of the disturbances themselves the simultaneity of the outbreak, the systematic spreading of false reports as to threatened attacks by Moors, the manner in which mosques were dynamited, the chalking up of the words 'Sinhala,' and in some instances 'Hambaya' on boutiques, and the hanging up of Wesak lanterns days after the Wesak was over, the accumulation of arms and bombs in pansalas and the ringing of pansala bells—to mention only a few of the incidents brought to our notice—are circumstances which, viewed in conjunction with the tone of the vernacular Press and the existence of the societies above-mentioned, lead unmistakably to the conclusion that the riots were in some measure prearranged."
  I really think there is no doubt that is true. What was the nature of the riots? It was partly religious and partly racial. There was a feeling of intense hostility against the Moor Mussulmen because they were traders and the Sinhalese were not. It is very similar to the Jew hate of which we have seen so much in many countries of Europe. When you get a combination of that kind of racial and religious feeling, which produces a feeling so dangerous, it requires great skill to deal with it fairly and firmly. I know quite well that hon. Members of this House have heard one side of the subject ad nauseam. The Sinhalese, among their other virtues, have the capacity of becoming lawyers, and lawyers generally have the capacity of stating a good case well and a bad case not badly. I know that there have been some members of that profession busy
  582
  with hon. Members of this House. Their case has been examined by the Colonial Office and by the Government of Ceylon. I would remind the Committee that there is another side to the question. The Commissioners have their point of view. I have here—I am not going to trouble the Committee by reading it—the point of view of individual Mussulmen on this subject. I ask the Committee to remember that one of the functions which ought essentially to be the special duty of the British Government is that where there are mixed races under their rule they should see that all those races are treated fairly among each other. That makes it very necessary that no feeling should exist that the Moors are not protected by the British Government from the danger to which they were subjected. If you take into account the general interests of the Empire as well as of political expediency it goes much further. India is so near Ceylon and there is a very large Mussul man population in India. All this was watched closely from India, and I should like in that connection to read part of a dispatch from the Governor of Ceylon on that point. He says:
  "I may add—"
  Mr. L. JONES: Was that Sir Robert Chalmers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it was the Acting-Governor. I have not got the date of the dispatch; I think it is some time about four months ago.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. He says:
  "I may add that I learn from trustworthy sources that the Moslem community in India are following with much interest the course of affairs in this island, and there can be no doubt that any action which could possibly be construed as indicating any intention to minimise or to condone the wanton outrages to which their co-religionists in Ceylon have been subjected would have an effect upon their minds which it would not be wise to ignore. The Mahomedans of Ceylon have displayed a spirit of moderation and patience, which, in view of the provocation they have received, is as astonishing as it is admirable. They have been content to leave their case in the hands of the Government and to trust to it to compensate them for their injuries."
  That is the position. My hon. Friends have pointed out that there were cases of apparent hardship and injustice.
  Mr. JONES: Apparent!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I only use the word "apparent" because they seem to be apparent to me.
  Mr. JONES: May I point out that men were imprisoned without any charge? They were never brought to trial, they were released, and it was admitted that there was nothing against them.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite true. I did not remember that my hon. Friend had referred to them. There were such cases and they proved there was injustice. There is no doubt about that. Let me look first at the particular class of action which is condemned. These Moor men had been subjected to an immense loss to them of their property, for which it was clearly right that they should be compensated. The Government set to work to compensate them. The method they adopted was to send out Commissioners, who were chosen with every desire that they should act fairly, and, on the whole, I think my hon. Friend will admit they did so. They were sent out to try to get requisitions to make good the losses of the Moors. Their action was temperate; that is to say, they went to the communities where the riots had taken place and said to the Sinhalese population, "If you give the amount which is necessary to meet this cost that is all that will happen, but if you do not there will have to be a rate." In the great majority of cases the rate was given voluntarily and that was the end of the matter. My hon. Friends complain that it was not levied on everybody. I suppose that if the same thing happened in this country the rate would be applied to everybody. On the ground of fairness, however, I do not think there is much of which complaint can be made. On the whole, it was the Sinhalese who attacked the Moors. It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove who was guilty and who was innocent. On the whole, I do not think the method was very unfair. As a matter of fact, when you come to the big towns, where it was not impossible to arrange it in that way, it was done by a municipal levy, and there it was levied upon everybody. There was a good deal of complaint, for which there was a certain amount of foundation, that it was levied on those who were among the sufferers, but that was allowed to remain. That is the way in which that part of the business was settled. It is quite true that while these riots were taking place there were exceptional methods taken in dealing with some of the offenders. Some hon. Gentlemen have referred to what took place in an island near home, which interests us even more. If riots of that
  584
  kind had happened there, we should be Bound to have such cases occurring. All you have the right to ask the Government of Ceylon is that on the whole it should be not only firm and just, but clement where clemency is possible. My hon. Friends asked for an inquiry. It has been asked for in questions in this House very often, and I have always refused it. I will tell hon. Members why I think that will commend itself to the Committee. There is not the least doubt that these riots were due to the War. It is quite true that they were not specially directed against the Government, but it was the unrest caused by the War that set the thing going. There is no doubt whatever about that.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is no suggestion of that in the official Blue Book.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may take it that there is no doubt about that. It was assumed by those who had charge of the government of Ceylon. What was the object of one of these lawyers who came over? He wanted specially to have an interview with me.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is he the member of the Legislative Assembly?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. The information I got from Ceylon was to this effect: That he was asking for an interview with the Colonial Secretary in order to be able to go back and say that the Colonial Office had thrown over the Government. That is what you have to bear in mind. You have this Government out there which you cannot really control, except upon general principles. You have to make up your mind whether you trust it or whether you do not. I am convinced that the Committee will agree with me that, on the whole, in the circumstances which exist to-day it would be very unwise to take any action which gave an impression that the Government there had acted in a way which was not approved by the Government here in London. We must trust in these cases largely to the character of the men who represent this Government in cases of this kind. I think anyone who knows Sir John Anderson, who was well known to me, and had been for a long time the permanent head of the Colonial Office, will give him credit for common sense, for justice, and for a desire to act with clemency. He went out with the intention of examining into this question himself wherever there was a primâ facie case that injustice had been done, and I do not think there is any harm

  585
  in reading the exact words of a telegram which was sent to me on the subject. He has, in some instances, already ordered release and a substantial reduction of sentences which were excessive. He represents that it is for him, as the person responsible for law and order, to conduct any inquiry into the incidents of the riots, and the proper course for those who feel aggrieved is to apply to him. He will not hesitate to ask for assistance if he requires it. I think the correct thing for the Government and for the Committee is to leave it there and to trust the Ceylon Government to act fairly in the matter.
  I come to the other subject which has exercised the mind of hon. Members. I am not disposed, and I am not going to start again the old Free Trade controversy in the conditions in which we are placed to-day. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if this was a terrible new departure, upsetting everything that all of us once held. That was not the way it struck me. What we have done has been done before in the Colonial Office in precisely similar circumstances. The hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald), it seemed to me, accused everyone connected with the Committee on Trade in West Africa with every conceivable blindness combined with the greatest possible stupidity. He said there had never been anything like it, and he referred to what had been done in the Federated Malay States. The fact is that years ago an export duty was put on in precisely the same conditions and for the same purpose for which it is proposed to put on this duty. The hon. Member says it is not an export duty at all. I do not know what he means. He seemed to assume that it was made prohibitive—that it was impossible that it could be exported at all. That is not the case. There was a duty on tin in the Federated Malay States for the purpose of revenue, and there was a duty on tin ore which was aimed at being the precise equivalent to the duty on the tin; but, in addition, and this was the same crime—I wonder the Colonial Secretary of that day escaped hanging—of which I am guilty now, an extra duty, and a very heavy duty, was put on tin ore exported anywhere except within the British Empire. That is exactly what has been done here, and it was done for precisely the same purpose. They found that tin ore was in danger of being taken to a foreign country and smelted there, and they took this action for the deliberate purpose of trying to keep it, if possible, within the British Empire.
  Sir J. JARDINE: When was that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think about 1903. If my hon. Friend wants a more recent precedent, I will give it him. The same thing was arranged for before the Coalition Government, with all its vices, came into existence. It was arranged for by the Liberal Government which preceded us in regard to Nigeria. An export duty was arranged to be put on there with the same pernicious Clause in, that ore coming to the British Empire was to be free. All I have done is to apply precisely the same principle to another commodity which has already been applied by both Unionists and Liberal statesmen in regard to other Colonies. I did not expect all this fuss. I have heard the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) repeat the sordid charge—
  Mr. MACDONALD: According to the Report, that is still only contemplated.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at all. It was actually passed in the Colonial Office before I went there, but, owing to the War, which had prevented it being exported anywhere except to the United Kingdom, it had not come into operation. But the determination to bring it in was carried out in every detail before the Coalition Government was formed.
  Mr. MACDONALD: I was going upon this statement: "It is understood that the same step as regards tin ore is contemplated in Nigeria," and I was waiting until it came for the purpose of raising exactly the same point.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was already done in the Federated Malay States.
  Mr. MOLTENO: He gave an answer on 22nd February, in which he stated that no export duties on ore from the Straits Settlements are imposed. But he went on to say that Royalties on tin and tin ore and other ores are imposed.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The different Departments know exactly what they mean by the words. It is the Federated Malay States in which the duty has been imposed, and not the Strait's Settlements.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is an official answer.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is more than that. You have officials who deal with these different Colonies, and the Straits Settlements to them mean one thing, and the Federated Malay States mean quite another.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Do they still have it in the Federated Malay States?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I did not expect this fuss from any considerable number, and I hope I am not going to get it, but I think I have the explanation of how so much interest is taken in this. I happened to obtain possession of a letter from the representative of a firm of margarine makers in a neutral country. I am not going to tell the House the name of the firm or how the letter came into my possession, but they may take it from me that the letter is genuine. I am making no charge whatever against the writer of the letter. As a matter of fact I believe he is on our side in this War, and he is just looking after his own trade. I think it will interest the Committee to see how excitement is gradually created in what seems to some people a very small subject. This is the letter, dated 21st June:
  "I duly received your letter of Saturday, 17th instant, and the memorandum about the Palm Kernel Committee has come to hand. We have considered it best not to do anything at the opening of Parliament as a question of this nature is generally lost amongst the more important business matters which are brought forward, but we have asked a Member of the House to put a question down asking the Premier if time, will be given for a discussion of this matter, which is of great importance to the future policy of this country. In the meantime we have inserted in the Press the following notice—"
  which I saw, as a matter of fact, though I did not know whence it came.
  "When Parliament reassembles a number of Members interested intend to press for a discussion of the Report of the West African Produce Committee before its recommendations are adopted. The main recommendation is to impose an Export Duty of £2 a ton on palm nuts coming from British West Africa except in cases where they are to be crushed in this country. The feeling in relation to this is that it is a change too far-reaching to be made without discussion in the House of Commons. It is not merely a question of Free Trade as against Tariff Reform. The departure contemplated is so novel that the Members interested think it ought not to be made, as it were, behind the back of Parliament. This is for the purpose of drawing the attention of Members to what is going forward, for otherwise matters of this kind are likely to slip through. When the question tion comes on to the Notice Paper we shall send out further notices to the papers in order to bring out various speakers in the House.'"
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my right hon. Friend insinuate that my conduct has been influenced by a margarine maker?
  Mr. R. MACDONALD: We must have this out. This is an insinuation against the honour of Members of this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman imagines that I have seen that letter or that I took this
  588
  matter up before last night he is saying a thing which he ought to know is absolutely untrue.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is quite mistaken.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why insinuate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I made no insinuations.
  Mr. MOLTENO: The right hon. Gentler man has said that a Member undertook to put a question to the Prime Minister asking him for an opportunity to discuss this question. I put a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether time would be given to discuss this question, but I have never heard of such a letter, and have had no communication with anyone with regard to it. The action I have taken is on this Report alone.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite accept that. My hon. Friend does not suppose it would be done in the crude way of a margarine manufacturer coming to any Member and asking him to put this question. There are other ways of getting it done besides that.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: The beginning of Tariff Reform!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; the end of opposition to a reasonable fiscal policy.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Has that letter passed the censorship?
  Mr. MACDONALD: Was the letter stolen? An abuse of the House of Commons. The meanest thing I ever heard of!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said the Committee must take it from me that it is an authentic letter, and that I have no intention of telling the Committee how I got it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Having quoted this letter, is the right hon. Gentleman not entitled to lay it upon the Table of the House, of Commons?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be the case if it was an official document, but I cannot see how that rule applies to the letter which has been read.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Is it not an official document in its present form? I happen to see it where it is. It is an official document, and we ought to get the name of the writer and the name of the Member to whom it was written.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member may think he ought to get it. I am at a loss to understand all this. What does it mean? So far as I am concerned, there is no charge against any individual Member of the House. I read that letter for the express purpose of showing that vested interests do attempt to use whatever influence they can to get political pressure brought to bear in this House. [HOn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]' I am glad for those cheers.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Or to get packed Committees!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know those hon. Members take the view that that only applies to those who want a change of the fiscal policy. All I want to point out is that in this particular case undoubtedly the thing was bitterly opposed by those who had interests against it, and an attempt was made to influence the House of Commons to favour their views. After all, I would ask the Committee to try, if they can, to look at this question not really from the point of view of any fiscal system, but on its merits. Is it or is it not a wise thing to do? That is how I regard it. What is the position in regard to it? When the War broke out, owing to the fact that almost the only market for these palm kernels was Germany, the West African Colonies were in danger of losing their whole trade for the time being. Efforts were then made by everyone interested in West Africa to try to get some method of utilising these palm kernels here at home; at all events, during the interval when there was no market in Germany where they could be sent. Great efforts were made to get people to crush them. The West African members of the chambers of commerce all interested themselves in this object, and they succeeded to a large extent. They did get these palm kernels utilised in this country. Then they came to the conclusion that if they were to be permanently utilised and the trade they had started was to continue, they ought to have some further examination of the subject. The Colonial Office was approached by the three chambers of commerce I have mentioned, with a view to setting up a Committee to examine into the matter. They did set up that Committee. We are told, I believe, that it was a packed Committee, and consisted of those interested for their own pockets. There is really no foundation for that allegation. The mem-
  590
  bers of that Committee were appointed to a certain extent of official people representing the Colonial Office, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Trade. Others were appointed directly by the Chambers of Commerce I have mentioned, and, so far as I remember, the Colonial Office appointed two, or perhaps three members because of their special knowledge of the subject, and for no other reason. That was the constitution of the Committee which examined into this question. I would ask hon. Members to remember that if they look at the names they will find that the members of that Committee were people who knew a good deal about the subject, and so far as the official members are concerned, I do not think they can be accused of having any interests of their own to serve.
  What was the conclusion that everyone of them came to, with the exception of my hon. Friend behind me? The conclusion they came to, after very careful consideration, was this: that if this business which they had succeeded in establishing in the United Kingdom is to continue, some security must be given that the whole business will not disappear the moment the War is over. My hon. Friend said we are helping an industry which is already expanding. Really that ignores the very essence of the recommendations of this Committee. That Report points out that palm kernels are being crushed by machinery which is not adapted for the purpose. Of course, they can do that now, because there is no competition, prices are high, and it is almost impossible to get trade. Obviously, unless the business is conducted, when peace comes, by machinery which will compete with that of any other country, the whole trade disappears and reverts to the old channels, and the efforts made will be lost. The Committee made these recommendations that this export duty should be put on, and I think everyone will agree that from the point of view of this country that is not a bad thing. Clearly, since this trade is now being done in the United Kingdom, and it is a trade which is of great advantage to the producing of margarine and oilcake, it would be of great advantage that the trade should not be lost. I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to this duty whether they are really prepared to say that they will do nothing to retain that trade in this country, except to tell those who are engaged in it, "You ought to improve

  591
  your scientific methods and help yourselves in that kind of way." If hon. Members take that view, I hope there are not many in the House of Commons, and I am sure there are very few in the country. If ever there was a case where the facts have shown that a trade based on a raw material produced in the British Empire, which has been done to the extent of three-fourths of it by Germany, can quite easily be done in the United Kingdom, and ought to be done in the United Kingdom, it is this.
  We now come to the point which is really the gravamen of the charge against me, and that is that it is going to injure the natives. If hon. Gentlemen have got over their feelings of indignation—[HON. MEMBEES: "No, No!"]. They have not! Perhaps for the moment they have not. If they will consider what the position is, and look at it fairly, they will see that there is not much ground for that view. The proposition is that if you keep away buyers the price, of necessity, must go down for the natives.
  An HON. MEMBER: What are you doing with France?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Since my hon. Friend has mentioned that, I may say that before sending out the dispatch which has been read I made inquiry as to whether or not any of this stuff was going to France. I was informed that practically nothing is going there; but I have already arranged to have the matter looked into more completely, and if it should be found that any of it is going to France, arrangements will be made, during the War, at all events, that France shall not pay any of the extra duty which is involved.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: What about Holland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Holland is not one of our Allies.
  Mr. MOLTENO: The Prime Minister yesterday gave an assurance that the new policy shall not be directed against neutrals, because he understood there was some feeling in neutral countries that it would be.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I equally give the same assurance; but it does not surely mean that a policy is directed against neutrals because it is directed in our own favour. I think not. [An HON. MEMBER:
  592
  "Why not?"] Some hon. Members seem to think we ought to treat everybody precisely as we treat ourselves. I do not.
  An HON. MEMBER: Give them something nice about Germany.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Look at the effect. It is perfectly true that the price of the commodity in the long run will depend on the demand for that commodity. If it happens that as the result of what we are doing there is a falling off in the demand, then it would be bad for the natives and some steps will have to be taken to redress the evil we have done, but it does not follow, on the other hand, if, as a result of what we are doing, we so largely increase the consumption of this material within the British Empire, then the market as a whole is increased, and, in addition, there is room to do what is done in regard to tin ores in the Federated Malay States. Mills can be put up there, where the manufactured product can be sent to any country in the world and, besides, the duty which is put on will not necessarily mean that no foreigners will buy it at all. There may be foreign buyers. The real test is whether or not the proposal adopted is going to so increase the demand within the Empire that there is not any likelihood of a falling off in price. I hope that will be the result. If hon. Gentlemen look at the dispatch which I sent in regard to the matter they will see that that is one of the things which is clearly kept in view by the Colonial Office. It is to be watched closely, and if it is found that the native sellers of these materials are being injured in that way, some steps must be taken to redress the balance in their favour. I would ask hon. Members to bear this in mind. It is clearly one of the undoubted facts of our history in the government of any of these Colonies, that when you send officials out they look upon the interests of the Colony to which they are sent as their business much more than the interests of the Mother Country from which they have come. These palm kernels come chiefly from Nigeria. The Governor of Nigeria is Sir Frederick Lugard, and he was on the Committee. He was not in this country when the work of the Committee was completed, but he has come back now for a short leave. I have seen him and I have discussed this matter with him. He believes that this will help the natives. At all events, he seems pretty sure that, though there is risk of its injuring them, that will not be the effect. It is clear that not only in the interests of the Colony as

  593
  a whole, but in the interests of the natives, nothing of this kind must be done which is going to injure them, and the Committee may take it as certain that it will be watched from that point of view, both by the Colonial Office and by the Governor and Legislative Council out there, and that no evil such as they anticipate is in the least likely to arise as a result of what is done. It all comes to this: that those who think that as a result of this War it is the duty of this country to get trade for itself in connection with the Empire which has in the past been done by our enemies, will think this is a wise and a reasonable proceeding. Those who take the other view—that the moment war is over we should allow everything in regard to trade with Germany to be precisely as before—will think we are wrong. I venture to say that those who hold that view will be in a distinct minority in any assembly of British subjects anywhere throughout the British Empire.
  8.0 P.M.
  I shall not detain the Committee much longer, but I would like to say a word on a subject which is not controversial. The Committee may remember that last year I gave an account of what was happening at that time in the German colonies, and I said that the Cameroons were at the point of coming into the possession of the Allies. That happened very shortly afterwards. But then I would not say anything favourable about the campaign in East Africa. Indeed, we felt that we were in a very weak position there, and that there was danger of some bad news coming—that that was likely quite as much as good news. All that has changed, and the fact that it has changed is important, and I think that the Committee will be pleased to hear it, not merely from the point of view of East Africa, but because the reason we could not deal with it earlier was that we had not the troops to spare, and could not send them from any other field, and that we have now got the troops and that the East African territory with something like 400 miles of coast-line, and an area twice as large as the German Empire, is, I think, on the point of coming under the rule of the Allies. And I think that that is a great thing, and all that I say in connection with it is a word of praise if I may, to the General who is carrying out the campaign. We have had a curious experience in this War—that two of the Generals who have been successful in obtaining victorious results—it does not follow by any
  594
  means that they are the best Generals, for perhaps they had the easiest task—two Generals, one of whom has brought us victory, and the other of whom is on the point of bringing it, were politicians. I do not know whether that proves that politicians make the best soldiers. Possibly there is the other view, that soldiers make the best politician's. General Smuts was a soldier before the War.
  Mr. HAZLETON: They are both Home Rulers, too.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is perfectly true, though not very relevant, but whether Home Rulers or not, they have both done something for which the British Empire as a whole is grateful. While I say that, I need not say that the feeling which we have towards them is a feeling which we extend really to every part of the British Empire. I am not going to say a word—I have spoken often enough about it—as to what has been done by the Canadians, and the Australians, and New Zealanders. I remember that they were accused of want of discipline. I have often heard that, and I have always said, "I know something of the Canadians, though not as much about the others, but wait until you find them in face of the enemy, and you will find that their discipline is all right." They have borne that out in the result. But it is not they alone. There is really not a part of the Empire where men of British race are living where they have not played their part in this great War. Wherever it was possible contingents have been sent, and where that has not been possible, men have come from all the ends of the earth to volunteer in the regiments at home, and are serving in them, and many of them have given up their lives. I think that one of the facts which stand out most prominently in this War, of which the British Empire have most reason to be proud. I know that there are some who say that it is due to the freedom of their institutions, and I am quite willing to admit that—but I say that what will stand out in this War is the wonderful part which has been played, not by the United Kingdom alone, but by every portion of the British Empire.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have suggested that the action which has been taken by some of us was taken on the suggestion of margarine manufacturers, or any other other interest. The action was taken under our sense of duty to our

  595
  country, and to our Constituents. For my own part, I have had no communication with any margarine manufacturer, and that was why I felt that I ought to say that I have had no communication of any kind with them, and that I do not believe that anybody who has taken action similar to mine has had any such communication.
  HON. MEMBERS: Who has?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say anything of the kind
  Mr. MOLTENO: I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not think that any of us have done such a thing. My relations with the right hon. Gentleman have always been of a most pleasant character, and I hope that they may not be changed. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the statement which he has just made about East Africa. He knows that some time ago, when things were very different, I have urged in this House that we should take steps to put our own Colonists in a position of defence, and he acted upon that, and we now see the results which we do see in the success which has been and is being attained. I would like to enforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir George Toulmin) to the right hon. Gentleman not to encourage the suggestion made by a member of the Committee to the effect that we should capture the evil spirit trade which was carried on by the Germans. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that an attempt was made some years ago to cut down that trade. Lord Salisbury said that owing to German influence, the influence of these great distilleries, he regarded this as an impossible thing. Now that we and the French have the whole of West Afrcia, there may be a chance of doing something in that direction instead of extending the use of spirits for the benefit of distillers in this country.
  There is another question on which I would like to have some explanation. That is the suggestion which has been made that a tax should be put upon these West African and other Crown Colonies. I do not know how much may be in it, but I know from a West African paper that a deputation waited upon the Governor and informed him that they had learned from Renter's London Correspondent that they were about to make a
  596
  gift of £6,000,000 to this country. They said that they had no knowledge of this proposal, and they inquired whether there was any intention of accompanying that with a further representation for the inhabitants of the Colonies. I do not know how far that is correct. The proposal is to place £6,000,000 on the funds of Nigeria, £2,400,000 on Jamaica, and £1,000,000 on Ceylon. I would ask whether there is this intention, because it seems to be a dangerous thing to levy a war tribute on our Crown Colonies without their consent?
  Coming to the question of palm kernels, I think we have some cause to complain of the action of the Colonial Office in this matter. Having regard to the immense importance of this question, it seems to me that the Colonial Office was somewhat precipitate in the action which it took. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman must have been very much preoccupied with the affairs of the War and unable to give time to the consideration of what was being done, and therefore accepted rather hastily the recommendations which had been made before the Report of the Committee was made public. Before the Report was published a dispatch was already on its way to West Africa, and in that document which no doubt all hon. Members have before them, they will find embodied the dispatch from the Colonial Secretary adopting the resolution of the Committee and enjoining its immediate operation in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I have considered carefully the Report of the Committee, and see no reason why it should not be adopted forthwith." Then he tells the Governor that it would be necessary to have legislation in the West African Assembly proposed immediately, and he asks to be given an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation in draft form. Finally, he says that he would be glad if the Report is taken into consideration as the legislation necessary to carry it into effect should be drafted as soon as possible.
  In a matter of this great importance there should be some public knowledge of the step intended to be taken by the Colonial Secretary, some opportunity for public opinion to be made aware of what is to be done, not only public opinion here, but in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a very serious step. I beg to differ most strongly from that statement. I consider that this is a

  597
  step of the very gravest character. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is not a new step. I regard it as an absolutely new step. He says that some duty in the Straits Settlement was imposed. As I have already indicated, there is very great doubt about that, and certainly no one was aware in this House of what was being done in the Straits Settlement. It was done wholly behind the backs of this House, without any authority from this House, and what I complain of in this great step is that it has been taken not by this House, not with the approval, knowledge, or sanction of this House, but by the Minister of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not think that this action is going to injure the Colonies or the natives.
  The Under-Secretary has very kindly given me a series of the prices of this product, both in Lagos and in this country. I do not quote all the prices, but I take some representative prices before the War, during the War, and to-day. In the second half of 1913, the year before the War, the price at Lagos in July was £19 6s. 8d. per ton, and in December £19. In Liverpool it was £24 in July, and £24 at the end of the year. Two years later, in 1915, the price at Lagos had fallen to £9 a ton both in July and December, and in Liverpool it had fallen to £15 5s. a ton in July, and it rose again to £19 12s. 6d. in December. On 10th January of this year the price had fallen to £10 at Lagos, while it had risen to £25 3s. 9d. in Liverpool. On 9th June there was a further slight fall to £9 10s. at Lagos, and a fall to £19 15s. in Liverpool. I have a West African paper of the 17th July, and I find that the price has now fallen to £6 15s., a fall almost of 50 per cent, between the June prices this year and the July prices. The hon. Member will recollect the fact that this Report was made known on the 8th June, and it is very difficult to disentangle the facts, for owing to various causes the matter is very complicated; but the already low price of £9 10s. 2d. has fallen in one month to £6 15s.—a fall of 67 per cent.—a very grave and serious fall. We can conceive what must be the effect on West Africa of such a very great fall in prices as that. We know what before the War was the situation of this country. Prices were then constantly rising, and they were extremely good. The exports from that country increased at a very rapid rate as compared with the preceding ten years, but we have now the fall from £19 or £20 at
  598
  Lagos to £6 15s. That must have an enormous effect on palm-kernel cultivation in West Africa. The effect to my mind will be to most seriously cripple the development of West Africa, because you will reduce the number of customers and you will have in consequence a reduction of prices, unless the consumption in this country restores the balance. What will happen under this handicap against West Africa? If I were a West African merchant, and exported to Holland, with this tax of £2 a ton on the palm kernels, the Brazilian rival could afford to undersell the West African merchant in neutral markets by £2 a ton. So with the Congo merchant, and the Congo and Brazil would be developed at the expense of West Africa. The effect, therefore, will be to depress the position of West Africa in the markets of the world and to prevent the development of that Colony. In addition, there are other competing oil-producing fruits, and the result would be that, without the duty on them, they would take the place of palm kernels. I may mention the fact that palm kernels constitute half the whole of the export trade of West Africa, and it would be very serious to hinder the development of that very valuable export. But I need not pursue the details any further.
  I wish to refer to the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said that he desired to state most distinctly that the new policy was not in any way aimed at the interests of neutrals. He added that there seemed to be some apprehension on the part of neutrals that this would be the result of that policy. To-day we learn that it is intended that the palm kernels shall not go to Holland or to Denmark, both neutral countries. Holland is particularly affected, because that country has an enormous margarine trade, for which she uses the oils expressed from palm kernels. The amount of margarine we purchased before 1913 was 1,500,000 tons, 1,400,000 tons of which came from Holland. It is a gigantic trade. It is perfectly clear that Holland cannot contemplate the loss of trade of such enormous value to her without most serious concern, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates taking any steps to secure neutrals in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, or are we to regard that statement as meant for yesterday and not for to-day. I desire to say a word or two as

  599
  to what I believe may be the political consequences to our own Empire of the action we propose to take. I contend that this dispatch is a reversal of the policy that has been consistently pursued towards our Crown Colonies and all our Colonies ever since the loss of the American Colonies. That policy was never to tax the Colonies without employing the taxes for their own good. We always let them deal with their own taxation, and what they did was not at our dictation. But what does this proposal amount to? I have had a long experience of these matters, and I have read great numbers of dispatches dealing with them, but I must say I never knew of any instance in which a dispatch of this character was sent to a British Colony. It is quite true that we once had the experience of taxing exports in West Africa and our Colonies, but that was not done by administration; it was done by Act of Parliament. We were acting on a wrong principle at that time, but even then it was done by Act of Parliament, and not by administrative decree. This was in the time of Charles II., when they put a tax on exports from the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is now taxing exports by administrative decree, whereas if it is to be done at all it ought to be done by this House and not by administrative decree of the Colonial Office.
  Another very grave feature of this dispatch is that no consultation has taken place with the inhabitants on the spot. In all our Colonies there are Legislative Councils, and there are local persons of note who are the link between the Government and the inhabitants of those Colonies for the purpose of communication with the Government here. In this case no consultation has taken place. The dispatch was written here, it was conceived here, and its language is as peremptory as that of any dispatch within my experience The opinions of the Governors of those Colonies are not asked; no attempt has been made to consult with the Governors, the inhabitants, or the Legislative Councils. It is quite true that these ordinances must go before the Legislative Council, but the fact remains that the Government have power to put them through whatever view the Legislative Councils may take of them. In its crudity and in its absoluteness, this dispatch has never been surpassed by any dispatch in regard to any question. I am aware that the right
  600
  hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has been very much occupied on other important matters, and that, therefore, he has not been able to really follow what has been the course of events in this case. Perhaps the Tight hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to sign a dispatch of which he does not quite realise the extremely serious effects. I have some knowledge of our Crown Colonies, and I venture to say that the inhabitants have the greatest devotion and loyalty and love for this country, and that those feelings have been earned rightly and properly by us, because we have always administered those Colonies for the benefit of the inhabitants of those Colonies. We have never before taxed them for our benefit, but only for their own. To such an extent have they appreciated that that to attempt to make the connection between our Crown Colonies and ourselves less direct, the inhabitants have always said, "No; we desire to be directly associated with you, because we know from long experience you have our interests at heart and will safeguard them. We know that you act from the point of view of our benefit, and that that and not your direct benefit is your chief concern."
  The policy which is now suggested has been tried before, not only by ourselves, but by other Powers. Venice tried it in her Colonies in the Mediterranean, and Spain and Portugal tried it. It was tried by ourselves, with most disastrous results, in America. Whenever an attempt has been made to monopolise the trade of a Colony it has had the most disastrous effects upon the interests of that Colony and eventually upon the relations between that Colony and the Mother Country. That has been the universal experience of all Colonial government, no matter in what place it was attempted. We are flying in the face of that experience. Adam Smith went very fully into that, and called commercial restrictions of this kind "impertinent badges of slavery." If this line of policy is pursued, there is no reason why an export duty should not be placed on every product of a Colony, as the same arguments will apply. We shall then have that kind of monopoly which created such bitter resentment and finally lost us our American Colonies. It is, indeed, a Tiery bitter reflection that Lagos, which was ceded to us by its inhabitants for the purpose of facilitating our abolition of the slave trade, and where we succeeded in abolishing the slave trade, is to have this

  601
  duty placed upon it at our dictation, which will tend to make the inhabitants of that Colony commercial serfs, because you get the product of their labour at a lower price than the price of the open market. That will be realised in a very short time in these Colonies. Are we to deny to these people the right of disposing of their produce in the best market, which is a right we claim for ourselves. We do not offer to those people as much as other people do. Why not? If there is any organisation which is inferior, make it equal to that of Germany, and in that way put ourselves in the position to offer a proper price. It is a very strange thing that while in this country we are asked to put on duties to raise prices, in these Colonies we are told to put on duties to depress prices, a difference which will soon be discovered and have very serious consequences.
  If this were a war measure, one could understand it, but it is to last for five years afterwards. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ponder this fact, that our own flesh and blood have never endured this yoke, and if we find it absolutely impossible to ask our own people anywhere to do this at our bidding, how then can we expect persons of other races to accept from us treatment which we would disdainfully reject for ourselves. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that great Empires have been ruined by attempts of this kind. Venice, Spain and Portugal are examples. The evils of monopoly, to any student of them, are absolutely fatal. They always produce discontent. They did in this very West Africa, which was the scene of the most complete monopoly there was ever given to any company, the Royal African Company. The then King Charles II. and his brother James, who afterwards became James II., were both shareholders. They were granted a complete monopoly of West Africa, and it was to last for a thousand years. By Petition of Right that monopoly was cancelled, and it was entirely abolished in 1689. Here are we engaged in a war of freedom, and are we to impose these commercial and economic fetters upon our own subjects? I can conceive of nothing more mad than to destroy the magnificent loyalty, devotion and love which we have seen displayed without exception by all our great Colonies and Possessions. I certainly never passed a more thrilling moment in my life than when I listened to that magnificent list read in this House of the
  602
  offers of service, of aid, of devotion, of loyalty, ranging from India, West Africa, South Africa, and all our Colonial island's and Possessions. What is that loyalty based upon? It is based upon the belief that we have their interests at heart, and that we are not willing to do anything to sacrifice their interests to our interests in our commercial policy. We are constantly told that the rights of small nationalities have been put on an indefeasible foundation as a result of this War. Here are small nationalities, though great in numbers, for the people affeted by this will total some twenty millions of human beings, many in a high state of native civilisation, which are completely in our hands. With what conscience can we invade their rights, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do, and stand out as the defenders of the rights of small nationalities. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ponder that point of view, and not allow into this Empire the seeds of a poison which has worked ruin in other great Empires. We, great as we are, cannot withstand the ruinous effects of actual injustice to those who are unable for the moment to defend themselves.
  Sir J. SIMON: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate as I made a considerable draft on the time of the House yesterday. I intervene only to call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to the effect which he has produced on the minds of, at any rate, some Members of the House, I believe unconsciously and unintentionally, by a reference which he made in his speech a short time back. Those Members who were present will recollect that the Colonial Secretary expressed some surprise that the subject of this export duty on palm kernels should excite so much interest in this House. He told us that he had not expected that there would be so much fuss from such a considerable number of Members, and he went on to tell us that he thought he had found the explanation. My right hon. Friend produced as his explanation something which he told us was a letter. It was written on a somewhat unusual medium; I dare say it was a photograph, and I should infer is a portion of the activities of the Censor's Department. I do not trouble whether that is a convenient or a usual course, but it is perhaps a little unfortunate, if such a letter is to be read, that we should not be told from whom it comes or to whom it goes I can assure my right

  603
  hon. Friend that, however unconsciously he may have given offence, the language which he used most clearly appeared to impute to the considerable number of Members who have taken an interest in this matter this very great offence—the offence, namely, of coming here as Members of this House to argue this subject as a matter of public interest and importance, not because these were their own views which they thought it their duty in the public interest to express, but because they had been put up to it directly or indirectly by some persons who were interested in the margarine trade.
  I have so often had controversy with my right hon. Friend on economic subjects that I should be the first to testify, when he takes part in these controversies he always makes it quite plain that he himself is speaking from a sense of public duty, and that he recognises that same sense of public duty in those who do not agree with him. I should be doing very poor justice if I did not say that he has always shown that courtesy to me, and what he shows to me I am sure he wishes to show to everybody in this House. This is more than a matter of courtesy, because unless it be corrected, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would desire to correct a mistaken impression, a most serious imputation is made against, Members of this House. In the first place, the Committee which dealt with this matter was not unanimous. One of the members sits below me—the Member for one of the Divisions of Islington. Is he supposed to have been put up by the margarine manufacturers? I do not know in the least who the other members of the Committee were or what connection they may have had with this or any other trade. But no one would suggest that my right hon. Friend could have been actuated by any such motive. If he, in making a Minority Report, called attention to the very grave consequences of this decision, it is most regrettable that when it comes to be discussed in public here it should be treated as though the discussion was to be explained in this way. The Colonial Secretary thought he had found the explanation; it was interesting to know how interest in such a subject was created, and he explained it by referring to some anonymous letter. I am sure that cannot have been the intention of my right hon. Friend, who usually speaks without notes,
  604
  and we admire the extraordinary skill with which he pitches on the right word. It would be a most unhappy incident in the history of economic discussion in this country if we fell back into the attitude, not, I believe, entirely unknown in some other countries when political controversy is high, of making imputations of that sort one side against the other. I would, with the greatest respect, ask my right hon. Friend to make it plain that he does not make any such imputation against any hon. Member here, because I am quite sure that, until that is done, we shall not get the Debate back to the level on which we would all desire to maintain discussions in this House.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the feeling aroused by my reading the letter, it never occurred to me for a moment that it would be thought that I intended to imply that hon. Members who were interested in this matter were influenced by any personal or pecuniary motives. Though hon. Members may resent my having read the letter, I should be very sorry indeed if there was any occasion for feeling that, by introducing it, I had caused any such impression as that stated by my right hon. and learned Friend. What was in my mind, and what is well-known to every member of the Committee, is that if anyone is interested in a subject which is a matter of controversy, nothing is easier, without involving any question of money or anything of that kind, than to makes its influence felt. If it gives satisfaction to any hon. Member, I have the greatest pleasure in saying that I should never have read the letter at all had it even occurred to me that there would be a suspicion on the part of anyone that I was imputing anything like corruption either to the Press or to any Member of this House. Since, to my surprise, that view was taken, I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity of making this clear.
  Mr. MACDONALD: May I say a word of personal explanation? As one who interjected, perhaps the most warmly, when the right hon. Gentleman was reading the letter, I wish to say that, to my mind, there was no doubt whatever as to what the implication was. I accept without demur the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman that he had no intention of making any such imputation. I absolutely accept his statement, and banish the matter from my mind. What

  605
  I should like to say is that, unfortunately, that impression was made, not merely by the words which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but the way in which he said them. From the manner in which he produced that letter, the nature of which was perfectly evident to anyone sitting here, it struck us as being something which really, in the interests of the dignity, the high honour, and the sense of colleagueship which binds all parties and all opinions in this House together, was not to be considered to be a very proper thing to have done.
  An HON. MEMBER: Oh!
  Mr. MACDONALD: It is a matter of taste. In addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I have discovered the reason of all this. I have got this letter from this foreign margarine manufacturer, who has some means of getting Members of Parliament to put questions, and so on." All I say is that the whole statement did imply an objectionable source to the whole discussion. So far as I am concerned, I have been interested in the matter for years. It is not a new interest of mine. I did not read this Report. I did not make up my mind to take part in this Debate until late last night. So far as I am concerned, I knew nothing about this matter. I have never heard of it. I never read the paragraph in the newspapers. I have done, in the ordinary sense of public duty, what I have to-day in raising a question upon which the right hon. Gentleman knows very well I disagree from him and his party. I will continue to do so. However, I am very glad to accept absolutely the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WILES: I am very glad that this unfortunate little incident has been cleared up before I come to make the few remarks that I desire to make about this Report. Especially so, because I really thought that I was included in She statement. Now, however, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said so generously and emphatically, there is no more need to think about it. I must say something about the formation of the Committee. I have served on Committees of this House during the ten or eleven years I have been a Member, and when it was suggested that I should become a member of this Committee I thought it would be possibly the same kind of Committee on which I had often served before. I ex-
  606
  pected to find Members of Parliament there, possibly a Government official or two, and a few outside people. When I came to find who my colleagues were, I must say that I felt, and I feel, after what has resulted, that the Committee was not the right Committee to deal with a question of this kind. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was chairman. I should like to say what an excellent chairman he was. I do not think he has ever presided over a Committee of this kind before. He was always courteous, and gave me, in my miserable minority of one, every opportunity of getting what information I required. After I had been on the Committee for a short time, however, I learned the intention of all was to put on duties of this kind.
  To come back to formation of the Committee. I was the only Member of Parliament on it, excepting, of course, the chairman. We must remember what the Committee had to do—it was to give a very important Report on this matter since the War started. We had on it Government officials—the Governor of the Gold Coast, who, unfortunately, gave no opinion on, the matter. I cannot help thinking that, if he had he might possibly have given a different opinion to the rest of the Committee. We had Sir Frederick Lugard. He also was recalled. After that, as the hon. Member for Leicester has pointed out, we had people who were interested in this business. I once heard a story—whether true or not I do not know—relating to three Law Lords. They were going to try an appeal case relating to a Colonial railway. One of the Law Lords, when the case was about to begin, announced that he had some shares in this railway, and inquired of counsel whether there would be an objection to him sitting? The learned counsel replied, "Certainly not." The second Law Lord said that his wife, or another relative, owned a large number of shares in this Colonial railway: would that disentitle him to sit? "Certainly not," replied counsel. The third Law Lord said: "I do not happen to have any shares in this railway; I hope that that will not be an objection to me serving in this Court?" I rather feel in that position. Now that it has been cleared up that I have no interest in foreign margarine manufacture, I feel that I can give my views quite clearly on the Report of the Committee.

  607
  In the Majority Report of the Committee, which begins, I think, on page 23 of the White Paper, we find that it says that "the question at issue is between Germany and the United Kingdom." I differ from that altogether. I say in my Report that I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice any feeling of fiscal principles that I have which it may be necessary to sacrifice in the great settlement of commerce after the War. Yet I would point out that for the moment we do not know what our terms of settlement with Germany will be, or what our position will be to make a settlement. Starting in this way, and putting on this export duty against all countries but the United Kingdom, does not seem to me altogether the matter at issue between Germany and this country. When we speak about the issue with Germany we must remember from this Report that it looks as if palm kernels were the only produce from which edible oil is extracted. We must not forget that copra will always take the place of palm kernels, although not perhaps quite so well, and that can be obtained in large quantities outside the British Empire, although palm kernels are nearly all produced within our own Empire. The next point in the Committee's Report is that ample facilities can be provided in the United Kingdom for crushing the whole of the kernel crop. There is no doubt about that. The manufacturers, I think it appears from their evidence, are quite alive to the fact, and do not want any bounty or assistance to lay down machinery to produce this edible oil and cake. They were doing it before the War broke out. Directly the War did break out they were able to use this with great success, and if they are able to go on doing it, I feel sure, from the evidence, that it is quite unnecessary to help the manufacturers of Great Britain, who will be able to hold their own with any part of the world when the War is over.
  There were three methods mentioned in the Report. The first one that was considered was a Government grant to the industries concerned in the United Kingdom. Personally, I would rather give a direct grant to industry all round, to be paid by everybody, than I would give a grant to be paid by everybody for the benefit of a few manufacturers. The Committee considered the imposition of an import duty on margarine and edible oil.
  608
  That would be a straightforward way of doing it. That would have kept out the German oils, and would have been a clearer way than that proposed, which I think a clumsy and heavy way, and, without using any offensive expression, rather a back-door way of producing the particular effect. One of the dangers which I foresaw was not only trouble with the natives, but that a ring of manufacturers would be easily formed in this country. In fact, I believe since the recommendations of this Report began to be apparent, certain oil mills have already changed hands in this country. I quite see that, with the comparatively small number of oil mills there are in this country, if things of this kind are to come their way so easily for this great benefit of £2 a ton in their favour, it is very likely indeed that a further conference will take place. It has been said by some of my hon. Friends, "But you do not in your recommendations give any solution of the difficulty." I think the Under-Secretary will probably say that I have not given a solution of how to prevent kernels going to Germany. I do not think there is much difficulty about that myself, though I cannot build this golden bridge. It will only be by the gradual way in which British trade has always been built up.
  One of the strong points made was that the majority recommended that the duty should be put on against every other country but Great Britain and her Colonies. I do not think we need consider the Colonies very seriously, because they are producers rather than importers of kernels. But, at a time when we are having all these conferences with our Allies to bind friends together and for the great advantage of the Allies, is it not a most extraordinary thing that a Committee should come forward and propose this tax? I could not quite understand what the Colonial Secretary said, but I think he suggested it might be altered under certain conditions, and I hope my hon. Friend, when he comes to speak, will in some way allay my anxiety about that, because it does seem a most unfriendly thing to do, to slam the door in the face of our Allies, when we are proposing to make trade arrangements with them. France, at the present time, I believe, is the largest manufacturer of edible oil in the world. I think we shall find the edible oil produced in France is

  609
  even greater than that produced by Germany before the War. She has a committee set up considering the question of edible nuts and seeds after the War, and, therefore, I do hope, if my right hon. Friend will not agree to withdraw this Report, that he will withhold the dispatch and keep it back till the end of the War. I hope it is not too late, and then, as far as I am concerned, my opposition to-night will be at an end. I hope further that, if he cannot go to that extent, he will allow our Allies to come into the same benefits which we have from the bounty.
  9.0 P.M.
  I think a matter like this, involving such a great change of far-reaching importance, altering the whole of our international commerce practically, should not be done by a Committee—I will not call it a packed Committee, because I do not like that word, but rather a one-sided and interested Committee. An interested Committee is not the Committee that should be set up to make a change like this. I do not think any action should be taken by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in putting this into force until the Mother Parliament has thoroughly thrashed it out and decided that it is to be her policy. But what about our Colonies? Crown Colonies have not a Parliament of their own and have no representative House—and I do not think it is possible for them to have it—but then, if they have not got that form of government, it is all the more reason why no step should be taken in this extraordinary way without coming to Parliament; and I do think, if we are to deal with all our Colonies, the whole thing should be settled at one time. It is rather unfortunate for people in business to know that matters are so uncertain, and not be able to toll what the future is to be like at all. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the natives, because hon. Members who have spoken before know far more about the condition of natives in that part of the world than I do, but it does not do to tell people who have been in business for a good many years that the elimination of foreign buyers, or buyers from other countries, will make no difference to the natives. It is very often the object of business people to try to eliminate competition. The tendency of great businesses like shipping and manufacturing is to work in conference, and these people in those Colonies who buy the goods will certainly meet together and no doubt fix the
  610
  price which they are going to pay for kernels. Therefore, the native has practically no voice in this matter and one cannot say what his views are. On the Committee we had no native witnesses. I will not say it was possible to get a native witness, but I do not think throughout the long evidence there can be found one witness who can be said fairly to represent the case of the natives.
  I do not think there was anybody there to represent the case of the natives. Hon. Members will agree that it is a very bad position in which those natives are at the present time. I do not want to see a German anywhere again myself or have anything to do with them, but I do not want to eliminate other people for that would be a fatal thing, I think, before we go to a Division, which I hope may be avoided by my hon. Friend making some statement about this question, so that we may feel that the natives are not going to be in the hands of only a few buyers, and without much competition in the sale of their kernels. I believe certain manufacturers have already tried to crush kernels in the Colonies, but difficulties have arisen with labour and running the machinery there, and those difficulties were not got over some time ago. I do not know whether they have been got over now. Having put a duty on the export of the raw material you do not put it on the palm oil, a great amount of which is made by the natives in a rough way. As there is no duty on manufactured articles there is nothing to prevent enterprising British firms putting mills up there after the War and making an article which will be a half manufactured article, and which might be sent to our German enemies. I see nothing unless you frame fresh Regulations to stop this, and when you once begin on this kind of thing the Colonial Office will be very busy, because they will have to have a different net in every Colony, and they will have to have schedules for every article produced. What I have suggested is not an impossible way for an enterprising manufacturer to get out of paying the duty and sending those goods to Germany.
  I am sorry that the hon Member for Chester (Captain Sir Owen Philipps) is not here, but I did think, with his vast knowledge and his great interest in shipping, he would have dealt in some detail with the shipping question. One of the reasons, I think, which will make it worse than ever, if this duty is insisted upon, is

  611
  the position of shipping in West Afrca. Those who read the evidence will find that the hon. Member for Chester represents almost the whole of these interested steamship companies that deal with the traffic from West Africa, and those steamships, in conjunction with the German steamers, brought all the goods to this country to Rotterdam and to Hamburg. Before the War there was no competition as far as we know. There were subtle suggestions that if you went by one German steamer some rebate was given to you. One witness said if you shipped by a German line and wanted a little extra credit at the bank it was possible that a German bank might help you if the goods were sent by German steamer. We had a lot of suggestions at that time about subsidies, but when you are trying to find out these things which happen in a belligerent country it is very different indeed. My view is that not only will the natives have little competition in which to get a better price for their nuts, but after the War it will be no good for a German ship to go there, and I hope they will not go there. We shall find, however, that a monopoly will come into the hands of the steamship companies that serve West Africa at the present time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chester said to-day that they had been very generous and had not put up their freights very much from West Africa. I believe that is perfectly true, but they were very high before the War, and I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) will agree with me when I state that before the War the freights were very high on account of the conference. They have gone up since, but not so much as other freights. We examined the hon. Member for Chester, but we did not not have any other shipowner as a witness. The hon. Member offered to go into the chair and we had the pleasure of examining him, and we discovered the very clever way in which the trade of West Africa had been captured. In chartering a freight the first thing you have to do is to go to one of the shipping companies and agree for a whole year to send all your goods by that line, and if you send one ton by any other competitor during that year the whole of the rebate of 10 per cent., which is not a paltry amount when you are doing a large business, is lost. That means if you start a business in West Africa you cannot charter a steamer to
  612
  bring a cargo of kernels from West Africa except with the monopoly company, because if you do you cannot get your 10 per cent, rebate from the monopoly company. That is a great tax on the Colony The hon. Member for Chester said they would never put up the rates unreasonably, and my reply to that argument is that while there is a chairman like the hon. Member managing the company, of course nothing would be done which is unfair, but you never know what may happen afterwards. That is the position, and is that a proper position for a British Colony to be in? New Zealand has been buying steamers. There they have Home Rule, and manage their own affairs, but the country we are dealing with is in the hands of these monopolists who cannot be got rid of.
  I suggested in my report that where you have an absolute monopoly of steamship companies going to a Colony, and if they are allowed to have that monopoly, their rates should be settled in the same way as the rates of a railway company which has its maximum rates settled by going before the Board of Trade or the Railway Commission. Competition, I think, would be almost impossible after the War but in the case of a monopoly of this kind the rates certainly ought to be regulated by the State in some way. We made careful inquiries into the conditions at the German ports compared with the conditions at the British ports. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the schedule of charges on goods arriving in this country, they will find that every port in England is different, and that nearly all the charges for landing and handling the kernels are far higher than they are at Hamburg, Rotterdam, or any of the Continental ports. That is one reason why kernels went to Germany. I do not know whether the docks there are State or privately owned, but I do know that they are far more up-to-date than the docks in this country, and that their charges are insignificant compared with our charges. If we want to bring business to this country, we must give fair treatment to the natives when they send their goods here. I hope the day is not far distant when in the case of all monopolies—docks, rivers, railways, and so on—the maximum charges will be fixed or regulated by the Board of Trade.
  I admit that my proposed assistance is slow, but I believe that the proposals I make will deal with the question even

  613
  when the War is over, and will bring the kernels to this country. If we can give proper facilities at the hundreds of ports which there are along the West Coast of Africa for dealing with the kernels—proper lighters and smaller vessels to bring them down the rivers, proper harbours, and silos if necessary for loading the steamers—we shall be doing far more to bring the trade to this country than by this old-fashioned, clumsy and unfair way. I therefore hope that we shall hear to-night something definite about what will be done for our Allies, and what will be done to prevent the natives from being greatly damaged. This is a large and useful trade, and we want to bring it to this country, not merely for five years. We do not want to have to consider the question every five years. Colonial Secretaries do not generally last for five years, and, if it is considered every five years, you will certainly have a fresh Colonial Secretary every time, and you do not know what his views may be. It would be very difficult for people to arrange their business. Capital is not attracted by changes in the office of Colonial Secretary. You will be much more likely to get capital into this business if it is known that it is not subject to the whims of political parties or of Colonial Secretaries. If you can only induce the goods to come in the way I suggest, you will be on much safer ground.
  I felt that it was impossible for me to sign a Report like this at the present time. I do not want to tread on this ground too far, but I felt that it was a breaking of the political truce. I felt that a Coalition Government, doing this sort of thing, especially without coming to Parliament, was not quite keeping the political truce. We ought not to be arguing about things of this kind now. Have Committees to consider them, but do not let us argue about things of this kind until we go into conference with our Allies and can settle matters altogether. I feel very strongly about this. I feel that the Colonial Secretary, if he takes action on this Report, will be taking a very serious step. It may be a small amount in the whole of the business of the British Empire, but he will be treading along a path which is very dangerous, and I hope that he will hesitate before he finally takes action.
  Major HUNT: There seems to me to be a very large controversy about nuts. This is my way of looking at it. If a man or
  614
  nation owns a large quantity of nut land, and has to administer it and look after the people—
  Mr. WILES: You can take the kernels where you like.
  Major HUNT: The land belongs to the Empire, does it not; and the people who live on it grow nuts, do they not? If a man or nation owns nut land, and has to look after the people who live on it, and protect them from Germans and other barbarians, it is perfectly right that man or nation should have the first and a better chance of buying the nuts off that land than anybody else. All this controversy merely comes to that, and it seems to me that the Colonial Secretary is perfectly right, and that the principle is perfectly right. I am quite sure that the natives will be very much better off under us, even if there is an export duty, than under the Germans, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen are making such a fuss about it. I want to call attention to another matter. Certain time-expired soldiers, or men whose health, through wounds or otherwise, is not sufficiently good for them to continue in the Army, are going to the Colonies under an impression which appears to have been allowed to grow up by the War Office that positions will be found for them directly they get there. I want to bring a particular case relating to Australia to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, because, as the man himself said, it is a case which in the near future is likely to be multiplied by hundreds unless something is done by the Imperial and the Colonial Governments to put things right. The officials in charge of the Pension Department commuted part of this man's pension to enable him to go to Australia, and what I want to impress on the hon. Gentleman is that, until things are properly settled so that the man can find a home when he gets to a Colony, he should not be allowed to commute his pension merely for passage money, so as to leave him nothing when he gets there.
  This case is the case of ex-Gunner Smith, and might have been a very sad one indeed if he had not been helped by local people. All the local funds in Australia are ear-marked for the assistance of Australian soldiers only, and if it had not been for the Australian Immigration League and their friends, this ex-gunner and his wife and family would have been, undoubtedly, in a state of starvation,

  615
  because the balance of his pension was only 1s. a day. It was paid quarterly, so that when he had spent the £55 given him he had nothing at all to live on. It is really the want of ordinary business arrangements, and the co-operation of the Government, that caused this man to arrive in Australia without any means of providing for himself or his family at all. It caused great consternation in Australia, and this is particularly unfortunate, because Australia is the country whose very existence as part of the Empire depends on immigration, of getting man-power. This man, J. Smith, was thirty-nine years of age, and his wife was about the same. They had five children, smallish girls, from eleven to two years old, and they arrived in Australia on the 8th May. The man had been in the Royal Artillery seven years, and he was invalided. This is the point to which I direct attention: He read the statements in the newspapers to the effect that the Australian Government were providing small farms and equipment for ex-Service men. The War Office appear to have taken these statements in the newspapers for granted, and allowed the man to have £55 down, instead of 3d. a day. When he arrived in Australia the friend who had got him out there could not provide for him. The only thing he got him was a cottage at 16s. a week. Luckily the case was brought to the notice of the Australian Immigration Society, and he was eventually provided for. If, however, it had not been for them—and there was no reason why he should have found them; that was good luck rather than good management—it would have been a very serious case, and the man might have starved. Smith's opinion is that unless the true position of affairs regarding the settlement of ex-Service men on the land in Australia is made public, there will be many other cases of the same sort arising in Australia. He was highly recommended to the British Immigration League by the Naval and Military League of London, and he was just the sort of man that Australia wanted. He wanted to get on to the land, and did not want to stay in the town; but there was nowhere for him to go, although that was eventually provided for by the Immigration League. It appears that if these ex-Service men are to be a success in our Colonies there must be a sum provided for them by the Imperial Government to take them over during the first few weeks they are
  616
  there. The hon. Gentleman looks rather bored. I dare say I am boring him, but the matter—
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think I was discourteous. To tell the truth, I am not in the least bored, but a little hungry.
  Major HUNT: I have had some dinner, so it is not quite fair; but I will be as quick as ever I can.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, no!
  HON. MEMBERS: Go on!
  Major HUNT: I am going on all right. The War Office and the medical men examined this man to see what his life value was worth, took it for granted that the newspaper statements were correct, and the money was advanced to him on that understanding. It took nearly all this money which the War Office advanced to him to get him to Australia. Sir Rider Haggard, I think, has just come back from Australia. He was given splendid offers by all the Australian Governments, and what is wanted is financial assistance from the Imperial Government to provide and equip with the necessaries of life British soldiers and sailors and their families just for a brief period. In cabling to Lord Grey the British Immigration League suggests that they should confer with, I think it is, Mr. Hughes, and secure his co-operation. They also said:
  "We warmly endorse the Report, of the Ontario Commission."
  It does not seem to me that it is quite clear that the Home Government and the Colonial Government should get together, and get out some scheme for immigration within the Empire, whether to Canada or to Australia. I think the Report of the Commission which was appointed by the Ontario Government to consider the problem of the employment of ex-Service men is really very well worth the consideration of the Government. It is this:
  "To discharge the Empire's obligation to these men, and in order to obviate what may prove a grave economic and social crisis, the Commissioners suggest that for the general purpose of inter-imperial immigration and land settlement the United Kingdom and the Dominions should review it as a single whole. It should be possible effectively to unite the Imperial and Dominion Governments in a policy which will keep immigration more and more within the Empire, cheek the drain of population to foreign countries, and so conserve British manhood for the development of British territories, and for the support and defence

  617
  of British institutions against future contingencies. Finally, the Commissioners recommend that an Imperial Immigration Board be organised in London representing the British Government, the Governments of the Dominions, and such Provinces and States as desire to be represented—the cost to be borne jointly by all the Governments concerned—and with a Board to be responsible for the distribution of information regarding opportunities in the Dominions, labour conditions, and the cost of transport."
  I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is well worth his consideration, and that it is quite time he was up and moving in regard to it. It will not do for him to be too late, because he will not be able to do everything at the end of the War. There is one other thing I should like to bring before the Colonial Office. It was told to me by a man who came over with me from Canada in 1912. When a large number of Australian soldiers arrived in this country they were sent to a certain camp, but no bedding or food was provided for them when they arrived. This man's own son was one of the men who came over. The excuse of the authorities always was that the men were not expected. The right hon. Gentleman might look into that, which is a thing that should not be. The men should, at all events, be provided with decent bedding and food when they reach here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the War Office upon the subject and arrange that it does not happen again.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I recognise to the full the very important question of international trade policy which has mainly been considered by the Committee up to the present moment, but I should like to go back to Ceylon for the purpose of referring to a question in which I have for a long time taken considerable interest, namely, that of the Excise system there and the result of that system upon the people. Everyone in the Committee will agree that under present war conditions it is impossible for the Colonial Office or any public Department to supervise these things quite in the same way as they would in normal circumstances. We all know the absorption, not only of the Department, but of the whole country in the War, and how impossible it is to give that attention to details in all parts of the world which it is necessary should be done under normal conditions. I desire to make it quite plain that the present Colonial Secretary was not responsible for the Office when the new Excise system was instituted a few years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has always shown me,
  618
  when I have made representations to him on this point and on other matters, every courtesy, and has been ready to inquire as quickly and effectively as possible into the points with reference to which I made representations to him. Ever since this new Excise system was established in Ceylon there has been created between all sections of the people of the island—Buddhists, Tamils, Europeans—and the Government an antagonism which I cannot help thinking has had very prejudicial results. The main effect of the new Excise system in regard to the liquor traffic was that it established rather more than one thousand additional toddy shops. When that was done opposition arose against the Excise policy of the Government. It was particularly manifested by the Buddhist community, which represents rather more than two-thirds of the population of the island. All Buddhists are by religion and immemorial tradition required to take the pledge of total abstinence.
  The practical question I should like to ask is, What has been the result of the new system? Has it tended to reduce or to increases the consumption of intoxicating liquor on the island? Upon this point it is rather difficult to obtain a clear view from the official figures. There are two facts I would wish to place before the Committee in regard to statistics. During the five years prior to the coming into operation of the new Excise system the average consumption of arrack in the island was just over 1,000,000 gallons. During the four years after the coming into operation of the new system the consumption of arrack, on an average, has been 1,400,000 gallons. The effects of this Excise policy upon events in the island have been unfortunate and deplorable. Reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) to the steps taken by the Government in the first place with regard to the village headmen, by prohibiting them from taking any part in temperance work. Anybody who knows the conditions in Ceylon knows how influential these men are. That Order was withdrawn, owing to representations made in this country on the point, but the effect of the Order and the fear which was created in the minds of the people by it have not been forgotten. It remains to-day a factor in the situation. There is another point in relation to the Excise policy to which I should like to

  619
  refer. It is a recent event. A rule or order has been passed recently which makes it plain that owners or managers of schools or schoolmasters, if their action is considered to be action against the Government, render themselves liable to lose all the school Grants, and the impression which has been created in the island by that rule is that it is not safe for any schoolmaster in Ceylon to take any part in temperance work or to be a member of a temperance society. I think that is a serious result of the policy of the Government. I could give facts showing that instances have already occurred of resignations having been received by schoolmasters in consequence of these orders. I do not wish to over emphasise this point, but I feel that it is an important one. There is a deeply-rooted conviction in Ceylon to-day that all persons who are active temperance workers are regarded by the officials as being hostile to the Government, and are looked upon with suspicion and distrust. I cannot help thinking that to convey that impression must be bad for the Government and for the island as a whole. It is a bad thing that the impression should get abroad that people by taking part, as I believe they do, upon constitutional lines and in a peaceful way should be liable to suspicion and to the penalty of State interference, and, holding those views very strongly, I would again urge upon my right hon. Friend the desirability that some public declaration should be made in Ceylon which will put these points beyond the possibility of doubt in the public mind.
  There is one more suggestion I should like to make of a general character. We all recognise the immense changes which are taking place and which will take place in regard not only to every department of our home life, but every branch of our Imperial life, and I think it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would consider this suggestion: Cannot the House of Commons in some way help the Government in formulating the policy of the future in regard to our Colonial Empire? Would it not be possible for, say, a certain number of Members of this House, a small Committee drawn from all parties, to be appointed for the purpose of making suggestions to the Colonial Office as to certain very important administrative questions which will have to be settled in the near future, and which strike at the root of real and permanent
  620
  success in our Colonial Government. I hope my right hon. Friend, in regard to this question of the drink traffic in Ceylon, will give me some assurance that at the end of the War there will be a fresh and independent inquiry into the whole question.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I wish to refer in the first place to the incident which took place just now. I am glad the Colonial Secretary withdrew what looked like an insinuation against his fellow Members, but this statement of his, and the production of the letter by a foreign manufacturer to a Member of this House without the name of the Member being specified, will throw suspicion upon every person who takes any opposition whatever to the proposals in the Report of the Colonial Secretary. We cannot get away from that, and therefore I find it necessary to say that that letter was not addressed to me and I know nothing at all about it. In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's justification of the policy lie has adopted, and its effects, it seems to me that the policy is aimed at enabling British manufacturers to escape reasonable competition. But I am much more interested in the question raised by my hon. Friend (Sir H. Roberts). I do not want to deal with the question of the Ceylon riots generally, but only with one aspect of it. In the course of this Report certain statements are made by the then Governor to which I want to make reference. The religious convictions of the mass of the population of Ceylon are strongly against the use of alcohol in any form whatever. The Buddhists and the Mahomedans are both against it. Also under the new system which has been referred to toddy shops have been opened against the wishes of the local people in many villages in different parts of the island. The introduction of drink where it was not before, and the forcing of the sale of drink upon people who do not want it have led to a good deal of agitation and to the organisation of strong bodies of local temperance opinion into effective temperance societies. These societies were formerly largely organised by the headmen, who at one time were prohibited from taking part in temperance, though afterwards the prohibition was removed. Until recently there has been a great demand by those interested in the education of the country. It is perfectly natural that men who are interested in education would be amongst the most intelligent of the population. It is most

  621
  likely to see the evils resulting from the use of intoxicants, and to see the moral wrong done by its use against the religious convictions of the people amongst whom the traffic is carried on, and they have been the effective centres around whom local temperance sentiment has gathered. In 1915 an alteration in the education code created an impression that schoolmasters who took part in temperance work would be debarred from receiving the usual Government grant. The result of that has been that a large number of schoolmasters and owners and managers of schools, which depended more or less on Government grants, have felt compelled to resign from their positions and that the temperance movement, which, remember, originated as a religious movement amongst the Buddhists themselves for self-protection against what they regarded as the Government forcing upon their people a temptation from which they had before been free, have felt compelled to withdraw from that work. The result has been the closing down of a large number of these local temperance societies, the reduction of temperance work, an increase in the consumption of alcohol, and an increase in the income derived by the Government from the sale of permits to sell alcohol. In connection with these riots, I see that the Governor makes the statement that—
  "The ground (for these riots) has been prepared for animosity against Mahomedans by articles printed in vernacular newspapers, and by oral exhortations at meetings of village societies, which, though originally formed to promote temperance, have long since been extended to other purposes."
  That is a direct suggestion that the temperance people of Ceylon have been disloyal and seditious, that they are at the bottom of these troubles, and that the temperance societies are societies not honestly engaged in the social and religious upliftment of their fellows, but are engaged in political propaganda of a disloyal character, directed to upset the English Government. These men are amongst the most high-minded men in the population, and they resent this suggestion and call for proof of it. The Colonial Secretary has again and again been asked for proof, but not one shred of proof has ever been produced. Beyond this assertion of the Governor they have produced only one item of proof that the temperance organisations are assisting in any way with this kind of propaganda. That item is this statement:
  "As all instance—"
  622
  the only instance given—
  "of what temperance occasionally means in this country, I might quote the case of a temperance orator and Buddhist preacher, who was arrested while inciting the mob to wreck the Moorish boutiques in Kurmogala, and who pleaded in excuse that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing."
  That is the only association of the temperance societies with this movement. It was thought desirable that certain leaders of the temperance movement should be brought into this matter, and when the riots took place a number of the leaders were arrested. Some are in this country to-day. About one of them a question was put in this House not many days ago—he is a gentleman named Mr. Jayatiloka. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said:
  "Mr. Jayatiloka was arrested on the 21st June, 1915, by order of the general officer commanding the troops as a result of evidence disclosing seditious speeches and writings."—
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "I see no ground for reparation or for further explanation in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1916, col. 686, Vol. LXXXIV]
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. Jayatiloka is a man of undoubted respectability, with a large circle of friends amongst the most intelligent natives of Ceylon. He is a practising barrister before the Courts of Ceylon, and has been for many years an eloquent exponent of temperance and loader in the temperance movement in Ceylon. He was arrested and kept in prison for many days, if not for many weeks. He was asked to give a bond and lodge a sum of money as security, which he refused to do, but his friends lodged the amount, and I believe he gave the bond to be of good behaviour for a certain length of time, and he was thereupon released, without any charge having been made against him. He is under suspicion of being a seditious person. He lives under that suspicion, and he resents it strongly. He has appealed again and again to the right hon. Gentleman to allow some charge to be formulated, to allow his case to come before the Courts, and to produce some evidence of his guilt. The question regarding him was put by the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell), who was suspended from the service of this House the other day, and that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "as a result of evidence disclosing seditious speeches and writings." That is either true or it is false. If it is true, the evidence can be produced. If it

  623
  is false, it is a slander, and this gentleman, who is only one of a number—and I am only mentioning him because he is one of a number—has again and again appealed to have justice done to him, and that his character should be vindicated in public before his own fellow citizens, so that, at any rate, they may know that he is not the kind of person described in this House by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the interests of justice, and in the interests of our reputation as a governing Power, bound by responsibilities to these people, not only to do justice to them, but to give them the impression that they can rely upon our justice and upon the justice of this House, this gentleman, and a number of others who have suffered like him, ought to be brought before the local Courts, tried and condemned if guilty, or, if not, the matter should be made perfectly clear that no stain whatever attaches to their character.
  There is a further matter. I want to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he cannot do more than has been done to make it clear that the impression which exists among this Ceylon population that the financial interests of this country and the interests of the Revenue Officers are against the temperance movement, may be removed by a clear declaration that it shall not be regarded as sedition or as political opposition to the Government for these men to organise, owing to their convictions, for the purpose of inducing their people to be true to their religious faith and to fight the great evil of alcohol which is growing amongst them. I ask that the impression that we as a Government are against that should be removed. During the last year there has been not only a largo increase in the sales of alcohol amongst this population, pledged to total abstinence by their religious faith, but there has been a large increase in the revenue from it. Out of a total revenue of £520,510 received all over the island, £70,000 represents the increase last year, and that increase has taken place in every single area except one, and that area is the Nogombo district, which, I understand, is quite near to Colombo. It is an area in which a number of these imprisoned gentlemen live, and where they have been able, in spite of all discouragement, to maintain a temperance propaganda. Everywhere else the temper-
  624
  ance propaganda has been damaged by this unfortunate impression created by the Act of the Government in altering the education code. Where you have gentlemen sufficiently strong and capable to continue their temperance propaganda, they have defeated what looks like, but what is not, the aim of the Government to push the sales of liquor in the interests of the revenue. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to remove that most unfortunate impression, which associates the English Government in the minds of the local population of Ceylon with the drink trade, and causes the Government to be regarded as the enemies of the religious convictions of the people of Ceylon.
  Mr. BIGLAND: There has been moved to-night a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and there has been a good deal of what I might call carping at the Colonial Office. If there has been one Department of the British Government that I think deserves the very highest praise from this House, it is the Colonial Department of the present Government. I have had a great deal to do with it during the last six months, and I wish to testify to the magnificent work done, not only by the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary, but by the permanent staff in the Colonial Office. It may be news to the Members of this House that by the foresight of the permanent officials in that Department this War, and the means of carrying on the War, have been most materially advanced. Very few Members of this House know that, in the preparation of cordite, glycerine is the essential article required, and owing to the foresight of our Colonial Office when the whalers transferred their trade from the Arctic to the Antarctic we were enabled, as the guardians of the British Empire, to control the whole of that trade by giving out the licences. When the War broke out the Colonial Office went a stage further. They had the foresight to see that if we supplied the whalers with coal and other necessities of their business, it was only fair to attach to the licences the condition that the product of their catch must be sold in the United Kingdom. The result has been that during this year we have received in this country 600,000 barrels of whale oil, one-tenth of which is glycerine, that is, 60,000 barrels of glycerine brought into this country, enabling us to produce

  625
  cordite at an exceedingly reasonable price, and this altogether owing to the foresight of the members of our Colonial Office staff. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Davies and Mr. Darnley, the two gentlemen who are at the head of that Department, deserve our warmest thanks, and I trust that in the days to come they will receive some honour, because it is true that it is one of the greatest assets of our permanent staff that they have the foresight to lay down the lines of policy in such a way that years afterwards good will come of what they have done.
  The action that has been talked about so much to-day is on the same lines. The policy propounded to-day on which there has been so much discussion, to my mind, is absolutely certain to bring good results to our Empire in the days to come, and I fail to understand the Gentlemen who have spoken so violently against the Colonial Office and the Committee who proposed this duty on palm kernels on the West Coast of Africa. I can only conceive that this attitude of mind is one of these virtues that are almost gone mad. We have in our own country men who believe so intensely in humanity and in what they are called on to do for the sake of humanity that they forget entirely their duties to their own people. It is almost a disease among some of our Friends in this House. Their humanity has become morbid until they have not a just sense of where humanity begins. Humanity, in the minds of a great many of our Friends, seems to begin altogether outside of their own country. They never think for our own people. They are always thinking of some other people. But there are times when we, as Englishmen, have got to think for the people of our country and not for the upholding' of our enemy.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, referring to the enemy business in palm kernel oil, said that we should follow the policy of buying machinery and having chemical research work, and doing the other things by which Germany has built up its trade. I will tell him how Germany built up its trade. Thirty years ago in Liverpool, where we had a good start with this trade, Germany said, "We will not take your palm kernel oil. We will put a duty of £6 per ton on it." And that is how they built up their trade. No one could send the manufactured oil to Germany. They imported their kernels to Germany with-
  626
  out duty, but we were charged £6 a ton on the manufactured article, while Hamburg sent its oil to Liverpool free of duty. This enabled them to charge £2 per ton more for the oil which they sold in Germany than they charged for that which they sent back to Liverpool, which was £2 under cost. The result was that the Liverpool crusher was ruined. Our Friend says, "Why not follow the policy of German?" If we did we should do exactly the same thing in another way which the Secretary of the Colonies is doing to-night. If we put a duty of £6 a ton on the manufactured oil and imported the nuts free of duty, and in addition put a duty of 1½d. per 1b. on the manufactured margarine, which is the outcome of the palm kernel oil, then you would have exactly the same thing—the industry centred in this country. It is a matter of indifference to me whether the industry is centred in this country. By an export duty on the kernels, rebated to ourselves, and, as the Secretary of the Colonies said, to our Allies, or by the other more roundabout means of putting the duty on the manufactured oil and the manufactured products of the manufactured oil. It is a matter of indifference as long as we get the trade.
  The Member for Leicester said that this was not one of the key industries. I want to tell the Committee that it is. This extraordinary trade that has developed in my business life in forty years is becoming one of the key industries of this country, and I will explain why in a few words. As has been stated over and over again, this palm kernel oil is the basis, or one of the bases, of the manufacture of margarine. Margarine, owing to the fact that butter is and must be comparatively scarce for the number of people who want it, has an enormous future before it. I am told by experts that before this year is out we shall see the wholesale price of butter £190 per ton. This article can be made at a profit at £60, or at all events, £65 a ton. The position is simply this: The whole trade begins in that raw article, from which arises an enormous trade in the manufacture of margarine. And we shall have what they have in Hamburg to-day, a centre of trade for export to all parts of the world of this particular oil that is becoming a necessity of the human life in almost every nation, instead of having the raw British product being sent to the enemy for manufacture and then sent back to the different

  627
  Dominions. Here we have Hamburg sending palm kernel oil to Canada in great quantities. This proposed change by the Colonial Office, I say as an expert in business, will bring the trade to this country.
  It will not cost in the manufacture of margarine any more whether your kernels are crushed here or crushed in Germany. The price of the food of the people will be just the same, but the amount of work and industry developed in this country will be immense. It has been said by Members on the other side who know nothing of what they are talking about, because they have never been in business, that if this duty is put on we cut off the trade from the native seller. We shall not. The people in Germany know this article and love it, and they are going to have all they require for their own home consumption. But this measure will prevent them taking the export trade from us. The £2 a ton is a bagatelle in the cost of the margarine that will be made. It is often merely the market fluctuation of a week. But the £2 a ton will kill them except in the buying of what their own people want to consume in Germany itself, and it will enable us to compete with them in the export trade in this article. That is what we as a nation are here for—to manufacture the products of our own Empire, and to send the goods all over the world. We are going to do this thing, and do it heartily. I trust that no Member of the House will vote against this proposal. If he does, it means that he has not any grasp of the situation as it is at present. This is a measure of war, a measure to strengthen the decision which we arrived at last night, that we are going to conserve the raw products of the countries that are allied together in this great fight, in order to assist one another as Allies in such a way that we shall punish the enemy. I am not afraid to use the words "punish the enemy" in trade and commerce. I am convinced that the feeling of this country is that whatever reasonable and legal kind of business can be carried through, we are going to carry it through. We are going to prevent Germany from rebuilding her stolen trade, for it was stolen trade, not trade obtained in natural competition with a Free Trade country-like ours, but trade stolen through clever artifices and tricks. I, for one, am going to fight, and if any hon. Members can stand up after the War in the same spirit as they did in regard to Germany before
  628
  the War, I say the feeling of this House and the country will down them, so that never again will they disgrace this House of Commons by being sent back to sit on these benches.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I propose to deal with some of the subjects that have been raised, though not at any greater length than necessary, and, with one exception, I have nothing whatever to complain of in the spirit with which hon. Members approached the question of Ceylon or the question of the Palm Kernel Duty. In regard to Ceylon, my right hon. Friend, in his speech, covered all the points, save one with which I now propose to deal. The hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor) brought up the question of the general attitude of the Government towards temperance and temperance societies in Ceylon. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no wish on the part of the Government in Ceylon to do anything whatsoever except to further the cause of temperance. The hon. Member quoted what was rather an amusing instance of on? particular temperance orator.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not call him a temperance orator.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate, the hon. Member will agree that the proof in these matters does not rest on the single assertion that the temperance societies were not true to their name. In regard to this question of temperance, I propose to quote the answer of the Governor, given in the Ceylon Legislative Council, with regard to the temperance movement. The Governor said:
  "I will answer hon. Member's first two questions together. The Clause in the Code is not meant to apply to temperance societies acting in a constitutional manner, and will not be applied to them. It would, however, apply to cases where, as has happened in the past, so-called temperance societies have endeavoured to spread their views by wholly illegitimate means, including intimidation and boycotting, or have used their organisation, not for temperance purposes, but for the purpose of a general political agitation against the Government. As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member's first two questions, the Government have no desire to restrict he activities of genuine temperance societies which confine themselves to propagating their views by constitutional methods. The Government has no reason to believe that any of its officers would be likely to take any action in opposition to this policy, and would not approve any such action."
  That was the statement in public in the Legislative Council before all the members of the Legislative Council.
  Mr. CHANCELLORmade some observations which were inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the first place, may I say that being the open and public statement of the Governor, I think the hon. Member probably went further than he himself meant to go by saying, if his words reached me right, that the Government was forcing the sale of drink on these who did not want it. The question of the arrack shops is an old one. By means of having different shops for the sale of arrack and toddy the object, instead of encouraging drink, was the reverse, and was to prevent these who frequented toddy taverns being in the neighbourhood, so to speak, of arrack and taking to its use. As regards temperance societies, I wish to quote two instances of their political use. They happen to my hand, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is not based on one such statement as that which he has quoted. In the first place, you get the statement made in public at the Convention of the Temperance Societies.
  "It is becoming evident that our temperance convention will in the near future become our national convention, and we should all work with that object in view."
  If the hon. Member will read that in connection with the general movement in Ceylon he will see that it is a demand for political action on the part of these temperance societies. That is the whole tendency up to the time of the rebellion last year. Let me also quote from an article in one of the local papers. In the article the Buddhists are told of the trouble experienced at the hands of the Moors, and it is stated that the time has corns for taking speedy measures to stop this sort of thing. It proceeds to say that exertion should be made by the noble altruistic men who go from the Central Temperance Union to make public speeches in the country districts. All the members of the temperance societies should awaken the public to a sense of this, and that if action is taken on these lines a good lesson can be taught to the Moors. That paper is edited by one of the principal speakers at the meetings of these societies. these instances could be multiplied, and they quite definitely show that teaching of that kind, quite possibly against the immediate wish of the people who allowed it, led to that spirit which was at the bottom of the rebellion which caused such damage and injury last year.
  Mr. MORRELL: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to call it a rebellion?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: If not a rebellion in the strict sense of the word, it was quite certainly a revolt, in the sense that it was a complete disregard of ordinary lawful authority, accompanied by loss of life and by very considerable material damage, and that in defiance of all the ordinary laws of government. I do not know whether the hon. Member really means to describe as a religious "squabble" a movement which caused a very large loss of property and the loss of a considerable number of lives. I should call it by a very different name. Such at least has been the effect of mistaken tendencies in the temperance associations. But so far as these tendencies are put a stop to, let me reassure hon. Members perfectly definitely that there is no ill-will whatsoever against the temperance side of their work. If they will keep to their temperance work, there is every wish to encourage and not to hurt their operations.
  I pass now to the subject which has been dealt with at greater length—the report of the Palm Kernel Committee. Exception has been taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wiles), who was a member of the Committee, to its composition, and I think the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) said it was a packed Committee. That, I think, may cause hon. Members to come to a very untrue estimate of what the composition of the Committee really was. May I refer to the actual composition of the Committee? It consisted, in the first place, of three representatives chosen by the Chambers of Commerce, who asked for an examination to be made into the subject. It was composed, in the second place, of three public officials—representatives of the Colonial Office, of the Board of Trade, and of the Board of Agriculture—who, so far as I know, had absolutely no political and no economic bias of any sort or kind. We had on the Committee two Colonial Governors, the Governor-General of Nigeria and the Governor of the Gold Coast. The Governor-General of Nigeria quite explicitly expressed his approval of the proposal, and, if I may say so to my hon. Friend, because I know that he and I both wish to be fair to the point of view of the other, the Governor-General of Nigeria, whose sympathy for the natives is well known to every Member of the House, was really quite as good a representative of the native point of view as any individual

  631
  native could have been who could have been brought before the Committee as a witness. In addition to these members, we had the director of the Imperial Institute. No one in this Committee would challenge the propriety of his being a member. We had one banker—the general manager of the Bank of British West Africa. I have not the least idea what his political views were. There were three other members. I asked the Liberal Chief Whip that a Liberal Member of Parliament might be placed upon the Committee so that no one should think it unfair because I was a Unionist Member, and there was no Liberal Member, so to speak, to counterbalance me. There were only two other members of the Committee, one who knew the business excellently from the point of view of the makers of margarine, and the other a manufacturer of soap. Sir George Watson, the margarine manufacturer, was a Liberal, and the representative of the soap makers was a member of the firm of Sir William Lever. If the Committee had been biassed in any way it would have been biassed against the political party which I represent. If anyone will consider its composition—
  Mr. WILES: May I interrupt? I never suggested that it was political bias at all. What I suggested was that this interest to go into this matter consisted of people many of whom were interested in this particular trade.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid I misunderstood my hon. Friend. It was the hon. Member for Bury, perhaps, in a moment of temporary irritation, who called it a packed Committee. That, certainly, was to my mind a perfectly clear indication of what I gathered from his interruption. After that I want to deal perfectly frankly, and as temperately as I can, with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who took very great exception to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. Even after the explanation had been made that no imputation on his character was intended, he said that, as a matter of taste, he regretted that any such course had been followed. I would preface my subsequent remarks by appreciating the way in which the subject, on which there has been a great difference of opinion, has been treated by others. But may I say, in regard to the hon. Member for
  632
  Leicester, that I think the innuendoes and imputations contained in his speech were as offensive as the imputations which were contained in the speech, or which he thought were contained in the speech, of my right hon. Friend, though with this difference that they largely concerned people who are not present. At the same time, the statements on which he founded his observations are really devoid of foundation.
  The. hon. Member accused the traders of neglect and inefficiency. He accused the members of the Committee of ignorance—of ignorance even of what an export duty was. He accused us of ignorance of what had happened and what had been done in regard to tin in the Malay Federated States. He was wrong as regards the Malay Federated States. In respect to export duty, though perhaps it is hardly worth arguing with him, I venture to think that the statement that the whole Committee did not even understand what an export duty really was is not an argument which will convince any body of reasonable men. As regards the fact that this is not a key industry? How to define a key industry may be; rather a difficult matter, but at the same time may I just ask these friends of mine, who are dubious about the key industry, to consider at the present time the position of Germany in regard to oils and fats? If there is one item in the blockade which they are feeling most acutely it is the lack of oils and fats. The hon. Member has accused us of lack of care on behalf of the natives. I can bear that accusation perfectly easily, because I have as great a solicitude for the natives as has the hon. Member for Leicester As regards others an indication of the presence or absence of such are seen from the letters sent by native chiefs, quite spontaneously, to the Governor-General of Nigeria, and forwarded to the Colonial Office. Neither the letters nor the gifts accompanying them were prompted, but were absolutely spontaneous, unsought, and unsolicited.
  Mr. R. MACDONALD: Was it because of the proposed Export Duty?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member's remark, if I may say so, is wholly inapposite. The hon. Member has accused all these on the Committee, except my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, of a lack of care for the natives, and I would ask the rest of the Committee

  633
  is it possible that the man under whose rule you get all these spontaneous gifts is a man who is likely to have a lack of care for the natives? Lastly, we are told that the men who are engaged in commerce have stripped themselves of, I think it was, every rag of decency. At any rate, the word "decency" was used. And, finally, there was an imputation on my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Captain Sir O. Philipps). Let me say quite candidly I resent the imputation on him made by the Member for Leicester, and can say so more freely than can my hon. Friend himself. I know perfectly well that freights from West Africa to this country are a little over £2 a ton, but if that steamship company did not convey goods at £2 a ton and anyone went into the open market to charter vessels, he would have to pay £6 a ton or more. Under the circumstances, I think the only thing the hon. Member can do is either to substantiate his own charges or else to apologise for them frankly. With regard to one or two of the other points that were raised, we were told again by the hon. Member that this action had been taken at the bidding of the merchants and the crushers, and his argument was that it was taken to benefit their interests. Does the hon. Member, who has studied this trade for so many years, realise that it makes not a hap'orth of difference to a merchant whether he imports the goods to Liverpool or Hamburg? And yet we are told it is in the interests of the merchant as well as of the crusher that it is being brought to this country. That kind of knowledge of the subject robs his criticism of any value whatsoever, and I would only say, without dealing with all the statements one after the other—I do not wish to do the hon. Member really an injustice, but I should very much doubt whether he could really tell me he had read the evidence on which the Committee based its recommendations.
  Mr. MACDONALD: I have read the published evidence.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member has read that. I am almost amazed after that that he could have made such a statement with regard to merchants.
  I now come to the question itself and to some of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Wiles), and some other critics during the Debate. What was the real state of
  634
  affairs when this Committee was started? Before the War these palm kernels went almost exclusively to Germany. France and Holland have been mentioned almost as though they were on the same level as Germany. The average importations into France before the War were something like 3,000 tons a year, or about one-third of 1 per cent, of the kernel importation of oil seeds and oil nuts. The importation into Holland was something like 4,000 tons, as distinct from 240,000 tons into Germany. The whole importation of France and Holland combined was an absolute bagatelle as compared with the importation into Germany. What happened was that these oil nuts went right through to the big German mills, where they were crushed. Being crushed through, the oil was then exported into Holland and other places where it was manufactured into margarine and then exported into this country. We went into all the evidence carefully, and in addition to the printed evidence I went right through the trade interviewing many people, and we came to a conclusion which was perfectly inevitable, namely, that this was a kind of trade in which once given a start we could manufacture just as cheaply and efficiently as ever the Germans could do. What was equally clear was that some sort of a start had to be given. In modern conditions and modern industries you may have two countries whose natural aptitude and advantages are almost precisely the same, but the fact that an industry has got a start is in itself a reason why it should continue in that particular place and why it does not take root elsewhere. Not only had this crushing industry with a particular kind of machinery got a start in the large German mills but there was a second kind of industry which also got a start, which is the habituation of the farmers to the use of the oilcake which is the other product of the kernel besides the oil. What has been recognised by experience in this country—and I think any agricultural Member will bear me out—is that a country will not take to a new kind of foodstuff quickly. It is only gradually that farmers will get accustomed to it. It took a very considerable time before the country got accustomed to cotton cake, quite apart from its value, and in the same way that until it has got accustomed to them it will not take some kinds of cake, so also it will attach to others a value beyond their

  635
  intrinsic worth. When you take these twin difficulties, both centering round a single point, it is quite clear that unless this country could really be given a start it could not take full advantage of its natural aptitude. The conditions of the War gave the country, for the moment, the start. When the War broke out the kernels could no longer go to Germany. They came here. They were crushed here, in many respects uneconomically to start with because the old American presses in this country are not suitable for crushing palm kernels, and would be beaten in competition. There was every tendency on the part of manufacturers to put up fresh machinery here. The hon. Member for Bury (Sir. G. Toulmin) talked about bringing in science in the person of Professor Wood, of Cambridge. It was I who, in order not to neglect either science or ordinary good organisation, asked for the help of Professor Wood. It was quite clear that manufacturers throughout the country were just considering whether they could go to the extent of putting up a large amount of fresh capital for the new machinery. They were just swaying to and fro. Similarly, it was also clear that farmers, under the stress of circumstances, were just beginning to use the feeding cake in this country and to find out its value. I am sure the agriculturists will bear me out as to the value of an increase of butter fat. If in the making of butter you can make nine cows do what ten have previously done, it is an improvement which can hardly be overrated. That is really the case with regard to the economic position of introducing this industry into this country. Once introduced, I do not think that the duty will be needed for a long time. The natural aptitude of this country is quite great enough provided we give the people who are on the fence a start so that they may come to a decision on the right side. With regard to the effect on the natives, really and truly, the wish of the Governor-General of Nigeria to do justice to the natives is quite beyond question, and I would ask the Committee to take my own assurance that I feel just as much the obligation towards them, and I honestly do not think that the proposals will harm them economically. The hon. Member for Leicester—I really do not want to do him an injustice—talked as if the subject was disposed of because you were limited
  636
  to one particular market. The incidence of an export duty is even harder to determine than the incidence of an import duty. In this case I sent a perfectly brain-racking memorandum round the Committee with regard to the possible incidence of the export duty in all its bearings. The facts are these: There is likely to be a large growth in the demand for oils and fats throughout the world, and all the evidence points to the demand after the War finishes being far greater than the ordinary supply on the old basis can satisfy. You can not get a large increase of edible fats from animal sources. It is the vegetable sources which must be largely drawn upon. There is, therefore, going to be a very large demand throughout the world, and the absolute level of prices is not likely to come down, but, indeed, is likely to be driven up. By the way, I think the instance of £6 15s. given by my hon. Friend in the corner (Mr. Molteno) was an error. I gave him all the information at my command, and I will only be too glad to do so to any hon. Member of the Committee, because the case can be proved up to the hilt. I did not get his letter in time to point it out to him, or I would have cone so to prevent his falling into error.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I should be very happy to show the hon. Gentleman the paper quoting it.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know the hon. Gentleman is perfectly genuine in his statement, but, of course, the price falls as you go up country, and his quota-tation refers to Abeokuta and not Lagos. There will thus not only be the general demand for vegetable oils which will prevent the native suffering, but, in addition to the general demand, there is a quite special demand for this particular kind of palm kernels for Germany. That has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), and it really means that with the duty at the present level the Germans will probably take kernels for home consumption, and so far as can be foretold I truly do not think the natives will suffer. It was, however, because of our real sense of responsibility with regard to the natives that we did our best to take safeguards, even against a possibility of what we did not think would occur. That is the reason, amongst others, why the Governor is to have the power to vary the duty. If there should be undue advantage taken of it,

  637
  he can vary the duty for that reason, and the very knowledge that he can do so is one of the most efficient safeguards to prevent people taking that undue advantage.
  I wish there had been time to deal with one or two other points, but I feel I have done my best to put the facts before the Committee so far as I could. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire asked me another question with regard to the position of the public debt for which Nigeria has undertaken responsibility; the hon. Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt) has spoken about the case of emigration to Australia; and again I think I have heard remarks in the speech of the hon. Member for one of the Surrey Divisions with regard to future Imperial development. All these really come into the subject of Imperial organisation. It is too late to deal with that in full, but may I just say, with regard to what the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire said, that the undertaking on behalf of Nigeria was not pressed on the Colony. What happened was that it was brought forward in the Nigerian Council. On that council are representative men of every class in Nigeria, natives as well as white men. It was received by them with absolute unanimity and accord. It was a perfectly spontaneous wish, and yet at the same time, when the request came here to the Colonial Office, we only accepted it provisionally, on the understanding that Nigerian finance could fully and freely afford it when the War was over, and not otherwise. It was, therefore, absolutely freely offered, and even so, it has not been definitely accepted, and that out of regard to Nigeria itself.
  The same has truly been the attitude with regard to the one or two other perfectly spontaneous offers to help this country in the matter of finance. That help has been given quite freely to an extent that is not, perhaps, generally known. It has been given in the way of finance, just as it has been given in the way of men. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) referred to what had been done by the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Might I, to round it off, because otherwise I feel there would be a slight unfairness, refer to the smallest Dominion of the whole constellation—Newfoundland. I feel very much that because they are the smallest attention is not paid to them, and I should like to have this opportunity of doing them justice. A population half
  638
  that of Wandsworth is that of the "Island." We have known of their battalion that did so nobly in France and suffered such loss; but what I would like to draw attention to for a moment is that it is not only the battalion they have sent. It seems to me that there must be something in the blood in more than one class or rank of the population when I reflect that Newfoundland was largely peopled by men from Devonshire, starting out from Barnstaple and Bideford. It is just that island that has been populated by men who set out from the same seaports from which Drake, Frobisher and Hawkins sailed so long ago, that has furnished more largely the seamen for British ships and British trawlers than any of the other Dominions.
  Perhaps, also, it is a pity that it is not sufficiently known how far the whole material resources of the Empire have been organised for this struggle. It is not only that the Dominions have concerted with us in their measures for giving us wheat or that their crossbred wool has been placed at the disposal of this country and their Allies. The same applies to their hides and their metals. It is equally true that the whole resources of the rest of the Empire, with a true regard for the interests of the Crown Colonies have been mobilised in order to enable this country and our Allies to get the maximum resources for the present War. Take the question of oils and fats. They are vital as propellent explosives, they are vital as food, and they are most important as feeding stuffs. Throughout the whole Empire they have been organised so far as they could be with the slightest possible derangement of trade and other interests. We are getting the best we can out of them, whether for ourselves or for our Allies—France and Russia. The same is true with regard to feeding stuffs. We do the same with regard to rubber and tin and all these metals which are needed for high-speed steel, wolfram, molybdenum, and the rest. It is a pity that it is not fully realised how, little by little, there has been a complex organisation worked up as a whole by which, with due consideration to each part, whatever be the colour of its people or whether it is self-governing or not, the whole resources of the. Empire have been placed at the disposal not only of this country but of our Allies. That has been done I say with a due regard to the population.

  639
  I end as I began, by saying that our object in performing this duty has been to keep away from old prejudices on either side, to try to analyse the economics of the situation so far as in us lies, to get the maximum of benefit and, so far as ordinary human prevision is given to us,
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS [2ND AUGUST].

  EXCHEQUER BONDS.
  Resolution reported, "That the proviso to Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916, shall not apply to Exchequer Bonds issued on and after the second day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and before the fifth day of October, nineteen hundred and sixteen, where the date of repayment of the Bonds is expressed to be the fifth day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
  not to inflict injustice on the peoples for whom we are trustees.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £35,750 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 74.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Harvey. A. G. C. (Rechdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Trevelyan. Charles Philips

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Holt, Richard Durnlng

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushclifle)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Buxton, Noel

  King, Joseph

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

  Bylee, Sir William Pollard

  Lundon, Thomas

  Byrne, Alfred

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Martin, Joseph

  R. Lambert and Mr. Wiles.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, s.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Gulland, John William

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, J. L.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hewins, William

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Baltour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barlow, Montague (Sallord, South)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hunt, Major Rowland

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Jardine, Ernett (Somerset, East)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Rowlands, James

  Bird, Altred

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyton, James

  Macmaster, Donald

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Smith, Harold

  Bull, Sir William James

  Mason, James F, (Windsor)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Tickler, T. G.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Nicholson, William G. (Peterfield)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Finney, Samuel

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Pennelather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Grant, J. A.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  E. Talbot and Mr. G. Howard.

  Gretton, John

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Walter Rea.

  FINANCE (EXCHEQUER BONDS—AMENDMENT) BILL,
  "to amend Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916, with respect to the issue of certain Exchequer Bonds," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

EDUCATION [FEE GRANT].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in respect of children of the age of fifteen years and upwards of the Fee Grant payable under the Elementary Education Act, 1891."
Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. McKinnon Wood.

EDUCATION [FEE GRANT].

  EDUCATION (FEE GRANT) BILL.
  "to alter the limitation on the ages of children in respect of whom a Fee Grant is payable," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85].
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'clock till Monday next, 7th August, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd February last.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:
MONDAY.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War.—Two Petitions from Aberdeen, for prohibition.
WEDNESDAY
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War.—Petition from Hamilton, for prohibition.
WAR.
  MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
  MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISCHARGE FROM NAVY.
  DISCHARGE FROM NAVY.
  DEPENDEXT PARENTS.
  DEPENDEXT PARENTS.
MILITARY SERVICE
  MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
  MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
  CERTIFIED OCCUPATIONS (UNATTESTED WORKMEN).
  CERTIFIED OCCUPATIONS (UNATTESTED WORKMEN).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  ME. EDGAR, JONES.
  ME. EDGAR, JONES.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT AND RATIONS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT AND RATIONS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (COMFORTS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (COMFORTS).
  WOOL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  WOOL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (LIMERICK).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (LIMERICK).
  ROWLSTON MILITARY CAMP (SANITATION).
  ROWLSTON MILITARY CAMP (SANITATION).
  ARMY RAILWAY WARRANTS.
  ARMY RAILWAY WARRANTS.
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, DUBLIN (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, DUBLIN (CIVILIAN CLERKS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  WANGFORD CAMP.
  WANGFORD CAMP.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  PRISONERS AT WANDSWORTH.
  PRISONERS AT WANDSWORTH.
  ARMY OFFICERS (SEASON TICKET RATES).
  ARMY OFFICERS (SEASON TICKET RATES).
  MICA (EXPORTS FROM INDIA).
  MICA (EXPORTS FROM INDIA).
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  HAIGH GRUBAN.
  HAIGH GRUBAN.
  STEAMSHIP "APPAM."
  STEAMSHIP "APPAM."
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
  HARVEST PROSPECTS.
  HARVEST PROSPECTS.
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
POLICE, FACTORIES, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Army—Further Regulations for the Army Reserve and Special Reserve:
Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916—Supplementary list of persons, firms, and companies as to whom orders have been made under Section 1 (1) of the Act:
Public Works (Ireland)—Treasury Minute, dated 28th July, 1916, sanctioning the sale of certain Kingstown Harbour property to the Dalkey Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (FELTWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committees negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I think that I need not trouble your Lordships at any length in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill. We have so recently had full discussions in this House on one of the subjects with which the Bill is designed to deal that I do not propose now to trouble you with any disquisition on the merits of the case or the circumstances which have made the appointment of these two Commissions advisable. Your Lordships will see, in the first place, that the Commission to examine into the origin, inception, and conduct of the operations of war in the Dardanelles and Gallipoli is to be presided over by my noble friend Lord Cromer, who sits opposite. The second Commission, to make a similar inquiry into the operations of war in Mesopotamia, is to be presided over by a gentleman who is well known to all who have been engaged in or looked on at public life for the last forty years, and who is always regarded with the utmost respect by those who have disagreed with him on particular subjects as well as by those who have agreed—I mean Lord George Hamilton.
I do not propose to undertake what I will call the showman's task of going through the names of the respective Commissions and recommending them to your Lordships. The numbers were, in the case of both Commissions, considerably reinforced in another place over and above what was designed when the Bill was introduced. It was thought desirable to add certain elements—as, for instance, the naval and military elements—which had not been provided for in the first instance. I understand that when this Bill goes into Committee it is probable that a further addition to the Commission over which my noble friend opposite is to preside is likely to be suggested, but I will say nothing or that subject now. I propose that the Committee stage, if your Lordships agree, should be taken on Tuesday next, and t will be time enough then to make any observations about the personnel of the Commission.

1077
One other important point in the Bill is the option which is given to the Commissioners in either case to sit either in private or in public. As your Lordships will comprehend, the subjects of inquiry are closely bound up with a good deal of confidential matter, and it will be for the Commissioners themselves to say—for it is quite impossible now to foretell—what degree of secrecy may be necessary in the conduct of the Inquiries. I have no doubt that those who compose the Commissions will desire to take the public into their confidence during the actual conduct of the Inquiries as far as possible, as well as in the Reports which they will ultimately issue, and I feel that this delicate business can be safely left to their discretion. The indemnity clauses are those which ordinarily appear in the case of such Inquiries as these, where a number of Service witnesses often have to be examined. I do not think there is any further point on which I need trouble your Lordships. I ask you to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, my excuse for rising to address your Lordships on the present occasion is, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, that His Majesty's Government did me the honour to ask me to be president of the Commission which is about to inquire into recent events in the Dardanelles. In the circumstances I must ask you to excuse me if I indulge in the use of the personal pronoun to a greater extent than I should like, and if the few remarks which I am about to address to your Lordships partake in some degree of a personal statement. I observed that when this measure was under consideration in another place my appointment was objected to on the reasonable ground, in which I am myself very much inclined to agree, that I was too old to undertake the work. I need hardly say that had I consulted my own personal feelings and inclinations I should not have had the smallest hesitation in asking to be allowed to decline the honour which it was proposed to confer on me.
Although I did not expect when I left Egypt some years ago—neither did I wish—to get absolute rest, at the same time I must confess that towards the close of a
1078
rather strenuous life I had hoped that I should no longer be placed in a position where I had to take serious official responsibility. But when I saw before me so many examples, both inside and outside this House, of what I may call brisk young septuagenarians, who not only have put aside all personal considerations but have also done what is very much more difficult—left in abeyance their most cherished political convictions of a lifetime in order to secure national unity and to help in the present crisis—I felt that I should not be doing my duty if I did not at all events endeavour to follow their lead to the best of my ability. I am somewhat encouraged in what I have clone because I observe that one member of the other House, an Irish Member named Dr. Lynch—who I gather from the Parliamentary Guide is a joyous young adolescent of fifty-five summers, and who seems to possess an inexhaustible fund of sparkling Hibernian wit—said that I am not the only member of your Lordships' House who suffers from the irremediable effect of old age; in fact, he said he regarded your Lordships' House as something between an old curiosity shop and a mortuary.
It was not, however, any question of personal convenience or inclination which made me hesitate to accept this work. I must confess that in the first instance I felt very great doubt as to whether I could undertake it in a manner which would do justice to the subject and command the confidence both of Parliament and of my countrymen outside Parliament. Although my doubts on this point are not altogether removed, all I can say is that I will do my best, and I can assure your Lordships and the Government that if I find after a trial that the strain, whether mental or physical, is too much for me and that I cannot do the work in a manner which would satisfy myself, or the Government, or the country, I shall not hesitate to place my resignation in the hands of His Majesty's Government and ask them to appoint some one else. I feel, however, that I shall have to appeal for the utmost indulgence on the part of my colleagues, on whom a great portion of the work will necessarily fall, and on the part of Parliament and of the outside public; and if I do not make any special appeal for your Lordships' indulgence, it is because I know, from experience now of more than a quarter of a century, that that indulgence is always accorded with the

1079
utmost generosity to all those, whether they are members of your Lordships' House or not, who endeavour to do their public duty to the best of their ability.
I turn from these general considerations to say a word or two about the Bill itself. As the noble Marquess has explained, it was originally intended that the Commission—I speak only of the Dardanelles Commission—was to be composed of six members, but that number has now been increased to nine. I confess that I should have preferred, for very obvious reasons, a smaller number; but I fully recognise the strength of the arguments which induced the other House to add three more members. It is both just and natural, considering the splendid behaviour of our overseas kinsmen at Gallipoli and elsewhere, that their interests should be represented. The same may be said of the Irish, whose gallantry has been quite equal to that of any other of His Majesty's subjects. I therefore welcome on the Commission the presence of an Australian, a New Zealand, and an Irish member. The addition of the name of a distinguished military officer, Lord Nicholson, and of a distinguished Admiral, Sir William May, really needs no explanation. Their presence will be of the utmost use in dealing with a number of subjects which must necessarily partake of a somewhat technical character.
After having criticised the numbers of the Commission, it may seem rather strange that I should advocate yet another addition, but I am going to be guilty of that inconsistency. When that matter was first broached to me, I did venture to remark that it would be desirable that another member of your Lordships' House should be added, and I did so for two reasons. One is that I thought it was compatible with the dignity of your Lordships' House that there should be another Peer; the other is that I think the subjects with which the Commission will have to deal will not so much require expert knowledge as a judicial mind and a habit acquired during a lifetime of balancing conflicting evidence. I therefore thought it would be advisable to draw upon that judicial and legal talent in which your Lordships' House is so rich. I hope, therefore, that before the Bill issues from the Committee stage some other member of your Lordships' House will be added who represents those particular qualities to which I allude.
1080
I should like to say a word on another point which is even more important than that of the composition of the Commission—I mean its functions. It cannot be doubted that when the Bill was first introduced there was a general feeling outside Parliament, and I think it was reflected to some extent within Parliament, that the intention of His Majesty's Government was to conduct a partial Inquiry and not to go into the whole matter thoroughly from its origin. I never believed that those suspicions were in any degree well founded, and I convinced myself, by conversation with the Prime Minister and with the noble Marquess who leads this House, that, equally with myself, the Government were desirous that the Inquiry should be thorough and complete. And I may say, my Lords, that I made it clear from the first that I could have no part or lot in any Inquiry which did not come up to that definition. But whatever may have been the intentions of the Government, I think it must be admitted that the clause dealing with this subject in the Bill as it was originally drafted—which perhaps some of your Lordships may not have seen—was ambiguous; and there are very obvious objections to allowing any great divergence to occur between the intentions of the Legislature and the actual text of the law. I am therefore very glad that in another place, when the matter was under discussion, some words were introduced—which your Lordships will find in the early clauses of the Bill—which remove all doubt on this subject, and make it quite clear that not merely the operations, but the genesis of those operations, will come within the scope of the inquiries of the Commission.
I think my hon. and gallant friend Sir Hedworth Meux, when this matter was under discussion in another place, was a little hard both upon His Majesty's Government and upon the Commissioners. My hon. and gallant friend said they knew that the Commissions were meant to whitewash the Government, and he added that he was convinced that the Inquiry was a farce, would be a fiasco, and would always be written down as a failure. I am convinced that those words very inaccurately convey the intention of His Majesty's Government. And as regards myself, had that gallant and distinguished Peer, who is a member of Sir Hedworth Meux's Service, my old friend Lord Beresford, whom I have known for

1081
at least half a century—had be been in his place to-day I am sure he would have been able to give me a very clean certificate, and to say that. I was not likely to associate myself with any proceedings that were likely to be a farce or a fiasco. I feel certain that my colleagues, although I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting them, share these views.
I should now like to touch slightly on a subject to which the noble Marquess alluded—I mean the very important question of publicity. Here I should like to mention that, with one exception, I have not yet had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. Therefore I can only represent my personal opinions, and even these I state with a certain amount of reserve. It appears to me that the question of publicity will present itself in three different forms. In the first place, there will be the question of what is to be communicated by the Government to the two Commissions. On that point the Bill is pretty plain. I hope there will not be, and I do not believe there will be, any reticence of any kind, sort, or description. I think everything must be revealed. And let me say that I trust that, as we shall have to call both Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers before us, steps will be taken which will enable them to be relieved of the Privy Councillors' oath, and thus allow of their telling us what happened at Cabinet meetings. That is a point pi very great importance. Then there is the question of what evidence is to be taken in public and what in secret session. That is an extremely difficult question, and I should like to reserve my opinion about it until I have had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues on the subject.
There is a third aspect of this question, namely, what we are eventually to embody in our Report. There, of course, I speak under correction, but I think that two or three general principles may even now be laid down. In the first place, I do not think that anything should be withheld from the public unless very strong reasons can be alleged that publication would be detrimental to the public interests. I approach this question, my Lords—and I think my colleagues will approach, it also—with a strong predisposition in favour of ensuring a maximum amount of publicity and a minimum amount of secrecy. There is another point as to which I think all
1082
will be agreed—namely, that we cannot publish anything which will be at all likely to be of any help to our present enemies. But in connection with this subject, I should like to say that I think, if the naval and military witnesses in dealing with naval and military questions plead for secrecy, they will have in each case, which must be examined on its own merits, to give good grounds for showing that publicity would be of real disadvantage to ourselves and of advantage to our enemies.
Then there is the further question—where I, perhaps, from long diplomatic experience may be of some little use—of what is to be published in connection with diplomatic secrets. I am no very great, believer in diplomatic secrets, and I think there has been a good deal of rather wild and inaccurate talk about secret diplomacy during the last few months. At the same time it has to be remembered that there has been for a long while an unwritten custom, if not law, that communications from foreign Governments—by which, of course, I mean in the present instance friendly foreign Governments—are not to be published without the consent of those Governments. If that unwritten custom were in any degree violated, it would be very naturally considered by foreign Governments a breach of faith, and it would destroy, I am afraid, all confidence in the discretion of the British Government for ever afterwards. Therefore considerable care will have to be taken in dealing with that aspect of the question. More than that I cannot at present say.
In conclusion, I should like to add that I feel convinced that my colleagues, equally with myself, enter upon this extremely arduous and difficult task without any preconceived notions whatsoever, and without any sort of desire either to blame or to exonerate any individual or any set of individuals. When the hon. and gallant Admiral, Sir Hedworth Meux, talks about a desire to whitewash the Government, it may afford him some consolation if I say that the very last thing, for my own part, which I shall consider throughout this Inquiry is whether the Government comes out of it white as driven snow or black as Erebus. That is no part of the business of the Commissioners. What we shall do will be to approach the subject with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and

1083
to give to the country an accurate account of all that has happened; and I am not altogether without hope that we may possibly be able to indicate some defects in our naval, military, and political systems which will enable us in the future to avoid such mistakes as have been made in the past.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

STATE PURCHASES OF HAY AND WOOL.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War for further information with regard to the terms on which His Majesty's Government propose to take over the whole of the hay and straw crop of 1916.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used on July 13, when I last called attention to this subject; and if the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has paid me the compliment of reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT my speech on that occasion, he will probably be able to answer some of the questions which I then asked. I inquired who was going to fix the price to be paid to the farmers. I also called attention to the excessive amount of commission allowed to hay and straw dealers, and asked whether, if a farmer is at the trouble of cutting up and trussing his hay and taking it to the station himself, he will be allowed to take the benefit of the £2 a ton on hay which the dealer is allowed to make.
I should like to mention to the House that I took up this question so strongly because of the peculiar character of the proceedings in this case. The Government are taking over and fixing the price for a great deal of surplus which they do not propose to use themselves. About 14,000,000 tons is the amount of hay supposed to constitute an ordinary hay crop, and this year's crop promises to reach that average. Yet the Government themselves are only proposing to take 1,000,000 tons, so that a very large amount of hay is affected besides that which is required for Government purposes. At the same time the Government propose to fix the maximum price at which farmers must sell their hay. It seems to me that the Government have gone
1084
rather further than was necessary to prevent their being forestalled by dealers buying the hay. I suggest that a scheme might be arrived at which would be fair to all—namely, that a certain time should be fixed during which the War Office representatives would go round and certify how much of the crop they want, and that after December 1 or January 1 the farmer should be allowed to sell the remainder of the hay in the open market.
With regard to payment by the War Office, unfortunately, Government Departments have not the reputation of being rapid payers. Indeed, one has heard that some of the billeting bills for last winter have not yet been paid by the War Office. But I hope, in regard to the hay crop, that as soon as the War Office representatives have been round and earmarked the stacks or portions of the crop which they want, 75 per cent. of the purchase money will be paid to the farmers at once. It is too frequently forgotten by those who deal with these matters that the money realised from the sale of such articles as wool, hay, and straw practically constitutes the farmer's working capital, and that it is out of this money that he is enabled to pay extra wages and to discharge his tillage bills and buy further stock. I hope that we shall have a statement from the noble Earl that prompt payment will be given for at any rate a large portion of the crop taken. I may add that a great many farmers complain that the price at which old hay of last year is being taken is not a fair one, though I do not suppose there is very much of that left for the Government to commandeer. I can assure the noble Earl that the greatest possible interest is taken by the agricultural community all over England with regard to the Government's decision in regard to the hay crop of this year.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War will allow me to say a few words before he replies to Lord Galway. The noble Viscount has dealt so fully, both the other day and to-day, with all the points in connection with the hay and straw crop that little remains for me to add on that subject. Still there is no harm in reiterating briefly some of the matters which farmers consider might be put on a better footing. In the first place, they think it was not right to fix a price for hay and straw early in July, at a time when it was

1085
impossible to know what the quantity and quality of the hay might be throughout the kingdom. Again, they think that the producer should have a free hand for the disposal of his hay and straw not required by the Government, and also that the margin of profit allowed to dealers is excessive. They also complain that farmers at a distance from a port or troop centre should not be penalised by the extra carriage for delivery of the hay to ports or troop centres. Those are some of the matters which farmers would like, if possible, to have placed on a better footing. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Galway, will agree with me that farmers Jo not wish to set up a grievance because these Orders are made on them, if only they are made after careful consideration and consultation with those interested and with the Board of Agriculture, so that this great national industry should be as little disturbed and interfered with as possible.
This brings me to the Notice which I have placed on the Paper to-day—
To urge His Majesty's Government to name an early date for taking over and paying for the home-grown wool clip as farmers are in need of the money, and in many cases the wool is deteriorating owing to the want of proper storage accommodation on the farms; and to ask that prompt and full publicity, with regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government on the subject, be given to the farmers.
I have obtained the leave of my two noble friends who have Notices before mine to allow me to bring forward this matter now, so that the noble Earl who will reply for His Majesty's Government may be able to deal with the two questions in the same speech.
The first point in the Notice standing on the Paper in my name is in the same terms as that which my noble friend Lord Harris raised the day before yesterday, to which the noble Earl representing the War Office gave, as we thought, a very satisfactory answer. But on looking at the newspapers the next morning we found no mention at all of the discussion in one or two of the principal newspapers, and in others there was very scant notice taken of the answer which the noble Earl gave. It is of the utmost importance to the farmers that they should know where they stand on this question. Therefore I venture to hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us
1086
that great publicity will be given to his answer, and that it may be published broadcast so that the farmers may hear of it in all parts of the country. They have been kept out of their money now for some time. As a rule they would get paid for the wool clip by the end of June, or by the end of July in Scotland; yet up to the present moment I do not suppose a single farmer has been paid anything for his wool crop commandeered by the Government. Therefore he is at a great disadvantage. He badly wants the money. I know of cases where farmers have had to sell immature stock in order to find the money necessary to carry on their farming. It is a very good augury that we should see the noble Earl the distinguished representative of a long line of English Earls sitting next to the representative of a long line of Scottish Earls, each representing their respective Departments; and I feel sure, with them sitting together and co-operating, we shall not again have the same state of affairs as has existed with regard to the commandeering of wool. The Board of Agriculture in this matter were never properly consulted. It is true that they were told about it, but they were only told when the matter was practically arranged, when the price had been thought out, and when all the terms had been settled. Therefore we may practically say that the Board of Agriculture were not consulted at all on the subject of the commandeering of wool. I should like to ask what is the use of having a Board of Agriculture and a distinguished gentleman at its head if the Board are not to be consulted on such a question of national importance as that of the commandeering of the home-grown wool clip.
In connection with this, we had the great misfortune that Lord Selborne had just resigned office when this question came forward. I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that Lord Selborne protested against the action that had been taken, and said that the Board of Agriculture had not been properly consulted on the question. On one occasion when this subject was debated in your Lordships' House, Lord Selborne said—
"I have repeatedly, on behalf of the Government, urged farmers to produce more during this time of war, and I think that in the face of great difficulties the farmers have made a noble effort to respond to the appeal made to them…. Therefore I am really concerned at the position into which the War Office has got itself over the price, of wool."

1087
Again Lord Selborne said—
"Almost my last Minute at the Board of Agriculture recorded the fact that I could not endorse this price, and that the Hoard was instructed to protest against it and to point out to the War Office that they were, though unintentionally, using the farmer in an unjust and hard manner."
I think many of your Lordships will agree with the words which Lord Selborne used about the way in which the farmers were treated on this question. I have called attention to this because, if there is a grievance, the only course is to mention it in the hope that, by co-operation in the future between the Board of Agriculture and the War Office, such a state of affairs will not occur again. I am sure your Lordships will concur that it is most undesirable in the best interests of the country that a great national industry like agriculture should be treated in the way it has been with regard to this wool purchase.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I will reverse the order of my answers, and reply first to the noble Earl who has just spoken. I am bound to say that I was rather pleased when I saw that there was no mention made in the newspapers of the answer which I gave to the noble Lord the other day with regard to the price of wool, because it showed that there was certainly no agitation on the subject; for the newspapers, which are hard pressed for space, naturally do not put into their reports anything which they think is accepted and requires no further discussion. I would point out to the noble Earl that although the price of wool may have been at first settled in the way he described, there was a meeting afterwards of representatives of the farmers with my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the whole question was discussed and the price advanced. I would refer him, with regard to the details, to the answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Harris on the 1st of this month. I have communicated with my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the best way of bringing the terms and conditions before the farmers, and I have no doubt whatever that he, who has better organisation for doing so than the War Office can have, will do all in his power to see that the information is brought to their notice.
I come now to the questions which the noble Viscount (Lord Galway) put to me the
1088
other day and those which he has added to-day. One of the questions asked the other day was, Is £5 10 s. the maximum price or is it a flat rate? It is the maximum price. He then asked who is to judge as to whether a lower price should be paid. The buyers are allowed discretion as to the price they give according to the quality of the hay; but if the farmer is not satisfied, he can appeal to the county committee to readjust the price, and we should act by what the county committee in those cases said was a fair price. There was a question also asked the other day with regard to the amount that was made by dealers. I have in front of me particulars of how the £2 a ton is made up, and I shall be happy to show them to the noble Viscount. I think he will see that it is a fair price to add if you accept the view that a middleman is necessary. I admit that there may be differences of opinion on that subject, but I am certain, from the inquiries I have made, that if you kill the middleman now, as you might do, it would be a serious disadvantage not only now but also after the war.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Would the farmer, if he delivered the hay in trusses, be entitled to the £2?
THE EARL OF DERBY: No, not unless he had acted in the capacity of dealer before. It is the whole question of maintaining the middleman. The farmer would be allowed a certain addition if he carted it to the railway station.
Let me say, in passing, that we do not force the farmer to part with all his hay, as the noble Viscount seemed to suggest. Any that he says he wants to keep for his own stock, we are going to allow him to keep. The noble Viscount said, I think, on the former occasion that last year was a very bad year for hay, and that therefore the amount which the farmer had last year would not be a good criterion as to the amount he ought to be allowed this year. I agree. What he is asked to state is what he wants this year; but I think it is only fair that we should ask him what he had last year and see whether there is any valid reason for his holding back more than would be considered absolutely necessary. But there is no intention whatsoever on the part of the War Office to deprive any man of such an amount of hay as would inconvenience him in regard to the feeding of his own stock.

1089
With regard to the question of price, I find that it is not the custom of the hay trade to advance more than 50 per cent. of the purchase price. We are going to pay the 50 per cent. at once; we are going to pay 5 per cent. interest from October 31 to the day of lifting; and if there is any case brought to our notice where serious hardship would be done to any man by only paying the 50 per cent., we shall be perfectly ready to consider it on its merits and, if necessary, go up to the 75 per cent. The noble Viscount referred to the commandeering at £5 9s. I have asked in the Office if they can explain how that price arose, and this is the answer which they have given me and which I think is the correct one. Presumably it refers to the natural operation of the Defence of the Realm Order dated March 31, the price named being made up of £5, which was the original price arranged as between the local county committee and the forage committee, plus 1s. 6d. a month per ton from January in respect of the dryage incurred. If there are any other details required I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will let me know, but to the question he put to me that is, I believe, the right answer.
Then I come to the more general question as to whether or no it would not be possible for the War Office to take what it wants and say to the farmer, "You may sell all the rest at any price that you can get." I confess that at first sight this appears to be the most reasonable thing to do; but it was pointed out to me, and with such force that one has to accept it, that if you do that you may be putting a great hardship on those men from whom you take hay if you take it in any quantity. You may take away the whole lot of good hay in one locality where hay is in big demand, and that would enable the men there to make a high price for second quality hay; while in the other parts you would be depriving a man of a chance of so doing.
There is another question, one which materially affects not only the farmer but the whole conduct of the war in one way, and that is the question of transport and freight in this country. What we hope to do is to be fair to the farmer and at the same time to minimise as far as we possibly can the carrying of hay from one locality to another. I have to say that because I really do not think noble Lords quite realise how hard put to it we are at the present
1090
moment to find the necessary freight in this country, with troops moving, with the amount of ammunition, I am glad to say, going up by leaps and bounds, and with the increased demands of the Army abroad. A strain is thus put on our railway service almost up to breaking point; and though it may seem a small thing to limit the transport of hay about the country, I assure your Lordships it is only one of the many steps we feel we must take—a step which we hope will not be against the interests of the farmer, but which will be distinctly in the interests of the management of the war as a whole.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer, and I am sure he will realise that the agricultural interest is as anxious as possible to help him in every way to have 1,000,000 tons of hay, or whatever is necessary, for the benefit of the nation. At the same time I hope he will allow farmers in the neighbourhood of large camps or elsewhere, who are able to cut the hay up and truss it and transport it themselves to the neighbouring railway station, to recover some of the money which would otherwise go to his favourite middleman. I submit that the farmer should be able to recover some of this money if he undertakes this extra work.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Viscount may rest assured that I have the farming interest as much at heart as he has. One is bound to lay down general rules. At the same time the noble Viscount may be, quite certain that if we can find any way by which we can make it easier for the farmer without departing from the general rule we shall be very glad to do so.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: Did I understand the noble Earl to say that he would ask the Board of Agriculture to publish without delay the Government's announcement regarding wool?
THE EARL OF DERBY: That is so. I have already conferred with the President of the Board, who has better machinery than I have for letting the farmers know what is the state of affairs.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer. It is of the utmost importance that farmers should know as soon as possible. I may

1091
say that I inquired at the Central Chamber of Agriculture this afternoon, and they had not heard a word about the answer which the noble Earl gave the other night, which was very important and should have been published, as we had hoped it would have been, in the newspapers.

THE SUPPLY OF PETROL.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would state the principle upon which petrol has been allowed by the Petrol Control Committee to owners of private cars; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to ask my noble friend Lord Stanmore, who represents the Board of Trade, one or two questions, which I have communicated to him so that he may be prepared with answers. I would preface my remarks by saying that I should be the last person to make the slightest objection to any restriction, even total prohibition, of the use of petrol by private cars if it were really necessary. It would be only one more inconvenience added to the many we have to suffer, and do not complain of suffering, owing to the war. But what we complain of is the way in which this question has been approached by the Government, and especially by the Petrol Control Committee. I say at once from personal knowledge that this Committee is most kind and considerate in giving attention to any complaint made to them; but one always feels that one is up against a stone wall, and that they have not the slightest intention of making any alterations or remedying any grievances as far as they are concerned.
Again, one wonders why, if there is this necessity—and no doubt there must be—for restricting the use of petrol, the Government did not move earlier in the matter. It is true that they appointed this Petrol Committee as long ago as April; but nothing has been done, for instance, as to restricting motoring on Sundays. Any noble Lord who moves about the country is aware that motoring by private cars on Sunday is enormous. This "joy-riding" and the excursions all over the country by heavily laden chars-à-bancs, stirring the dust all over the place and making the country hideous, consume an enormous amount of petrol. Why have not the Government put down, as they easily could, this absolute waste of petrol on Sundays
1092
merely for pleasure? And why do they not stop the large number of taxis and other motor vehicles going to race meetings? I noticed that the Acting President of the Board of Trade said that in the future they are going to impose restrictions; but surely it might have been done at not such a late day as this. Then, again, I am told, as regards aeroplanes, that even if they go out for a very short flight when they come down the whole of the petrol is simply emptied on the ground and wasted.
I hope the noble Lord may be not only able to tell us the principle upon which the Petrol Committee has acted, but perhaps he will also be able to say that a short statement on the matter will be circulated to your Lordships' House and the public, because at the present moment nobody has the slightest idea of the principle on which the Petrol Committee acts. It seems to have no principle at all, except that of rule of thumb. Certainly statements have been made from which it appears that the Committee goes on the principle of making no inquiries at all, although we were asked carefully to fill up census cards showing the amount of petrol we used and our estimate for the future, and we were also asked to state how we had employed our cars. It has been said that it is impossible to go into the thousands of cases, and that one man has been treated the same as another, whether he is doing public work or not; and that the man who is doing public work will get the same amount as the man who is doing nothing but simply using his car for amusement. Again I have been told, and I have no doubt it is the truth, that those people who made false declarations are treated in the same way as people who made true declarations. It seems improbable that the declarations can be true in the great majority of cases when we are told that the increase of petrol for use this year is actually 40 per cent. over the amount that was consumed last year. I may be told by my noble friend that there has been a large increase owing to the use of petrol for commercial purposes. But it is very doubtful whether that is the case, because a good many businesses have had to close down. Certainly the use of private cars has been greatly reduced. Frequently where a man used three cars, he uses only one at the present moment; or where he previously used two, he has one now laid up. So the increase of 40 per cent. seems excessive.
I cannot help thinking that the explanation is that people have put down estimates much in advance of what they have used in the past. A friend of mine gave me a case in his own county, where a man doing a good deal of public work—sitting on the Local Tribunal, presiding over the local Bench, and so on—made a true return and is allowed only ten gallons a month; whilst a neighbour of his made a return which enables him to get 60 gallons a month. What was stated in another place the other day by Mr. Harcourt was that any man who applied for over 32 gallons for the month had his figure divided by four. Therefore it is perfectly obvious that if a man applied for 100 gallons, all the Committee would do would be to divide that by four and he would get 100 gallons.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Oh, no.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not know whether the noble Earl has read the debate in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I have not said anything.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It was I who said it.
LORD STRACHIE: No doubt the noble Marquess has read the debate. I was reading it this morning. Mr. Harcourt said that if a man applied for over 32 gallons for a month the figure was divided by four, and in the debate this was taken as the principle of distribution.
Another point on which I have asked my noble friend to give an answer is this, Did the Committee consider the question of the number of cars a man kept? A friend of mine, a member of your Lordships' House, told me that no doubt the large supply of petrol he received was due to the fact that he had a large number of cars. I have also been told that where an application was made by a man for petrol for use from his London house and for country use he received an equal amount in each case. I venture to say that the fair way of treating a man is not to consider the number of cars he has, but what he is doing and the amount of petrol he ought to require. Surely in these days it is sufficient for a man to have enough petrol to run one car. Then I want to ask my noble friend whether it is the case that the Petrol Committee have not
1094
allowed any owner of a car to receive more than 30 gallons a month, because statements have come to me from people who have declared that they have been allowed more than 60 gallons a month. It may be, of course, an accident. And I have heard of cases in which applications have been made in duplicate, and a man has received a double allowance in that way owing to some error—say, for instance, his agent in the country has applied for him, and he has himself in London also applied.
I do not wish to press that more petrol should be allowed than is really necessary under existing conditions, but there is a feeling abroad that in this matter there has not been fair treatment all round. Nobody would complain if it was felt that all cases were considered on their merits; but under present conditions, as was made clear the other day in another place, there is simply this rule of thumb system and every man is treated on the basis of the return he made. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to give full information upon this question, and perhaps he will be able to say that in the future the Petrol Committee will not simply meet every request by saying, "Oh, we have no time to go into these questions. All are treated alike on their returns."
Moved, That there be laid before the House, Papers relating to the principle upon which petrol has been allowed by the Petrol Control Committee to owners of private cars.—(Lord Strachie).
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I hope that attention will be paid to this matter by the Petrol Control Committee, because serious discrepancies have undoubtedly occurred. There have been such grave inequalities in the way in which petrol licences have been issued and in the amount allowed to different persons that I think a strict investigation should take place and a reorganisation of the whole scheme should be considered. I know of a case where, the chairman of a county council who is also chairman of practically every other organisation in the county cannot do his work because he has been allowed only about ten gallons of petrol a month. There are no railways by which he can get about to do his work, and he has to travel from twenty to thirty miles every day to perform the duties which the Government have placed upon him. I have been told by a

1095
noble Lord of a case which occurred near his place. A lady who takes no share in hospital work or in any organisation of any sort or kind in that direction applied for a very large amount of petrol for three months, and the amount she is allowed would be sufficient to run one of the Government's ammunition cars for a year. The actual amount was given to me, but it is so great that until I have it authenticated I hesitate to say it. At the same time, within a few miles of where that lady lives the chairman of the county council who is also chairman of the Local Tribunal—this is not the same case as the one to which I alluded earlier—was allotted such an insufficient amount of petrol that he cannot get about to do his work.
Cases such as these are occurring all over the country. The present system is also operating adversely on local doctors in the country districts. There are many cases—I have no doubt the noble Lord is fully aware of them—where doctors have not been able to get to their patients because they had no petrol. They have no power, under existing circumstances, to commandeer petrol even in grave cases. These things require adjustment at the hands of the Petrol Committee, who, I know, are terribly over-worked. Work which should have taken six months has had to be done in about three weeks or a month, and it is impossible for the people working in that office to get through the amount of work they have to do. I do not blame the Petrol Committee officials in the least, because they have been under-manned and probably under-womaned. All I ask for is a promise that the Government will take the matter in hand and try to put upon a more sound business footing the issue of petrol to those who have to do national work, especially in the country districts. If the existing grave anomalies continue much longer they will do a large amount of harm in an enormous number of country districts. There are some classes of the community who have undoubtedly been terribly wasteful with petrol for a long time past, but I think this is coming to an end; and I hope that those who have really to do work allotted to them by the Government will now have a chance to get the necessary petrol to carry out that work.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening before he replies. I do so
1096
because I want to put a particular question to him. I am not going over again the ground covered by my noble friends. I fully realise the Government's difficulty, and I have so much sympathy with their desire to reduce the quantity of petrol used that I wish they had taken the matter in hand a year ago, when they would have been able to give real consideration to the case. There must be grave inequalities. There are people living side by side, some of whom, although not using their cars for public purposes, have asked for double the usual amount and have been given one quarter, whereas a neighbour using his car for public purposes has got the same amount. No doubt something will be done about that.
But I rise particularly to press upon the noble Lord that he should give us, if he can, the figures of the consumption of petrol by the War Office in this country. I believe that if my noble friend opposite (Lord Derby) would take this matter in hand he could effect an enormous economy in the use of petrol by the War Department. Nothing is so difficult as to produce absolute evidence, but I live in the centre of troops and could give instance after instance of the entire misuse of these cars, of surplus journeys made by officers living within a few yards of each other to the same spot on the same day ten or twenty miles away, of cases where drivers while loading up at a station have allowed their engines to run for a whole hour, and so forth. But I will give one instance of many which reached me the other day of the sort of thing happening now, which it is impossible under the present system for the War Office to check. It happened that a gentleman undertook to lend his car to the War Office. His chauffeur was taken the day before, so he decided to drive the car himself. He attended at the War Office, where he was told to go to Wormwood Scrubs to fetch an officer. That officer, being before his time, spent half an hour at his hairdresser's, and after his visit to the War Office he spent an hour at the Savoy Hotel having luncheon. He was subsequently taken back to Wormwood Scrubs, and he ordered the car again for the next morning. Everybody knows that officers in authority would not allow that sort of thing if they could check it.
What I suggest to my noble friend is that the whole system of the use of Government cars by the War Office should be investigated

1097
by a small Committee. An attempt, at any rate, should be made, if possible, to regulate it, and to make it clear that except in very urgent cases cars are only to be used for the Service. It is quite clear that officers must at this moment to the fullest extent, especially in this country, use trains and motor-'buses, like many of your Lordships do under the present difficulty, as I have noticed in leaving this House. This is a subject on which we are all at one. In the early clays of the war, when there was great pressure, when orders had to be transmitted and carried out with great rapidity, and when there was not the organisation which now prevails, a system arose which might now with great advantage be changed; and I am quite sure that private owners would more readily acquiesce in the privations which they undoubtedly must undergo if they felt that in the Government service every effort was being made to economise petrol to the last degree.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I sympathise to a certain extent with the sufferings of private owners, particularly with some of those who are doing public work; but, like other noble Lords, I am not going to say a word at present in criticism of the Committee who are doing this work.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They have had in a very short space of time to look into the cases of something like 324,000 motor-cars, 110,000 of which are private cars. The blame for their not having done this more fully must rest with the Government for not having made a little more provision in these cases rather than with the Committee themselves. A great deal is being said about the dishonesty of owners who sent in for larger requirements than were absolutely necessary, and almost every individual I have come across seems to think that he is the only person who has sent in a fair and just return. I am informed that this is not so, that something like 85 per cent. or more of the returns sent in are on the face of them entirely accurate, and that the wicked and dishonest section is confined to something like 15 per cent. of the owners of motor-cars. I think that is a very reassuring statement. But the difficulty, of course, is this, that though the wicked section, the 15 per cent., of owners sent in for more than they ought to have done, such is
1098
the shortage of petrol for the use of private cars that it would not be enough to cut down the wicked portion, but you must also abate the allowance to the virtuous section who sent in proper returns.
My noble friend below me (Lord Strachie) expressed some doubt as to there being more petrol used by commercial cars in this country this year than last year. So far as my information goes, that is true; and it is largely due to the fact mentioned by the noble Karl (Lord Derby) when he was speaking just now, that the railways have been so congested that a very much larger amount of work has been thrown on commercial cars in consequence, so that in all fairness a certain deduction has to be made in that way.
What I want to put to the noble Lord is this. The Committee has proceeded—and I think necessarily, in the time it has had at its disposal—by saying, "You shall have a certain percentage of the amount you sent in for"; and in order to make things a little more fair they have decreased the percentage in the case of the larger amounts, so that if you sent in a large demand the percentage which is knocked off the amount you asked for is higher. That is a noble attempt to deal with the difficulty. But it does not do so, because it does not follow that if a man sends in for a large amount he does not require it. The method adopted hits the innocent with the guilty. I want to point out this to the noble Lord. You do not want a Committee if you are content simply to lay down a percentage. You have only to engage two or three clerks to do the figures and send out the returns. You do not require men of the ability of Mr. Bury, and his colleague Sir John Hewett, an eminent Indian official, to do this work.
I should like to ask whether, when this burst of business is over, it is intended that this Committee should dissolve, or set to work to deal with the most difficult or hard cases—the case of the doctors, which the noble Duke mentioned, and other eases of that kind. Some cases have been brought to my knowledge of philanthropic men and women who let their houses for wounded, and who find themselves very much handicapped in the matter of petrol and unable to take their wounded to and from the station except

1099
by very uncomfortable methods. I have been informed—and I should like to know whether it is true—that an arrangement has been entered into, in cases of this kind, between the Petrol Committee and the Red Cross, and that there is an official of the Red Cross in each county whose business it is to draw up lists of these persons and send them to the Petrol Committee, who will accept the lists and allow these persons as much petrol as is required for their work. Of course, it depends upon the officials in the counties whether proper lists are made out. But many cases of this kind having come to my knowledge, I should be glad if the noble Lord would give a reassuring answer on that point.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) has said a word on behalf of the Petrol Committee, because they have had a very difficult task. Their methods have, perhaps of necessity, been somewhat rough and ready, but considering the time and the petrol at their disposal I think they have met their difficulties in a very fair way. The shortage of tank steamers has been the factor which has decided all their operations. Owing to this shortage the amount of petrol is strictly limited. I think everybody will agree that the Army and Navy have the first claim on the supply, and after the Army and Navy the Ministry of Munitions, and after them the first call for petrol is for the conveyance of the wounded to the hospitals. When all those claims have been taken into account, all that remains is 6,300,000 gallons per month, and this has to be distributed between the owners of commercial cars and those who require petrol for industrial purposes, hackney and taxi-cabs, and 'buses, and doctors, veterinary surgeons, and, lastly, private cars and motor cycles. It is proposed to allow to owners of commercial cars and those who require petrol for industrial purposes 60 per cent. of their requirements. The omnibuses and taxi-cabs are to have 50 per cent. Doctors and veterinary surgeons are to have the whole of their requirements up to a maximum of 50 gallons a month. The noble Duke made a special point about doctors. I may say that only about three per cent. of the doctors have applied for more than the 50 gallons per month; and as soon as circumstances become at all better the doctors' claims will be first of all considered, and this three per cent. will be allowed their further claim. All these
1100
requirements reduce the amount left for private cars to 700,000 gallons a month, which is an average of rather under seven gallons a car per month.
My noble friend Lord Strachie inquired whether no difference would be made between those who had made a false and those who had made a true declaration. At present it is not possible to do so; but I think those who have made exaggerated returns will probably regret it. In the first place, they render themselves liable to a fine of £100; in the second place, when their licence comes to be renewed at the end of the period of three months, their exaggerated return will be remembered against them. In addition, the Board of Trade have made a regulation under which any licence obtained by misrepresentation is liable to be cancelled. Then my noble friend suggested the case of a man who had asked for 400 gallons and, who, he thinks, under the present arrangement, would obtain 100 gallons. That is not the case, as nobody is entitled to more than 30 gallons a month. And I think that the 60 gallons which the noble Lord mentioned must have been the man's allowance for a quarter, and not for a month. Where an owner has more than one car, the allowance is expected to cover all his cars.
LORD STRACHIE: What I asked was, Is a man allowed more if he has five or six cars than a man who has only one?
LORD STANMORE: He cannot get more than 30 gallons a month. I am sorry I cannot give the noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) the figures for which he asked with regard to the War Office consumption. I think my noble friend Lord Derby will deal with those questions. Lord Peel asked why it was necessary for the Committee to remain in existence if the system is merely one of arithmetic. It is hoped that alterations will be made and that a more equitable plan will be arrived at in the course of the next three months. As regards cars used for Red Cross purposes, on the recommendation of the Joint War Committee an additional allowance of petrol used exclusively for the transport of wounded soldiers and sailors will be allowed. So far as circumstances permit, the more pressing requirements of those who use motor spirit for the essential needs of the country will be reconsidered, and later on the amount

1101
licensed to those who are using their cars for purposes directly connected with the war will, if the petrol available allows of this, be increased, whilst in the renewal of all licences the allowance to owners of cars which are not used for war purposes may be still further curtailed.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Is there any truth in the statement in the newspapers that the Government have been offered 4,000,000 gallons already in this country? And in that case would they be prepared to reconsider a further amount being allowed to the various cars?
LORD STANMORE: I think an offer was made of 4,000,000 gallons, but they are not in this country, and the steamers in which it was proposed to bring this petrol over are not at present even launched.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I did not come to the House prepared to deal with this subject, as I did not know that the Department with which I am concerned was going to be brought into it. Two noble Lords have mentioned the War Office—Lord Strachie and Lord Midleton—and I should like to say a few words on the subject. Lord Strachie made an accusation—one of those accusations that he flung all over the place—and I want to hold him to it. He said that in the Aeroplane Service when the men come back from a flight they empty the whole of their petrol tanks on to the ground. Can he give a single instance where that has occurred?
LORD STRACHIE: I have been so informed.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Can the noble Lord give me the name of his informant and where it happened? I deny it absolutely.
LORD STRACHIE: I accept the noble Earl's denial at once, but he knows very well that I cannot give the name of my informant unless I have that person's permission.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Nobody ought to make an accusation of this kind, which amounts to a charge of deliberate and disgraceful waste of Government material, without being prepared to give the reasons,
1102
the name, and the whole of the facts. If the noble Lord is not prepared to do that he should not have made the accusation. Of course, these petrol tanks have to be emptied; that is well known, and the reasons why are well known. But when the noble Lord goes on to state that when the aeroplanes come down the petrol tanks are invariably emptied on to the ground, I say there is not a word of truth in it, and I think he ought to withdraw such an accusation against the Aeroplane Service.
My noble friend Lord Midleton asked about the War Office consumption. I should like to know the name of the officer who had his hair cut and spent a lengthy time over luncheon, because that is a case which decidedly deserves investigation. I candidly confess to being dissatisfied with what one sees in going about the streets and when one is in the country. If I am to be hung, I want to be hung with somebody else. Not only is this the case with Army but also with Navy cars, and it does seem to me that we ought to take the most stringent measures we can to prevent waste. There have been accusations of great waste at the Front in France. We wrote to Sir Douglas Haig on the subject, and I received last night a copy of new Orders that have been issued on the subject, and I will show then to the noble Viscount. I venture to say that you could not have better regulations to prevent waste. With regard to the waste in this country, I will see what can be done. But it is not really a question that the War Office can deal with. It must be dealt with by the officers commanding in the various areas and by the Generals in command in the various districts. Those are the people who ought to do all they possibly can in this direction. I can assure the noble Viscount that if there are any measures which we can take to stop waste, if it is proved that there is waste, they shall be taken.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I am bound to refer to the unprovoked attack which the noble Earl made upon me. Though I said at once that I accepted his assurance, he accused me with violence of language. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been the last person to throw stones in that direction.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ARMY—LOCAL SENTIMENT.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the present system of posting of recruits, and to the lack of sympathy with local sentiment displayed thereby; and to move to resolve—
That this House deprecates a departure from the system of recruitment, recognised by Lord Cardwell in the case of the Regular Army and confirmed by Lord Haldane in forming the Territorial Army, whereby recruits were encouraged to prefer enlistment in their county regiments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing the subject-matter of my Motion before your Lordships, because I am satisfied that the principle to which I refer in it is one of profound interest not only throughout every county in the United Kingdom but in every area of any part of the Empire from which troops have been drawn. Every locality takes a profound personal interest in the men who have been recruited in its neighbourhood and has shown its desire to follow their fortune in the field, to assist them there to the utmost of its power with comforts, and, when they come home, whether wounded or sound, to welcome them with open arms. I have—and I know that some of my noble friends have—the gravest suspicion that this principle to which I refer is being discarded.
I think I ought, in the first place, to substantiate the reference I make to that very distinguished Minister of War, Lord Cardwell. In the wording of my Motion as first put down I used the word "inaugurated" incorrectly, and after discussion with a distinguished military historian I have substituted the word "recognised," because it was pointed out to me that unquestionably before Lord Cardwell went to the War Office there had been a territorial system in existence—that is to say, there had been regiments closely connected with certain counties. But I submit that it was the introduction of the double battalion system by Lord Cardwell—the setting up of the large and the small depots, and the bringing into each of the counties concerned another regiment not hitherto connected with that particular county—which inaugurated the new territorial idea. Well, it did not make very rapid advance, certainly not as regards officers. It did as
1104
regards the men, because there were the depots, and the county men were more likely to go to their county depots than to others. Even in the latter 'eighties there was no inclination on the part of officers to join their county regiments; at any rate, that was my experience. They were far more inclined to join the regiments to which their college or school friends belonged. I may say, as regards myself, that from the day when I had connection with the War Office and with this territorial system, it has been a matter of the most profound interest with me to encourage as far as I could the recognition of local sentiment and to encourage in the county itself an interest in the county regiments.
The incident which changed all this want of interest was the South African War. Suddenly the cadres of the Yeomanry and the Volunteers were called upon to do some practical work in fitting out bodies of troops, and they had, of course, to call upon the enthusiasm and the patriotism of their neighbours, and the result was an immense extension of local sentiment in local units. The gentry as well as other classes joined those units, and funds were raised in the several counties with which to equip, indeed to more than equip, those units. And when they came back from that war they were welcomed with open arms. From that day local territorial sentiment with the military units of the county was firmly established, so firmly established that when the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, introduced his Territorial scheme, he found that from the point of view of local sentiment he had an easy task.
It is not only as regards the Army that this feeling has taken hold of comparatively small areas. The other day there was a most touching illustration of what I mean. I was present on the occasion when the storm-and battle-worn flags of H.M.S."Kent" were hoisted to their last place in the bosom of the mother church in Canterbury Cathedral. Those emblems of our naval might were borne through the streets of the ancient city before enormous and sympathetic crowds, and were placed in the Cathedral before a most reverential and sympathetic congregation. That was an extension of this idea of local territorial sentiment. It had extended beyond the human being; it had actually extended to the inanimate object of a ship. H.M.S.

1105
"Kent" was not built in the county. The ship's complement was not found in the county. It was nothing but a name. But that was enough for the county of Kent. The ladies of Kent worked the flags for H.M.S." Kent." They were flown in the battle of the Southern Atlantic, collected in tatters from the rigging of the ship, and, as I say, at last placed in the bosom of the mother church. That is a sentiment which is worth keeping, which cannot be sacrificed with impunity; and that, I hope, is a sufficient excuse for my having brought this subject before your Lordships to-day.
This territorial spirit does more, as I have already said, than act as a recruiting agent. It appeals to those charitable sentiments which are the foundation of comfort and of kindly and neighbourly love. In every county, I suppose in every locality and in every part of the Empire, there are local bodies who are collecting for the comfort of the men recruited in their neighbourhoods, and who have, by their, contributions, largely assisted His Majesty's Government in their conduct of the war. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Dartmouth would have been here to speak on this subject. It was, however, impossible for him to get away. But he writes me this letter in connection with the supply of comforts to the county units. He had to take up the matter in connection with Sir Edward Ward's pooling scheme, and he says—
"One point seemed to me to be a strong lever in favour of contributions being sent to the comforts pool. For reasons unknown to us, Stafford-shire units now include men from many other counties, while Staffordshire men are being sent all over the kingdom. Thus the only way to reach one's own county men is to contribute to the general pool."
That may have a discouraging as well as an encouraging effect. I will not hazard a guess as to which is the more likely.
Until the present war began, this local sentiment vitalised our whole recruiting system. It did so for some time after the war began. Then by degrees those of us who had official connection with recruiting became aware of—what shall I say? I should not like to say that it was an unfriendly feeling towards the Territorial Army, but I should say that it was a feeling that was not so favourable towards the New Armies; and much to our chagrin and disappointment, and sometimes to our indignation—at least I speak for myself,
1106
and I fancy there must be other cases as well as mine—we found tradition and precedent ignored, and touch with the counties by degrees being lost. And when the compulsory system came into being, we became aware that there was actual discouragement of the idea of the county man going to his county unit. I took the liberty in this House of calling attention to what I felt was becoming prevalent, and I remember being rather flattered by a cheer from my noble friend who represents the War Office in this House (Lord Derby). He I know, has feelings on this subject almost as strong as I have in private life—
THE EARL OF DERBY: And in public.
LORD HARRIS: And Lord Kitchener, on the occasion to which I refer, said that he attached the greatest possible importance to territorial sentiment. I subsequently spoke to him about it, and he asked me to give him instances. With his permission I called for returns from the depots of the two county regiments, and I was able to send him figures which showed that in three months, in the case of one regiment, about 1,000 recruits had been sent out of the county to other regiments, whilst about 800 recruits had been brought from other counties into our county regiments. This seems to me to be an entirely unnecessary and laborious exchange to other counties of recruits who wished to go into our regiments, and vice versa.
I subsequently addressed an official at the War Office on another case, where a recruiting officer asked for a small number of men—quite a small number of men—who wished to join a particular regiment. He sent me the names, and. I knew from personal experience that they were men whose ancestors had been serving in that regiment for over a century They wanted to join the regiment they knew best, but they were refused on the ground that the regiment in question was well up to strength. I wrote to the officer commanding and asked him what was the position of the regiment at the time, and he told me that on the date when the official answer was sent the regiment was 160 short. Subsequently 100 men were sent to that regiment from a depot outside the county. I cannot explain it; it is not my business to explain these things; but it seems to me to be absolutely

1107
inconsistent, and to point unquestionably to what I apprehend is the intention of the War Office—to do away as far as it possibly can with the territorial system. And when I am talking of the territorial system I am not thinking of Territorial regiments only. I am thinking of Regular regiments just as much. We are equally proud of the county regiments, whether Territorial or Regular.
If it be the case—and I can come to no other conclusion from the proofs that have come so vividly before me—that the War Office has come to the conclusion that the whole principle of encouraging local sentiment by encouraging the county recruit to go into his county regiment is to be done away with, then I think we ought to be told so. We ought to be warned, and we ought to have the reasons given to us. I hope that my noble friend has been put into a position to give us the reasons, if it is the case. Whatever the explanation, I personally am disposed to deprecate such a change, and I can only say that I am excessively sorry if it is absolutely unavoidable.
Moved to resolve, That this House deprecates a departure from the system of recruitment, recognised by Lord Cardwell in the case of the Regular Army and confirmed by Lord Haldane in forming the Territorial Army, whereby recruits were encouraged to prefer enlistment in their county regiments.—(Lord Harris.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the question which my noble friend has raised is one which is less important to-day when the thing has happened and worked out than it would have been a year ago. But I agree with him in the view which he has expressed. One scarcely likes to make even what might seem like a criticism upon the splendid work which Lord Kitchener did with the magic of his name in raising such enormous numbers of men by voluntary appeal. I often think that we underrate the services which Lord Kitchener rendered by overlooking other directions in which he did what I am sure no other man in the country could have done. By his personal influence he persuaded India and Egypt to take Territorial troops instead of Regulars, Infantry and Artillery alike, and thereby was able to bring back Regular divisions and Regular batteries to this country. No other man
1108
would have been able to induce India and Egypt to do that. These are two services so great that I do not like even to seem to criticise the system under which the troops enlisted in such wonderful numbers and with such great success were raised at home. But I am bound to say that I do not think Lord Kitchener troubled himself very much about the procedure. I think he desired to keep up the territorial system, but he was a man who liked to get results. I have often talked with him over this. His desire was to get the results more than to consider the details. As a general question and as one profoundly affecting the future of the Army, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord in the views he has expressed.
I do not think people realise what the Cardwell system and the subsequent development of the Cardwell system was. The Cardwell system was one by which every battalion abroad should have a battalion at home corresponding to it, and the battalion at home was not to be filled with trained soldiers in time of peace but was only to have a small proportion of trained soldiers and was to be filled up on mobilisation from the Reserve. The recruits came to the depôt, stayed there a short time, and went on to complete their training in the second battalion. That was a localised system, in which every battalion had its local connection. The battalion abroad came from a local source; the battalion at home was local; and the depôt was local. The Militia was essentially a local force if any force ever was local. They used to be raised and looked after by the Lord Lieutenant, who was at the head of them. Then came the time when it was found that the Militia was recruited only for service at home, and the discovery dawned upon the War Office that for the prospect of anything like what has happened rapidity in mobilisation was absolutely essential, and therefore it was necessary to get rid of the Militia system, on which you could not count for your troops coming rapidly, and extending things further; and the Special Reserve was substituted for the Militia to go abroad. That enabled the depôt to become, on mobilisation, a third battalion; it was a large sedentary force used largely for garrison purposes, and was a reservoir from which to feed the first two battalions. Therefore these three battalions were strictly local. Then behind the third battalion, as it became in case of war, there

1109
used to be some Militia battalions, but when those were done away with there might or might not be a Special Reserve battalion behind the depôt battalion as it was in time of peace. And behind these were the Territorial battalions. The Territorial battalions were again strictly local, but they were not intended to be recruited at the depôt; they were intended to be recruited by machinery which was made for the purpose and which was purely local, in accordance with what the noble Lord has suggested was the best plan—I mean the County Associations.
The whole fountain and origin of the trouble we have witnessed has been a certain want, I think, of understanding on the part of some of the officials at the War Office in the early stages of this war of what the County Associations were and what they could do. It was not realised that these were really in the main military bodies, consisting of men who had given their minds to military things; it was not recognised that these were the men who could squeeze out every voluntary recruit in a county, and make appeals to that sentiment and patriotism of which Lord Harris has spoken—an engine more powerful than any other engine. Nothing was comparable to the County Association as an instrument for getting recruits. The County Associations were recognised but had very little given them to do, because at the Adjutant-General's Department the plan was to use the depôt for the purpose of raising the battalions which were behind the third battalions; in other words, raising them through the general machinery of the Army instead of as a local battalion which the county was to yield, such as the Territorials essentially were.
I have always thought that if the county machinery had been taken you could have secured the whole of the forces now raised more smoothly and probably more rapidly than has otherwise been the case. Lord Kitchener's great influence would have been doubled had he only had this instrument to work through. What has been the result? The result has been that instead of the New Armies having been raised as part of the Territorial system—I mean by the Territorial system not technically what was organised under the Act of 1907, but I mean strictly territorially, that is to say locally, based on the appeal to local sentiment—they have been raised
1110
just like the Regular troops at the depots. I have known of East-end men enlisting in Highland regiments. There are plenty of what are called "Cockneys" in certain of the Highland regiments; though not in the Highland regiments that have the most local associations. You will neither find men from the South in the Black Watch nor will you find in that regiment to any large extent officers not connected with that part of the country. There are a series of regiments like the Black Watch and the Gordons, and I could name others, which have this local association so largely that both as regards officers and men they conform to the tradition of which the noble Lord has spoken. That is a most valuable tradition, and I am sorry we have got away from it.
But I do not think much harm has been done. When the war is over you will reconsider all these things, and will get your system straightened out. Therefore I say again that I do not attach the importance to this question that I should have attached at the beginning of the war. But when the war is over I trust that my noble friend (Lord Derby), who is full of understanding and equity in these matters, and who has done more with his local Territorial force than probably any other man in the country, will take up the question of local sentiment, and, more than that, the question of the principle of organisation which underlies all this, and see that the Army is put back on to what I am sure is the only footing that will keep it in a proper condition. The new feature of the Army to-day, the one feature where we have without any doubt or question made a great stride over anything we had in the past, was the rapidity of mobilisation. Where would you have been if you had not had that rapidity of mobilisation in the early stages of the war which enabled you to put 100,000 men at the place where they were wanted in France without delay? That rapidity of mobilisation depends entirely on the kind of organisation which lay at the foundation of the arrangements, such as they were, and such as they ought to have remained. You have delayed rapidity of mobilisation by collecting troops from all quarters and huddling them together in particular battalions without regard from whence they came and how they were raised. It has not mattered, because you had plenty of time to raise them in the latter stages of the war. But

1111
rapidity of mobilisation will be the bedrock and principle of the test of success of the British Army, whatever it may be in the future. I do not know what shape it will take. I trust that my noble friend, who is very keen and sympathetic about these things, will use his influence to give effect to the request of the noble Lord, and secure to us the continuance of those considerations of sentiment which make the utmost difference both to the spirit and to the efficiency of troops.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what has fallen from Lord Harris with respect to the methods of recruiting and the carrying on of the territorial system. Lord Haldane has expressed much better than I possibly could many of the views which I hold upon this subject. I venture to say, however, that I am confident that in the long run, when this war is over and when things connected with the Army are being carefully investigated, the territorial system will be found to have done as good work as any one that this country has ever had. I have always felt, having had to do with the Territorial Force from the commencement, that we should be very grateful to Lord Haldane for having initiated such a wonderful system, and one which, had it been on a little larger scale in the first instance, would have enabled us to put more men in the field than we did. Lord Haldane was the father of that Army; it is a largish Army now, and it has done and is doing wonderful work.
But it is not the Territorial Force qua Territorial Force that I have in mind, but the Line regiments belonging to the various territorial areas, and no agency has been so effective in getting recruits as the territorial system. The men have come forward in large numbers and been anxious to get into the Line regiments belonging to their particular area; but on occasion, as has happened of late, there has been a considerable number of recruits brought in from other parts of the country. I have known men to be brought from as many as seven or eight different counties to join the Leicestershire regiments. That has been owing to exceptional and peculiar circumstances; and although there have been occasions when local recruits have been sent away, as Lord Harris has described, to join other regiments in other parts of the country while at the same time recruits from outside
1112
have been brought in, those things have occurred only very rarely; and I am confident that the noble Earl opposite (Lord Derby), who, as I know, has very strong local feelings, will do his best to see that in the future the old territorial system is observed as far as the requirements of the War Office and the Army allow.
I believe the territorial system to be one of the most effective weapons we have, and it should not be lightly tampered with. But, as I say, there have been circumstances within the last year which have made it impossible to carry out recruiting solely from local areas into local Territorial and Regular regiments. That has been very unfortunate, and it undoubtedly did a certain amount of harm to recruiting at the time. But so long as we feel confident, as we do, that the War Office recognises to the full the inestimable value of the territorial system, whether applied to Line or to Territorial regiments, we can rest content that we shall never fail of a due flow of recruits to the Army.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to call his attention to one matter which has been overlooked in this debate, and which I think might have some influence on the territorial system. Formerly the casualty lists always stated the regiment of Yeomanry to which the officer or man belonged, but for the last few months—I do not know how long exactly—the casualty lists have stated simply "Yeomanry." Naturally every county is very proud of its Yeomanry regiment, and I think the noble Earl will admit that the county feeling has been well kept up when you consider that all Yeomanry regiments have their third line. I fail to see how it can be of assistance to the enemy if it is stated that the regiment belongs to Kent, Surrey, or whatever the county is; and as the name of the county is given in the casualty lists with regard to other regiments, I would ask the noble Earl to consider the question of allowing it in the case of Yeomanry regiments. I might add that I support every word said by Lord Harris, and I hope that the territorial system will have every encouragement.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hope I may be able to give a sympathetic answer to the noble Lord; and I can

1113
assure him that, although I have been transferred from the opposite side of the House to this side, my sentiments on the subject have in no way altered. If I may, I will deal first with the question which Lord Galway has just mentioned with regard to the casualties in the Territorial Force. The military authorities attach the greatest importance to not giving such information. The fact of a man being in—shall I say?—the Lancashire Hussars does not convey much information, but it may convey this information to the enemy—that this particular Brigade was in action in one particular place; and the military authorities have laid the rule down very definitely because they think publication might give valuable information. I have been into this matter personally in France. They attach the greatest importance to not giving the names of the regiments. I feel sure that when the noble Viscount knows that this is the wish of the military authorities, he will not question the decision.
With regard to the question which Lord Harris has raised, let me say that I am absolutely and entirely in sympathy with him. I strongly believe in the territorial feeling. It has been of enormous value in getting recruits in this war; and this the noble Lord can take from me as an absolute assurance—as far as anybody can give an assurance—that any departure from it is only temporary, and that we shall go back to what I believe is the right spirit, the territorial spirit, after the war. My noble friend Lord Haldane, I think, hit the nail on the head when he said that what Lord Kitchener wanted was to get the men, and that as long as he got them he was satisfied. I think there is no doubt that this was the case. Equally I have no doubt whatever that if the territorial system had been expanded it would have been worked far easier than the system of raising separate battalions. More than that—and of this I speak with practical experience—it was infinitely harder to get men to fill up a Territorial battalion which was half full than it was to get men to form a completely new battalion. Lord Haldane said that the Territorial Associations had not very much to do. They did have a great deal to do. They had to do with all the clothing and equipment of the whole of the first line; they had to make the second line, and to get 50 per cent. more for a third line.
LORD HARRIS: And there were the separation allowances.
THE EARL OF DERBY: They had to do with the separation allowances for the whole of the Force. Take my own Territorial Association. We had to do the separation allowances for two and a half divisions; and there was some work in doing that. But to return to my point. We were short in the Artillery. I tried to get men for our Territorial Artillery. Meanwhile I was asked to raise some Artillery for the New Army. I was able to raise Artillery in Lancashire and to complete two divisions before I was able to fill up the ranks of the Territorials. There was something unaccountable, but it existed, which made men prefer to go into new units than to go into old-established ones. Granted that you had not compulsory service, I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that the territorial system would have been the right one to work on. The territorial system, of which the noble Viscount (Lord Haldane) has every reason to be proud, was based not only on territorial associations, but to a certain extent on percentage of population. Therefore you would have been able to extend those divisions according to the population of the area. But the more patriotic a county was, the worse is its position at the present moment for getting recruits. Lord Harris spoke for Kent, and I speak to a certain extent for Lancashire. We were both very keen about our counties, but there were some others who were not nearly so keen, and I do not know whether he had the same experience as I did, but one of one's chief duties was warning off recruiting parties who came poaching to get recruits for other parts of the kingdom where the territorial feeling was not so strong, perhaps, as it is in Kent and Lancashire.
I quite agree with the noble Lord that, as far as possible, men ought to be kept within their county regiments. It is a great disappointment to those of us who have raised special battalions and special reserves for those battalions to find that those reserves, whom we had taken a great deal of care to bring up to the right establishment, are suddenly taken off to fill up gaps in other regiments. But we have to face this fact, that having begun in, if I may so call it, rather a haphazard way, it is almost impossible to get out of it now at the moment when the one thing we

1115
want is to make every possible use of our man power when and where it is wanted. The other day when I was in France I went into this question, and what they told me—it is sound common sense—was this. If two regiments go into action, say A and B, and A loses half its strength while B has hardly any casualties at all, and you see behind that B has enough men to make good A's casualties while A has not that reserve, you cannot stand on any rule or regulation, but you are bound to take men from B to fill up A. That is a proposition that we have to face, and I do not think anybody in this House would take the responsibility of saying to our military chiefs in the field or to our military advisers at home, "You are not to make the best use you can of your man power, because by doing so you will in some way go against territorial sentiment." To do such a thing as that would be to ask those who are responsible for the fighting in the field to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that after this war we must go back to the territorial system, and I have the assurance of the military authorities that, so far as they possibly can, they will adhere to this system, because they recognise the value of keeping such men together. I ask the noble Lord to believe that I have exactly the same sentiments in this matter as he has. At the same time I ask him to agree with me that we must do nothing that would interfere in any way with the full discretion of the military authorities as to the best use to be made of the man power of this country.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, after the extremely satisfactory reply of the noble Earl and his assurance that the interest of the War Office remains in the territorial system though they have had temporarily to depart from it, I think I ought to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a on Tuesday next.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following nineteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (No. 4).

Gas (Standard of Calorific Power).

Output of Beer (Restriction).

Isle of Man (Customs).

Public Works Loans.

Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions).

Expiring Laws Continuance.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order.

Land Drainage (Lilleshall) Provisional Order.

Aberdare and Aberaman Gas.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Colchester Gas.

Ferndale Gas.

Great Central and Sheffield District Railways.

House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock, to Tuesday next, a quarter past four o'clock.