Sitting of 22 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 11th October.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Shrop-shire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Berks (Northern or Abingdon Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel the hon. Harold Greenwood Henderson (Manor of Northstead).— [Lord Edmund Talbot]

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered "showing, for each financial year commencing the 1st day of April from 1875 to 1916, inclusive:—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1915–16, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

2452

(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities; and

(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

SWEDEN AND BRITISH MAIL TO RUSSIA (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 28, 1916).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Swedish Minister on the subject of the detention by the Swedish Government of the British Transit Mail to Russia as a reprisal for the search of Parcels Mail by His Majesty's Government [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 18th August, 1916, modifying the provisions of Section 1 (1) (c) of the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1915, with respect to Imported Rum [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Account presented of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 29th February, 1916, and Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 121.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1915–16. Part I. Administration of the Poor Law. Special Work arising out of the War: Prevention and Relief of Distress; Reception and Accommodation of War Refugees; National Registration; the Tribunals under the Group System of Enlistment and the Military Service Acts.

2453
Part III. Public Health; Local Administration; Local Taxation and Valuation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOOD SUPPLIES (BELGIUM)
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the German authorities in Belgium have in the past requisitioned any crops grown by the Belgian people; whether in the operation zone, the ètape zone, or the occupation zone the German military authorities have carried out their promises made last year to allot to the native population 120 grammes of wheat per capita per diem; whether these promises have been carried out; and, if not, whether as a consequence more food had to be imported by the Neutral Commission for the civil population in Belgium?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): If the first part of the question refers to the whole period during which the Germans have been in occupation of Belgium, the answer is in the affirmative. The 1914 harvest had, of course, been in large measure seized or destroyed before the work of the Belief Commission began. As regards the 1915 harvest, all wheat and rye in the occupation zone was reserved for the civil population, and I believe the whole quantity has in fact gone to the population. In the ètape zone, which includes the operation zone for this purpose, the promise of 120 grammes per capita per diem has, I believe, been carried out by the Germans. As to the last part of the question, I can only say that, compared? with the volume of imported foodstuffs normally consumed by Belgium, the imports of the Commission are not excessive, and that the ration allowed to the Commission has never been consciously increased on the ground that German requisitions or purchases made an increase necessary.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about the potato crop? Does that apply to the potato crop also?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would like notice of that question. I think it does.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether foodstuff and other commodities are imported into Belgium, other than those imported by the Neutral Commission, and are sold to the civil population of Belgium; and if he can state from what neutral countries such commodities are exported, or whether the Neutral Commission supply all the foodstuff imported for the civil population in Belgium?
    Lord R. CECIL: There may, of course, be a certain amount of smuggling traffic, and there is a certain traffic in Dutch native produce not covered by Dutch export prohibitions. There is also one Dutch Commission, which exports a certain amount of bread to Belgium, though I believe this is not now in operation. The Neutral Commission is the only channel for importations into Belgium recognised or encouraged by His Majesty's Government.

    VATICAN (BRITISH REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning the change of British representation at the Vatican?
    Lord R. CECIL: I must refer the hon. Member to the announcement in the Press on the 17th instant, which gave full information with regard to this appointment.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked (1) what relationship, if any, exists between the Mr. G. A. Holzapfel, recently appointed to our Consular Service in Holland, and the enemy shareholders in Holzapfels, Limited, the sale of whose shares under the Trading With the Enemy Act is being considered by the Board of Trade; and (2) if the father and uncle of Mr. Holzapfel, recently appointed to the British Consular Service, left this country shortly after the outbreak of war and have not since returned?
    Lord R. CECIL: With regard to these questions I have no official information, though I have heard it said that the facts

    2455
    are as stated in the second of them. Perhaps the House will allow me to say that I have reason to believe that Mr. Holzapfel has resigned his position. It does not seem to be everywhere understood that Mr. Holzapfel had only the honorary rank of Vice-Consul, received no pay, and consequently did not become a member of the salaried Consular Service, to which there was never any question of appointing him. As there appears to be some misaprehension with regard to British Consular representation at Rotterdam, I might add that there are three British salaried Consular officials there, namely, Mr. Masse, the Consul-General, and two Vice-Consuls —Mr. Tom, who has the local rank of Consul, and Mr. Maclean. The appointment of Mr. Holzapfel may now be regarded as at an end, and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given directions that for the future no person who is of foreign nationality or is a naturalised British subject or whose father was a naturalised British subject shall be appointed to any post, even of an honorary nature, in the Foreign Office or in the Diplomatic or Consular Services until such appointment has been considered and approved by himself or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this gentleman resigned on his own initiative?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that my right hon. Friend should press that.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it the intention of the Foreign Office to confine Consular appointments to paid officers and not to honorary appointments?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Royal Commission, which sat on this question before the War, dintinctly said that they thought the unpaid Service was a valuable thing to keep going.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Does this new system apply to Consuls-who are to be appointed in the future, or does it apply to existing Consuls?
    Lord R. CECIL: My answer will apply to future appointments.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as there are about 158 Acting-Consuls,
    2456
    Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, and one Consul-General, with foreign names, he can say how many of these are British-born with British parents, how many naturalised of foreign extraction, and how many unnaturalised?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know which are the 158 Consular officials who are regarded by my hon. and gallant Friend as having foreign names, and I am, therefore, quite unable to answer his question as it stands. Perhaps it will be sufficient to say that all salaried Consular officials are British-born subjects. It is true that a considerable number of the unsalaried Consuls and Vice-Consuls are foreigners, but this is, I fear, to some extent inevitable if we are to have representatives-in towns where there are few or no suitable British residents. It is entirely misleading to discuss salaried and unsalaried posts together. Unsalaried Consuls of foreign nationality? are, as a rule, appointed where it is a choice of having an unsalaried foreign Consular officer or none at all, and not where there is a possibility of having an efficient British Consular officer.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the names are taken from Whittaker, and in view of the enormous amount of damage done to us and our Allies by people under enemy influence or in enemy pay, would it not be possible to have our Consular Service manned by British-born and British-bred subjects with no interest in enemy trade?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that so far as salaried officers are concerned they are all British-born subjects. So far as unsalaried officers are concerned, I am sure that if he will look into the matter he will agree with me that it is quite impossible that we can have an unsalaried Consular officer in every place where we have them now if we are debarred from appointing anyone of foreign nationality.
    Major HUNT: Would it not be better to do without them?
    Lord R. CECIL: That question was very exhaustively examined by the Commission. As the matter has been raised, perhaps the House will allow me to read an extract from the Commissioners' Report on the subject of unsalaried officers. They say:
    "Upon a full consideration of all the evidence we have no criticism to make of the policy now pursued by the Foreign Office in respect to this question. We

    2457
    think that the appointment of whole-time salaried officers to unimportant posts is not only unnecessary and extravagant hut that it would prove actually prejudicial to the efficiency of the officers in question. On the other hand we have received a considerable body of evidence testifying to the value of the services which unpaid Consuls of foreign nationality can render to British trade."
    Mr. HOUSTON: What is the date of that?
    Lord R. CECIL: Just before the War.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it not the case that the Report was compiled before the War, and that the War has changed that as well as many other things?
    Lord R. CECIL: Of course the War Las made enormous changes, and, as the hon. Member knows, the whole question of the Consular Service after the War is being very carefully considered.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOKS,
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the thirty-four conscientious objectors sentenced to the death penalties in France have had their cases reviewed by the Appeal Tribunal; and, seeing that it is now over two months since they were sentenced and their terms of penal servitude began, how long are these men to be kept in prison before having their cases reconsidered in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): All these cases have now been reviewed by the Central Tribunal.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for War whether, in reference to the thirty four conscientious objectors condemned to death in June in France, he is aware that certain other conscientious objectors were At the same time tried in France for the same offences but received light sentences; why F. C. Bromberger received only one year's hard labour instead of death by shooting; why Rendel Wyatt received two years' hard labour; and why of these men one still remains at Boulogne, one is in prison at Rouen, while forty are in Winchester Prison?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that it is not possible in law to ask a court-martial the reasons why
    2458
    at their discretion they have inflicted any particular sentence. In regard to the latter part of the question, if he will state the names of the men at Boulogne and Rouen, inquiry will be made.
    Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that no other conscientious objectors will be sent abroad, and that these men will as soon as possible be brought home?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is not raised in the question.

    FRIENDLY ALIENS (ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state his arrangements for the enlistment of friendly aliens, especially of Russian Jews, in the British Army?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have been approached by a responsible committee of leading Russian Jews, who have expressed their willingness to carry on an active recruiting campaign in London and in other centres, with a view to securing the voluntary enlistment in the British Army of Russian subjects living in this country who are eligible for military service. I have agreed that until the results of this campaign are seen the question whether those who do not enlist should be repatriated shall remain in abeyance. All who enlist voluntarily and who desire to become British subjects will be given a formal assurance on joining the Army that, if they fulfil the statutory conditions, they will be naturalised without fee within three months, if they are then still serving in the Army. So far as practicable, arrangements will be made for men wishing to serve together to do so. Pay, separation allowance, and pension will be the same as for British subjects. Men who can show that they would not be liable to military service in Russia, while eligible for voluntary enlistment in the British Army, will not at any time be required to serve by other methods. I am in consultation with the War Office as to the establishment of a special tribunal in London, and some modifications in the present arrangements in certain large towns, in order that Russian subjects may apply for certificates of exemption on the same grounds as are allowed to British subjects by the Military Service Acts.

    2459
    Voluntary recruiting will be open until the 30th September. After that date the question of repatriation will be again considered, as will also the question whether the advantage of the special arrangements for naturalisation should still be open to those who have not presented themselves for enlistment. As several Members of this House, however, are interested in the question of compulsory repatriation, I should not in any case adopt any measures with that object until after the House has reassembled in October, and an opportunity has been open for a discussion of the subject.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in his place on the Adjournment Motion if this matter is raised in the course of the Debate?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly, if hon. Members desire it.
    Sir W. BYLES: Do I understand there will be no repatriation until the House reassembles?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing these men to go to other countries besides going back to Russia, or keep it open?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should not give an undertaking to that effect. The whole question will be considered when we know the result of the voluntary recruiting.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consult the War Office in connection with this matter with a view to raising separate battalions both of Jews and Russians?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That has been considered, but there are considerable military difficulties in the way.

    PENKRIDGE BANK CAMP, STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Secretary for War if he will inquire into the treatment of soldiers at Penkridge Bank Camp, in Staffordshire; if a man who reported himself sick to the doctor I was sent back to parade without examina-
    2460
    tion, and was taken ill and died; and if there have been several cases of suicide among the men in this camp?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have received a report dated 21st August from the Western Command, but I am afraid that I am not yet in. a position to answer my hon. Friend's question. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am able to do so.
    Sir C. WARNER: As the War Office has said that the thing ought to be publicly known, is there some way of making it public?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will see what can be done in the matter

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether all the men and horses in Mesopotamia are at the present time receiving full rations; (2) what preparations were made for the comfort and safety of the troops during the hot weather in Mesopotamia as regards suitable food, drink, and tent accommodation; (3) what arrangements, if any, were made for the provision of drinking water for reinforcements arriving in Mesopotamia after they had disembarked and marched to camp; and whether he is aware that in many instances men go to the nearest pool and drink water, the result of which is enteric, cholera, or fever?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): In reply to these questions, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire on the 9th instant. As was explained then, no sufficient time has elapsed for an appreciable change to have been effected in the situation since the change of responsibility. I am making further inquiries as regards the rations. As regards the drinking water, I assume that so obvious a precaution against disease as the provision of proper drinking water has been taken, but I have no special information. If the hon. Member has private information from reliable sources I should be glad to be placed in possession of it.
    Mr. GWYNNE: May we take it that there are now no men still under-rationed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Since I have seen the hon. Member's question I have sent out special inquiries on the subject, and though probably in some cases they have had to change the scale of rations with respect to certain things, yet there is no information that they are short of any important rations. However, I will make further inquiry.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now give any figures to show the improvement in the issue of the temporary allowances to discharged soldiers awaiting the award of pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: From a test analysis of the cases dealt with on 7th and 8th August I found that the number of cases in which there was a delay of over a week amounted to 18 per cent. From a similar analysis made last week the number had fallen to 9 per cent., showing a satisfactory improvement. Arrangements have been made and instructions were issued last Saturday which will, I think, subject to the unavoidable margin due to human error, produce prompt payment to all men discharged on medical grounds in future, and all men who have already been discharged will be dealt with as rapidly as possible after their cases have been brought to notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: If in the case of a man who does not get the temporary allowance it is paid by the local pension committee, will the War Office refund that amount?
    Mr. FORSTER: I should think so, but I must not be taken as giving a definite undertaking, without consideration; but the request would appear to be reasonable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would it be worth while for a man to make representations to the local pension committee if he was not getting the money?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.

    TREASURY NOTES.
    Mr. COWANasked the chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the unpopularity of £1
    2462
    Treasury notes in Scotland; whether he is aware that this is largely due to their small size and to the thinness of the paper upon which they are printed, which render them unsuitable for payment of wages where a number of coins have to be wrapped up inside the note; and whether,, to overcome these objections, he will consider the desirability of increasing the size-of these notes and printing them upon paper such as is used by the Scottish banks for their note issues.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The issue of notes of a new design and slightly larger size is now under consideration.
    Mr. COWAN: Would not the new notes-be on stronger paper?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say anything as to the paper on which the new notes-are to be printed.
    Mr. COWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman familiar with the copied bank notes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen and admired them.
    Mr. KING: Has not this matter been, under consideration for the past six months? Will it be still under consideration six months hence?
    Mr. McKENNA: It has been at least six-months under consideration, but I hope that it will not be so for six months longer.
    Mr. KING: Can we have a definite assurance that there will be some time limit to this consideration?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I am extremely sorry, but we have to find a note that will defy the forger, and after every successive; effort which we have made we have discovered that it was still possible to forge. The difficulties consequently are enormous, but I hope that they will be overcome very soon now.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Are Scotch forgers more efficient than English forgers?

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland for what reasons it is proposed to hold an inquiry into the educational provision in Scotland as part of an inquiry into the educational provision

    2463
    for Great Britain, instead of by means of a Special Commission of persons versed in the Scottish educational system?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, the Government desire to institute a comprehensive survey of education in all its aspects. The main problems of the moment are of common interest, and I am of opinion that it is desirable to have them examined from the point of view of the country as a whole before we consider such special modifications as may be required to carry out any new lines of development in Scotland.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the subject of the inquiry in the general survey to which he refers?
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend consult the two bodies of unofficial Scottish Members before he embarks on an inquiry of this nature?
    Mr. TENNANT: In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, I think that we might very well have a—
    Mr. HOGGE: Conference!
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not say a Conference, but investigate the matter from the point of view which hon. Members might put before us. Hon. Members might like to put evidence before the Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: Could we not have the whole body of Scottish Members called together to discuss aspects of this inquiry, in which they take such a tremendous interest?
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend could get the whole body together before the Adjournment.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it not the case that the main subject of the inquiry is the Treasury finance of education? And can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the proposals for the actual development of Scottish education, whether as regards machinery or the subject-matter of education, shall only be made on the authority of persons versed in Scottish education?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that it would be convenient if my hon. Friend would put his second question, because I think that the answer covers a good many of these points.
    Mr. SCOTTasked by whom and by what means the comprehensive review is to be made of the existing provision of education in Scotland as part of a review of the educational provision in Great Britain; whether proposals for developing it will be made on the authority of any persons not specially versed in Scottish education; and whether the inquiry will include primary schools, secondary and higher-grade schools, and universities?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must ask my hon. Friend to wait for the further announcement on this matter promised yesterday by the Prime Minister, but I can assure him that I do not propose to nominate as a Scottish representative anyone not versed in Scottish education. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the supplementary question which has been asked, while it is true that the financial question is the important part of the investigation I cannot consider it to be the whole.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is altogether to the advantage of the inquiry to state as early as possible by whom the inquiry is to be conducted, and what are the scope and methods, and is there any reason for concealing these matters?
    Mr. TENNANT: The information has not been published yet, but it will be published. My right hon. Friend promised definitely to publish both the personnel and the terms of reference.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Scottish Members?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am always willing, and indeed anxious, to consult my hon. Friends. I think that it would be a good plan to set the inquiry on foot, and then have the Scottish Members to give evidence.
    Mr. HOGGE: This is a Scottish matter. Why not consult the Scottish Members? It is infinitely more advisable to have these appointments made with the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues.
    Mr. TENNANT: I join issue with my hon. Friend. This is not solely a Scottish matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: I shall raise this on the Adjournment.
    Mr. TENNANT: I knew he would.
    Sir J. LARMORasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the active steps now being taken by neutral nations to organise their agencies for higher education with a view to national scientific development and to meet the conditions that will arise after the War, for example, in view of the American Commission of Inquiry now in Europe to collect information and opinions towards that end, he can state what are the steps, other than Departmental, that the Government have now taken in that direction; whether he can state the names and scientific qualifications of the secretarial staffs attached to the Committees that have been appointed; if he will state whether any Reports will be made public for the consideration of persons interested, including the Members of this House; and how soon the first Reports may be expected?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As regards the first two parts of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for London University, and to the answer given on the 16th instant by the Secretary for Scotland to the hon. Member for the Bridgetown Division of Glasgow. I may add that the Secretaries to the Committees appointed will be announced with the Committees. I am unable at present to say when the first Reports may be expected. The question of publication will be considered when they are received.

    CEYLON.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can supply any information as to the improvement in the moral conditions of Colombo which followed the action taken by the Governor three years ago; and whether the conditions continue to be satisfactory?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have received no recent report from the Governor in this matter, but I will ask him for one.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will instruct the new Governor of Ceylon, to make immediate inquiries into all cases of alleged injustice in connection with the riots last year, and par-
    2466
    ticularly if he will have inquiry made into the case of Mark Leo Fernando, of Divula-pitiya, in the Negombo district, who was arrested on 7th June, 1915, and shot in front of his house on the following day without any formal trial, though he begged for an inquiry; (2) if he will instruct the Governor of Ceylon to inquire into the case of Mututantrige Aron Fernando, of Karawanella, who, with several others, was charged with rioting before the Police Court of Kegalle and was kept in custody until he paid 10,000 rupees upon a receipt issued by a military officer, Major Bayly, whereupon he and his co-accused were all discharged; whether the Special Commissioner, in order to induce payment, warned this man that he had power to send him to gaol or have him shot; whether any part of this fine has been repaid; (3) if he will have inquiries made into the circumstances under which a bond was issued on 13th August, 1915, signed C. V. Brayne, Special Commissioner, stating that, upon faithful performance of the terms of the bond and the payment in full of 5,000 rupees each, two persons named in the bond had purchased an amnesty from all criminal proceedings in connection with the riots; (4) if he will have an investigation and report upon the case of Rankiripatirage Telenis Appu, Watubenegamage Podi Singho, and James Bass, of Algoda, in Three Korales, who were arrested early in the morning of the 10th June, 1915, in their houses, the second while in bed, and taken to the bank of the Algoda river and there shot, without any trial, in spite of their entreaties for an inquiry; and (5) if he will have full inquiry made into the case of Wadurava Kankanamalage Simon Perera, of Kal Eliya, in Hapitigam Korale, and Liyana Atchi Lekamalage Jiris Appuhany, who were arrested on 5th June in the house of the former, and shot immediately after in the compound without any trial, though they begged for an opportunity to prove their innocence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The new Governor of Ceylon is inquiring into all matters arising out of the riots which in his opinion require investigation. I shall be glad to bring to his notice the questions of the hon. Member.
    Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that this House will have an opportunity of considering the report of the Governor of Ceylon on these matters?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No such promise is given. As I mentioned to the House on the Colonial Office Vote, we trust the Governor in this matter, and are satisfied with the examination which he considers necessary.
    Mr. KING: A number of questions as to alleged irregularities have been raised during the last few months. Will these be all brought to the notice of the Governor?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. They will be all brought to the notice of the Governor.

  MUNITIONS.

    WAR BADGES.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Minister of Munitions if he will issue a badge to be worn by miners showing that they are employed in an exempted trade, with a view to protecting them from unwarranted criticism when away from the collieries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): In view of the special arrangements made for exempting miners from military service, it was decided, in consultation with the Home Secretary, not to issue badges to miners.

    WOEKEES' WAGES.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the chairman of the Glasgow Munitions Tribunal on Tuesday last in reference to the low wages paid to certain munitions workers, for instance, a wage of 27s. for a week of fifty-six hours, and that he had expressed his opinion fifty times in the strongest possible manner; and whether, in view of the high increasing cost of the necessaries of life, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: My attention had not been called previously to any remarks made by the chairman on the particular occasion referred to. I am aware, however, that the question of the wages paid to labourers in this district has from time to time been the subject of comment before the tribunal. Any question as to the wages of these men which cannot be
    2468
    settled between the parties should be referred as a difference to the Board of Trade under Part I. of the Munitions of War Act.

    BANK HOLIDAY- MONDAY.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the shipowners and merchants in Hull and Grimsby have refused to give extra pay to the workmen for the work done on August Bank Holiday Monday; if he is aware that the Government recommended that where there was no existing agreement between employers and workmen, at least time and a-quarter should be paid for all work done on that day; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that the recommendations of the Government with regard to special rates of pay were directed to persons engaged on munitions work, and I can only undertake to deal with complaints relating to firms who are so engaged.
    Mr. THORNE: Is there not a moral obligation on employers in view of what was recommended, and seeing that the men worked on Bank Holiday?
    Mr. THOMAS: Are these not matters of Government concern, and will the Government recognise the principle?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not quite follow.
    Mr. THOMAS: Railways.

    WOMEN AND GIBL WORKERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the rates of pay authorised in a circular issued by the Ministry for women and girl munitions workers at various ages are not paid to women workers in factories and controlled establishments where the eight-hours working day is in operation; and whether he will advise that the authorised rates be paid in all establishments where the normal working day is in operation?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware of any such case as that referred to in the question, but if my hon. Friend will bring any such case to my notice, I will make inquiries. It is possible that my hon. Friend

    2469
    is referring to the case of women engaged on men's work, who, in accordance with the provisions of the Minister's Order embodying Circular L2, are rated at £1 per week reckoned on the usual working hours of men in the engineering trade in the district.
    Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the case which I mentioned last week of the National Munitions Factory? Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that what I said was right, or will he make inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: We are making inquiry.
    Mr. THORNE: Where the women and girls are employed forty-eight hours a week, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that they be paid the minimum of £1 a week?
    Dr. ADDISON: So far as Circular L2 is concerned, the regulations should be complied with, and if my hon. Friend has any case to bring forward where they have not been complied with it will be dealt with at once.
    Mr. BARNES: If the men get a full week's pay for forty-eight hours a week, and the girls work forty-eight hours a week and do not get a full week's pay, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are paid £1 a week?
    Dr. ADDISON: If that is being done.
    Mr. BARNES: If it is being done, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the girls get a full week's pay?
    Dr. ADDISON: They will have a full week's pay in the district where forty-eight hours are a full week's work.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If the men work forty-eight hours for a full week's pay, will the girls working there get the minimum of £1 a week?
    Dr. ADDISON: We cannot say whether that number of hours is worked in different districts.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In a district where the men get a full week's pay for a forty-eight hours' week, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the girls get it?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly, if that is a week's work.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in Circular L2, dated October, 1915, which deals with the rates of pay to women workers on munition work, paragraph 1, states that women workers of eighteen years of age and over employed on time work or work customarily done by men shall be rated at £1 per week, reckoning on the usual working hours of men in engineering establishments of the particular district; that employers in all-parts of the country are refusing to pay more than £1 per week; that many trade unions have applied on behalf of women to a number of employers for an advance over the £1 per week, mainly in consequence of the extraordinary rise in the price of foodstuffs since October, 1915, and are asking that the rate shall be raised to 25s. per week; and if he can see his way to receive a trade union deputation with a view to arriving at a satisfactory conclusion?
    Dr. ADDISON: The points raised in this question have been brought to my notice. The matter is under consideration, and I am referring it for advice to my right hon. Friend who advises the Government on Labour questions.

    OVERTIME (FEMALE WOKKEES).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions what extra rate is paid for overtime and night work in the case of female workers who are working on time and piece rates?
    Dr. ADDISON: In the case of women and girls on munitions work of a class customarily done by men, extra rates for overtime and night work are prescribed by Orders of the Minister of Munitions, of which I am sending copies to my hon. Friend. No general rule as to the extra rates to be paid in such cases to women and girls on other munitions work has been issued; but as I stated recently in-the House of Commons, it is proposed to issue instructions on this point in a few days.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT PEICES (LONDON).
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

    2471
    is aware that the selling price of flour per sack in London on Tuesday, 15th August, was 56s., top grades 3s. or 4s. more, and that the price is 13s. over and above that of 27th June, 1916; if he can give reasons why this rise has taken place within the course of six weeks; if he is aware that for every extra 10s. per ton charged on wheat freightage 1d. is added to the price of the quartern loaf; if he can state what was the rate of freightage per ton on foreign wheat imported in June, 1914; and what was the freightage per ton on imported wheat from the same countries in July, 1916?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The price of No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat quoted ex ship in London was reported as 52s. per quarter of 496 lb. on 3rd July and 72s. 6d. per quarter on 11th August. In that interval the price of the same quality and quantity of wheat in New York rose from 43s. 9d. to 57s. 9d. It will be seen from these figures that the greater part of the rise in the London price was consequent on the rise in New York which followed the receipt of unfavourable reports of the condition of the growing crop of the United States, and was not due to any causes within the control of His Majesty's Government. A very small proportion of the rise, not more than 3s., was accounted for by freights. Some figures illustrating the rise in freights since the beginning of the War were given on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it true that, according to a report stated in the papers, there is a certain cornering of wheat in London, and that 200,000 quarters of wheat are being held up by firms in order to keep up the price?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Inquiries have been made, and we have been unable to find that there has been any attempt at cornering, but, if my hon. Friend has any evidence of it, I shall be only too glad to inquire.
    Mr. THORNE: May I say that there was an article in the "Statist" last Saturday which goes to prove that there is a corner in wheat existing in London?

    CABINET CINEMATOGRAPH FILM.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Secretary to the Treasury at whose expense a cinematograph film of the Cabinet is being taken; if the Treasury will remain in possession of the film; and if any estimate has been formed as to the extent the Treasury will benefit from the proceeds to be derived from the exhibition of the film?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I may say that no expense would have fallen upon the Treasury in this connection. The proposal has, however, I understand, been dropped, and I need scarcely add that it was never intended to allow a cinematograph picture of the Cabinet in Session to be taken.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer more fully the first part of the question, as to who has incurred the expense up to the present?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No expense has fallen on the Treasury.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    PENAL SERVITUDE SENTENCES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary if he will see his way to allow books and Irish newspapers, as well as other comforts, to be sent those prisoners who are undergoing penal servitude as a result of the rebellion?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As these men are under sentence of penal servitude they must be subject to the same rules as other prisoners, and they cannot be allowed to receive newspapers or presents—but, as I stated last Wednesday in reply to the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, they will be allowed a liberal supply of books.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if there is any precedent for treating men convicted of political offences otherwise than as ordinary criminals, and if there be no such precedent will he not create one in the interests of good feeling between England and Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is no precedent for persons convicted of such offences

    2473
    being treated differently from other persons while in penal servitude, and I am not disposed to create a precedent.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the practice in France— it is well to take a leaf from France occasionally—where a complete distinction is made between ordinary criminals and men whose offences are only political, considering that those men often subsequently rise to Cabinet rank?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure that they include a class of persons who have taken up arms against the Government of the country.

    MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Hardinge Report where Major Price cast reflections upon the appointments to the magistracy in recent years by the Lord Chancellor; will he say whether there was any foundation for the statement of Major Price; and, if not, will he take steps to see that this gentleman, who is drawing a double salary as a Government officer, will be compelled to withdraw the insinuations made not alone against the Lord Chancellor, but against a big body of respectable Irish citizens?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): My attention has been called by the hon. Member himself to the evidence mentioned in the question. The facts as to the appointment of magistrates by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland were stated in my reply of Wednesday last to the question of the hon. Member for North Sligo. The reply given to the hon. Member's question of the 7th August made it clear that Major Price was not drawing a double salary. As to the continued employment of Major Price I cannot add anything to what was said by the Home Secretary in answer to a question of the hon. Member on the 7th instant.
    Mr. LUNDON: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that there can be no confidence in the administration of the law in Ireland when there is such a man as Major Price, he will ask the Secretary of State for War to withdraw him from Ireland to this country and utilise his services here, or otherwise send him to the front?

    FOREIGN TRADE COMPETITION (HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether, when the time arrives for discussing peace terms to conclude the present War, the Government will consider the advisability of making a condition in the settlement that the hours of labour of workpeople in all countries concerned be reduced to a ratio below that in operation prior to the War, with a view to minimising and regulating foreign trade competition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion of my hon. Friend is attractive, but I fear that it would present great practical difficulties.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of resolutions are on the agenda for the Trades Union Congress, which will be held in Birmingham on the first Monday of September, condemning the action of the Government in not granting an extra allowance to old age pensioners in consequence of the advance in the prices of all kinds of foodstuffs during the War; and whether he can now announce that the Government intend to give a Supplementary Grant to old age pensioners during the war period?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the Government recognise there is always danger if you sit on the safety-valve too long?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a sound general observation.
    Mr. KEATING: The Prime Minister says it is a general proposition. I can assure him it is a particular proposition.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

    LIQUOR PROHIBITION (SCOTTISH DEPUTATION).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet considered the proposals for liquor prohibition in Scotland during the War, placed before

    2475
    him by a representative deputation on 25th July last; and if he can now make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. TENNANT: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, since receiving the deputation referred to in the question, I have recently received two further deputations on the same subject. The whole matter is receiving my most careful consideration.

    MUNITION WOEKS EXPLOSION.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask the Minister of Munitions whether he can give the House any information as to the identity of the place in Yorkshire where the explosion took place, which is announced in this morning's papers, and as to the number of lives lost and any other information which, consistent with the public interest, he can give?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot identify the place. We have not been able to ascertain the cause of the explosion that occurred yesterday evening. Twenty bodies have been recovered up to the present. Considerable destruction has resulted from the explosion, but the casualties have not been as heavy as was at first anticipated.
    An HON. MEMBER: All at the one place?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the cause, or have they been able to find out?
    Dr. ADDISON: We have not been able to ascertain.
    Sir W. BYLES: I do not think the House heard where it was?
    Dr. ADDISON: I did not say.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP (IRELAND).
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state whether it is a fact that a warning has recently been issued to the editors of all Irish papers on the subject of Press criticism of the Government and its administration in Ireland, and whether he can give the terms of the warning, and whether the Chief Secretary himself was acquainted with and approved of its terms before that was issued?
    Mr. DUKE: A notice was recently issued warning editors in Ireland against making publications which are likely to cause disaffection. The Press Censorship is at present a Department of military administration. The terms of the warning were settled by the Censorship. I was aware that a warning would probably be issued, but not of its terms.
    Mr. LYNCH: Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted before this warning was given?
    Mr. DUKE: I told the hon. Gentleman and the House exactly how the matter stands.
    Mr. LYNCH: In this matter we want to know who is governing Ireland on the Civil side, and whether we can rely on the assurance of the Prime Minister himself that General Maxwell has no interference whatever on the Civil side of the Government of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: As I have told the House, the Press Censorship is at present a department of military administration, and is not under the control of the Civil administration in Ireland. It happened that while I was in Dublin last week I became aware that by reason of certain incidents which had occurred, the nature of which I do not think I ought to state to the House, it would probably be necessary that a warning should be given. I gather from the question which is put to me that the warning which was then spoken of in conversation to me as a thing which might be necessary, is the warring to which the question of my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state; specifically to the House whether newspaper editors in Ireland have been warned that they are not entitled to criticise the Government of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: To that question the answer is, No. The warning which has been given to them is as to publication, which, of course, includes criticism, which is likely to produce disaffection and a publication which offends against the terms of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. CONDON: The good old days!
    Mr. O'GRADY: The Indian Press Act over again!
    Mr. SCANLAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single provision in the Defence of the Realm Regulations which

    2477
    prevents newspaper editors from criticising the Government or any Department of it?
    Mr. DUKE: I have not the Defence of the Realm Regulations before me, but that there are provisions in the Defence Regulations which prohibit the publication of matters tending to excite disaffection in the country I am perfectly sure.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Defence of the Realm Regulations relative to the conduct of the Press were under discussion in the House the late Home Secretary definitely stated that the newspapers would be free to criticise the Government and the Departments of the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

    HUTTING AGENTS (COMMISSION).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is now in a position to tell the House the result of his negotiations with the hutting agents for a reduction in the amount payable to them in respect of commission?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I am not in a position even yet to announce any definite arrangement. For some time past I have been in communication with my hon. Friend the senior Member for Devon-port, as representing the firm of Sir John Jackson, Limited, and on the 14th July last—that is to say, before the date of the publication of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee—he agreed to certain proposals which, if they can be carried out, will reduce the commission payable by, way of profit from 5 per cent, to 4 per cent.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that an agent of this same firm, when the men struck because they were paid sweating wages, told the men that they ought to be shot? If that is so, who is going to be shot now?
    Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware of any fact of that kind.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BOOT AND SHOE OPERATIVES).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board
    2478
    of Trade whether he has had any representations from the National Boot and Shoe Operatives in opposition to their being included in the Act extending the operation of the Unemployment Section of the National Insurance Act, and whether he would exercise the powers he has under the Act and postpone to a date later than 1st September the application of the Act to this industry?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, there is no power under the Act to postpone its application to a particular industry which is included in the Schedule. Any postponement would have to be general, applying to the Act as a whole, and having regard to the importance of bringing insurance into force at the earliest possible date, the Board of Trade cannot see their way to any such general postponement. As regards the boot and shoe trade, I may add that the matter has been fully discussed with a deputation of the union in question, but I am not satisfied that even if it were possible there would be a good case either for postponing insurance in this trade or for excluding it from insurance altogether.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this trade was placed in the Act without any knowledge whatever of the facts, and that it did not discover that it was in until the Bill had become an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend should have raised that question when the Bill was before the House. If he is representing that industry, then would have been his opportunity.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general interest excited by the Public Accounts Committee's Report, he would give a day for its discussion after the evidence had been printed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly. I think that the evidence should be printed first.

    ROSYTH (WORKMEN'S ALLOWANCES).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet able to make a statement in reference to the wages and allowances paid to certain classes of workmen at Rosyth?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Since Tuesday last, when I gave my right hon. Friend an undertaking on this point, this matter has again been looked into, and I am now in a position to say that, pending the provision of sufficient housing accommodation at Rosyth, men locally entered and living in towns at a distance therefrom will receive the 6d. a day recently sanctioned for men transferred from the Southern yards.

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of any negotiations with a view to the termination of hostilities being initiated during the Recess, he will at once summon Parliament together to deliberate on the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I cannot give any such undertaking.

    MARTIAL LAW (IRELAND).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Prime Minister whether it is true, as stated in a leading English newspaper today, that General Sir John Maxwell is to be withdrawn from Ireland; also whether martial law is now to be withdrawn, and ordinary laws and civil liberty restored to the people of that country?
    Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question With regard to the position of Sir John Maxwell, no decision has yet been arrived at. That must be a matter involved in the general policy in regard to administration in Ireland. With regard to martial law, the hon. Member gave notice this morning that he was going to ask a question. It happens that recently the hon. Member
    2480
    for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Byrne) had on the Paper a question on the same subject which was not asked. I have here the answer which I proposed to give, and which, I think, deals with the matter to which the hon. Member has directed his question. The answer is in these terms:
    "The possibility of an immediate return to normal means of government in Ireland was, as the hon. Member will easily understand, one of the questions which occupied my attention as soon as I became Chief Secretary. It is a question which can only be properly answered upon complete information as to the significance of the events of the past four months, the conditions of the country, and the extent to which it is possible or probable that the peace may be again broken in Ireland through the contrivances of foreign enemies or the folly or wickedness of individuals at home. I am not at this moment possessed of such knowledge as would in my opinion warrant the Government in dispensing with any of the existing securities for peace and good order. At the present time martial law, in the ordinary sense of the words; is not in active operation in Ireland; there is no more interference there with the ordinary course of life of law abiding people than there is in Great Britain under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Less than four months, however, have elapsed since the occurrence of an outbreak which had most tragic consequences, and I believe the well being of the country will be better secured by making sure that there is no needless interference with individual freedom than by proclaiming in advance of the facts that Ireland has reverted to normal conditions. Nobody will be better pleased than I when I am able to make that declaration, and if it can be properly made at an early date."
    Mr. SCANLAN: How can either the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary expect normal conditions to be restored so long as Ireland is under a military dictatorship, and martial law is the order under which Ireland is ruled? Further, is the Chief Secretary's present answer consistent with the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 10th May, in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo, that it was the earnest hope of the Government that normal conditions in Ireland would be restored at the earliest possible moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is still the earnest hope of the Government.
    Mr. LYNCH: Towards what end are Ministers directing the government of Ireland at the present moment? Is it the policy of conciliation, or is it the policy of irritation of the general mass of the public? If that be the effect of General Maxwell's regime, which I can assure the Prime Minister it is, will he bring about the recall—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Arising out of the first part of the reply of the Chief Secretary, I would like to know, when he stated that the recall of General Maxwell has not yet been decided upon, whether that means that it is at present under the consideration of the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: The condition of Ireland is from day to day under the consideration of the Government, and there is the sincerest anxiety, on the part of the Government, first of all to do nothing which shall cause reasonable provocation to law-abiding citizens in Ireland, and secondly, as soon as it is safe and proper in the interests of Ireland to restore Ireland to a normal state of government.
    Mr. HAZLETON: That is not a reply to my question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman was the withdrawal of General Maxwell from Ireland now under the consideration of the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: I submit I have answered the question.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Can the Chief Secretary state a single fact in justification of the continued retention of General Maxwell in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: That must be a matter for debate. I could state volumes of facts.
    Mr. SCANLAN: We shall have the Debate on the Adjournment.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall refer to this point also.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the Government unanimously decided that the moment had come that self-government should be set up in Ireland, that they are not able to abrogate martial law and restore the ordinary law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Let me answer that question. Martial law does not exist in Ireland in any real and effective sense. Ireland is toeing governed just as Great Britain is being governed.
    Mr. KING: If it does not exist, why—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Pauper Indoor Maintenance.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the President of the Local Government Board the average cost per head of pauper indoor maintenance on 31st March, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The estimated average cost per indoor pauper in England and Wales for the year ended March, 1913, was £32 12s. 10¾d., and for the year ended March, 1914, £34 9s. 4¾d. Complete returns for the later years are not yet available.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Law and Procedure (Emergency Provisions) (Ireland) Bill,
    Time (Ireland) Bill,
    Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment;
    Parliament and Local Elections Bill,
    British Ships (Transfer Restrictions) Bill, with an Amendment;
    War Charities Bill, with Amendments; Amendments to—
    Government of India (Amendment) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

    PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
    Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
    WAR CHARITIES BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
    BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
    Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of some of the questions we asked yesterday, and in view of the larger number of questions which have arisen since, and which Members desire to speak upon on the Adjournment, whether he cannot see his way to allow the House to sit to-day to the usual hour and utilise to-morrow also for the Adjournment Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to say "No."
  Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Minister says "No." Perhaps he will wait until we have given our reasons. I know the right hon. Gentleman is always anxious that we should carry our views to him through the usual channels, and when we give him our views he always carefully considers them before he gives an answer. I am surprised he says "No" before he has heard the reasons why we want the extra time.
  The reason why we want the extra time is twofold. The House meets now under extraordinary conditions. When the average Member of Parliament, in a general way, asks for time for any subject we are informed that if he communicates through the usual channels that that will, if possible, be arranged. I notice, in to-day's Paper, that a certain order has already been arranged for this Adjournment Debate. Certain subjects are to come on in a certain rotation. Every one of these are subjects in which, personally, I am interested. I do not for a moment object to these various subjects or to the order in which they will be taken. But these do not exhaust the subjects which hon. Members wish to raise. We have, for example, just been told, on the other side of the House, that they propose to debate the condition of Ireland, which, after all, is a matter which does not only concern Irish Members, but also very many of us who
  2498
  are in sympathy with the Irish Members. My hon. Friend in front of me has given notice that he is going to discuss the payment of the wages of women in the munitions works. That is a very large subject. I myself have given notice of an important subject, a topic which will take some time. We are meeting to-morrow to receive the Royal Assent to certain Bills. That means that hon. Members must come to the House of Commons. I do not see why we should come simply to give a technical adhesion to the Royal Assent. That time could be devoted to reasonable Debate. I do not see why we should be kept here to-night after twelve o'clock discussing matters of public importance, or, indeed, in keeping Ministers up to that time in view of the arduous work they have to perform in their respective offices, and which it is quite obvious they ought to have leisure to perform. We could debate these various matters very much better if we had tomorrow, and could finish to-morrow. To raise these matters before eleven o'clock to-night would certainly be better than a long Debate to-day. For these reasons I think the Prime Minister might agree to what I suggest, seeing that we have to come here to-morrow. After all, the Cabinet could not come here to-morrow and get the Royal Assent by themselves.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, yes!
  Mr. HOGGE: No, there are only twenty-three of theta, and you would require a quorum of the House. When we are asked to' be here there is no reason at all why it ought not to be possible to discuss the topics in which we are interested, and that a great many Members desire to do. I hope the Prime Minister will agree to make some arrangement such as I have suggested.
  Mr. KEATING: With reference to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, I would like to know whether we can raise various questions, or have we to wait till a decision is arrived at on the matter? Is the Prime Minister likely to leave the House before the Irish question has been dealt with? I would like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the situation in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, is one of those who are skilled in the use of euphonious words, and I am in no degree a match for the right hon. Gentleman in that. But I claim one virtue: I know my own

  2499
  mind, and I know exactly how to act to promote the object I have in view. I am sorry to say that in these various questions in connection with Ireland which have been raised during the War the Prime Minister has not given me that impression. He has given me an impression of vacillation which is one of the most painful, and that is the impression the people of Ireland have received as a result of his conduct.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has mistaken the Motion now before the House. The Question is, whether or not we shall sit beyond eleven o'clock.
  Mr. KEATING: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled now to discuss the question of the Prime Minister's action in Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No!
  Mr. MORRELL: I think it would be rather unreasonable for the Prime Minister to refuse absolutely the request of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. He must be aware that there are at this moment topics of really very great interest and urgent public importance that require to be discussed, and this is the only opportunity that the House will have of discussing these topics for six or seven weeks. It is a matter of simple calculation that it is quite impossible to finish before the small hours of the morning. There is the question of food prices; the question to be raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee; the question of Ireland; and the question some of us desire to raise of field punishment in the Army. All these are very important matters. The Government would not be prejudiced in any way that I can see by consenting to the proposal of my hon. Friend. It seems to me a very reasonable request. The matter is simple, and will be one of great convenience to the followers of the right hon. Gentleman if he will allow the suggestion of my hon. Friend to be carried into effect in order that the Adjournment Debate may be continued for two days instead of us going into the small hours of the morning.
  Mr. LYNCH: I also join my views in asking the Prime Minister to accede to the very reasonable request of my hon. Friends opposite, and, in case of a refusal, I would invite them to proceed to a Division. I base that action on
  2500
  various grounds, one being the interests of Ministers themselves, for the most part well-meaning men, but completely overtaxed in their energies by the fact of it being a problem of men of mediocre ability trying to cope with almost superhuman powers. Moreover, this Debate is likely to be a long one, and I know of no spectacle more calculated to lessen the prestige of Parliament in the public eyes than the sight of those benches after twelve o'clock at night, when men sit like effigies of a past time, cudgelling their brains to follow the simplest proposition. The question, for instance, of Ireland is likely to lead to a very long Debate, and, in view of the importance of Ireland at the present crisis, that subject is surely one to which a whole day might be reasonably devoted—a whole day when the minds of Members are at their best point of energy, and when the whole subject can be thrashed out with candour and thoroughness by this House, so that by an interchange of opinions we may arrive at a better understanding than at present exists. I think that not only myself, but several Members on this side of the House, intend to pursue not merely the Irish question, but various Irish questions which arise out of it, each one of which is considered in Ireland itself of very considerable importance, and I think that, on that score alone, the Government would be well advised to devote a whole day to the consideration of the question of Ireland. Whereas now we may have a Debate, running to two, three, or four o'clock in the morning, and then perhaps it may be necessary at that hour, on a Motion to report Progress, to give us still another day. Therefore, I would invite the Prime Minister to reconsider this. It is not the first time he has reconsidered propositions which he has formed. I do not think that decision has been final in view of the general feeling that prevails in the House, and of the necessity at this hour of having a thorough understanding on these important and even vital questions. Finally, I would again invite my hon. Friends to proceed to a Division if the Government refuse this request.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to join with the hon. Gentleman opposite in pressing the reconsideration of this matter upon the Government. I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) was content with the answer he received

  2501
  to his reasonable request yesterday, and that he is not once more pressing the matter on the Government. After all, he has two grounds for expecting the Government to change their mind. We have to-day seen two obvious instances in which the Government have announced a change of mind, and in these circumstances we might perfectly well expect that, on a matter relating to the procedure of the House, the views expressed in different quarters will receive due consideration. We are being invited now to adjourn for a period of seven weeks, and I think this is the first occasion on which such a long Adjournment has been asked for on which there have not been protests from the House regarding the length of the Adjournment. In view of the long Adjournment, there are obviously many questions on which the minds of Members are exercised either in respect of decisions already taken or in respect of decisions which may be taken by the Government in the absence of the House during the Recess. In these circumstances, it is extremely probable that a large number of those questions can only be discussed either very late to-night or very early to-morrow morning. Announcements have been made in the Press as to the course of the Debate, and we gather that the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) is going to open the discussion, and that he is likely to make a speech of considerable importance, which will, of course, receive the attention which it deserves alike from His Majesty's Government and from the Press. Therefore it is probable that the speeches which are raised by less important Members will not receive the attention in the public Press which they deserve—[An HON. MEMBER: "In the Scottish papers!"]—even in the Scottish papers. Owing to the shortage of paper even the Scottish papers have had to give less space than they have been wont to do to the proceedings of Parliament. Consequently, in view of the fact that the House meets again to-morrow, and there are a number of Members who would be very glad to come here and to have an opportunity of interrogating Ministers and getting replies from them, I really do not see why the Government should resist the suggestion.
  After all, it is in the interests of the Government themselves. We do not desire to see His Majesty's Ministers kept on the bench till midnight or one o'clock
  2502
  in the morning. We hope, indeed, that they may be better employed at those hours. There is no doubt that they will be in a far better position to deal with the subjects under discussion in the daylight hours of to-morrow than they will be in the early hours of the morning. I think all those important considerations should be in the minds of Members before they go to a Division. Certain subjects have been already mentioned as likely to be raised in discussion, but I understand there are far more than have yet been enumerated. I understand the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) intends to deal with the question of the Air Services, and that the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has an important speech with regard to the general situation which he wishes to put before the House, and I have no doubt he will also refer to the important question of jam. All these matters should receive the attention of the House at a time when the House can give a fair consideration to them, and particularly in view of the long Recess for which the Government is now asking.
  Sir W. BYLES: I am always rather alarmed when the Government is left to its own devices without the check and criticism of Parliament. It seems to me like leaving a bull in a field with the gate open.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am sorry if the Prime Minister does not feel disposed to make any reply to the suggestions that have been made from various quarters of the House on this matter of the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman's silence in this matter is not a gentle hint to the other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that, when many of these important topics are raised on the Adjournment Motion, they will be either silent or absent. If the Prime Minister is not going to give way in this matter, I hope at least before this discussion concludes he will give an assurance that his colleagues on the Front Bench will be here to answer the matters that may be put forward by hon. Members in various quarters of the House. He must bear in mind the fact that this appeal is not being, made for the first time to-day; it was made from the Front Opposition Bench very powerfully yesterday, although I am

  2503
  afraid that that appeal was treated with very scant consideration by the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Government now take up the whole time of the House, and that all the rights of private Members have been absolutely abrogated for the whole of this Session, I think we are entitled to take advantage of an occasion such as this to bring forward, for the consideration of the Government, the various topics that have been mentioned.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much business it is proposed to take to-night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Only the two Motions standing in my name.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) said that the Prime Minister's answer to my question yesterday was very curt. No doubt the hon. Member may be an authority on that matter, but I have not noticed it myself. Yesterday the Prime Minister said there was nobody in the House in favour of two days' Debate on the Adjournment Motion, and that the opinion of the country was not in favour of it. We know perfectly well that the country has not been consulted upon this matter, and therefore nobody can say what the country thinks about it. With regard to the House itself, it is quite evident that there is a considerable amount of opinion in the House in favour of two days—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—or at any rate, in favour of a longer Debate upon these matters. Yesterday I mentioned three subjects, but I was not aware of the Irish question, and I submit to the Prime Minister that if he would give us something longer than the ordinary time for the Adjournment Motion it is well that he should give it. We are going to meet to-morrow, and I should have thought that the Prime Minister and his col-
  leagues would have welcomed a discussion upon these matters. Discussion is one thing and decision is another, but at the same time I should have thought the Members of the Government might be pleased to have a discussion on these various subjects. If we cannot have a longer time, I hope we shall have an assurance that the Ministers will stay until the various subjects have been disposed of even if we sit after eleven o'clock. I think it would be well for the Prime Minister to give way in view of the opinion of the House. The Government have sacrificed the film already to-day and there is no reason why they should not do what we ask.
  The PRIME MINISTER: May I point out to the House that the Motion now before us is one to extend the time for debate? If the House likes to negative my Motion it can do so, and then we shall close at eleven o'clock. I am perfectly satisfied as to what the general opinion of the House is. I believe the overwhelming opinion of the House is that this Motion gives ample time to discuss all the matters which have been mentioned, and I believe the idea that the country is thirsting for the prolongation of the Debate to-morrow is quite unfounded. I take it that the country is perfectly satisfied that this prolonged and arduous part of the Session should come to an end to-morrow, and that we should put the shutters up for a few weeks. I do not believe there is any desire whatever outside this House for a prolongation of this Debate. There will be ample time to-day to discuss all the topics which have been suggested.
  Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 21.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Brunner, John F, L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Forens, Rt. Hon, Thomas Robinson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Forster, Henry William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervass

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Geldar, Sir W. A.

  Bellaire, Commander C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Bird, Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Greet, James Augustus

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Gretton, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sutton, John E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Munre, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Thomas, J. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  King, Joseph

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rea, Walter Russel (Scarborough)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

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

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir G.

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Robertson Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

  Yeo, Alfred William

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

  Rowlands, James

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

  NOES.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Grady, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Finney, Samuel

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Hazlcton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Lundon and Mr. Hogge.

  Question put, and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  AUTUMN RECESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That to-morrow, Mr. SPEAKER, so soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House, without Question put, until Tuesday 10th October."—[The Prime Minister.]

  PROGRESS OF WAR.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I wish to take advantage of the Motion for the Adjournment to draw the attention of the Government and the House to several questions of considerable importance concerning a large number of persons and large classes in this country, particularly the questions relating to the cost of food, the position of freights, and also to those questions relating to the use of manpower by the War Office which I have several times referred to in the course of the present Session. Firstly, I desire to deal with those particular questions in relation to the general situation of the War. During the last three months we have had a great deal of good news from the different theatres of the War, and, coming as it did in contrast with all that had gone before, this produced a very real
  2506
  and marked feeling of satisfaction and even of optimism, and people have been inclined to spring to conclusions, some of which, at any rate, are not warranted by the facts of the situation. Nothing has happened either in the East or in the West which affords us any certainty of a speedy end to this conflict. The progress in the East against Austria has been brilliant, but we must never forget that very large distances have to be traversed in those regions. In the West at Verdun and on the Somme the strategic deadlock continues. The intense fighting, which has now lasted for more than six months, has not produced any sensible change in the general strategic alignment of the Armies. The losses on each side are largely a debatable question, but this, at any rate, is true, that the German Armies in the field on all fronts were never more numerous or better equipped than they are to-day. They have more divisions in the field to-day than at any other moment in the War. We have against us a larger German Army than at any previous time. What is behind that Army is quite another question. The diminution of the German Reserves, as I said three months ago when I ventured to address the House on these general questions, in relation to the growing power of the Allies constitutes the secure foundation upon which

  2507
  we may build our just hopes of a certain victorious conclusion of the struggle. But the actual fighting formations of the German Army are fully maintained at the present time in every respect.
  We have the marked demoralisation of Austria; we have the wonderful recovery of Russia and General Brussiloff's victory, a victory unequalled in importance since the turn at the Marne in 1914; we have the increasing exertions of Italy; we have the unflinching resolution of the French; and, last of all, and perhaps most important of all, we have the ever-growing strength and power and the splendid quality of the great new British Armies. These are all facts of glorious and encouraging import. They give us the assurance that we are definitely the stronger, and they justify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lloyd George) in his expectation that the time will soon come when we shall be able to see our path ahead much more clearly than we have hitherto done, but none of these facts carry with them the assurance of a speedy peace of the kind that we mean to have. It is astounding that Europe should have been fighting with this terrible intensity and on this universal scale for more than two years. It seemed incredible beforehand that such a thing could happen, but now, after two years, that the War should continue for another year or even more does not seem incredible. We hope that it may not be so, but it is not impossible, and certainly it does not seem incredible. At any rate, it would be most wickedly foolish, after all that has happened, to make our plans on any other assumption than that the War will go on. The time has come—it came long ago—and it is evident to all that it has come when all our plans, both at home and abroad, ought to be made with a view to the continuance of the War for a long period, and all our plans ought to be made with a view to the conditions of a state of war becoming the basis of the whole of our national, social, economic, and industrial life.
  We cannot go on treating the War as if it were an emergency which can be met by makeshifts. It is, until it is ended, the one vast, all-embracing industry of the nation, and it is until it is ended the sole aim and purpose of all our lives. Everything in the State ought now to be devised and regulated with a view to the
  2508
  development and maintenance of our war power at the absolute maximum for an indefinite period. If you want to shorten the War, do this. If you want to discourage the enemy, let them see that you are doing it. If you want to cheer our own people, let them feel that you are doing it. Behind her widely extended fronts Germany is fretting and chafing. She has been less contented with victory than the Allies have been with repeated disappointments and defeat. Let her now see that her most formidable antagonists, for so we are now coming to have the honour to be, are coldly, scientifically, and systematically arranging their national life for the one supreme business in hand. That will dishearten Germany and her leaders far more than anything else we can do or say, however optimistic or enthusiastic. It will dishearten them more than anything we can do, apart from actual victories in the field.
  I take the question of food supply and food prices as an example of the need of getting on to a sound permanent basis, having regard to the fact that we must count on a prolongation of the War, and I say to the Government: Why do you not put the question of food prices beldly on to a war basis? The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Harcourt), who acted as President of the beard of Trade in the absence of the President through needs of health, gave an answer to the right h-on. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) last week, in regard to food prices, which gathers together in a single line of figures a most striking and formidable series of facts. He showed a steady and unbroken rise in prices from the beginning of the War down to the close of the last recorded month, July. In September, 1914, he said, the rise was 11 per cent.; from that it rose to 37 per cent, in September, 1915; and it rose from 36 per cent, last August to 65 per cent, in the currency of the last completed month, July. Those figures raise very grave and urgent considerations, and we should be doing less than our duty if we did not take the opportunity, the last opportunity that will present itself for a long time, provided by the Debate on the Adjournment, to press their significance upon the Government.
  Why has this steady rise been allowed to continue absolutely unchecked by Government action? There is no doubt whatever that the tendency has undergone no

  2509
  abatement or fluctuation in response to any measure which the Government during this long period have found it possible to take. Does anybody suppose that a rise in the price of food like that can give us a sure foundation for the waging of war, however long, until victory is secured? Can anyone, looking at this line of figures, pretend that the problem has been grappled with manfully or effectively, or even that it has been faced? Are we not proceeding in regard to the supply of food in exactly the same way that brought us to disaster in regard to the supply of munitions, and later on in regard to the provision of men, namely, putting off drastic treatment of the problem in the hope that the War will finish before it is necessary to abandon our dearly cherished, go-as-you-please, old-fashioned methods? That? is the question which I ask the House and the Government this afternoon, and I say that you cannot allow these food prices to continue to rise in this way without affecting materially and very definitely your war-making capacity, and also the temper of the people upon which that war-making capacity is founded. It is not that the people of this country will not stand privation. They will endure any suffering and any privation to win the War, but they will not stand privations side by side with enormous profits made by private persons, and they will not stand them unless they believe and feel that everything humanly possible is being done to relieve them to the utmost.
  I am not able with the resources at my disposal, I say quite frankly, to analyse this volume of the rise in prices into the various causes to which it is due, and I am not able to show—I have no doubt that it will not be a difficult task for the President of the. beard of Trade—or to form any accurate estimate of the proportion of the rise which is due to natural and to irremediable causes or military causes, and of the proportion which is due to artificial causes which are to be controlled, but I do not believe that the natural causes are the real or even the main explanation. The seas are free; the food production of the world outside Europe is practically unchecked; the resources of our own soil are very considerable, and have been to some extent increased, and are capable of much greater increase. I do not believe that natural and military causes by any means account for the rise, but that a very large proportion of the
  2510
  rise is due to extortionate profits made, not by persons outside our jurisdiction, but by persons who are within the control and authority of the State. Take, for instance, shipping. The movement of freights to their present height is an absolute scandal. Here, at any rate, is a vital factor in the fixing of prices. It is under your entire control. What nonsense it is to pretend, if you could organise the supply of munitions, with its infinite complications involving every industry and reaction between so many different industries, as has been done and done successfully, that you cannot also regulate freights and shipping, The services of transport and communication stand on an entirely different footing from all services of manufacture. They are more suitable for State control on every ground and for every reason, and they have always been treated as more suitable for State control. If you can take over armament works, you can take over shipping. There is no reason at all why shipping should make special profits out of the War. They have no more right to make special profits out of this War than the railways, and there is no more reason in principle, apart from certain difficulties in practice, why they should not be taken over than there was against taking over the railways, which operation has been one of the most successful steps that the Government have taken in the domestic field since the commencement of the War. Where there is extraordinary service in time of war there may be a claim for extra profits. Where you expect special initiative and exertion, and where you require great, new, individual enterprise, a case may be made out, and a necessity may be shown for a higher rate of reward, but nothing of that sort is present with regard to shipping. It is a service of transportation. The ships go to sea almost as usual; the war risk is covered by a moderate insurance, which naturally finds expression in freights. All that has to be done, all the new effort required by the situation so far as the shipowners are concerned, is the effort of fixing freights by a stroke of the pen; yet, while we take over and regulate with the utmost minuteness, and in some cases with great celerity, all those businesses which are required for munitions, changing their whole character, altering their whole method—while we do that with these

  2511
  businesses where special exertions are required from their owners and great efforts by their staff in the organisation of great changes in their plants—while we take over all those complex businesses we continue to allow the shipping interest to exact an enormous toll, simply for carrying on their business in the old way. I am speaking of the main movement of freights; and that is the fact as it presents itself to-day.
  Very extraordinary conclusions may be drawn from it. The British Admiralty are blockading Germany, and the success of their blockade is largely measured by the movement of prices, but owing to the uncontrolled rise in freights there has grown up—unconsciously, of course—a virtual blockade of this country by the shipping interests, which blockade is again represented, and accurately represented, by the movement and elevation of prices. The British Navy, when they blockade Germany, do so by long and perilous vigil on the seas, but the movement of prices which is due to shipping freights is effected simply by a stroke of the pen in the offices of persons living in this country. Not merely do our people lose a great part of the relief which our Navy has won for them, but we actually suffer at the hands of our own citizens—unintentionally, I admit, and unconsciously, I believe; but the fact remains, we are actually suffering at the hands of our own citizens the evil of a blockade which no foreign enemy could put upon us. Of course, shipowners are just as good citizens as other classes in the country, and the fault does not lie with them. When there is no effective regulation and matters are left entirely to price movements, you must expect these results. In the absence of all other forms of regulations this is probably the only method by which the necessary competition of purchasers and consumers can be adjusted, but it is a wrong to the country—it is a wrong to the ship-owning class that they should be left in this position. The natural operation of the market and the whole conditions are bound to create a situation which forces up freights, and that in turn reflects itself in the condition of prices at home. I say to the Government, as I used to say to them very often in bygone days, "You ought without delay to take over the control of the shipping industry."
  2512
  At the beginning of the War the Admiralty were inundated by telegrams and letters from many shipowners asking to have their ships chartered by the Government. The Admiralty rate is a fair rate; it is a thrifty rate, but it is fair. It allows a fair return on capital and for working expenses, and the shipowners were quite content with it then. They were quite satisfied with the prospect of those rates, and the security which Government employment afforded them, having regard to all the then unknown possibilities of naval war. There is no reason at all why they should not be contented with that rate now. There is nothing in the service they are rendering, in the special exertions required from them, in the special aptitudes which they are called upon to display, which should render them dissatisfied now with rates which they would have jumped at in the first three or four weeks of the War, with the security attaching to those rates. I am not going to go into detail, though no doubt an answer will be given of a detailed character. I have in former times entered considerably into detail on this matter from the Government point of view, and I say there is no reason whatever why you should not charter every ship at Admiralty rates and then recharter it to the owner under such conditions as the interest of the State may require. Nothing would make me believe there is any insuperable difficulty in that if the beard of Trade would tackle the job in earnest with the skill and power that they have shown in dealing with other matters. This question should be approached in the spirit which has been brought to bear upon the regulation of the manufacture of munitions, and in the spirit with which great industries like the armament firms on the Clyde and the Tyne have been transformed. If this business of shipping were approached in a similar earnest and resolute spirit there is no reason whatever why it should not be satisfactorily settled. Of course, it is rather more difficult than the railways, but it is incomparably less difficult than what you have done in the case of munition factories.
  I know of two arguments which have been used against it, apart from the many arguments about the difficulties of detail which I do not at all underrate, but which I believe you can successfully override. But there are two arguments against it. The first which I have heard used is: "We need taxation; we need every penny we

  2513
  can get for revenue; and shipowners are making immense profits, and by the Excess Profits Tax the State gets 60 per cent, of those profits." The second argument is: "Admitting they are making high profits, is it not a good thing for this great and important industry to have in hand a capital reserve at the end of the War? "I consider both these arguments are wholly vicious and illegitimate from the point of view of State policy. First of all, if it is a system of taxation that we are invited to contemplate when we look at shipping freights, I say you could not possibly have a greater evil or a worse system of taxation than to use one great interest as if they were the farmers of the revenue and let them collect the revenue with a large percentage of profits for themselves from the taxation of food and the necessaries of life. That is a proposition which really seems to combine within itself all the vices which a system of taxation, according to the views which have long prevailed in this country, can possibly involve. If it is a question of accumulating a reserve of capital for the shipping industry after the War, then I say that is not an argument which can be advanced in a democratic country. This emergency and the general stress and strain which the masses of the people are subjected to in time of war should not be used as a means to accumulate a capital fund in private hands to be used by them at the end of the War for their own benefit. They have always, hitherto, succeeded in keeping, at the end of a victorious war—as we all hope this will be—succeeded in keeping against the greatest possible competition and without any adventitious aid their position. Such an argument is wholly illegitimate. But there is another argument whose validity deserves very close examination. It is said that there is need to restrict consumption, particularly consumption of imports, and that, with high prices ruling, that object is in a certain measure achieved.
  If it be necessary, as I think it is necessary, to restrict within limits the consumption of imported staple foods, you could not do it in a more cruel or more unfair way than by the agency of price, because in regard to food, as everyone knows, the poorest class suffers out of all proportion to any other class. The housekeeping, not only of the rich, but even of the well-to-do—going a long way down the scale of economic well-being—the housekeeping of the rich and of the well-to-do is not
  2514
  materially affected by a price which would simply starve the poorest classes out of existence. The classes which are affected by the rises which have taken place and are continually taking place in the price of foodstuffs are soldiers' wives on separation allowance, the discharged wounded with their weekly allowance of 20s. if married and 10s. if single, the old age pensioners whose cases have been brought repeatedly before us, the professional classes, the poorer-paid industrial workers and clerks—all these classes are being seriously affected, but the case of no class compares for one moment with that of the poorest class, because there is a limit below which it is not possible, with the strictest economy in the home, however miserable, to maintain life. Therefore I say that to begin to restrict consumption, which it may be necessary to do, merely through the agency of price, through the agency of unregulated, fortuitous rises of price, is the most cruel and the most unfair manner of dealing with a great national and economic problem. In time of war particularly you should have regard for the broad claims of social justice. A war with all its evils should at least be a great equaliser in these matters. If we are to look upon the whole nation as an army, on our men and women as an army struggling for a common purpose, then they are all entitled to their rations and to secure the necessary supplies at prices which their strenuous labour is not incapable of meeting. The restriction of consumption could be achieved if it is required, and as it is required, by the direct regulation of consumption. I quite agree you cannot avoid privation; you ought not to avoid it altogether. I do not for a moment take the view that if there is a rise in prices wages should instantly conform to it in time of war, or that everything should go on just the same, and that freights should be just the same as if there was no war. There must be privations, and there must be thrift and economy in every class except the poorest class, which cannot be expected to make any diminution.
  I say that the Government ought to keep steadily in mind two objects: First, the regulation of oversea supplies according to what, for the national finances, we are able to afford—that is the first; and, secondly, the distribution of whatever food is brought into the market at a reasonable and a moderate price to all classes. I am

  2515
  not again going to plunge into the constructive detail of problems of this kind. A private Member always gets into impossible difficulties if he attempts to plunge into these great detailed problems which can only be handled by the Government; but if it be desired, as it is desired, to restrict importation from oversea, and to keep consumption in this country to the narrowest limits compatible with the development of maximum physical efficiency, then I say that bread and meat tickets, or the institution of so many meatless days in each week, or both these methods combined, is the proper path along which you should advance; it is infinitely preferable to and will entail incomparably less hardship and disadvantage than this unregulated use of the agency of price. In regard to coping with prices, freights are, as I have said, the chief and prime factor which should be dealt with. The spirit of the people continues always to surprise everyone who has witnessed the growing severity of this great War. The dauntless spirit, the dogged spirit with which every hardship is cheerfully borne and every sacrifice and every loss is sustained gives us all a confidence that there is no difficulty and no privation which this people here cannot go through to carry our cause and our flag to victory. On the other hand, the people of this country do require to know that the sacrifices and sufferings they endure arise solely from the needs of the War and of the action against the enemy and that they are not added to by any lack of grip and energy in dealing with the freight problems here or by the accumulation of extortionate profits in the hands of private individuals.
  I trust that the Government will be able to make some statement on this serious argument which, I hope at not undue length, I have ventured to address to it. Before I sit down there are two matters which also require to be considered from the point of view of a prolonged war. On one of these I have already frequently addressed the House, therefore I shall only put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War upon it—I mean the use made of our man-power by the War Office. Before we get to the War Office let me say one word on the work of the tribunals. Most wonderful and admirable has been the work of the tribunals all over the country. That such an organisation could have been brought so swiftly into being, that they should have dealt
  2516
  with a vast number of cases and the immense complexity of the cases they have had to face is really one of those facts which show that you can dc anything in this country if you have the will and the intention to do it. It should be possible for the tribunals to be given a little more co-ordinating guidance from on high, from the centre and the head of the State—I am not thinking of anything higher—in regard to the classification of the cases with which they have to deal. At first the one object was to call them into being and to handle the great volume of cases which required attention. But gradually we have got our heads above water in that respect, and it ought to be possible to introduce a greater systematisation and co-ordination between the work of the different tribunals. The point with which I am chiefly concerned is the use made of the men after they have been handed over to the War Office. I know the immense and multifarious labours of my right hon. Friend at the present time, but I do assure him that there is an enormous field for administrative advance and improvement in this respect. I shall not trouble the House with them, but I have here a number of letters selected out of hundreds which have reached me, which show as in a series of tableaux the kind of typical cases of hardship and the misdirection of energy which are occurring at the present time. There is the case of the war-broken soldier, recovered two or three times from wounds and sent out to the front with his nerves shattered. There is the case of the man who has spent fifteen or eighteen months in the trenches, who writes home and says:
  "Is there any future for the British soldier but to remain here in the front line until he is either killed or wounded?"
  There is the case of a man who is taken from managing a business; employing 1,200 or 1,300 men, which owes its existence entirely to his own personal contribution, and who becomes a private in the Mechanical Transport Corps. There is the case of the Army Service Corps and the messes in this country, some of them employing twenty, thirty, or more able-bodied men in the service of the mess, whose duties could be discharged by these tired-out, war-broken soldiers who come back from the front. Side by side with these you get the passionate demands of a very large number of single young men of the highest military efficiency who enlisted and volunteered at the beginning of the War, who

  2517
  are clamouring to be allowed to go out and do their share at the front, but who have been kept here all the time. There was one case brought to my notice of an Army schoolmaster who was recommended for a commission as an officer and who volunteered to go as a private rather than remain in a position in which he was giving instruction to a number of small boys, but who was not allowed to go. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend, with his great authority, power, and energy, examines the whole question of the employment of individuals from the point of view of getting the utmost possible service out of them and to yield war energy to the State, he will render an immense service to the country. The Army will be represented by stronger and more efficient battalions, and the sense of waste and mismanagement which must arise when so many of these cases are brought to the notice of large numbers of people throughout the country, will be utterly excluded from their area.
  There is one other point to which I wish to refer before I sit down. If we are bound to consider that the War will be a prolonged one, and if we ought to approach all problems on that basis, on such a basis that if it were a short one and, perhaps, the end came unexpectedly, so that it would be wonderful and something upon which we had not counted but which came with all the more satisfaction to us—if we are to proceed on the basis that the War is going to be a long one, I say that the equipment of Russia with munitions of all kinds is almost the most important measure which is open to us to take. The great frontier in the East, extending over so many hundreds of miles, is the first that will crack when those nippers of which my right hon. Friend spoke lately bring their full pressure to bear. The manning of that enormous frontier against the repeated attacks of the inexhaustible armies which Russia can develop and bring into the field is the one insoluble problem which confronts the German General Staff at the present time. In view of the hopes which may legitimately be entertained that the Austrian demoralisation will be progressive and continuous, the difficulty of maintaining the Eastern front will be increasingly felt throughout the whole German military organisation in the near future. That all depends upon the supply of munitions you can secure for Russia. I know that the Government have made great exertions in that respect, and that
  2518
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made great exertions in that respect, but I do beseech and implore them not to allow financial considerations to stand in the way of meeting the needs of Russia in every possible manner. Order the necessary supplies where your credit enables you to order them, and the means of paying for them will be found when the time comes. After all, what is £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 in a matter of this kind? At £5,000,000 a day, it is a fortnight or three weeks of the War. If you shorten the War, as you might easily do by many months if the Russian Army has reached its fullest possible development of strength and power and the whole front is smashed as if by a gathering deluge, then you will relieve your finances from dangers and perils vastly greater than any that can possibly threaten them by any ordering of supplies, however ambitious, at the present time. I put these points before the House, and I trust that they may receive the attention of the Government. Ministers are often offended with discussions which take place in this House. They are vexed when they are criticised.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): No, no!
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman supports all evils with a tranquil mind, but some of his colleagues are vexed when they are criticised. The slightest opposition renders them indignant, and they are always ready to attribute mean motives to those concerned in it. The remedy for all this is in the hands of the Government. Let the Government show that they do not merely hold the offices of State, but that they hold the key to the solutions of the difficulties with which they are confronted; that they do not need to be pushed by the House of Commons and by the Press into action on so many occasions, but that they can go forward spontaneously with good and well-thought-out arrangements; that they are really the leaders of the country in its hour of peril, not because they are willing to go in front of the country, but because they are willing to show the country the way in which it should go for its safety. If that attitude and characteristic were to be developed and displayed by the Government, then, when they return from their holidays, which we all hope they will enjoy and get benefit from, they will certainly find no difficulties in the House of Commons and there will be no diminution

  2519
  of that wonderful loyalty with which the House of Commons has supported them through all the hazards of this time of war.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The main part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to the question of food prices and shipping freights. I confess I listened to his observations on these matters with the keenest interest, not unmixed with a considerable amount of wonder. I am still perplexed as to the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's newly-born interest in this question.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not newly-born.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The War has been going on for more than two years, and I believe I am correct in saying that this is the first time the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in this House upon the question of the rise in prices. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government for the first twelve months of the War. What did he do as a member of the Government to deal with the question of the rise in shipping freights?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said nothing to-day that I have not repeatedly said at the time I was in the Government.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that when he was a member of the Government he made a speech similar to the speech he has made this afternoon? Does he say that during the time he was a Minister he ever raised his voice in this House on the question of the rise in prices?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: How could I?
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his speech was rather severe in his criticism of the Government for their inactivity on this question, but he must take some share, at any rate, of the responsibility they must have in this matter. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's observations, because this is not a new question to some of us. Ever since the War began, and for long years before the War broke out, we on these benches were urging the importance of this question. Prices had been rising for fifteen years before the outbreak of the War. There has been an aggravation of tendencies which were previously at work during the last few years. I wonder what is the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude upon this
  2520
  question. We, by our propaganda in the House and in the country, have made this a popular question, and it has now become so popular that it pays politicians to begin to take an interest in it. Repeatedly during the first twelve months of the War we from these benches urged the Government to do something. We met with no response. Repeatedly, with a great deal more knowledge than the right hon. Gentleman has manifested this afternoon, we have put forward those demands which he has now stated. In the early days of the War we asked that the Government should take over the shipping of the country, and we were met with precisely the same objections that the right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of throwing at Socialist proposals. I wonder if he knows that the proposal he made this afternoon is a plank in the Socialist platform. For years the Liberal Publication Department was circulating a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, "An attack upon Socialism," showing the impossibility and impracticability of Socialism, proving how unwise it was to trust the State with anything, and talking about the incompetence of the State. The War has, indeed, made many changes, but surely it has wrought no greater miracle than to convert, the antagonists of Socialism into the protagonists of Socialism. But there are two sorts of Socialism, The "Times" had a remarkable leaderette a week or two ago, which stated that we must have a great deal of Socialism after the war. It; said, for instance, that it was inconceivable that the railways should ever pass again under private control. But the kind of Socialism we are to have, it went on to say, was a Socialism which must come from the top and not from the bottom. That is to say, it is a Socialism which is to be imposed upon the; people and not brought about by the people themselves. It is a Socialism which is; to be an aid to capitalism and not a Socialism for the benefit of the people. And that is the kind of Socialism to which the right hon. Gentleman has become a convert.
  I turn from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to deal with the topic which was the purpose of my rising. I want to call attention to a very grave? and urgent matter, namely, the passing into the Army of men who are physically quite unfit. This is not the first occasion upon which this question has been raised. Other Members, as well as myself, have repeatedly, both by question and in Debate,

  2521
  called the attention of the War Office to this serious matter and we have not been alone in directing attention to it. For months past the scandal has been so grave that even tribunals throughout the country have been compelled to protest against the practice. The Deputy-Chairman of this House, who presides over one of the military service tribunals upstairs, has more than once denounced the way in which the Medical beard and the military doctors are passing men into the Army who are physically totally unfit. Speaking in March last of men who had provided themselves with evidence of unfitness, he said:
  "They have submitted themselves to medical examination again and have been passed—for general service some of them—some with the remark that they may be of use as non-combatants—
  I presume that means clerical work at a military office. Mr. Maclean went on to point out what a wasteful policy this was and that it was not using the man-power of the State, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill), in the most economical way. Each soldier, he went on, cost something like £300 a year.
  "We do not desire for one moment to be associated with the ignorant outcry which is directed against the War Office in many respects. We realise fully what a tremendous undertaking is theirs, with millions of men flung at them and with a limited and depleted medical service at their disposal, but we do think that, with the evidence put before us, this matter should, in the interests of the State, be promptly and effectively grappled with."
  Mr. Maclean's protest had no effect, and he had occasion to call attention to the matter a month later in even stronger terms. He had before him a retired Civil servant who was actually in receipt of a pension because of his physical disability. This man was claimed by the military authorities. He had been passed by the medical military authorities as physically fit, and the chairman of the tribunal said:
  "This is another example of the way the Army medical examinations are conducted. In the interests of public economy we say this man should not be subjected to further medical examination. We shall forthwith exempt him."
  Mr. Maclean has not been alone among chairmen of tribunals in calling attention to this grave public scandal. We have another Member of this House who is a chairman of an important Appeal Tribunal: I mean the hon. Member (Mr. Nield). He has repeatedly called attention to this scandal in the chair of the tribunal. Repeatedly he has threatened to report cases to the War Office. The most notorious of all the depots in the
  2522
  country for the examination of recruits is Mill Hill. Only a day or two ago a case was reported in the newspapers where a man had tried to enlist ten times. He had been rejected ten times, and finally he was told if he went to Mill Hill he would be passed. He went to Mill Hill and was passed. Only two nights ago a man called at my house. He had appealed to the local tribunal on grounds of physical incapacity. He was a poor, miserable, physical wreck to look at, his hand was crippled, and his fingers were drawn. He was thirty-seven years of age and weighed 7 St. 5½ 1b. He had been sent to the military depot at Mill Hill. He was never asked to strip. The doctor examined his finger and said, "You have had a bad thing there some time," and with that examination he was passed for garrison duty abroad. Sir Frederick Milner has repeatedly called attention to this scandal, and has given some very glaring cases which have come under his own observation. I recently had a letter from a man in the Army who is attached to the Somersets, and this is what he said:
  "They are still sending Somersets here. Hundreds came in during the week. It is a crying shame. The men they are sending now ought never to have donned the uniform. One fellow they brought in yesterday they had to carry from the station. He could not walk. There are heaps of consumptives here, fellows with a tile loose, men with short legs, men with weak backs, and men with other various complaints. Most of these men will be fit for nothing, and it is only an expense for the country keeping them here."
  This sort of thing is not confined to one part of the country only. I could produce evidence, if time permitted, from all over the country showing that the examining medical officers of the Army are passing unfit men everywhere. I have here three cases from Lancaster and in every case, if necessary, I could give the name and address of the person concerned. A certain man who lives in Victoria Avenue, Lancaster, was passed for the Welsh Fusiliers. He had a deformed foot. He was discharged within three weeks. Another man was informed that he had a strained heart and would most likely never be required. He was called up in the Welsh Fusiliers. A third man also had a diseased heart, and within a fortnight of being called up he was in a hospital suffering from pneumonia. There was a case in Accrington, which is close to my Constituency, of a man who was very well known in the town. For nine years he had not worked, except very occasionally. He had to winter at Torquay. He had only been out of doors five times in six months

  2523
  when he received a notice calling him up for military service. His friends went to the recruiting officer, who knew the man, but they were told he must report. He was unable to go to Preston, which was the examining centre of the district, by train and had to be taken in a taxi-cab all the way. He was passed for Home service. Like other Members of the House, I receive letters almost every day from men who have been passed for active service, and men who are on active service, suffering from hernia or from double hernia, who have to wear trusses. I have here two extremely painful cases. This happened in my own Constituency at Whalley, in Lancashire. This man could never work. He was consumptive—born in a consumptive family. He was passed at Liverpool Barracks for the King's Liverpool Regiment. In three weeks he was dead. I have a case here from Hull of a man who was passed last April for general service, although the Medical beard was aware that he suffered from hernia and eczema in the feet, and he was then under treatment for stomach complaint. He was called up again two months later and reexamined at his own request and bullied for having dared to ask for a re-examination, and was passed again although he brought this certificate from his private medical man.
  "The bearer of this note has been under my care for about fourteen days, suffering from gastritis, and under Dr. Morgan previous to this for about six months. He lost two stone in weight, during the last six months. Occasionally he has vomited streaks of blood. His diet at present consists wholly of Benger's Food. I may add that his father died of cancer in the stomach in April, 1915, at fifty. I am seriously concerned about this man's condition, and have advised him to take some special professional advice. Although he is young, I feel that his symptoms are grave, especially considering his family history."
  That was ignored by the War Office and the man was passed. Here is a case from Norwich, and I certainly must insist that the War Office will pay attention to the awful scandal that is brought to light in this document. This is of recent date. This man, on 13th July, was passed at Britannia Barracks, he is aged thirty-five. He is married and is consumptive. He had been under treatment for one year and three months. He had come out of a sanatorium, where he had been for thirteen weeks, discharged as incurable. He was unable to work. He received notice. He went to his private doctor, who said, "I suppose you will have to respond to the call, but of course it will be
  2524
  merely a formal matter and you will be discharged at once." He went. He was passed for Home service and sent to the 5th Middlesex Regiment. May I be allowed to read a line or two from a letter which this man has written from his regiment. He says:
  "I was examined by two more doctors this morning, who asked me a lot of questions. They wanted to know if I had been medically examined at Norwich, and how long the doctor was doing it. One said, 'I suppose he put the stethoscope on your chest and took it:>ff again.' They were very nice to me, and said it was a disgrace for me to be passed into the Army, and they carried on and even swore about the doctor at Norwich, and I should not be surprised if he did not hear further about this."
  I should be very much surprised if the doctor did hear further about it. I want to trouble the House with only one further case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Have any of these cases been brought to the attention of the War Office? This is the first time I have heard of them.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman by giving him the next case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not an answer.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think when he has heard the case he will agree that it is a sufficient answer, because it is a case which I submitted to the War Office. It relates to Horace Pile, of Chichester. He was well known in the district as a consumptive, but to the surprise of everybody he was passed. In just over three weeks from the date he was passed he was dead. I raised the case by question in this House. The late Under-Secretary for War promised to make inquiry and he did so. Some time later I received the following reply, signed by H. J. Tennant. I may say that it took him five weeks to make the inquiries.
  "You will recollect asking a question in the House on the 2nd of last month with reference to the case of the late Private H. Pile, of the 4th Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment. I have had inquiries made, and I find that there seems little doubt that the medical officer who examined this man overlooked signs of old-standing phthisis. It is, however, within the bounds of possibility that the old lesions had healed when the man was examined at Chichester, and that the attack from which he died was a recrudescence or tubercle of the lungs of the acute pneumonic form, which undoubtedly might show all the signs of a frank, acute lobar pneumonia. I need hardly say how much I regret that this man should have been passed for service."
  I am told by people who knew this man well that it did not require a doctor to see

  2525
  that he was suffering from consumption. Any man must know that the moment he set eyes upon the man. The letter of the War Office admits a good deal, and in that respect it is quite an exception among communications from the War Office replying to complaints. It admits that the medical officer was quite incompetent, in that he had passed for the Army as fit for service a man in a state like that, but the letter does not go on to say what action the War Office has taken. It is extremely probable that that medical officer is still sending men to their death. I want to know what action was taken.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to get at the facts. This case does not really answer the question which I put. Two or three cases which on the face of them are very bad cases have been quoted by the hon. Member, and I ask him whether the attention of the War Office has been called to them. His answer is to draw attention to a third case, in which the man has died. In other cases the men are still alive.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Not all of them.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some cases were referred to in which the men are alive. I understood that the man with gastritis and the man who has got tuberculosis and who went into the Middlesex Regiment are alive. Has the attention of the War Office been called to these cases?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The attention of the War Office has been called to some of the cases I have mentioned.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want the facts of each cape, and the names of the persons concerned There is nothing here to give me the slightest clue as to who the persons are. If the facts are given to me, of course I shall inquire into them.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I gave a name to the right hon. Gentleman just now. I told him that I have the names and addresses of all these persons and am perfectly willing to give them to him.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, then.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman had the time to look through the questions put in this House during the last six months he would see that I have brought many cases forward. Two of the cases I have already mentioned in Debate, but no action appears to have been taken. It would be quite impossible for me, having to do all my own work myself, to
  2526
  bring to the attention of the War Office every case that is brought to my notice. I have not the time to do it. I should require a number of secretaries to do it. The Financial Secretary to the War Office knows quite well how many letters he gets from myself and other private Members. Our hands are full. In mentioning these cases, I want to point out that this sort of thing is going on all over the country. The "Daily News" for some days now has been calling attention to these matters, and publishing instances of men who have been passed into the Army totally unfit. I will give the right hon. Gentleman another case. I had a lad in my own Constituency whose eyesight was so bad that if he put his glasses down on the table he could not find them again except by groping. I had a long correspondence with the late Under-Secretary of State for War about this case, and finally it was decided in this way: The Under-Secretary told me that he had had a special examination of the lad by Army oculists, and that they had come to the conclusion that if he had three pairs of glasses he would be fit for active service. As such letters usually are, the letter was typed, but the late Under-Secretary had evidently read the letter and had come to the conclusion that it was capable of a very foolish interpretation, and he wrote in his own handwriting at the bottom these words: "I do not mean that he is to wear three pairs of glasses at the same time." That lad is now in France. With any pair of glasses his condition is such that if the glasses get dim he cannot see. The reason why he has been provided with three pairs of glasses is that he may change them occasionally—that is to say, that when a German is about to attack him he must ask the German to kindly wait until he has changed his glasses. Only this morning I had a letter from my own native place from a man who writes to tell me of a friend of his who this week has been passed for service. He is totally blind in one eye, and his vision on the other eye is three-sixteenths abnormal. With glasses that man cannot distinguish an object three yards away.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: Is he in the Infantry?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Many of these men are passed for Home service; many of them are passed for sedentary work. It is most important that our National Reserves should be utilised in the most economical

  2527
  way. I will tell the House what the War Office are doing. They are taking university men, and men occupying important business positions, who are really doing useful work, and although these men are not fit for general service—at the very best they are only fit for garrison duty at home—they are taking them away from useful work, and the State is maintaining them in that practically useless position. What is the reason for this? I think I have the explanation. I put a question to the Secretary of State for War yesterday, which he answered, asking if he would give the figures of the number of men who had been recruited under the two Military Service Acts? He refused to do that. He said it was not desirable that this information should be conveyed to the enemy. I could have understood that if there had been no precedent for such a thing, but when the Government wanted a reason, or, at any rate, an excuse, for imposing compulsory military service, they did not hesitate to publish figures then of the number of recruits which had been secured during the preceding few months. They gave those figures to the world, and it was upon the strength of those figures that they secured their two Military Service Acts. The simple fact of the matter is that the Military Service Acts were obtained by fraud and deceit. The shirkers, married and single, were never there. The last six months have proved that to be the case, and all the recruiting officers throughout the country are now being instructed to rake in every possible man in order to get as large a number as possible. It was stated in the newspapers yesterday that instructions had been sent to the various recruiting officers to get every possible man, and the tribunals have been told the same. There is the one-man-business man whose case was promised sympathetic consideration when the last Bill was before the House. Thousands of men have been ruined throughout the length and breadth of the land, and I have had numerable letters from men who have had to leave their businesses for garrison duty at home simply for the purpose of getting numbers and not to add to the efficiency of the Army.
  I see the representative of the beard of Agriculture on the Front Bench. He knows quite well that men are being taken from farm work who ought to be left at farm work. I submitted to him last week the case of a man who had been taken from a?
  2528
  farm in Cornwall. The cows were left un-milked and the hay waiting to be got in, and nobody to do it, and yet at the same time the War Office are offering 27,000 soldiers to go to do farm work. They are offering the help of untrained, unskilled soldiers to do farm work, and at the same time they are taking away trained and qualified men from the farms. Is that national economy? Is that adding to national efficiency? I assure the Secretary of State for War that the matter I have brought to his attention this afternoon is causing a great deal of concern in the country. From one point of view it is perhaps not to be regretted, because the administration of the Military Service Act is causing so much dissatisfaction in the country that those who want to see this institution made permanent after the War will, I think, find considerable difficulty in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman has already intimated that he will be prepared to consider particular cases that may be submitted to him. He ought to realise that it is an utter impossibility for a Member of Parliament to submit every case. What we want is some general plan by the War Office which will prevent any of these cases arising. One thing I would suggest is that in such a case as the case I cited of the consumptive who was passed and who died in three weeks' time, an example should be made of the medical officer who was guilty of such a dereliction of duty. If there were a few examples like that they would have very salutary effects.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: The speech to which we have just listened is a very valuable one from the point of view of the administration of the Military Service Act. I think that we could probably have that Act administered with a great deal more sympathy and intelligence? if there were set up some sort of Committee of this House before whom these cases could be brought. After all, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), when he is not making a party point against other Members of this House by accusing them of popularity hunting, gets sent to him a large number of these cases. People naturally come to him about them, and I believe that he is honestly anxious to have them put right. Therefore, with good feeling on both sides, good feeling on the part of the War Office—which certainly exists at the present time—and good feeling on the part of Members of this House, it might be possible to set up a satisfactory organisation

  2529
  which would be able to co-operate with the War Office in administering what is necessarily, in view of its hurried adoption and the difficult circumstances in which it is being carried out, an Act of great difficulty, involving great hardships if it is not thoroughly looked after. I might, in passing, refer to the case of the passive resister which was brought up the other day. I brought it to the notice of the War Office, and I received, I think obvious proof of the genuine anxiety of the Financial Secretary to have the case inquired into and put right, and I think I carried with me the entire House on this point. Of course, the inquiry was not satisfactory. I will not go into that now; it was not the fault of the Financial Secretary. It was simply because there was no Committee of this House which would look into these things, and which could visit the War Office, see the officials concerned, take part in inquiries, and genuinely co-operate in the helpful administration of an Act which happens to be necessary at the present time.
  That is only one point in the purview of the War to which I want to refer. I thought the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) was extraordinarily useful from this point of view: It brought before the House the real necessity and the reason for not being? carried away by headlines and laudatory paragraphs into thinking that this War is going to be over this year, or that it is merely a question of a few months before we shall be back in normal times. If that is so, so much the better; but for goodness sake let us make our plans now as if the War were going on for a couple of years, for in our organisation we have got to lay our plans so that we shall not be living from hand-to-mouth any longer. The question of Treasury Bills as compared with loans was dealt with the other day. The question of recruiting black troops I have already brought up several times. There is also the question of a reserve of men. There are other questions as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee raised the question of food? prices and shipping freights. I have not gone into the question of shipping freights, but it does seem to me, primâ facie, that good solid arguments? can be brought forward in support of the shipping being taken over, because so much of the shipping has been taken over already. A lot has been chartered by the Admiralty. Some shipowners have lost a
  2530
  lot of their ships, and other shipowners, more lucky, have not lost their ships. Primâ facie, in the interests of fair dealing between shipowners and shipowners, some sort of uniform treatment would be advisable. More than that, even though the ships be taken over by the State and run by the State, or leased out to companies, it is quite possible that this may not have an effect on food prices, but at any rate the people who are paying these prices will feel that they are being treated honestly and fairly by the Government. They would have confidence that they were not being robbed for the benefit of private firms. And in a war like this people will undergo a great deal of hardship. They do not mind so much the hardship; what they do resent is the sense of injustice in being made to pay more because some private firms are taking more than their fair share of the public wealth. Therefore I think there are good arguments to be brought forward in support of the suggestion in favour of the nationalisation of the shipping.
  Another question on which I want to say a word is the waste of bread. Everybody here knows perfectly well that there is a considerable amount of waste day by day, on the part of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, while at the other end of the scale there are people paying 10d. and 1s. a loaf and definitely suffering because of the shortage of bread. That also gives rise to a strong sense of injustice in the breasts of the people who are really being victimised. Everybody knows that we have got to curtail supplies, and cut down the demand. Everybody knows that every ton which we save on imports from America helps us to carry on this War satisfactorily. I do say that in those circumstances we ought to check imports and we ought to check consumption as much as we can. At the same time we ought to have fair, honest dealing between man and man, and the poor ought not to suffer unnecessarily in this matter as compared with the rich. This is an extremely strong argument in favour of bread tickets and meat tickets if the Government are capable of arranging them fairly. We have not, thank goodness, the bureaucratic organisation of Germany, but I believe that in this matter Englishmen, are able to think out ways and means and lay their plans just as those of the Germans were thought out, and that we ought

  2531
  to be able to institute some fair system of economising our food supplies every bit as well as it is done in Germany.
  While I say that it is necessary to organise this country as if we were to have some years more of War, yet even more important is it to my mind to organise the Empire. In this country we have a very lively appreciation of the War. It is before us every day. All our plans are modified by, and all our thoughts are centred in the War. But if you go to outlying parts of the Empire you do not find that at all. You find that the War is very far away, and the impression you get is that many of these countries are not merely affected by the War, but are adopting an air of benevolent neutrality towards the War. They have not got the heavy taxation and the heavy prices during the War which we have got. This is not true, of course, of our self-governing Colonies, though even in the case of Canada it took some time before they appreciated that they had to bear their part of the War every bit as much as the Mother Country. But take the case of India, for instance. There you have a vast population, skilled in all the arts and trades, a country which is at present enjoying a wave of phenomenal prosperity, with companies paying 50 per cent, dividends, and all their produce fetching enormously high prices, a country which we have been accustomed to look upon as poor, enjoying the best seasons which it ever had. How have they helped the Empire? I am not speaking for a moment of the patriotism and loyalty of the Rajahs and Maharajahs, who have given such proofs in connection with ambulances and a hundred other ways of their willingness to make great sacrifice for the good of the Empire. Nor am I speaking of the Indian soldiers, who have fought so excellently in France, or in East Africa, or in Mesopotamia, particularly in Mesopotamia. Very little is known in this country of the glorious fighting of the Indian divisions in those battles on the 21st January and the 18th March, but no record in any past history of fighting by those Indian troops is equal to that of the fighting which has there taken place. It is the Indian Government that is not fully living up to this War and is not appreciating that it is its duty to take part in this War as strenuously and as self-sacrificingly as the people in this country.
  Consider the question of a loan. They have not raised money where they might
  2532
  have raised money. Then take the matter of taxation. They have put on the shoulders of the Imperial Government the cost of all the expeditions outside India. Though we are being taxed up to 5s. in the £1, there has been little or no increase of taxation in India. Then in reference to ammunition. Eighteen month's ago this country revolutionised the production of ammunition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War converted the whole of the industry of this country to the production of ammunition. We have in India a race of people who are excellent engineers. The place is full of engineering shops, steel and iron works and railway workshops. But what part has India itself taken in the production of ammunition? There has been no marked increase in the amount of ammunition turned out by India during those last two years. They are going on in just the same old way. No new factories have sprung up, no new machinery has been installed. There have been no new proposals for carrying on this War, upon which the whole existence of the British race depends. There is a lack of energy, a lack of initiative, about the government of these distant Dependencies which I think we ought to take in hand, so that we may inspire them with the energy of which evidence is being given in this country. As a practical immediate proposal I would strongly recommend—and I believe that in this I would have the support of most of those people who have studied the question—that the whole of the Indian Army should be put under the War Office here. We know quite well that there are drawbacks to the War Office in this country, but they are alive to the necessities of the situation, and the strain which this War is putting upon us. I believe that under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War we should see inspired from here a far more lively energy in that great Dependency than we have seen up to now. But it is not only the case of India. The Crown Colonies as a whole are going along as they used to do. There has been no additional taxation and no additional demand on their men, while they still depend for all their supplies on us, and they are not more self supporting than they were two or three years ago. The Colonial administration wants stiffening. It wants driving on, just as much as does the Government of India. We cannot contemplate carrying on this

  2533
  War for another two years relying solely upon Great Britain, or even solely upon Great Britain plus the Dominions—South Africa, Australia, and Canada. We have got to get the whole British Empire into line. We have got to get the assistance of each Colony, and we must have that which each can produce best—munitions from India, black troops from Africa, or foodstuffs from our Colonies. It seems to me that on an occasion such as this, when we have a long, long road before we get there, we should take advantage of such an opportunity as this to speak of these things and to see what we can do to put them on a sound footing.
  I turn from that to certain minor matters in connection with the Army—minor only as regards the big strategics of the question, but of infinite importance to the officers and men themselves. The first question to which I wish to call attention is the awarding of rewards of merit. We heard, the other day, that there were 3,000 people recommended for the Military Medal. Why should there be all this waiting before conferring these Military Medals? Of these 8,000 men who were recommended for the medal before this last advance, how many of them will live to get it if they are kept waiting much longer? Every other nation engaged in this War has made arrangements whereby these medals can be given on the field, and whereby they can be given immediately after an action by the General in Command. We alone wait and wait. Probably the War Office is already overburdened with work and therefore cannot possibly deal with this matter in any reasonable space of time. From what I know of the Army I believe there would be nothing that would give more satisfaction than the award of these medals immediately after an action has taken place. There is another matter of the same sort about which we all know, and it refers to those men who have been at the front all through, who have not been soldiers before, and who came raw from the office, the workshop, or the mine. These men have received no medals, and is it not time that we should urge the War Office to award medals to men who have been at the front in the trenches for over a year. I do not see why you should not. These soldiers have been in the front line for over a year, and they ought to be able to show to the world that they have got the proudest medal any
  2534
  Englishman has ever worn. If you wait until the end of the War very few of them will get it. Give it to the men now. Let the men wear the ribbon, and let their families have the medal, and that will give undoubted satisfaction, except to some old women, whose prejudices have always led them to consider that the medal must be given at the end of hostilities.
  I am sorry to detain the House, but these things are of enormous importance. I wish to refer to the Special Reserve officers—men who were in the Army, and left it before the War; many of them have retired as long as ten years ago. These officers of the Special Reserve if they return to the Army have to return to it in a rank junior to that which they had when they retired. A number of these officers, who have come into the Army are over forty years of age, and they have to enter as captain or lieutenant, ranks junior to that at which they had retired, and in consequence they find by their side young men who have become majors and colonels. Special Reserve officers who returned to the Army at the outbreak of the War still occupy grades as captains and lieutenants, the only alteration being that they are now forty-two years of age instead of forty. There is no promotion for the Special Reserve. Surely it ought to be easy enough to make some arrangement whereby the Special Reserve shall have promotion altogether outside the normal promotion in the regiment, or in the Artillery, so that it should not hamper or block other peoples' promotion, and yet be some sort of recompense for the two years' service given by these men who have done the finest service in the War. You must remember that they are in Regular service battalions, and that they see side by side with them young men who hold superior rank to theirs. I heard only the other day from a correspondent, who states that he was a private, and that now he was a major, and that he had only jumped one step.
  Numbers of these men have been rightly and justly promoted, but what must be the feeling of the old Army man who has returned as captain or lieutenant when he sees men of infinitely less experience than himself put over his head. Therefore I would press upon the Secretary of State these three things. First, the awarding of these military medals on the field instead of waiting till the close of the War; secondly, that medals should be awarded to those who have served a year at the front in the trenches; and thirdly, that by

  2535
  some arrangement you should give promotion to Special Reserve officers. There are other things with which I had hopea to deal, but I have already taken up too much time of the House. I would only suggest that it is monstrous that men who have been at the front ever since the battle of Mons should not receive these medals. It is not what they suffer in having been continually at the front, but it is the bad effect their grievance has upon public opinion in the various districts from which these men come. It astonishes everybody, not because the men are suffering, but because it creates a sense of injustice, and, in times like this, all that you have got to do is not so much to avoid hardship as to give everybody the impression that no injustices will be tolerated.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the question of posthumous honours. The present position in regard to that subject seems neither reasonable nor practical. If a man performs a particular act of gallantry and survives, he receives the award of a medal, which is handed on to his family and his successors; but if a man performs a gallant act and falls in the moment of his heroic action, nothing whatever is done. The man receives nothing, his family receive nothing, his successors receive nothing. It may seem a small thing, but I think hon. Members will agree that those who survive the man who has died under those circumstances would greatly value something which they could hand on to his successors, and which would serve as a reminder to those who come after of the way in which their son met his death. I do not say that it would take away the sting of the family's loss, but it would tend to assuage their grief to know that they would have, even if it were only a bit of ribbon or a medal, something which would commemorate forever in the family the heroic deeds by which their son had met this death. I called the attention of the former Secretary of State for War two or three times in the House, by means of questions, to this subject, and the first answer given to me was to the effect, "We have no precise record of all the acts of gallantry done in this War which deserve recognition of this sort, therefore we will give none in the future at all. We cannot give it to the dependants of men who have already lost their lives, and therefore we cannot
  2536
  give it to the dependants of men who may in future lose their lives, for it would be unfair to the dependants of men who had achieved distinction in the past to give it to the dependants of men who might similarly achieve it in the future." That is a most fallacious argument. One might be told, in the case of the Victoria Cross, where the system of giving posthumous awards was instituted not so long ago, that it would not be fair in future to give the Victoria Cross posthumously, because it had not always been given posthumously. That is an argument which might be advanced in objection to any reform, that you are to give no advantage to anyone in future because no one had got it in the past. Therefore, I would respectfully request the Secretary of State for War to consider this question, and see if it would not be possible for this, which I think a very necessary reform, to be carried out. I was told, in answer to one of my questions, that some generals in the field do not approve of it. On the other hand, I have spoken to distinguished generals who have come home, and they all seem to think it to be a very desirable and beneficial change to make. For my part, I can see no objections whatsoever, and I can see many advantages in the change, and I hope we shall have the Secretary for War's attention given to the subject.
  There are one or two other small points to which I wish to refer briefly. The first is the question of the delay in the payment of separation and dependants' allowances. I have in my pocket correspondence regarding cases where great delay has occurred in awarding or in paying these allowances. I will not trouble the House with those cases, and probably every Member of the House has had similar cases brought to his attention. I want to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can issue to the different pay offices in the country some special direction that they shall as quickly as possible decide what the allowance is to be given by means of pensions, and that orders shall be given that the pensions shall be issued as soon as possible. The hardship upon the families and dependants of men who are away fighting when the money is not forthcoming and the separation allowance is not paid is really something intolerable. I know that at the beginning of the War the Pay Office was greatly overburdened, but I should think by now it ought to be fairly in order, and I do hope that the Secretary for War will issue some strong direction

  2537
  to the heads of the pay offices in the country requiring them to pay attention to this matter. Another question to which I desire to refer, and to which I call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, has reference to new potatoes which have been sent to the troops at the front in France. The reason why I make a representation on this subject is that a number of persons in Yorkshire have sent large consignments of new potatoes to our troops in France, and they assure me that under the conditions in which the new potatoes are sent, and having regard to the character of the potatoes, in their judgment it was not possible for them to reach the troops satisfactorily. I do not expect to receive an answer at this moment on the subject, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will make inquiry, in order to see if those consignments have arrived in good condition, and, if not, that steps will be taken to see that any future consignments of potatoes shall reach the troops in proper condition.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I wish to refer to the question raised just now by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and to call attention particularly to the action of medical boards in driving into the Army and passing as fit for service men who are totally unfit. If left in their present position these men might be useful to the country in carrying on their ordinary occupation and helping to produce the wealth to enable us to pay our debts and carry on this War, but who, by being passed by medical boards, are drafted into the Army and become a burden and a trouble to the country, to the officers, and to the whole conduct of the War. Every morning newspaper brings reports of the scandal. Here is a paragraph from a paper of yesterday, stating that the military representative pointed out that a man who had been passed for Home service was blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and had an open passage from the interior of his mouth to the other ear. Such a man was totally unfit for any military service whatever. It is not to that class of case that I wish particularly to call attention to-day. There are men who are physically incapable of carrying on military duties—men by the hundreds if not by the thousands—who are being sent into the Army only to be turned out within a few days afterwards, and some of them when in the Army are put under discipline and within a few days are dead. Here is a case of a man who
  2538
  attested under the Derby scheme and who was called up some weeks ago. On presenting himself he was sent back for two weeks as being unfit for training, and at the expiration of that time he again presented himself and was ordered to join up on last Saturday week. On the Tuesday following he was lying in a military hospital dead. His last remark on saying good-bye was, "They will not have me long." He leaves a wife and family, and what is to be done for them? These scandals are more or less scattered all over the country, but they are concentrated in certain tribunals to an extraordinary extent.
  Some of these medical boards have acquired notoriety of a very unenviable character, and perhaps prominent amongst them is the one at Mill Hill. Here is a case I take from this week's "Hornsey Journal," which circulates in the neighbourhood in which I live:
  "The tribunal reversed the decision of the Mill Hill Medical Board in the case of a young business man who had been passed for general service. He produced a certificate from a well-known heart specialist stating that applicant was totally unfit for any form of military service."
  In the course of the discussion before the tribunal a remark which had been made by an hon. Member of this House, who was chairman of the Middlesex Tribunal, was repeated in which he said that Mill Hill Medical Board was the best board in the country for getting recruits. In this particular case the decision, on medical testimony of the specialist, was reversed, and the man was not sent into the Army. That kind of thing is going on all the time. How is it that these boards are so anxious to send unfit men into the Army when if they know their business they must know that they will not be a source of strength but of weakness, whose embodiment in the forces must inevitably make more difficult instead of less difficult the winning of the War? Why are they so anxious to induce men to come and be examined, men who under other circumstances would not come to them?
  There is a case about which I have written to the Under-Secretary, and as I notice that he has just now received my letter I wish to ask him some questions about it. On Saturday evening a young man came to my house and gave me the following particulars. He is a young man of thirty-one years of age who attested on 11th October of last year. At that time he was in good physical health

  2539
  and quite prepared to join the Army. He got his armlet on the 9th December, and he was placed in Group 37. In the spring of this year he broke a blood vessel. That has had the effect of almost destroying his health, and he is now almost incapable of lifting a heavy weight or of undergoing any great physical exertion. He lives in the district which Mill Hill Medical Board serves. He is employed close to Shoreditch. On 3rd May he went to Mill Hill and was examined by the medical board. His physical condition was such that even that board certified him as medically unfit and put him back for three months. When the period had nearly expired he went to the medical board, which is close to the district in which he works, within five minutes, that is at Shoreditch Town Hall, and was examined. A certificate was at that time given to him declaring him to be totally unlit, and he was rejected as totally unfit for service in the Army. I want an explanation as to what authority there is for this. A few days afterwards he received a letter from Mill Hill Medical Board, in which they say:
  "Please attend at this office on Monday next, 14th August, at 11 a.m., for further examination, the result of which will be final, as the three months have now expired. I understand that you went to Shoreditch on the 4th August for examination, but the final examination must take place before the medical board for the area in which you reside by War Office instructions. Please bring this letter with you."
  He replied to the effect that he had been examined at Shoreditch and had been rejected, and therefore did not propose to present himself for further examination. He gets a letter in reply:
  "With regard to further examination, you are instructed to attend at this office for final examination under War Office instructions on Monday next, 21st August, at 10 a.m., and bring this letter with you."
  I may say that in the interval he had been to the military officer in his own district, and he informed him that the certificate of rejection which he had received was perfectly legitimate and that no medical board had any title to call him up. The officer at Mill Hill concluded his letter:
  "You have not been correctly informed by the recruiting officer at Shoreditch on this matter."
  I want to know whether there is any order of the War Office which precludes a man from being examined in the district most convenient to himself and which he can visit with the least loss of
  2540
  time and trouble and money, and having obtained such a certificate declaring him physically unfit for service, can the board of the district in which he lives demand his attendance again for further examination? What is the explanation? Is it in the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave some little time ago to the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that there was a fee of a half-crown for each recruit examined with a maximum of £2 per day? This point to which I have referred is one which affects a very large number. It is very important that those who are now being called up for examination should know whether they must proceed to a particular board or can be examined by the board most convenient to themselves, and if they obtain a certificate from that board if it is to apply finally or not. I have had occasion before to complain of the multiplicity of examinations to which recruits are subjected. I gave an instance once before of a young man who had been examined on four separate occasions, and had four different decisions given in his case. I think that finality ought to be reached some time, so that the men should know where they stand, because otherwise it is quite impossible for them to make suitable arrangements.
  I wish to refer to the treatment, the differential treatment, meted out to a certain class of men in the Army. I refer to the question of inoculation. We gave to our soldiers certain rights from the start. I have raised this question more than once, and again and again since the outbreak of War I have been assured by Minister after Minister that inoculation is not compulsory. The very last occasion was yesterday, when the Under-Secretary said that inoculation is not compulsory, but "its benefits have now been so completely proved that a vast majority of officers and men avail themselves of the opportunity of escaping enteric fever." That is a matter of opinion which I do not wish now to enter upon. It is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion, and when we have the figures from Gallipoli showing exactly what have been the results there I shall be more prepared to discuss the question than I am at the present moment. We had that assurance given again and again, and just before he died Lord Kitchener wrote me a letter in which he declared that the practice of inoculation was purely voluntary, and that no pressure ought to be

  2541
  put on men to force them to undergo that operation. I am having the most pathetic letters day after day from the wives of men, serving in different parts of the country, in France and elsewhere, complaining that their husbands, who have never been guilty of any crime and who have never had any legal punishment inflicted on them, have been denied leave for one year, for two years, and in some cases ever since the War broke out, and that the only explanation is that they have refused to undergo this process of inoculation, which they have a perfect legal right to refuse, and which they are justified in refusing on the assurance of Minister after Minister, including the late Lord Kitchener, who sent me the letter to which I have referred just before the journey which resulted in his death. I have a letter here which I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. It is from the mother of one of these men, and is dated 14th August:
  "I am writing to ask for your kind interest and help in reference to my son and another, Privates H. Hardy and G. Latham, now in India with the 2/6th Royal Sussex Regiment, and commanded by Colonel Johnson, under whose continued cruel and illegal persecution and punishment their existence is made unbearable, and I fear fatal results will be the issue unless immediate steps are taken in the matter, their only offence being their objection to inoculation."
  I will not read the whole of the letter, but the facts of the case are these. These two men, comrades, enlisted at an early period of the War. They refused inoculation and wore subjected to the most cruel persecution on the part of the colonel under whom they served. They had illegally been awarded punishment in the shape of imprisonment for twenty-eight days C.B. on the voyage, for refusing inoculation and for nothing else, because no other crime was committed by them. They were awarded a further fourteen days for complaining to the British Consul at Mysore. They also complained when they reached India to a general, and they were told that the sentence was illegal. These facts have been before the War Office for some time. They are not the only facts that have been before them. Again and again I have asked that these cases shall be taken up by the War Office and that when officers are proved to have acted illegally that they shall have visited on them the same kind of treatment as that which privates receive when they offend against the orders of their officers. After all, the will of an officer is not supposed to supersede the law of the land,
  2542
  and those who volunteer to give their lives for the sake of their country are surely entitled to claim the benefit of the law. I ask the new Minister for War if he cannot take a strong line in this matter, and see that men who, from conscientious motives, decline to give up the rights which they possess in law, and which they have been assured by Minister after Minister that they possess, shall not be punished for doing things which are perfectly legal.
  There is one other matter I would like to refer to, and I will not keep the House more than two or three minutes. I want to call attention to the prosecution of a man for what I regard as no offence at all. Some time ago, many Members of this House received a circular from a young man who is a constituent of mine. It was as follows:
  "The following letter has been received by Mrs. Beavis, of 171, Church Street, Lower Edmonton, from G. H. Stuart Beavis, her son: 'Just a line. We have been warned to-day that we are now within the War zone, and the military authorities have absolute power, and disobedience may be followed by very severe penalties, and very possibly the death penalty. So I just dropped you a line in case they do not allow me to write after tomorrow. Do not be downhearted if the worst comes to the worst. Many have died cheerfully before for a worse cause.—Stuart.' Write to the Prime Minister, Mr. Tennant, M.P.'s, and others. Beavis and other conscientious objectors were sent to France in handcuffs on 31st May, 1916. Are they to be shot? H. Runham Brown, "Fairleigh," 11, Abbey Road, Enfield, 7th June, 1916."
  Other conscientious objectors were sent to France, in handcuffs, on 31st May, 1916. Were they to be shot? The circular was signed by a Mr. Brown. I attended the hearing of this case. A grosser travesty of justice I never saw. The case was evidently decided in the mind of the chairman of the bench of magistrates before it had been presented, and it was perfectly evident, within five minutes of the opening, that condemnation would follow. The man was fined £50. I make no complaint of that, but I do want to ask if there is anything in this circular to justify a prosecution, and, if so, who is liable for it? Here is what is merely an attempt by a friend of a man who happens to be a conscientious objector, and who is, therefore, unpopular, to save the life of that friend. He had the impression—as his friend had the impression—that the sentence of death was meant to be carried out. We in this House know that that sentence was not intended to be carried out and that it was to be commuted, because we had the promise of Ministers that men should not be shot merely because they were conscientious objectors. Here is a perfectly

  2543
  simple case of a man endeavouring to save the life of his friend by merely circulating amongst a few people a copy of the letter sent by the man to his mother, and taken by the mother to the person who was prosecuted, and who was asked by her to take the case up. Yet the Government of this mighty Empire suffers from the jumps and from nervousness to such an extent that it finds it necessary to prosecute the man for doing this. He is prosecuted on the ground that his action is likely to be subversive of discipline in the Army. The circular would never have reached any soldier; it was simply sent to a few Members of Parliament and to people in the neighbourhood in which the man lived, with the object of bringing influence to bear to prevent his being shot.
  Is that a dignified act on the part of the Government? Are we so nervous, have we so lost self-control, that it becomes necessary to drag into the Courts for a simple act—an act which is not only natural but honourable to the man who performs it—a man who endeavours to save the life of his friend? Are we reduced to such straits? Then, if so, I say, God help us. I think that many of the prosecutions which have taken place have been no credit whatever to us, and if we were a little less afraid of casual expressions in circulars, and if we refrained from starting a prosecution which only make the assertions more popular and more widely read and more influential in the minds of the people, we should not only be acting in a more dignified way than at present, but we should be really doing less than we are doing to make ourselves ridiculous to the eyes of the world. I have little doubt that a prosecution of that kind will bring joy to the hearts of many of our enemies. There are just three points on which I would ask for a reply: First, what is to be done to regularise the actions of the Medical Boards? Secondly, what is to be done to ensure the legal rights of men who have joined the Army on the assurance of Ministers and on the law as it stands? Thirdly, are we going to go on with these ridiculous and absurd prosecutions which make us a laughing stock?
  Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: I rise to support the appeal which my hon. and learned Friend made to the Secretary of State for War in regard to posthumous honours. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give every possible consideration to that appeal, for I can assure him that
  2544
  if he could promise us to-day in this House that he would follow the suggestions which my hon. and learned Friend has made it would be welcomed throughout the British Army. I think the main objection is to dealing with the cases in the past. I think the past can well look after itself. If evidence is forthcoming that any gallant deeds have been done in the past, surely we need not be mean over regarding them. I think this has a more important bearing from the national point of view. The country will recognise that where gallant deeds and brave works have been done in the field and are rewarded, that this is a matter of great importance. It will increase local feeling and will set an example-to the young to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before and who have laid down their lives for their country. There is one other point on which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman's kind consideration, and that is with reference to the award of two-year medals. I know personally, and I have heard it from one end of the line to the other, that those who have completed their second year feel they might well be entitled to receive their medal now. I am sure it would be much more popular than the giving of the wounded badge. It was said, indeed, that one individual, directly he heard about the wounded badge, sat down upon a drawing pin and then found his way to the nearest casualty station, and thus became entitled to the badge. No doubt that is a stretch of imagination, but it would give great joy to the British Army if the War Office could see their way to ensure that the people serving two years should get a medal for those two years. With regard to the remark made by my hon. Friend about conscientious objectors, I will just say this. He said, "God help the country if we prosecuted in cases such as these." All I have to say is, "God help the country if we allow conscientious objectors to go on as they are going!"
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There have been a variety of subjects discussed and suggestions made on matters referring to the Department over which I have control. First of all, there was the question raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and what I have to say in reference to him will apply to a large extent to what was said by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor). Before I come to individual cases, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the exact

  2545
  conditions under which the Act was passed. Take every other case of Conscription in the world. It is a system which has been set up in time of peace, which has been in operation for two or three generations and, in some cases even longer than that, and they have had time and leisure to correct all sorts of mistakes and to find out the categories into which men should be placed. There I can understand the machine working with great perfection, but even there I do not mind saying that you will find just as many Members of Parliament who would be able to gather together and present a sheaf of grievances—probably legitimate grievances in many cases. But let hon. Members look at the conditions under which the Act was brought into operation here. It was brought into operation in the middle of a great War. You had to schedule practically the whole of the young men of this country during a few months, and to carry through in the course of a few months an operation which has taken generations to bring to anything like maturity in any other great country. It was almost inevitable that you should have a number of cases where there are anomalies, hardships and probably something which, taken alone, will look like a crying scandal. The marvel to me is in these complicated circumstances that there have been so few cases. I think I may appeal to the sense of justice of my hon. Friends below the Gangway as to whether that is not a plea which should appeal to them. The hon. Member for Blackburn gave a description of the condition of things, and suggested that the cases he cited were not isolated cases. You might have imagined that all this was wholesale.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will guarantee that the cases which he described do not accurately represent the position. He spoke as if the bulk of the battalions brought into existence under the Military Service Act contained men who were paralysed, or purblind or actually blind, or crippled—miserable, shrivelled people of 70 pounds weight, or something of that sort. Such statements would give rich reading for the enemies of this country if they were to be accepted as a description of the new British Army, but the hon. Member knows that his description does not in the least represent the actual condition of things that prevail. The men
  2546
  coming in now are about the best men who have come in since the beginning of the War. That is what I am informed, and. the hon. Member has only to go to the Horse Guards Parade any morning and to look at the men there who come both for parade and attestation, and who are sent on, to see that they are fine, upstanding fellows. I have no doubt there might be some amongst them who might not be quite up to the average physical standard, but in the main the new men are as good men as have been brought to the Army since the beginning of the War. Physically and mentally they are first-rate fellows. My hon. Friend must know—he ought to know now because he has devoted a good deal of attention to this—that you get two categories: you first get the men who have been passed for general service—the men who are sent to the fighting line; and then, on the other hand, you get the men not quite up to that standard, but who are useful for the subsidiary services of the Army, some of whom may be employed as clerks or in other occupations. Some may be of doubtful physical endurance, but still they may be of service; you in the first case pass such men provisionally, and then they are sifted out. Some of them, though they are not very strong men, and cannot stand the wear and tear of a campaign, can be very useful in the office in a sedentary occupation. The hon. Member has given a description of matters before there has been any sifting out. We are to take what he describes as a sample battalion of the men who are being received into our Army! All that I can say is that if the Germans make the mistake—I do not think they will—of believing what the right hon. Gentleman, says, that it represents anything like the facts of the case, they will subsequently have a very unpleasant disillusionment. If the Germans make the mistake of thinking what the right hon. Gentleman has said corresponds in the slightest degree to any of the facts of the case, and arrange their campaign accordingly, then I will say that the hon. Gentleman has rendered a real service to the War. I dare say, owing to the great pressure upon the time of those engaged in the work, that some of these candidates have been passed who ought not to have been passed. One has read of cases of the sort where men complained, of certain symptoms, but, for all that, had the material for first-class soldiers. There

  2547
  was one that passed under such circumstances, and very proud he was. Doctors make mistakes. They make some very regrettable mistakes.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Insurance Act!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Even under the Insurance Act they sometimes give certificates when they ought not to do so. Hon. Members must have heard of very good doctors making mistakes. They examine the chest and the constitution, and it may be that they fail to discover that there is anything wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend perhaps speaks feelingly. Let anyone think, and in the course of his experience, or perhaps it would be better to say, in the course of his observations he must have come across a good many cases of the kind. Professional men are not perfect. Mistakes are made even by men in hon. Members own profession. Here is a case which my hon. Friend mentioned, the case of a man in which the examiner failed to discover that there was tuberculosis. There may be many cases of the kind. I do not think the disease is easily discovered. I should have thought it was quite possible that the medical man might have passed a case of the kind, but to say that because for the time being the doctor fails to discover the presence of disease in a man who is apparently in good health that he is to be punished—that he is to be "dealt with," those are the words—I do not know what they mean—that he is to be dealt with by punishment—well, then, that will raise up champions for the doctors, who will say, "Are you really going to punish a professional man because he fails to discover a disease?" If you say that, how many doctors would survive?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does not the law punish a doctor to-day for gross professional negligence?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not hold that to be gross professional negligence in the least—just because a man who is examining hundreds and thousands of men fails to discover a hidden and very insidious disease!
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is not insidious.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am taking the case which has been given, and that case I only heard of from the description of it in a speech this afternoon. The doctor
  2548
  failed to discover it. I am not at all sure that a fairly good doctor, especially if he had a lot of work to do, might not have passed over the case of this man without discovering the disease; but to call it gross professional incapacity is a thing which, I am sure, is not deserved. An impartial medical man would, I think, come to the conclusion that it was a gross abuse of speech on the part of an hon. Member to say such a thing. I have no doubt that there are cases which have been passed which ought not to have been passed. I have no doubt, also, that there are cases which have been let off which ought not to have been let off. There are two sides to the question. All one can do when attention is drawn to cases of this kind is to see that inquiry is made and that justice is done. These are cases which I have heard for the first time to-day. The statement is an ex parte statement. I have had no opportunity of testing it. It is a description given of a man himself of his own condition. That is all I know. I do not say it is not absolutely accurate.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: What about the man to whom I referred who died in two days?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am referring to the cases of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I do not know of the case of the man who died. A man might have died two days after he had been in the Army without the doctor having previously discovered his condition. I do not in the least know—
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: This man was sent into the Army.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What was the disease?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not know.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Here is a case in which the prosecutor, as it were, does not know the facts himself. The whole British Army is to be arraigned upon facts of that kind! I think really it is hard for people who are a little hard pressed and who are doing their duty under very trying conditions to have this sort of thing said. All I can say is that if there are cases of this kind, and my attention is drawn to them, I will see that they are investigated. But may I suggest that before they are dragged here there will be an opportunity given to the Army to investigate them? It is only fair that that should be done, because to do otherwise creates a bad impression outside. I venture to say that

  2549
  anyone reading the hon. Member's speech would get a very false notion of what is going on in the British Army, the type of men who are brought in, and the way in which the British Army is doing its duty. I think, therefore, it is only fair before cases of this kind are brought to the House of Commons that an opportunity should be given for an investigation of the cases.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I just say one word in answer to the objections of the right hon. Gentleman when I was speaking? In every case in which I received a complaint of this character I either myself submitted the case to the War Office, or I wrote to the people to ask them to submit the case themselves.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know! I cannot get an answer to a very plain and straightforward question that I have put to the hon. Gentleman. I have asked him once, twice, three times, and I ask him for the fourth time, if he sent these cases to be investigated by the War Office?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: And I will give an answer for the second, if not for the third time, and it is that I did mention the cases. There was the man who was recommended to get three pairs of glasses, and also of the man who died in three weeks. There was another case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is evading the question entirely. I am asking about the two cases that I have got, and upon which a question was put. The one was the case of a man who, I think, joined the Middlesex Regiment, and was said to be suffering from tuberculosis, and there was the case immediately in front of that of the man suffering from gastritis. Were these cases sent for investigation to the War Office? All I can say is that they were not sent to me.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would see the cases if I did send them. These were the first two cases I mentioned.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Were they sent?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Answer the question!
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will you allow me to answer the question in my own way; it is not your business. These are two of the many cases I have mentioned. I have told the right hon. Gentleman more than once that I have submitted to the War
  2550
  Office all the cases I mentioned this afternoon. If I did not myself submit the case to the war Office I wrote back to the people and told them to submit the case to the War Office, and to demand that the War Office should have a special examination.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All I can say is that the hon. Member does not know whether or not the cases were submitted to the War Office. That is really what it comes to. I still say it is important that these cases should be investigated by the War Office. The facts must be given. There was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme a suggestion that there might be a Committee of Members of the House of Commons who would investigate these cases and send them forward to the War Office, so that every opportunity should be given to the War Office to put the matter right. We are not anxious to get people of this type. There is no advantage in getting them. They cannot be of the slightest use to the Army, and in this matter no one will be better pleased than the War Office to have the matter put right. If there could be some sort of oversight it might be well if the House of Commons could help to rift the facts, and send these poor people home where they might be of some use, and so disencumber the Army of the presence of people who would only be in the way. It would be better for them, better for the Army, and better for the country. If the desire of any hon. Member is not so much to criticise the Army as to see that justice has been dispensed, that is the best way to go about the matter. I am not complaining in the least, but here is a suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member which will enable all these cases to be sifted and examined, and I heartily commend that suggestion.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether one tribunal has a right to refuse the decision of another medical board—to call a person who has been rejected arid subject him to a further examination?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A man can be dealt with by any medical board, whether it is in his own area or not, and orders have been given to that effect.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: But is the action I have suggested of the medical board illegal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not like to say anything about that. I cannot condemn without hearing the other side of the case. The hon. Member must know that it is quite impossible for me to pass judgment upon the action of a medical board without hearing what they themselves have to say. I come now to the question of the military medals in the field. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the Field can award the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal. In the case of the Military Medal alone he can delegate his powers to the Quartermaster-General. The ribbon is given in the field. The medal is given afterwards. So that arrangements can be made at the present time to enable the Commander in the field to award medals without reference to the War Office.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Who is to determine—the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief or the Brigadier?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no; not the Brigadier. It means the General Officer Commanding in the Field, but he has the power to delegate his authority to the commanders of corps in the matter of the Military Medal. Beyond that he has not got the power of delegation.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Could that be extended by a Royal Warrant?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It could be extended, but I should not like to answer straight away as to the desirability of that, and I certainly could not do it without consulting the military authorities. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend wants it given to the Brigadier. I am not sure whether that is the case in the French Army, but I should doubt very much whether the power is given to the Brigadier.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rather think so, but I am speaking from memory. I should not like to be held absolutely to my statement without further investigation. It is only my recollection, but obviously it is desirable it should be done. I quite agree that it is highly desirable they should be awarded as soon after the gallant deeds as possible, whilst the action is fresh in the minds of the company and the men. It is much more encouraging to the men. I come to the question of posthumous honours. Personally, I have a good
  2552
  deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend in this matter. We are too apt to forget the gallantry of the parents where the gallantry of the men is great. The suffering of the men is great, but it is nothing to the suffering of the parents and those who are left behind to grieve for the loss of relatives, and I have always felt with the hon. and learned Member that it would, I will not say cheer them, but certainly sustain, solace, and comfort them if they saw before them the recognition of the valour of their lost ones. A considerable difference would be made to them if there were some-sort of recognition of the gallantry of their brave sons, and I sympathise deeply with the case put forward by my two hon. Friends. That is one of the things I shall look into with very deep sympathy. I agree with them in respect of the contention that it might be regarded as unjust to those whose claims you cannot follow now because there is no record. You have to begin with these things, and I do not think anyone will regard it as-unfair to the others if it were found impossible, owing to the absence of record of their heroism, to reward them. I shall certainly go into those matters with a good deal of sympathy with the claim put forward by my hon. Friend. At the moment I cannot give a definite answer until I have further opportunity of consulting the military authorities.
  Another point which has been raised is that with regard to these two years' medals. That is one of the things I am investigating at this moment, but I cannot answer until I get a definite view. I did not quite follow the statement made by the hon. Member for Blackburn about what has happened since the Military Service Act was passed being a proof that it was based on fraud and deceit—I forget what the other words were. On that matter I can only call my memory to my aid. On the contrary, the number of men who have come in under the Military Service Act already is most substantial. They are of a first-rate quality. [An HON. MEMBER interposed a remark.] The tribunals have not finished their work yet. They are going through it as rapidly as they possibly can, but the work is enormous. You are crowding into a few months the work of years, and I certainly, speaking on behalf of the War Office, do not complain in the least of the delays. The cases are being considered with as much celerity as you can possibly expect under the circumstances, but we have by no means got

  2553
  through the bulk of the work. Not merely have we a considerable number of men, but they are of the very best quality—an excellent quality—and it has enabled us, to a very large extent, to grade the men so as to get men of a certain age called up, and to postpone others until later on when their services will be more valuable.
  Mr. KING: May we take it there is no intention to raise the age of compulsory service, and that no inquiries are now going forward with a view to that question being considered?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give any guarantee of the kind. That would give great satisfaction to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. That depends entirely on the exigencies of the War. I can assure my hon. Friends we mean to win this War, if the resources of this country—men or material—will allow it, and that is the only consideration that will dominate the Government. That is the answer I give. So far, the number of men who have come forward under these Acts has been a complete justification of the Government in inviting the House of Commons to give us the necessary powers.
  I now come to the considerations with regard to the War as a whole which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. I do not want to give a military estimate of the situation; I could only do so in a very few words. I will invite the House of Commons to look at the state of things a few months ago, and contrast that state of things with the conditions at the present moment. Then the fate of Verdun hung in the balance, and, although the fall of Verdun might not have been of great strategic importance, yet, from a moral point of view, it would be a very serious blow for the cause of the Allies. Two months ago the fate of Verdun hung in the balance. The Austrians appeared to be pressing into the plains of Italy. They were everywhere advancing and making great captures of men, guns, and materials. The Russians appeared at that time to be held, apparently, in the East. The Germans were worrying our lines along the whole front with determined attacks, some of them successful. The new Russian levy was, to a very large extent, like our own New Army—untried, and no one knew how well they would do when they were put to the test. That was the condition two months ago. What is the position now? Along the whole of the battle front, East and
  2554
  West, the initiative has been wrested from the enemy, almost for the first time, along the whole front. There is only one possible exception, and that is Mesopotamia, where, owing to climatic reasons very largely, our own Army is quiescent—not a very important exception.
  Take the West, along our front and along the French front. Take the Eastern front, where the Russians have won such conspicuous victories. Take the notable victories won by the Italians. Take the great victories in the Caucasus. The whole situation has completely changed. I have heard a good deal of criticism of our offensive, and some of the critics imagine that its only justification would be if you were to break through. Not in the least. The enemy had two alternatives. He might have said, "All right; march on! Capture trench after trench. We will give you one after another of these French villages. We might throw in a few French towns. We will give you not merely kilometre after kilometre; we might even give you departments. But we will not let go of Verdun, and we throw our force on to the Eastern front to prevent the break up of Austria." The enemy might have done that. That would not satisfy him. He might, on the other hand, say: "No, rather than let you break through here and drive us back, we will take guns and munitions from Verdun. We will concentrate our troops in front of you rather than let you have this territory." He chose the latter. That suited us. It relieved the pressure on Verdun, prevented the enemy from pouring his forces to the support of the Austrians, and the great advance of General Brusiloff went on from week to week with gigantic results. I want those who are thinking about this offensive in mere terms of metres and yards and kilometres to realise the full effect of this achievement. Breaking through would have been a success, but forcing the enemy to bring his Armies there from Verdun to prevent us breaking through was equally a great achievement. The latter we have accomplished, and, in addition to that, we have wrested a considerable proportion of French territory from his grip.
  7.0 P.M.
  That is not the end. No one pretends that the enemy is yet at the end of his resources. I agree with what fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) that at the present moment his Armies are just

  2555
  as numerous as they ever were and his equipment is as formidable as it ever was. That is true of the Germans alone, but it is not true of their allies: not in the least. And if it is not true of their allies, it is because we have been able to concentrate such great forces that we have held the Germanic power whilst the Russians were dealing with some of her allies. That has been our contribution, a I great contribution and a costly contribution, but not as costly as the enemy makes it out to be. His account of our losses have been grossly, ludicrously exaggerated. At the present moment we are pressing him over territory the value of which cannot be reckoned by the number of yards, but rather by the importance of the positions we are capturing. Any man who looks at the contour of the map of this particular battlefield will see what it means, and our losses, although deplorable, as all losses must be, are relatively very low, while the enemy, forced to counter attack over ground which is exposed to our artillery, suffers heavily.
  The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; we ought not to treat this as if it were the end. It would be a mistake for us to do so. We are fighting a very great military Power with gigantic resources; they have an enormous population to draw upon, and let us realise that. No one realises it better than our foe. What a change has come over the spirit of the scene! He knows for the first time that his forces are being held, that he is now on the defensive, and that makes a great difference in the whole character of the campaign henceforth. But there are many valleys to cross, there are many ridges to storm, before we see the final victory. We shall need more men, more munitions, more guns, and more equipment, and we shall need all the courage and the endurance of our race in every part of the world in order to convert the work which has been begun, more especially during the last two years, into a victory which will be really a final and a complete victory. We are pressing the enemy back. I have got here something which has been handed to me in the course of the afternoon as I was listening to my hon. Friend—I do not know whether it has appeared in the papers—which shows how we are gradually pressing him back here and there over ground, every metre of which is important at the present moment, be-
  2556
  cause of its position, its dominating position, in that particular country. Sir Douglas Haig reports:
  "In Guillemont the enemy's garrison is still maintaining obstinate resistance, in spite of very heavy losses from our artillery bombardments.
  In the vicinity of Pozieres we have again made considerable progress. We have advanced on a front of half a mile, and are established at the road junction outside Mouquet Farm, and have pushed forward along the right of the Pozieres-Miarumont road.
  In the Liepzic salient we have extended our gains and advanced our positions to within a thousand yards of Thiepval.
  Over 100 more prisoners have been taken."
  That does not seem to be a very big achievement, but it is all in one direction. We have secured the ascendancy, instead of being pushed back as we were before Verdun, yard by yard, until they got nearer and nearer to the fortress itself. What is happening now? We are pushing the enemy on the Somme, and the French are doing the same. Near Verdun, instead of being driven back gradually, day by day and week by week, what is happening is that the French are regaining ground that they had previously lost. All that is a change, but in order to convert that into a real victory, a victory which will enable us to impose the only terms worth our while for having entered into this War—in order to establish that, it is necessary we should get every possible support that either this-country or the Dominions can possibly give us. My right hon. Friend has pointed out the importance of the equipment of Russia with heavy guns and heavy ammunition, and no one has attached greater importance to that than I have. The whole of these fateful months the enemy knows perfectly well that if Russia had been equipped with heavier artillery and ammunition, her progress would have been much more rapid than it has been during the last few months. It is upon considerations of that kind which involve greater sacrifices, still greater drafts upon our tenacity and courage, it is upon questions of that kind will depend the one great question whether we shall see the end of this war in the coming year. We have captured the ridge; we can see, at any rate, the course of the campaign. I think in the dim distance we can see the end. The enemy has been driven off the dominant positions which he held at the beginning of the campaign, and that in itself is a great achievement. He has lost his tide. At first he had three or four countries which were unprepared when he was

  2557
  prepared. He had France not fully prepared, and yet the best prepared of all and the most highly organised country in the alliance was still in a sense unprepared. Russia also was unprepared, and Britain had no Army—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, with practically no Army. I am speaking in the Continental sense. We had an Army for policing the Empire, but we had no Army in the sense of an Army for a great Continental campaign.
  I am the last man to disparage the work which our first Expeditionary Force rendered, and I have no doubt when the history of the whole war comes to be written it will be said that the action of that gallant little force saved the situation. But this country in the Continental sense, as a country engaged in war with empires that could put millions in the field, had practically no Army. Now that has gone. France is equipped and Russia is rapidly becoming equipped. The Italian equipment is getting along in a way which has amazed even her best friends. Then we have had the story of our equipment. We have now in the field one of the greatest Armies any empire could command. Germany has missed her chance, and she knows it. And without in the least pretending to predict times and seasons, it would be a mistake for us to expect to see an early victory. That we cannot get; it would be a mistake for us to anticipate an early victory; that would only produce disappointment. I am one of those who never in the least underrated the greatness of our task. I never cried out victory when, as a matter of fact, we were sustaining defeat, as I have always thought it better to tell the people frankly and fairly what was happening, because the people of this country are not the kind of people to be terrified by any facts, and I knew that their exertions would be in proportion to the difficulty of their enterprise. Having always taken that view, and now surveying the whole situation in the light of existing facts, and upon the advice of those who are far more competent to express an opinion than I am, I have no hesitation in saying that all this country and the Allies have got to do is to march together steadily, work together loyally, as they have done in the past, and then victory, assured victory, will rest in their hands.

  IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not intend to comment upon the speech which has just been made by my right hon. Friend, except to congratulate him and the country upon the position which he now occupies. I intend to deal with the affairs of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to me to be facing conditions similar to those which confronted Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Cornwallis. After the rebellion of 1798 Lord Fitzwilliam came over to Ireland with the best intentions, but he came from a divided Cabinet, and he was disowned after he had made his proposals. Lord Cornwallis suppressed the rebellion, but he was confronted with a number of people who found severe fault with his main criticisms and with the manner in which the rebels had been put down. The conditions in Ireland are not favourable for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke) I am going to tell him of two or three things which have assisted to bring about the situation which he has to face. My hon. and gallant Friend the-other night interrupted me in the course of some observations I made with regard to recruiting in Ireland. I hope he will permit me to give him, very briefly, the history of recruiting in Ireland up to-date. I must preface my remarks by saying that his panacea of Conscription would be the best means of destroying what chance there is of a peaceful Ireland. As a matter of fact, the Sinn Fein-rebellion was largely an anti-Conscription rebellion, and any attempt to establish Conscription in Ireland, I am afraid, would have the most disastrous consequences both to the cause that he has at heart and to peace and good order in Ireland.
  Let me refer to the condition of Ireland in 1914. Everybody will remember that momentous night when Sir Edward Greyr, now Viscount Grey, made what was practically a declaration of war. In the course of his speech the Foreign Secretary made the observation that the one bright spot in the situation was the condition of Ireland. That speech of the Foreign Secretary was immediately followed by what I may now call the historic speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). I do not think anyone who is not acquainted, as I am, with the Irish race in the various parts of the world, including some of our own Dominions,

  2559
  can appreciate the momentous importance of that pronouncement of my hon. and learned Friend. It had immediate consequences all over the Irish world. In the United States there are many millions of our people, most of them, either through themselves or their ancestors, the victims of cruel wrong and enforced emigration. I venture to say that 80 or 90 per cent. of our race in the United States accepted the policy of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and became the friends of the just cause of the Allies in this War. In Ireland there was a very remarkable and to me an astonishing state of things. I think even those who were formerly my political opponents will not question that I have devoted the greater part of my political career to an endeavour to bring about a reconciliation of the mass of the English and Irish races. I hoped to see them reconciled, but I must confess that I never anticipated that I should see more than a beginning of the reconciliation in my time. I thought it would require a generation or two after my generation had passed away to bring full and complete good will between the two countries. But I saw in Ireland a change of heart so deep, so wide, and so prompt as to make it a matter of surprise to me.
  Let me illustrate it by a few instances. I spoke of the Irish in America. In 1867 two Fenian prisoners were rescued by a body of Irishmen from a prison van. A police constable was killed in the course of the disturbance. I think he was killed accidentally. Five men were put on their trial for their lives. They were all convicted and sentenced to death. One of them was immediately released, three of of them were executed, and one spent nine years in penal servitude. This gave the impetus to the national movement in Ireland, and the memory of these men is still celebrated. The fourth man, who was reprieved because he was an American citizen, and who served ten years' penal servitude, was named Edward O'Megher Condon. If any man would have had bitter feelings against this country, one would have thought it would have been that man, but, marvellous to say, Edward O'Megher Condon, sentenced to death and a convict for ten years, brought up in a school of hatred of this country and its institutions, the child of evicted tenants driven out of Ireland, declared himself on the side of the
  2560
  Allies. I could go through any number of cases of the same kind. I met here the other day a young fellow, a wounded soldier of the name of Egan. That does not convey much to those who are not Irishmen, but he was the grandson of Patrick Egan, and I remember the time when he was one of the most hated men in this country. He had to fly to France. His grandson has been fighting in the trenches. He was present on the night—this is the tragedy of the situation—with the Munsters when the Germans put up a placard—it was during the recent rebellion—to say "The English are shooting your wives and children in the streets of Dublin." The Munsters went out across that No Man's Land, where every man's life was in danger, and they were not satisfied until they had captured and brought back that placard which was the denunciation of your Government.
  Throughout Ireland there were scenes which I do not think anybody ever thought possible in our lifetime or in the lifetime of many generations to come. Recruiting was going on with energy. Members of Parliament, clergymen, and local leaders of the National party were all making speeches in favour of recruiting. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) by his own efforts raised thousands of men. The recruits as they went to the station marched with bands and a cheering crowd, and there were cries of "God bless you!"—God bless the work which they were going to do in putting down those principles of savage and cruel oppression against which Ireland has always ranged herself and against which she must range herself to-day if she is to be true to her own traditions. Between the police and the Irish people, as everybody knows, there have been, especially in times of turbulence, a good deal of friction. Many of the constabulary joined the Army. Again, they went to the station amid the cheers and good will of their countrymen. There never was in the history of any country after six centuries of another point of view a change of heart so wide, so deep, and so remarkable as that which took place in Ireland after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford. I am sure when the history of this War comes to be written the historian will acknowledge that speech was one of the most eventful and one of the most helpful incidents at the commencement of the War

  2561
  What happened? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the Member for West Belfast went to the War Office. They had a series of suggestions to make. I think it was the very day after the declaration of War, so anxious were they to help in every way the cause which they had taken up. They made several suggestions, and they made one in particular. They suggested that their Volunteers, who at that time were still a united body, should be equipped and drilled by the War Office and have officers sent from the War Office. The remarkable thing is that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford made that proposal to the Volunteers of Dublin one of the men who supported it was John McNeill. If that offer had been accepted by the War Office, you would have had many of those 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or 100,000 men fighting on your side, because khaki is a catchy kind of thing, and when a man once gets it on his back, even if he is only a volunteer, he rarely resists the temptation to go into the fighting line. Thousands of these men would have gone into the fighting line and into the trenches. There would have been no Sinn Fein movement, because there would have been no men to draw upon. Many of the men who are in penal servitude to-day would have been in the trenches fighting, and would have given up their lives for the cause of the Allies. During the recent rebellion there was a young fellow tried for his life. His life was spared, and he was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Will it be believed that that young man for two or three months was begging my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast to get him a commission in the Regular Army, and all the appeals of my hon. Friend proved in vain. He drifted into the Volunteers. One thing led to another, and the result of it is that this man who was ready to fight in the cause of the Allies is to-day in penal servitude.
  Every single suggestion made to the War Office in the interests of the Allies was, without exception, rejected by the War Office. An hon. Member asks me why. I do not know, but I have my suspicion. I believe that there was what was called the Unseen Hand there. I hope I am not going to revive any controversy by using the phrase, and, if I do so, I express my regret, but I believe
  2562
  there was a "Curragh Camp set" there which regarded any proposal made by Nationalists as a proposal that was rebellion pretending to be loyal. Everything was done—it seemed to be almost calculated in a Machiavellian spirit—not to encourage, but to discourage recruiting. Every little insult possible was given to national sentiment. For instance, a number of ladies were asked by the General of the 16th Division to make some banners; they made the banners, and the banners were refused, not, I am sure, by the General, but by the General under orders from the War Office. The War Office interfered. In the National University in Dublin they proposed to raise a corps of officers; there was a similar corps in Trinity College, but permission was refused. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) went to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister gave his assent to the corps being raised; but the War Office refused even to listen to the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and the corps was not brought into existence. It was in an atmosphere of that kind that men were confronted with a propaganda which ultimately let in the Sinn Fein rebellion. Some six or seven months after the beginning of the War a very remarkable Englishman was sent over to Ireland, Sir Hedley le Bas. What did he find there? He found that there was no recruiting, no placards, no posters appealing to the national sentiment, and, above all, no form of proper recruiting appeal. I make no apology for the fact that when you try and induce Irishmen to enter the Army you must use a somewhat different kind of appeal from those you would apply to Englishmen, just as you have dealt with Wales differently. There were two places in Dublin where they positively refused to put up placards, one was Trinity College and the other was Liberty Hall, the centre of Larkin and the leaders of the Citizen Army.
  Sir Hedley le Bas found that all over the country they employed the very last type of men to make a successful appeal to the people. In Waterford—I say nothing against the gentleman personally; I did not know even his name—they employed a gentleman who was a Unionist, who was not of the same religion as the majority of the people, and who was a landlord's agent! Although we have to a large extent settled the land

  2563
  question in Ireland, there are traditions which remain, and I say that a landlord's agent is not quite the man to appeal to the patriotic fervor of an Irish Catholic population. In Limerick the gentleman who was sent down was a Catholic, but he had stood on Orange platforms as a Unionist candidate, and he had been Unionist candidate in that very city a short time before. All my fellow countrymen know that an Irish Nationalist hates an Irish Catholic Unionist much worse than he hates the most virulent Orangeman. That was not the kind of gentleman whose personality would appeal to men to go and die for the cause of the Allies in the trenches. In Dublin a number of ex-Unionist candidates were selected for the purposes of recruiting, and I am not sure whether they did not import some dug-outs or found-outs from this country. These gentlemen could not make the best appeal to Irishmen, who, after all, are a courageous race, and some of whom are sensible. They actually called the people cowards and slackers, and used other terms of abuse. I need not tell you that men like that, instead of encouraging, discourage recruits.
  I take another section of the Irish race, my countrymen in Great Britain, with whom I am more closely associated than with any other section of my people, and with whom I have, lived now for about half a century. No part of the Empire has given a more generous contribution, proportionately, to the fighting forces than the Irishmen in Great Britain. How are they treated? At the very beginning of the War I called a meeting and explained my views of the issue of the War—and from that explanation I have never wavered, and I do not waver now—and we determined to recruit in this country for the War as far as we could, and I asked them to accept our views of the issues and policy which I ventured to lay before them. I made what would appear perhaps at that time a rather rash proposal, that we should sing "God Save the King." It had never been sung at an Irish Nationalist meeting in Great Britain before, and that great meeting of 5,500 Irishmen in Glasgow sang it full-heartedly, and accepted the same position as their fellow-citizens of English and Scottish descent. What happened? The Irish in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which is a great
  2564
  Irish centre, proposed to raise an Irish battalion. The Irish at Newcastle, as hon. Members on the Labour Benches know, are very closely associated both in the social and labour life of their English fellow-citizens. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) has told me that in his early struggles for trade unionism he could not have succeeded without the assistance of many Irishmen who were his comrades. They proposed in Newcastle-upon-Tyne to raise an Irish battalion. Mr. Joseph Cowen, the son of one who was well known to this Assembly, put up £10,000 to be devoted to the raising of an Irish regiment and a Scottish regiment and a Newcastle battalion. The Irish immediately raised a battalion; they raised two; they raised three; they raised four; altogether they raised 5,500 Irishmen in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I took some small, obscure, but zealous part in raising those Irishmen in Newcastle. I said to myself, "Here is a chance to raise recruits, in Ireland; I will get these men to consent to go to Ireland to be drilled; I will go over myself; I will march at their head through the City of Dublin, and I dare say that forty or fifty thousand of their fellow-countrymen will welcome them to the land of their fathers." Does it require much imagination to see what effect such a procession would have upon recruiting in Dublin? I was refused. I got these men to go to Ireland, which was a sacrifice to them, because at Newcastle they were billeted with their mothers and wives.
  In West Belfast my hon. Friend for that constituency (Mr. Devlin) has done very much in persuading his fellow-countrymen to join the Army, but for months they did not have a recruiting station in West Belfast, and the people had to go to other parts of Belfast to join the Army. That was a great mistake, and militated against the sentiment of the Nationalists in the city, and against their joining the Army in as large numbers as they would otherwise have done. In Kingstown there was no recruiting station, and men who wished to join the Army had to go eight or nine miles to Dublin for the purpose. Sir Hedley le Bas found two or three remarkable things when he went to Dublin. He found that the Recruiting Committee there had only one Nationalist on it, and that in this great Nationalist city. When Sir Hedley made a certain suggestion for the purposes of encouraging recruiting, a member of the Committee, after the meeting was over, called him aside and said, "Why, Sir

  2565
  Hedley, you seem to be anxious to get Nationalists to recruit; we don't want them to recruit. The more Nationalists that join the Army the surer they are to get Home Rule." That is the kind of Committee that was set up to do recruiting. Sir Hedley also went to some of the military authorities, and the first thing they told him was, "Have nothing to do with the Nationalists; do not kow-tow with them; give them a wide berth." If you want to appeal to the people of Ireland, send to them gentlemen of the same political convictions and the same, religion as the people to whom they appeal. The same story was found everywhere. The Irish Guards band made a most successful tour in Ireland and gained many recruits. When Sir Hedley suggested that the Lord Mayor of Dublin should be got to receive the band, he was told, "You must not touch the Lord Mayor; he is opposed to recruiting; it would be a dreadful mistake." But he went to the Lord Mayor and he found him one of the best friends of the cause of the Allies. The Lord Mayor did not refuse to receive the band. He gave them an entertainment, and they went through Ireland receiving addresses of welcome from the people and raised a number of recruits. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to imagine I am attacking him in this connection. He is not responsible for that state of affairs, nor was his great predecessor. It was the unseen hand of the War Office that was responsible. All through Ireland every step was taken not to encourage but to discourage recruiting.
  Let me take another point. I went down to visit the 16th Division here in England. I found an admirable set of officers—I need not say anything about the men, because they have proved their valour. What did I find? The men were 90 or 95 per cent. Nationalists and Catholics, while the officers were 75 or 85 per cent. Protestants. Nobody will accuse me of anything like sectarian feeling. I have not a particle of it; I hate it. But you must have regard for these religious and political affinities between men and even between soldiers and officers. I am glad to be able to say that bad as that method of officering the 16th Division was, it turned out admirably. The officers won the hearts of the men, the men won the hearts of the officers, and there is the deepest and almost uninterrupted harmony between them. It was very unfair to my hon. Friend the
  2566
  Member for West Belfast and others who had done so much to recruit your forces that they should have knocked in vain, month after month, to get a commission for a man who is a Nationalist, while a gentleman who was a paid servant in the Unionist organisation was put over a regiment comprising 90 per cent. of Irish Nationalists.
  That is not the end of this somewhat discreditable story. Our regiments went into action. No man will criticise the valour of the Irish soldiers. They were in the retreat from Mons, they were in the massacres in the Dardanelles, they were at Festubert, and they have been in some of the other recent engagements. The story of the Dardanelles is known to many Members of this House. It is as well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College as well as to any man on these benches. It is a story, dreadful in many respects, but a story of incomparable valour in the face of unprecedented difficulties. Several Irish regiments took a leading part in these engagements. Two of them, I believe, took the leading part. Will it be believed that the names of those regiments were absolutely omitted from any word of mention in the dispatches describing the engagements? All over the battle fronts it is the same story even to-day. Irish regiments have taken a large part in the engagements within the last few weeks, but their names have not been mentioned. It looks as if an Irish soldier is good enough to be killed but is not good enough to be mentioned in the dispatches describing those engagements. How could I*or any Irishman feel anything but resentment at such a series of incidents and facts as I have mentioned? Some of the causes of the Sinn Fein rebellion were that our men were not equipped and organised under the War Office, and that Ireland began to feel that while this country was willing to take her soldiers, she was not willing to recognise them on the Nationalist principles for which they stood. There were other causes, but I will not go into them now, because I do not want to revive any controversy if I can help it. The creation of a Coalition Government was one of them. I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College for that transaction. I believe that his own judgment was against his entering into the Ministry, and, to do him justice, he left it as soon as he could. Was it not quite clear that, when the

  2567
  leader of one political party in Ireland declines to enter the Cabinet, the leader of the other political party ought to have been asked to do so, some months after the War had begun in this auspicious state of Irish feeling?
  I come to recent events. My reference to them will be as brief and as considered as I can make it. There were two events in Ireland, a rebellion and the repression of that rebellion. The repression of the rebellion was a much more important and a much more far-reaching event than the rebellion itself. I do not want to go into that painful and tragic event more than I can help. I still think that if the same humane, generous, and wise spirit that induced General Botha to spare the rebels of his own race and of his own land had been extended to the rebellion in Ireland my right hon. Friend would have a much more favourable set of conditions to deal with and his task would be comparatively easy. When that rebellion started, 90 per cent. of the people of Ireland condemned and repudiated it; but when repression was in progress the sympathies of the 90 per cent. were on the other side. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to accept my view or to disavow things that have been done. He had no responsibility. I do impress upon him, however, that the sooner he is able to remove from Ireland all signs and tokens of that very bitter incident in Irish life he will have a different Ireland to deal with. I see the Home Secretary here. I was astonished to hear an answer of his at Question Time to-day. There are a great many Irishmen still in prison or under internment. I hope he will expedite their release. I am going to make another suggestion. I do not want to use strong language, but I was shocked by his answer to-day in regard to Irish political prisoners who have been sentenced. There is not a civilised country in the world except this that does not make a distinction between the political and the ordinary prisoner. It is made in France. [An HON. MEIIBEE: "Not in Germany or Russia."] Hon. Members who say "Not in Russia" have not read as much about Siberia as I have. I have read an account of a reception by the Czar—I think when he was Czarevitch—which has made the foundation of a thousand perorations, dramas, and novels, of a man with whom he entered into friendly conversation, who was the man who tried to take his father's life. The Home Secre-
  2568
  tary will not get any encouragement there for his doctrine. It is a false doctrine. He will get no confirmation of it in the treatment of political prisoners, even those in Russia after they have been sentenced and exiled. As to France, Frenchmen would regard it as an abnegation of all the doctrines of the French Revolution and its new gospel of humanity and liberty to treat a political prisoner as an ordinary prisoner. I hope my right hon. Friend will revise his views upon that matter, and try to extend generous treatment to men of this kind, who in no civilised country are classed in the same category as ordinary prisoners.
  I end as I began, by saying that the position of the Chief Secretary is not one altogether to be envied. He will get fair play from us. So long as he follows what we regard as a wise policy he will not get injustice from us. I want to give him a few words of friendly warning. The path of coercion is a dangerous one. Once a Chief Secretary enters upon it he very soon finds himself in conflict with the Irish people. I ask him to be a little on his guard, for, after all, he is an Englishman, against the official classes. I remember reading many years ago a striking story of French life where a Deputy filled with the spirit of reform and good intentions tried to clear out some office. There was a Radical at the head of the office, there was a Radical majority in Parliament, there was a Radical President of the Assembly, but there was a fine fat old gentleman who sat in an armchair as the permanent official of the office, who put himself in the way. The Deputy said to himself, "That fellow or somebody like him was there in the days of the first Napoleon. Perhaps he saw Marie Antoinette going to the scaffold. He saw Louis XVI. and Louis XV., and all the other generations. He was there all the time." That old gentleman has been most of the time at Dublin Castle. It is bureaucracy without responsibility either to an English or an Irish Parliament. I warn the right hon. Gentleman not to respect its traditions, and not always, at least to take its counsel.
  One further word of advice I will give him. The example comes to one's mind of the resemblance between his position and that of Lord Cornwallis after the rebellion. Lord Cornwallis protested in the strongest way against some of the savage cruelties with which that rebellion was put down. In his memoirs he over and

  2569
  over again lamented that all his kind intentions and inclinations as to clemency were scouted and denounced in the spirit of caste, class and bigotry by some Irishmen themselves. I am afraid there may be a little of that spirit in Dublin to-day. I implore the Chief Secretary to rise superior to it and to all its follies and bad suggestions.
  8.0 P.M.
  Captain S. GWYNN: I have to deal with a matter that is an extraordinarily painful one to handle. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has been dealing with the attempt made in Ireland to find in the New Army a great instrument of reconciliation. He has told the House of the difficulties that met us and of the stupidity that seemed to haunt all the dealings with the War Office with Ireland in the matter. The wisdom of the Leader of the Irish party was justified to a great extent, and the Army did, to an extraordinary degree, become an instrument of reconciliation between the peoples. I am here to say that at the present time the sympathy that flows from that source is greatly checked in a considerable degree, because those who control the Army have not found the strength to condemn what has been done wrongly by certain soldiers in the Army. Not so much from things which have been done by the troops—because such things are almost inevitable at such a time—but because of the failure of the Government to assert discipline and to make clear that the Army was Ireland's Army as well as England's, and that Irishmen were in just the same relation to it as any other class of citizen, harm has come. If I have to find fault with the troops, heaven knows it is not because. I want to attack the New-Army. I am part of that Army myself, and am proud to be part of it. It is because I think your Army is the finest thing this country has ever done—I think finer than any of us who were not English expected ever to see come out of England—it is because that Army has given us a respect for typically English ideals that we never had before that I say in the interests of that Army you are bound to repress sharply whatever dishonours that Army, and whatever puts upon it the least trace of the taint which the Germans have left indelibly on their Armies in this War. I do not think anyone will suspect me of wishing to make bad blood between the countries. That has not been the object of our party. Our party's mission has been to try and bring things to friendlier
  2570
  relations. It is for that that the people who made this rebellion attacked us, for this rebellion had really only one purpose. It could not hope for success in a military sense, but it could hope to destroy the constitutional movement, which from their point of view was a betrayal of the Irish position, and our attitude has clearly been to seek, as it was theirs to hinder, a reconciliation and a better understanding between England and Ireland. There never was a time when it was more needed than to-day. It is not the Army that I blame so much as the Government, which has I think in the first instance abdicated its own functions to the Army. The rebellion happened. You called in the Army to put it down and to restore order. Then the Army's function ended, as I conceive. Then the statesmen's work began. The Government abdicated their functions and left to the military, who were not concerned with that work, the function of deciding what measures should be taken to prevent a rebellion happening again.
  That was not how they did it in South Africa. In South Africa when they had dealt in a military sense with their rebellion, the question of penalties arose, and they could not, of course, leave the case to a judge and jury. They set up a tribunal of their own, but so cautious were they in the matter that by Act of their Legislature, I am told, they limited the power of the tribunal. The statesmen kept the matter in their own hands. They dealt with it as statesmen, and they have their reward. In Ireland the statesmen handed over the matter to the military and we suffer for it. We and the Empire and the cause of the Allies suffer for that mistake. The Government still speaks of the leniency with which this rebellion was repressed. I knew many men who were sentenced to death. They were friends of mine, and I cannot myself conceive that it was expedient in any sense to put those men to death, because unquestionably by doing so you have increased their power. I do not grudge them what they desired more than anything in the world, the prestige of the death that you gave them, but I deplore the error which was made and I deplore the manner of those executions. That, of course, is half the trouble in Ireland. I am trying now to bring home, if it is only to the Chief Secretary, what appear to be the facts that the rulers of Ireland must recognise, what I hope the English people will try to recognise, when they are attempting to understand the

  2571
  temper of the country which is bound up with theirs. The mere fact that such clemency has been used in South Africa made the severity which was used in Ireland appear to the Irish people unjust. That is one of the elements of the situation that ought to be borne in mind. Another great element of the situation was that no conceivable standard could be invented to explain the principle applied. If the signatories to the constitution, as it was called, had been dealt with together, that would have been at least understood, but you went beyond that, and, so far as I can understand, you might just as well have shot 150 men as fifteen, because there was no greater guilt in some of the men who were shot than in others who escaped with, relatively speaking, light sentences. They were men whose names were made known to the Irish people for the first time when they saw the sentence of their death. I do not think most people in this country realise that among the first persons to be executed was a boy leader of Boy Scouts. If that is leniency, I have yet to understand what that term means.
  For the rest, in strictness, what I have to say is in criticism of the military authorities. But the Prime Minister went to Ireland, and it is to be presumed that he investigated these matters. He has taken on himself again and again responsibility for refusing the demand which has been made for a public inquiry into these matters, and it is he and the Government who have assumed the responsibility. I want to make it plain of what it is that I complain and what it is that seems to me to have been so radically and entirely wrong. I think it is certain that there were a large number of cases in which the troops entirely misconceived their functions in repressing the rebellion. There were fourteen cases known to me in which unarmed prisoners were executed by the troops without trial, and, so far as I could judge, without any military necessity whatever. In six of these eases the soldiers took the bodies of the men they had shot and buried them out of sight. It is said that there was looting at the same time. If troops are acting in that manner there will be looting. If troops are acting in that manner they are acting in the grossest breach of discipline, and if you cannot bring home military crime to the men responsible for it you can, and I think you should deal with the officers for allowing
  2572
  such a state of indiscipline to grow up as these events point to. I have here a list of fourteen persons altogether who were killed in this manner. One of them was a boy of eleven. The boy and his father were marched by soldiers out of the house in which they had been, through a house in which certain women were, into an empty house next door. They were shot there and left, and for that no punishment has been inflicted, so far as I know. Thirteen of these fourteen cases occurred in the same street on the same day, and therefore it is presumably possible to identify the regiment concerned. I have been told again and again by people with whom I have been in conversation over this matter, by those who were most vehement in condemnation of it, that taking it by and large the conduct of the troops during the rebellion was beyond praise. They behaved as I should have expected men of the New Army to behave, English or Irish. Many of them, of course, were Irish regiments, but there is no dividing line drawn between Irish and English in this matter. But in certain cases a conception appears to have prevailed that troops were entitled to shoot on their own responsibility, not in the execution of their duty of forcing their way through, but to shoot unarmed prisoners. In the interests of the Army, I ask, Is that a standard of discipline that is to be allowed to grow up in your New Army? From the point of view of Ireland, consider what it means. I am deliberately refraining from reading depositions because the detail of these matters is harassing, and I know the detail is before the Irish authorities. I will ask the House to take it from me that I have convinced myself that there have been fourteen of these cases in which unarmed prisoners were shot by troops without military necessity.
  But I do not believe that there prevailed anywhere among the military authorities of Dublin the proper spirit towards this matter, and I base myself in that view on a case where the facts are admitted—they were too open to be hidden away—and where there has been inquiry. That is the Sheehy-Skeffington case. An officer who was insane, a man of whom everyone speaks well and speaks with sympathy, took these men out and shot them. He made the soldiers under his authority the instruments of a very horrible murder. When he had done this, the man, being perfectly mad, went to

  2573
  his commanding officer and told him what he had done. The commanding officer, on his own statement at the inquiry, asked Captain Bowen Colthurst if he had mentioned the matter to the adjutant, and he left it at that. Captain Colthurst was left in command for a considerable period after that, and, so far as I know, the commanding officer is still the commanding officer. It is perfectly clear to any soldier that as a commanding officer he failed in his plain duty in the grossest way, and the effect of that on the people of Ireland was bad beyond words. Nobody wanted to see a vindictive sentence passed on the officer who had been directly responsible for the shooting, because they recognised his misfortune, but when they found that the culpable inaction of the commanding officer was passed over it was difficult to persuade the Irish people that the action of Captain Colthurst had been so seriously regarded as was professed by the sentence. It was admittedly technical murder, but they would say to you in Dublin that it was only the murder of Irishmen.
  That is not all. The second in command of the regiment became aware of the facts, inquired into the position, and did not like it. He insisted upon going to the Irish headquarters with a statement of the facts. But he got no satisfaction from them, and as soon as he could get clear of his difficulties during the rebellion he came over, and reported the matter to Lord Kitchener at the War Office. It was on his information to Lord Kitchener, that the telegram was written ordering Captain Colthurst's arrest. Until then no action was taken, That was, I think, sufficient justification for the view that the second in command had acted as the commanding officer ought to have acted. I know also, as a matter of personal knowledge, that this gentleman seeing what had happened did what, I think, was the wisest and most humane thing to do. He went to the widow of one of the men who had been shot by mistake, Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington, and said, "What has happened is a ghastly misfortune. It is like a lightning stroke, and we regret it. You must not blame the Army for it." He made friends with her and took her little son out, I think, to the Zoological Gardens. That was a good, humane thing to do. It was the right thing for a soldier to do. What has happened? That man has been told that the Army has no further use for him, while on the other hand the commanding officer is still in his position. I know Sir Francis Vane, the second in
  2574
  command, slightly. He was in the 16th Division when I was. I never served with him, but many of my friends served under him as subalterns and they all speak with affection and regard of him, and speak highly of his ability. I know nothing of his record as an officer except that he was praised for his work during the rebellion. I do submit that if you wish to convince the people of Ireland that you are serious in your condemnation of these murders it is hardly the way to carry conviction when you keep this commanding officer still in command, and dismiss Sir Francis Vane from the Service. It may be only a coincidence and probably it is only a coincidence, but if the Army knew its business it would not allow such coincidences as that to occur.
  General Sir John Maxwell during these occurrences gave an interview to the "Daily Mail," in which he said:
  "Possibly unfortunate incidents, which we all regret now, may have occurred. It did not perhaps always follow that where shots were fired in a particular house the inmates were necessarily aware of it or were guilty. But how were the soldiers to discriminate? They saw their comrades killed beside them by hidden and treacherous assailants, and it is even possible that in the horrors of these attacks some of them saw red."
  That is a military apology for what happened, or for what may have happened. I do not think that it is desirable that such an apology should be made for the troops. I do not think that troops ought to be left to consider that they are entitled to see red on such an occasion. I think every officer who took his men into an action of that kind ought to have impressed—and I am sure every properly trained officer would impress—upon his men the peculiar difficulties of the situation, and would have warned them against such a tendency. Do not let it be thought that I underrate the extraordinary provocation which these men received. It was not merely the fact that they had to fight their way and that it was hard fighting, but they had a sense that they as Englishmen had been attacked by Irishmen in the back at a time when they were in the middle of a desperate War. Excuses should be made for Englishmen, but there is a line that must be drawn and it should be made perfectly clear to troops that the shooting of unarmed prisoners is a thing that disgraces them as soldiers, and it is not a thing which any commanding officer should apologise for or gloss over. I do not believe that the Army as a whole

  2575
  would desire you to shield men who looted or who killed in cold blood.
  From the point of view of the Government and the military authorities, who wanted to get the most they could out of Ireland for the Army, it was the proper attitude for them to remember that they had to live down certain things which happened before the War. They should have remembered that what happened in Dublin only ten days before the War broke out had still left bitter memories. I refer to the shooting in Bachelor's Walk. When battalions go first into the trenches they are attached to some more experienced troops, and the battalion to which my company was attached was a battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers. I confess that I looked forward with some little apprehension, because the feeling had been very high, but what I found when I got there was that the battalion to which we were attached was full of Catholic Irishmen. The first sergeant I spoke to was a Sergeant Dooley, and I asked him what kind of Scottish Borderer he was. Between our men and those men there grew up instantly the friendliest possible relations, and people in that battalion told me that in Dublin, ten days after the shooting in Bachelor's Walk, and after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, the very battalion which had been concerned with the affair at Bachelor's Walk were cheered as they went through the streets of Dublin on the way to the front.
  We in Ireland have done what we could to try to wash out those memories, but when things happen like those I have described and are dealt with, or not dealt with, in the way I have described, those bitter memories revive. If I am to be asked, "What can you do? I want to put this to the Chief Secretary. There is one thing you can do. You can give us the facts. If he has read Irish history at all—Irish Chief Secretaries sometimes do—he may remember, that in the history of all the great risings in Ireland, and more particularly in connection with the rebellion in 1798, that there is a mass of stories believed on one side of atrocities committed by the rebels, and stories believed on the other side of atrocities committed by the troops. One cannot get at any reliable testimony at all. At the present time the same atmosphere
  2576
  exists in Ireland. If it is true that the soldiers executed in cold blood ten persons, he may be perfectly certain that it is believed to-day that they executed 100. If the Sinn Feiners shot down ten unarmed men in uniform, it is believed and circulated that they shot down 100. Let us have the facts on both sides; let us be done with what exists at the present time in Ireland and get rid of the cloud of outrage mongering that goes on on both sides in Dublin and all through Ireland. I hold no brief for what the Sinn Feiners have done, and I think it extremely desirable in the present temper of Ireland that Ireland should be made to realise what the Sinn Feiners have done. I have spoken about what has been done by the troops. Let us remember what the other side have done.
  A kinsman of my own was passing along Stephen's Green on the morning of that Easter Monday. He saw what he took to be a lunatic with a revolver, holding up some ladies in a motor car. Being a plucky man he grappled with the man and tried to take the revolver from him. While so doing he was shot at by a man who fired slugs into him at short range, and as he reeled away with his shoulder blown to bits the second barrel was fired at him. I should not like to have seen the man who fired those shots shot, but I should like to have seen him hung. It was murder, and there was murder committed by those people. That was not what Pearse or McDonagh, or these men wanted them to do. They wanted them to fight. But murder was committed in the name of Sinn Fein, and I am perfectly certain that every honest Sinn Feiner would agree with me that for such acts as that there can be no apology. But let us know where we stand, let us know in all how many civilians were killed, and how many soldiers. Let us have the facts, and we may possibly begin in the light of facts to understand one another. That is one of the things I want to impress upon the Chief Secretary, that we should get at the truth. Above all, let him try to make plain to the Irish people that before the law and before the troops a Nationalist Irishman shall stand in just the same position as the Englishman, or the Scotsman, or anybody else, and that troops shall have no more licence in Ireland than elsewhere. Let us not forget that in this Irish rebellion the troops who did the most to put it down were Irish troops—three battalions of Dublin Fusiliers. Quite recently I was attached for some weeks to a battalion of

  2577
  Dublin Fusiliers who had been in that business, and I was asking them technical questions—what they did for scouting. They laughed at me and said, "We did not want scouts in Dublin, the old women told us everything. The town was for the troops." The Sinn Feiners, the people who had suddenly taken possession of the city, were the minority. The troops were the friends of the people at first. That changed afterwards, and if you are to counteract that change it should be made plain beyond yea or nay to every man in Ireland, Sinn Feiner or Ulsterman or Redmondite, or whoever else he is, that there is to be equal regard for persons in Ireland, and, believe me, it will be necessary to make that plain, I do not say to the Army, but to some elements in the Army.
  Mr. O'MALLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend has made a very interesting speech and thrown a great deal of light upon the recent rebellion in Dublin. I am sorry that that speech has not had more listeners, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not deliver to a fuller House his very powerful and very illuminating speech on the Irish situation. The subject which I wish to raise has nothing to do with the War or the recent rebellion in Dublin. It is a subject which concerns my own Constituency alone. This is the only opportunity on which it is open to me to raise this question. A few days ago I put a question to the Chief Secretary about the fever outbreak in a district called Lettermore, in South Connemara. Connemara has been visited ever since I can remember with periodic outbreaks of fever of a very malignant character. Unfortunately, it is also the land where famines generally arose. Through the action of the Congested Districts Board, mainly, the famines now, I hope, are a thing of the past, but the fever we still have with us. Almost every year, as long as I can remember, this district has been subject to outbreaks of fever. Three or four years ago a very violent outbreak occurred, and several lives were lost. Considerable publicity was given to the condition of that district by the enterprise of one of the Irish papers. Deaths have occurred from time to time from fever in Connemara for many years, but until this paper described the condition of the houses and the conditions of life, and the horrors and the ravages created by the fever outbreak, very little attention had been paid to the matter. I regret to
  2578
  say that the Irish Government have done very little, if anything at all, to prevent those recurrent outbreaks.
  The late Chief Secretary visited the scene at the time I am speaking about, in company with the Vice-President of the Local Government Board (Sir Henry Robinson), and I happened to meet him there. I shall never forget the sympathetic language used by the then Chief Secretary in regard to what he had seen. He was simply shocked at the terrible condition of the houses. He had never seen anything like them in his life, and hoped that he would never see anything like them again. I appealed strongly to him there and then to try to do something to induce the Congested Districts Board to take some action, not only to remove the poverty which was to some extent responsible for the fever, but to buy out those little estates there and build houses or cottages fit for human beings to live in. He spoke to me in terms most pathetic, and promised to do all he could. The only thing I know he did was to contribute out of his own pocket a sum of money towards the erection of a temporary hospital to receive these poor people. Up to this time the fever patients had to be carried in a cart for a distance of twenty-five miles to Oughterard, and many of these poor people died on the way. The Chief Secretary contributed something to erect a little hospital, and I believe that has been done. The present Chief Secretary has informed me that the medical officer of the Local Government Board is now making inquiries in regard to the present outbreak, and he has been good enough to say that a further inquiry will be made if necessary. I hope that the Chief Secretary will find time to visit this district and see for himself the condition of the people, and I trust that he will be able to do something more than has ever been done before by any of his predecessors.
  It appears to me that the immediate cause of these outbreaks of fever in this district is the water supply, which is very defective. It is surface water, the place being very rocky, and there was no well service. It was advised, I believe, by a medical officer of the Local Government Board that a certain number of wells should be sunk. The Oughterard Union took the matter up, and the board of guardians had an estimate formed as to the cost of making or sinking seven wells, or putting in pumps, and the cost, according to the estimate, came to £513 for seven

  2579
  wells; but, on account of the character of the soil this estimate was considerably increased—in fact, it was doubled. It was found that the total cost of sinking these wells, or putting in new pumps, was £1,025. Out of a fund raised by a newspaper in Dublin £350 was given towards this work, so that a balance of something like £513 still remains due. The debt will naturally fall upon the Oughterard Union. This union is so poor that it is already overburdened with rates, and, when I tell you that 1d. in the £ upon the rateable value only produces £70, to expect this poor union to charge 6d. or 7d. in the £ additional rates would, I am afraid, prove a very serious matter indeed to this very poor community. The Congested Districts Board, who are really responsible for the condition of affairs in the West of Ireland, could only be got to give £171 towards these expenses. The Oughterard Union has appealed repeatedly to the Board to give something additional, and they have appealed in vain. My immediate object in raising this question to-day is to make an appeal to the new Chief Secretary to use his influence with the President of the Congested Districts Board to give something in addition to the £171. As a matter of fact, seven wells were not enough in view of the fever which occurs in that district, and the authorities declared that some thirty or forty wells are necessary. If thirty or forty wells are necessary to prevent the recurrence of typhoid fever in this locality, I submit to the Chief Secretary that forty wells ought to be sunk. This is not a new subject. I remember, twenty-seven years ago, when I first went to this district of Carraroe, that I met the parish priest, who is still living, the Rev. Walter Conway, who was then living in Carraroe. While I was there, he was summoned to the Island of Gorumna, near Lettermore, where there was an outbreak of typhoid fever. The Rev. Walter Conway went to a dwelling, where I waited outside for him, while he was paying his visit, for thirty-five or forty minutes. By that time he came to the door and beckoned me, and pointed to the corner of a room of the house. An old man was lying dead on a little wisp of straw on the floor, and in the nearer corner was his wife, also dead; and in another part of the house the young man of the family, the young son, lay dead. The fourth member of the family—a young
  2580
  girl about sixteen years of age—was in a delirious condition, and the priest, instead of administering the rites, was engaged in cutting off the girl's hair with a pair of shears that he had found in the house. It was a sight that I have never forgotten, and never can forget, but it is a sight which is not unfamiliar in that part of Connemara.
  Four years ago the district was visited by several pressmen who wanted to see for themselves the state of affairs. After twenty-five years of the Congested Districts Board, which was set up to deal with the poverty and misery of Connemara, surely it is not too much to ask the Chief Secretary to see that this deplorable state of affairs will no longer be allowed to continue to exist. These miserable houses that these people are supposed to live in are of stone, built probably by themselves fifty or sixty years ago, at the time of the famine. In many cases they have no windows and no chimneys. One of the houses which the late Chief Secretary entered, and which I entered also on the same day, had no chimney to permit the smoke to escape, and there was no window. There was a man and his wife there who had lost their son a few weeks before. When those houses were built, and when I was a small boy in Connemara, the feeling of the poor tenants along the Western coast was that they believed in the divine right of landlords, land agents, bailiffs, and policemen. They believed when famine approached and drove them to America, or to the workhouse or to the grave, that Providence was responsible for all that sad condition. That was in the days before the Land League movement roused the people of Ireland to a sense of the wrongs and injustices under which they were suffering. The people in the West of Ireland to-day think differently, and know differently. They believe that they have an equal right with any other citizen in this Empire to live in comfortable, decent, habitable houses, and that they are entitled to drink wholesome water and to be able to obtain wholesome food. The Congested Districts Board is spending thousands of pounds on comparatively rich land, buying out rich landlords, while these poor, miserable people along that Western coast are neglected, forgotten, ignored. Your Local Government Board medical officer knows all about it. His inspection down there now would reveal nothing new. The late Chief Secretary knew all about it. What are we to do?

  2581
  I have made a final appeal to the Chief Secretary to go down there and see for himself how these poor people are situated. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) anticipated me because I was going to advise the right hon. Gentleman that he should go alone, and not with any of the permanent officials of Dublin Castle, because they are so accustomed to Irish misery and wretchedness that they look upon it in the sense of the words used in Scripture: "The poor we shall have always with us." They believe it is the fate of those poor Irish people, and they do not want to remove it, and they do not wish to have any trouble about it. I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to go down and see for himself, and if he will be good enough to let me know when he is going I shall be very glad to be present.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to follow the two hon. Members who have just spoken into the matters they have discussed. I would like to say a very few words with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who gave to the House many facts that must have been new and surprising with regard to the history of the recruiting muddle made during the last two years by the War Office in Ireland. My hon. Friend really only touched the fringe of that question, because there is not a single hon. Member on these benches who could not bring forward case after case within his own experience to prove up to the hilt the charge which has been made to-night by my hon. Friend of the hopeless, incompetent mismanagement and muddle of the War Office in that direction. My hon. Friend gave one instance. He told us of how the request to allow the Tyneside Irish Division to go to Ireland was refused. I will also give one general instance which is, I think, even a more glaring case than that. As the House knows, we have four Provinces in Ireland. Like my hon. Friend who last spoke, I represent one of the Connaught constituencies. There are many Irish regiments in this War that have gained great renown, but I venture to say that the Connaught Rangers has held its own with the best. Will the House believe that in the whole Province of Connaught there is not one single soldier either before or since the War in training? There are many Service and Reserve battalions of the Connaught Rangers, and yet so blind and stupid has
  2582
  been the policy of the War Office that they have not trained a single soldier in Connaught.
  What my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) said is perfectly true. The War Office fell under the unfortunate influence of anti-Nationalist opinion in Ireland, opinion which always regarded loyalty as the monopoly of the Unionist in that country. "God save the King!" as my hon. Friend said, was sung for the first time after the outbreak of War at a great meeting of Irishmen in this country. It used to be regarded as a party tune in Ireland. I would like to give the House one instance to illustrate the extraordinary change which the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Irish party helped to bring about in public opinion in Ireland. The Nationalists in the city of Belfast have a football team of which they are very proud. But like so many other things in Ireland politics sometimes enter even into football. The splendid ground of the Celtic Club is divided into two sections in one of which you would find the supporters of the home club and in the other supporters of other clubs, generally Unionist in polities. After the War broke out and after the Home Rule Bill was placed on the Statute Book there was a football match at Celtic Football Ground. For the first time in the history of the club the Union Jack was flying from the masthead and the band for the first time played God Save the King. The Nationalists also for the first time on record when that tune was played took off their hats, and so indignant were the opposition crowd in the other section of the ground that as a protest against this attempt of the Nationalists to seize the cry of loyalty that they refused to take off their hats when that tune was played. I will not go further into these matters or other similar matters except to say to the Chief Secretary that if, at the outset of his career as Chief Secretary, he wishes his path to be smoothed and his task to be lightened, the very first necessity is to get rid of three figures who have had an unfortunate history in connection with recent events in Ireland.
  I pass over these matters, because I have risen chiefly to make an appeal to the Home Secretary on a subject of great importance to the future improvement of Irish public opinion. My appeal is that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the Advisory Committee to have a second revision of the list of Irish prisoners at

  2583
  present detained at Frongoch in connection with the late rebellion. I am not going again into the circumstances of the rebellion. It has been made perfectly clear to the House that there is no party in the House of Commons that more deplored that rebellion than we did. From time to time some Members of the House who do not understand Ireland have expressed surprise at the fact that several Members on these benches have defended the rebels against certain charges. I do not think that English Members ought really to complain of that. These unhappy, misguided people, as we believe them to be, have been charged with many things which they did do, and they have no defenders in that respect, whereas the Army and the Government officials in Ireland have many powerful friends and interests to speak for them. But when these rebels are unfairly and wrongly charged, I think the House will agree that it is the duty of Members from Ireland to stand up for their own countrymen and that they would hardly be human if they did not do so.
  9.0 P.M.
  Our case in this connection is that the handling of the rebellion and the situation that arose out of it was deplorable. Next to the executions, the worst blunder made by the Government was, in my opinion, the sending of troops into every peaceful quarter of Ireland to search houses, to make wholesale arrests, and to deport several thousand people to this country. We claim that that proceeding on the part of General Maxwell, or whoever authorised or ordered it, was unnecessary and provocative. It caused a great deal of ill-feeling, it did no good whatever, and it has had the most unhappy and unfortunate results. It is idle for the Government to suggest that there was no alternative, because, as the House is well aware by this time, over great areas of the eountry—in fact except in one or two spots outside the city of Dublin, there was no disturbance of any kind whatsoever. Take what happened in Limerick. In the city and county of Limerick large numbers of people were arrested. But there was a sensible governor, Sir Antony Weldon. He investigated the cases. He saw that there was really no necessity why hundreds of people should be deported from Limerick to England, with all the expense, irritation, and anger which that proceeding
  2584
  would involve, and, after investigation, all but a mere handful were released. That was a wise example, and it would have been far better if it had been followed by the military or civil authorities throughout most of the other parts of Ireland. The result of these proceedings was that over 2,000 persons were brought over to this country and held in detention here.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Something more than 1,800—not over 2,000.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I thought the figure was higher. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman includes those who were sent back without inquiry by the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. DUKE: I do not think they were sent to this country. I do not think any were sent from this country except upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me before he makes that assertion definitely. Large numbers of these men, before their cases went to the Advisory Committee at all, were found to have had absolutely no connection with the rebellion. They filled up forms; those forms were sent to Dublin, and on the verification of their statements the men were at once sent back. Their cases never came before the Advisory Committee. I think the Chief Secretary will find that the total to which he refers is the total of cases that were dealt with by the Advisory Committee alone. However, that is really not important. The main fact is that many hundreds of persons were deported and detained. At this stage the Government showed the only gleam of common sense which it has had in the whole transaction. It referred the cases of these men to the Advisory Committee. It is not for me to say that no better tribunal for dealing with these special cases could have been found or devised, because I am one of those who think that it could. Anyhow, the Advisory Committee did show some sympathy and some understanding of_ the position, for, as the results of its labours, many hundreds of these people have been released. The figure was given by the Home Secretary the other day. I think it was 1,200 or 1,400.
  Mr. DUKE: About 1,300—just under.
  Mr. HAZLETON: It would be unfair not to recognise that, in my opinion at any rate, the Advisory Committee did approach its task with considerable sympathy. I would like to say in passing that the whole of us on these benches repudiate most strongly and vehemently the attack made the other night by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) upon my hon. Friend the Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney), because we believe that it was largely his sense of fairness, his common sense and judgment, which had such a profound influence on this Committee, and that had he not consented, much against his own will, to act upon the Committee and to give it the value of his Irish experience, the figures might very well have been reversed. I would say one or two words on the subject of the Committee's work. We have had no clear or definite statement of the principles which have guided that Committee in coming to its decisions. We know they have released more men than were actually concerned in the rising of Dublin. I would just like to suggest to the Home Secretary to consult the chairman of that Committee, and its members, as to whether they could not see their way to present a Report of this section of their work to the House of Commons at a convenient date. So far there has only been one review of this list of prisoners. The task of the Committee was a very difficult and lengthy one in considering over 1,800 cases, but it resulted, as I have said, in the release of between 1,200 and 1,400 men. I would like to ask the Home Secretary what has been the result and effect of the release of these men upon the position in Ireland? I venture to say that it has enormously eased public opinion, and that it has been a wise proceeding on the part of the Advisory Committee to restore these people to their homes at the earliest possible moment.
  My object, however, is to appeal for a further early revision of these lists. I believe that a very few, comparatively speaking, sittings of the Committee would suffice to deal with this question. There are only detained now between 500 and 600 men. There are two judges sitting on this Committee, one is chairman, and the other a judge specially added from Ireland. The Courts are not sitting at present, and although there are
  2586
  three or four Members of this House also on the Committee, I am sure they would not object to a few days from their holidays in order to deal with this problem. In the light of their previous experience, and in the light of the good results that has so far attended their work, I believe that they could greatly reduce the number of these men who are at present detained without any danger whatsoever to the Empire. My appeal is based upon the ground of justice, upon the ground of policy, and of sentiment. In his speech in the House the other day the Colonial Secretary said that sentiment was one of the most powerful factors in human affairs. It certainly is so in Ireland. We have been, as all hon. Members will be ready to acknowledge, passing through very trying times in recent months in Ireland. The War, first of all, has brought sorrow and suffering to many thousands of Irish homes. The rebellion struck a great blow at our domestic peace, and caused much suffering and unrest. On the top of that came the unfortunate failure of the Cabinet to carry out the Irish agreement. All these things, one added to another, have been a source of bitterness and disappointment to Ireland.
  Mr. DUKE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HAZLETON: I say to the Chief Secretary, and I say to the Home Secretary, in all earnestness—if you cannot now send Ireland a message of the larger hope and peace, at least you might do something to prepare the way for it by sending us back over the Recess with an assurance that this question will be approached again in a sympathetic spirit.
  Mr. DUKE: Before I approach the grave and wide-reaching questions which have been dealt with by most of the speakers in this Debate, I will for one moment refer to the matter which is brought to my notice, not for the first time, the recurrence in the Lettermore district of lamentable outbreaks of typhus. I shall not part from it until everything that is possible for the prevention of the recurrence of these outbreaks has been done. The hon. Member must accept that assurance, and must not suppose that I underrate the importance of the subject because I do not dwell upon it further. To a great extent, I suppose, the very grave matters which have been the

  2587
  staple topics of this Debate are accountable for my presence at this box, and for the entrusting to me of a task which my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool confessed might not be regarded in all its aspects as an enviable task. The view one takes upon that subject will depend upon two things—first, upon the spirit in which the matter is approached; and secondly, though not morally or ultimately, upon what may be the degree of success obtained. Besides these matters of extreme gravity other cognate topics have been dwelt upon. These divide themselves into two classes, the class of topics of which the hon. Member for Galway spoke—topics arising out of the repression of the rebellion—and questions of detail in regard to Irish administration day by day. I would say, in general terms, a very few words in regard to the spirit in which, so far as I am concerned, I propose to deal with these matters. The hon. Member has pressed for inquiry into the facts with regard to North King Street, Dublin. Hon. Members from Ireland know well that on a recent occasion the Prime Minister informed one of their number, who had questioned him upon the subject, that he himself had read the whole of the papers relating to that subject, and he was satisfied that further inquiry would not elicit the facts which the hon. Member for Galway desired to have elicited. I do not suggest that as necessarily the last word on the subject. It will, however, be obvious to hon. Members that with that examination, and with many of the pressing questions arising out of the present condition of Ireland, some new light upon the facts on the part of those who desire to reopen the inquiry must necessarily be a condition precedent to an inquiry of a more formal character.
  I do not promise an inquiry. I know that the examination which the Prime Minister spoke of has been a searching examination, but it is impossible to say in any of these matters that inquiry is excluded whatever the circumstances may be which arise. I leave the matter in that condition. I agree with the hon. Member for Galway that it is very desirable that all myths founded upon unhappy occurrences should not be allowed to expand, but give place to facts. So far as we can know the facts we ought to face them,
  2588
  whether they are disagreeable for one party or another. In everything—in these unhappy events—we ought to learn the lessons with a view not only to the present government of Ireland, but to the possible future of Ireland. The hon. Member said that one of your canons must be that there is to be no discrimination between the King's subjects. The law-abiding Nationalist Irishman is to be regarded in the same light as the law-abiding Unionist Irishman. I am not quite sure that the distinction between Nationalist Irishmen and Unionist Irishmen is as much as some people think it ought to be, or as it has been in past times. During my short period of responsibility with regard to Ireland I have noticed the tendency to blur that distinction, and to look over the fence on the one side or the other, and even to make reconnaissance into what had been the enemy's country as between Nationalists and Unionists, and I confess that does not fill me with any of the apprehension which some people feel.
  Captain GWYNN: There is still the further distinction between Irishmen and Englishmen.
  Mr. DUKE: There is, of course, a distinction, but the subject in England is, in precisely the same sense as the Irishman, the subject of the King. The six or seven centuries in which the Crown has descended in the line in which it has descended in both countries makes the same connection between the subject of the Crown in the one country and the other, and to my mind it is impossible for any servant of the State who wanted to do his duty in Ireland, either in these critical times or in any times, to discriminate in Irish affairs against Irishmen in favour of Englishmen. The principle of equality of treatment as between Irishmen and this principle, as to which I am challenged, of, at any rate, equality of treatment as between Irishmen and Englishmen in the administration of Ireland, are principles I hope hon. Members will find are recognised by me as much as by anyone. I do not want to dwell unduly upon particular incidents. If hon. Members bring to me a particular incident which I am satisfied needs to be further investigated, I am quite sure that, whatever the Prime Minister's view may have been at any previous time, he will desire, as I shall desire, that it shall be investigated, and

  2589
  it shall be investigated with an honest desire to arrive at the facts, not so much because anyone wants individuals punished, but because the system ought to be put right if it is wrong, and the lessons of the future which are to be learned from the errors of the past may be invaluable.
  I may, perhaps, be permitted to pass from those unhappy incidents with the general observations I have made. There has not been a word in the speeches to which I have been listening since the Debate turned to questions of Ireland to which even the most sensitive mind could take exception. The speeches have been helpful speeches, and I am grateful for them. I hope they will give me some of that help which an Englishman come newly to this Office desires to have, and by the total effect of which he must be guided. But with regard to these larger questions of Ireland, it is only just four months from the greatest calamity in its modern history, the unhappy event which, when we look back upon the gleam of brightness which had come upon the scene in the hearty co-operation of the Irishmen of the Nationalist party with the citizens of the Empire in the great task in which we are engaged—when we look back upon that, it adds poignancy and sadness to the reflection that the bright expectations which many of us entertained were blasted by the events of Easter week.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will seek the root causes of this rebellion, and not merely take facts on the surface?
  Mr. DUKE: The man would be a mere tyro in public affairs who did not desire to find out why mischief happened and how-it could be prevented in the future. I am dealing with a state of things, and I do not think I have overstated the appalling sense of catastrophe there was to every man who loves Ireland when that event of Easter week occurred. It is a disappointment to the labours of something like a century in the successive marches of Irish statesmen on the road to constitutional reform in Ireland. Hopes had arisen which seemed possible of early fruition, and men were brought suddenly to something like despair. Hon. Members have said to me, with regard to martial law, with regard to Sir John Maxwell's position in the country, with regard to items of administration such as the Press Censorship, and with regard to deported persons who are now prisoners in
  2590
  this country, and they have said with regard to various items in the category of events which arise out of the recent rebellion in Ireland, "Now, what an admirable beginning you would make in your tenure of office as Chief Secretary if you were" (in the words of the hon. Member for Gal way City) "to wipe out every vestige of these wretched things." If a man could realise a wish of that kind and did not seek to realise it when it was within his power, what a fool he would be! But a man standing in the position in which I stand with regard to Ireland at this moment has to consider, not what he would like to do but what he ought to do. Let me consider for a moment what the primary duty of the Government is with regard to Ireland. I deem it to be the primary duty of the Government with regard to Ireland to secure for law-abiding citizens in Ireland a period of peace, during which they may not only deal with the difficulties upon which the hon. Member who spoke last dwelt—the difficulties which have arisen out of the events of Easter Week—but also deal with the part which devolves specially upon Irishmen now of seeing what is to be the course of Ireland in regard to the future. It cannot be done in a state of social discord and turmoil. Hon Members who have challenged me to make a quick end of these various precautions which have grown out of a state of public danger must remember the recency of the rebellion. They must realise the emotions which have been aroused, the ferment and the movement of public life which have followed, and they must also remember the natural tendency there is where there has been an unsuccessful insurrection, to attract personal sympathy, because there is sure to be a strong reversion of personal sympathy towards any man who was betrayed into participation in the rebellion, or who from political motives embarked upon it, and therefore was a participant in the responsibility for it. Hon. Members must bear that state of things in mind, and that is what I had in mind when I stated to the House this afternoon, in reply to a question, that I had not at the present time the materials upon which I could take the responsibility of saying, "Now is the period at which martial law should cease, or the day has come when Sir John Maxwell may be given leave to proceed to military duties in another sphere of operations," which I know would be far more congenial to him. I know

  2591
  hon. Members have not any personal ill-will against Sir John Maxwell, in spite of some things that have been said. But these matters are part of one large question, and as far as all these steps are concerned, on the day when it appears that with fairness to Ireland and with a proper security for the peace of Ireland any repressive measures can be withdrawn, it will be a very proud and glad thing on my part to be able to announce their withdrawal.
  The hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) dealt with the case of persons under detention, and he asked that there should now be an appeal to the Advisory Committee to hold a further series of meetings to reconsider those cases. The hon. Member must bear in mind that the judges and the Members of Parliament to whom he referred have just completed that task, which was one of great magnitude, and to ask them almost upon the day upon which they have completed their task to begin it again is a course which would be unusual, and which would suggest to that Committee that there were grounds for suspicion as to the thoroughness of their inquiry. I think the Home Secretary will agree with me when I say that the occasion has not arisen when, in the view of His Majesty's Government, that course should be taken. I want to say to the hon. Member for North Galway that this question of the detained persons is not a business in regard to which there is a closed book. Here again the question is, what is the proper course to take having regard to the security of Ireland? I know from inquiries which I made within three days of becoming Chief Secretary what kind of cases there are for investigation, and no labour which is necessary, if there is ground for entering upon an inquiry, will be spared or will stand in the way of free inquiry as the occasion may require. The hon. Member for North Galway takes the view that the release of the 1,200 prisoners has had in all cases a happy effect. I wish it were so, but it is not.
  Mr. KEATING: It is so.
  Mr. DUKE: I have means of knowledge which are not open to the hon. Member who says, "It is so." I know something of the transactions in which some of the released prisoners have been engaged immediately upon their release.
  Mr. KEATING: I should be the last person to give the right hon. Gentleman
  2592
  a flat contradiction, but I submit that my knowledge on this point is infinitely more accurate than his, and I say that those who have been released have produced the happiest effects.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must not suppose that I am contradicting him upon cases within his own knowledge. I do not say that the release of these 1,200 men has been a mistake. Nothing of the kind, and I quite accept what the hon. Member says as to the great bulk of them. I believe the vast majority of the men who have been released have started life anew, and have returned to take a proper part in the life of Ireland. But that does not absolve me from responsibility upon the general question. I say there have been brought to my notice, upon unmistakeable evidence and unquestionable facts, instances in which the conduct of the interned persons who have been released has not justified the hope with which they were released. That, obviously, gives pause to a Minister who is asked to consider a proposal for the wholesale release of other persons who are still interned. I throw out this suggestion: that if the men who have been released desire that those who are detained should speedily return to ordinary civil life, their behaviour will tend very greatly to accelerate the release of those other persons. It was a bold course to release 1,200 or 1,300 of these men as to whom the military authorities had said there is danger in their being at large; but if it becomes practical to release the remainder it will be a pleasant task for me to have to discharge. In regard to interned persons, the question may arise in reference to any of them whether those who have confidence with regard to the conduct of a prisoner are ready to give reasonable security as to what their conduct shall be. There is no vindictive desire to keep these men in detention. Our object is to secure the peace and contentment of Ireland, and if the release of these men can be authorised on terms which will promote the peace of Ireland, and be consistent with security and order, their release will not be delayed.
  Captain GWYNN: To put it frankly, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider applications in cases where Members of Parliament, for instance, were prepared to write to him in respect to a certain man with a suggestion that bail should be offered?
  Mr. DUKE: Consideration will not fail in any case if hon. Members desiring, as I know they do, to promote the peace and prosperity of Ireland, are able to help the Government to a solution of this question. It is a question which the Government desire to have solved. We cannot, however, rush headlong into a course like that which has been suggested within four months of one of the gravest events in modern times.
  Captain GWYNN: In such a case as I have mentioned, would it facilitate matters if Members of Parliament wrote to say that bail would be forthcoming?
  Mr. DUKE: If, with regard to any of these men, there are firm grounds for belief that, consistently with public security, they can be discharged, then their discharge will be favourably considered. I hope that I may now pass from that matter. I ought not to pass from it without a word with regard to an observation which was thrown out yesterday in respect of Sir John Maxwell. I do not think that it was seriously meant. I do not believe that the people in Ireland regard Sir John Maxwell in the odious light in which that observation would place him.
  Mr. LUNDON: I did not get a chance of explaining my position, and I have been denied that opportunity to-night. I fully intended in the Debate to-night justifying what I said yesterday, but I have now been cut out.
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member intends to justify it, he will attempt to justify it against the sense of a great number of his own countrymen who have had practical experience of Sir John Maxwell's qualities as a man. I am not going back on these unhappy events. I am not going either to vindicate or to censure one side or the other. That is no part of my task, but it would not be right, when a great public servant, like Sir John Maxwell has been during his distinguished career, is assailed in the House with the most opprobrious epithet which could be applied to any man if the Minister of the Crown did not bear testimony to the high qualities which in a long career Sir John Maxwell has displayed.
  Mr. LUNDON: I hope to get an opportunity to-morrow.
  Mr. DUKE: I want to say a few words as to the task of the Government at the present time in Ireland. We are in the midst of a great War, but the behaviour of
  2594
  representative Ireland at the critical stages of that great War has created a bond between thoughtful Englishmen and thoughtful Irishmen which it would be hard to break. For my part, I believed in 1914 that a settlement of the old causes of discord between England and Ireland was possible. In spite of the disappointments of the past two months, I believe to-day, unless this country and Ireland are to be involved together in ruin, that a settlement is inevitable. It is because that settlement is delayed and may be frustrated by the misguided act of reckless people or the evil conduct of wicked people that I regard it at the present time as the prime duty of the administration in Ireland to see, so far as Government can secure it, that there shall be that peace and order in Ireland which, at this period, is so vital to the future of the country. Hon. Members referred to the bleakness of the outlook. Well, it is bleak. There has been that unhappy change as the sequel of the rebellion and of its suppression. There has been that revulsion of feeling to which reference has been made. We are some way yet from the end of the chapter.
  I want to say two or three words to Englishmen with regard to this situation. In this House there is no man who takes a sober and serious view of public affairs who does not, as a patriotic citizen, look back with admiration and gratitude to the course which was taken by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford—a course in which he was gallantly supported by those who have followed him during so many years. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) referred to it as an event which would stand out in history. He was right; but it is something more than that. It was not a mere picturesque fact. Every man who has watched Irish affairs and studied Irish history, and has known Irish-men, knows that there is a fund of generosity and of courage from which you can draw in Ireland. That generosity and courage reached a level which, as I think, will be to the eternal honour of Irishmen who have been Members in this House when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford announced at the outbreak of War, or, rather, on the eve of the War, when he reiterated at the time of rebellion, and when, in a day of disappointment which must indeed have been bitter to him, he once more reaffirmed the determination of Irishmen who love justice and

  2595
  liberty to stand by the men of this country in seeing this War through successfully. That is a great event. Again, I think that the speeches which have been made here to-night bear a most welcome contrast, even after all the sad events of the last few months, to Irish speeches in the past, because I remember speeches of thirty-five-years ago owing to the facilities of access which I had, and in those days we had very different and very bitter speeches. There is much hope in the tone of these speeches to-night.
  There is something more. It is said that there is a block upon recruiting. There are gallant Irishmen fighting on every front where there are Britons and where the citizens of the Empire are fighting. They pour out their blood and they face every risk of this War. I do not myself believe that their countrymen intend those Irish battalions to be recruited from London and from Glasgow by Englishmen and by Scotsmen. I have to be convinced on that topic yet, and I shall not be easily convinced. There are those men, a pledge of possibilities between this country and Ireland which I say must not be frustrated. It is the business of every man who loves the Empire and who loves his own country to see that they are not frustrated. I venture to say that to Englishmen. I ask them to take account in a generous spirit of one of the noblest acts that have been done in modern times. I hope the day is not far distant when we can refer to the hon. Member as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope the day is not very far distant when he may receive that title. The difficulties, of course, have been political. They have not been difficulties arising from any want of appreciation among Englishmen in this House during the great events of the past two years.
  I want to say just one word, if I may be permitted to do so, to Irishmen. Some of them take up a somewhat inconsistent attitude. They say, "Here was this proposal for a settlement, the maddest proposal that ever was," and then in the next breath they say, "Here was this British Government, and here were Nationalist Members of Parliament who had not the capacity or the willingness to carry that settlement through." They cannot have it both ways. The members of the Government may be condemned for the one portion of their conduct or the other, but they cannot consistently be condemned for both. After all, for a good part of 100
  2596
  years since O'Connell's time, the statesmen of Ireland have upborne the standard of constitutional reform. It may have wavered, and the march of constitutional reform may have appeared to flag, but from generation to generation there has been among sober Irishmen the demand for constitutional reform. It has at length reached the less active minds of my fellow-countrymen. An unhappy event frustrated the policy of constitutional reform, when its success seemed certain. I believe it is within the capacity of Irishmen to take up this frustrated cause, and devote themselves anew with new resolution and steadfast hope to a task in which generations of Irishmen have spent their labours—and some of them have spent more than labour—to achieve success at this time—though it be a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division said—the omens are dark and the prospect is bleak. With these words to my own fellow-countrymen, and to the men of Ireland, each of whom has the profoundest interest in the settlement of the old questions which are still open between our two countries, I leave these observations, and I hope for the charitable consideration of my Friends on both sides of the House.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I have only a very few general observations to contribute to this Debate, but what I have to say will, I am afraid, be tinged with that sadness to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has referred. I speak tonight with a very profound sorrow. I am one of those who, thirty years ago or more, on the invitation of that great historic character, Mr. Gladstone, addressed themselves to the good will of the English people. I, with my colleagues on these Benches—some of whom passed away whilst they were still wandering in the desert, and others of whom went on their long journey when they were in sight of the promised land—in the course of our career in this country, we sat side by side with Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen on their platforms, and we spoke of the cause of Ireland. We did more, we went into the homes of the people of this land. We had as our ambition to reconcile if possible the two peoples. We had to rid out of the minds of our people much of the historic hatred with which they were obsessed. We had to rid the minds of the people of Great Britain of much prejudice which existed in this island. We had largely succeeded. We saw rival parties in this country and in this House

  2597
  vying with each other to do justice to our country. We had largely succeeded in eradicating the historic hatred out of the minds of our own people, and in convincing the intelligence of the people of this country with regard to Ireland. Now, what do I see. What do the people of Ireland see? That these hopes were—
  "Hopes that but allure to fly,
  Joys that vanish while they sip,
  Like Dead Sea fruits that tempt the eye,
  But turn to ashes on the lip."
  The feeling of the people of Ireland at the present moment is that of exasperation and irritation with regard to this measure. Now, I am not going to say that the good will which we have created has been entirely dissipated. No; I read with great satisfaction the admission of the Earl of Selborne, in another place, when he said that Home Rule was an accomplished fact. I read the eloquent words of the Earl of Derby the other day to my hon. and learned Friend, my distinguished leader (Mr. J. Redmond), who has been referred to more than once this evening in this Debate; and I heard with great satisfaction and delight the sympathetic words of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I expected those words from him. Perhaps I, beyond many others in this House—perhaps beyond any others—have had opportunities of knowing the feeling of the right hon. and learned Gentleman towards my country. For many years I have had the privilege of his acquaintance, both in the Inns of Court and on circuit, and I know his kindly feelings towards Ireland, and I rejoice that he accepted the position which he now adorns. I told him so on the very earliest opportunity that I got, when he resumed his place on his happy recovery from his late illness. I wished him well, and I wish him well now, and I am sure that he can find no fault, as he has not found any fault, with the speeches that have been addressed to him and the advice that has been offered to him from these benches this evening. They were meant well, and they have been well and honourably received.
  There are two great causes for the difficulties that he undoubtedly must have found up to the present, and that he will continue to find for some time to come. The first is not, in my humble opinion, the tone that has been made most of here this evening, that is the late rebellion. The first great cause of his difficulty is the irritation proceeding from the dis-
  2598
  appointment of the people at the failure to settle the Irish question when it was so near being settled. The hopes of the Irish people were raised, and the cup has been dashed from their lips. They regard the failure on the part of those concerned to come to agreement as a breach of faith on the part of the British Government. They are exasperated because they see in it one other consistent item that goes to make up the history of the English in Ireland. They see that their hopes, have been frustrated because they have been deceived. Now, an event occurred in this House a short time ago which was of the most dramatic interest. A right hon. Gentleman, a great and distinguished Irishman, an ornament to his profession as well as an ornament to this House—I allude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson)—said that he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford should shake hands here in this House. That, no doubt, was very dramatic. Yes, he wanted peace, as other people want peace, on the war map which they have created themselves. He would make peace, no doubt, when he had got all that he wanted! He would make peace, of course, when he had made a treaty with the Government or a member of the Government that represented the other side—make peace upon terms that were not disclosed to the other parties! The feeling in Ireland is that they have been sold. That will be the greatest difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman will have to wrestle. He will have to do much to restore the confidence of the Irish people in the British Government again. They will not believe in these heroics at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was too clever for the persons with whom he was speaking. The Irish people, I repeat, say they were sold. When they come to consider the whole question and when they come to think of England it is, "Perfide Albion" over again.
  10.0 P.M.
  The next great difficulty that has been referred to more than once is the rebellion itself, its suppression, and especially the subsequent events. I do not dwell upon the incidents of the rebellion. What I wish to dwell upon for a few moments is what happened subsequently to the rebellion. The rebellion was suppressed. Executions took place in Dublin day after day. Had those executions been carried

  2599
  out on the first or the second day in the heat of the suppression, I believe the Irish people would not have felt so strongly about them. It was the continued courts-martial, the object of these trials being brought out day after day, for weeks some of them, brought out invalided in chairs, put in a chair to be shot and under these circumstances executed, which aroused the feelings of compassion in the Irish people. The inhabitants of Dublin and of other towns who greeted with welcoming cheers the arrival of the troops to suppress the rebellion afterwards became the intense haters of the military who carried out those executions. I am afraid that that feeling still exists. It was aggravated by the arrests that followed. Let me give ray own experience. I represent a county in which there was no rebellion, a county in which, except for one small corner of it, no men appeared in arms at all, yet every town and village in my Constituency was ransacked, houses were searched, people were insulted, and men were torn from their homes, thrown into prison, and brought over to this country. It exasperated those people who did not rise, and who were, for all we know, as loyal as the most loyal. Before these events happened, I could go down to that constituency and stand upon platforms side by side with high sheriffs, with landlords, with people of the class who had regarded me as their enemy for the past forty or fifty years—I could go on the platform with them and call upon the people to respond to the appeal of my hon. and learned Friend for recruits, and my appeal was never made to my Constituents in vain. In that respect I have merited the praise of journals that represent the opinions of those whom I regard as my opponents in this House. Since those events have taken place I dare not address my Constituents and ask them for a recruit for the Army. This is the state of things that has been brought about by the irritating policy of those who carry on the Government in Ireland. It is not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary who is in power at the present moment; it is General Maxwell, it is the military. It is their methods that make it impossible for me to resume the conduct which I carried out consistently before this unhappy state of things occurred. Appeals have
  2600
  been made to the right hon. Gentleman this evening to alter all that if He possibly can. He is a member of the Government. The Government have every opportunity, through him, of making themselves acquainted with the state of feeling in Ireland and with the state of things that exists. Those appeals he ought to treasure and lay up, those appeals he ought to act upon, because I believe myself that if efforts are made to undo what was done unhappily after the suppression of the rebellion, there will be a response on the part of the people whom we represent. Martial law prevails in Ireland. When we speak about it either in Debate or ask a question about it at Question Time, we are told that there is no martial law for law-abiding citizens. I am sick and tired of that answer. It has been made to us scores of times when we have been striving against coercion laws in this House and in the country. We were told that there was no coercion for the loyal citizen, and that for the mauvais sujets alone were the coercion laws passed, and we are told that for those alone martial law prevails. A predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman said that the prisons only contained the dissolute ruffians and mauvais sujets of the country, whereupon another hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have met the mauvais sujets in evening dress at banquets in Dublin and the dissolute ruffians I have travelled with all over the country. They are the gentlemen of Ireland, and they were from time to time returned as Members of Parliament for this House."
  There is inconsistency. I wonder it does not strike the right hon. Gentleman. It was proposed a short time ago, and strenuous efforts were made to settle this Irish question and confer upon Irish people the privilege of self-government. Yet at the same time martial law is said to be necessary for the government of the people upon whom you are going to confer the privilege of a Parliament. There is inconsistency in that. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman sees it. One of his logical mind must see it I offer these few general observations as my contribution to this discussion. I am sorry for the state of things that prevails. I have done my humble best for the past thirty years to bring about a better state of feeling between the two peoples. I am sorry that a persistent course of conduct, more like the past history of Ireland, a course of conduct that I hoped would have been abandoned long

  2601
  ago, has destroyed hopes that we once had of again bringing about that feeling which we all intensely desire.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I desire to make reference to one or two topics of very peculiar interest to Ireland at present. I desire to associate myself with what my hon. and learned Friend has said in reference to the distinguished statesman who now occupies the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. I recognise in him also an Englishman with a great heart and a great mind. I expressed this wish to him privately, I take the opportunity now of doing it publicly, that he may be the last Chief Secretary for Ireland, and if he succeeds in ending a regimé which is necessarily hateful to Ireland and which is looked upon as hopeless by the Prime Minister of this country as a means of governing Ireland, he will have made for himself a very considerable reputation as a British statesman. With all the good will of the right hon. Gentleman I feel that he is going the wrong way to bring about a settlement between Ireland and Great Britain. The main thing which we complain of just now is the existence of martial law in Ireland. The Prime Minister says when we raise this question in the House of Commons that no one is distressed by martial law. Martial law does not affect law-abiding citizens in Ireland. Is it likely that Ireland can be brought into a contented frame of mind so long as martial law continues? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit, as every student of constitutional law must, that there is nothing more hateful in any civilised society than the intrusion of martial law. I want to give him a definition of martial law from a very distinguished colleague of his, with which, I think, he will agree:
  "Martial law means no law. It means that a state of things has been brought into existence, a state of rebellion, a state of war, in which the maxim Salus populi suprema lex applies, and the executive authority for the time being believes itself to be justified in suspending the ordinary course of the tribunals of the land. They have not that power except to the extent to which the emergency lasts. They cannot confer it upon themselves by Proclamation or by any other machinery known to the law."
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister of England. That is what he said on 11th May in regard to Ireland, and in truth we are governed just now by martial law. If, as the Prime Minister said at Question Time to-day, martial law is not enforced to any considerable extent in Ireland, why not wipe it out altogether? Why not abolish it? Why not say, "The country is
  2602
  free and the citizens of Ireland enjoy the same civil liberty as the citizens of Scotland, England and Wales." Look at your consistency. Within a fortnight of making that declaration in reference to the meaning of martial law the Prime Minister says that unless the people of Ireland are given liberty to manage their own affairs in an Irish Parliament and with an Irish executive responsible to it, British statesmanship must confess itself bankrupt. It cannot be said of a country fitted to be trusted with the management of its own affairs that it must be under a system of law which the Prime Minister has confessed to be in reality no law at all. In view of what has happened in Ireland it is disgraceful that at present we should continue under martial law. The Chief Secretary, in looking to the state of Ireland, the conduct of the people of Ireland, and the necessity for any special method of dealing with the suppression of crime in Ireland will no doubt have regard to what is said by the judges of the land who have gone on circuit through the country and have held their Assizes since the outbreak: of this unfortunate rebellion. They have found Ireland peaceful. They have reported repeatedly since the outbreak of this unfortunate rebellion that there is no crime in Ireland. Can the right hon. Gentleman, or can the Prime Minister, point to anything in the existing state of things in Ireland which justifies either martial law or the continuance of Sir John Maxwell in Ireland?
  I know nothing of the personal character of Sir John Maxwell, and I have never made any attack on him, but anyone who is associated with such an odious tyranny as the continuance of martial law at a time when it is confessed by the Prime Minister that the continuance of martial law is wholly unnecessary, is bound to become an odious character in the mind of the people of Ireland. If my right hon. Friend attempts to bolster up the condition of affairs under which martial law continues, or to say that he justifies it without being able to produce reasons which carry conviction to the minds of Englishmen or of Irishmen, he himself will become odious to the people of Ireland. If he, as the head of the Government of Ireland, makes himself responsible for the continuance of martial law he will become as unpopular in Ireland as Sir John Maxwell is to-day, and has been since the moment he came into the country. We are told that if we take the right view of

  2603
  things we are not likely to feel that there is such a thing in existence as martial law. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) drew the attention of the Government to a new Order issued to the editors of newspapers in Ireland telling them that they are not to criticise the Government. That cannot be justified by anything in the Defence of the Realm Acts, or in the Regulations made under them. It is inconsistent with the position which the Government have taken up repeatedly, and it is wholly indefensible. If any defence can be put up for it, the only defence available is that martial law is in existence in Ireland. In this House a considerable time ago, the former Home Secretary said, in reference to criticism of the Government by the Press:
  "Nobody can or does say that this Government, in so far as the Press has been concerned, has shown undue severity. The criticism is constantly made, whether ill-founded or well-founded, that the Government might in the public interest very properly show more severity. If that criticism proceeds from people who think that newspaper criticism and even newspaper speculation should be suppressed while we are at war, I do not agree with that criticism one bit."
  With reference to the criticism of the Government, the same right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I do not complain of anybody who holds a point of view opposed to the Government putting with strength, conviction and fairness what he wants to say."
  Mr. DUKE: The Government accepts that absolutely with regard to Ireland.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman admitted to-day, at Question Time, that an Order had been issued to the newspaper editors in Ireland forbidding them to criticise the administration of the Government in Ireland.
  Mr. DUKE: Forbidding them to make publication which had the manifest tendency to create disaffection and danger in Ireland.
  Mr. KEATING: Who is to be the judge of that?
  Mr. SCANLAN: My understanding is that the Order has been issued. The Order, presumably, is in writing, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disprove what I say, he can do it by communicating to the House the Order, which in fact has been issued. If the right hon. Gentleman or his military superiors in Ireland—I think that, in view of the letter of Sir John Maxwell's appointment that was communicated to the House by the Prime Minister, we must look upon Sir John
  2604
  Maxwell as the supporter of the right hon. Gentleman—are going to say that the Government must not be criticised, then I ask, What do you expect of newspaper editors in Ireland? Do you expect them to indulge in their leading columns in praise, in adulation of the Chief Secretary, or of Sir John Maxwell, or of the Under-Secretary, Sir Robert Chalmers? Do you want them to put up statues to them in various parts of the country? To ask the Press of Ireland to deal otherwise than in a spirit of candid criticism and adverse criticism with a Government which is responsible for the maintenance of martial law at a time when the Government confess that it is unnecessary for the purpose of maintaining order in Ireland to enforce martial law, is to expect what is impossible of the newspaper editors or of the people of Ireland. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his career to remove one crying grievance which calls for redress by abolishing martial law. If he abolishes martial law at once in Ireland he will gain the good will of the people of Ireland, and that will materially assist him in what I believe is the great object he has in view in the new position which he has taken, and that is to bring about such a state of affairs as will enable Irishmen to make their own laws in Ireland for the whole of Ireland.

  AIR SERVICE.
  Mr. BILLING: Before this House adjourns I should like to take the opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to one or two points, which I think I have done before, and possibly done in vain. For the next six or eight weeks at least we shall not have an opportunity, even what few opportunities private Members now have, of championing the causes which some of us came into this House to champion. I would like to suggest that the German nation have made several threats in the last two years during their conduct of this War. They threatened us with a submarine campaign, and to some extent we have experienced the result of that threat. Quite recently they threatened us in the coming winter months with a series of raids, and I really think that they will not disappoint us in that either. Experience shows that German threats, unlike the threats or promises of the Prime Minister, are something more than sound and fury. I really consider that the present defences of this

  2605
  country, as we know them to be, demand that attention should be called to them on the Adjournment. I have received all sorts of answers to questions which I have put with regard to the Air Services, but I have never had a satisfactory answer to any of the many questions which I have put on that subject in this House. I presume that it is the duty of Ministers to answer questions, but it is not the mere fact of answering—it is what they say that counts, when all is said and done. When the answers are boiled down there is nothing in them, and you see that you might just as well not have asked the question. We have had assurances of all sorts from the Treasury Bench. The First Lord of the Admiralty started off with all sorts of assurances at the beginning of the War. When he found the task too great for him he handed it over to the Under-Secretary for War. He gave us a lot of assurances, and the ex-Home Secretary, I think, told us that the best defences against Zeppelins were darkness and composure. I know that he said that Zeppelin raids are incidents of war. If they are incidents of war they should be dealt with as such, and a proper defence should be set up against them.
  What are the men enlisted for to-day? They are enlisted to protect the homes of the women and children of this country. Yet, though they are in France doing this, the Government has utterly failed, and there is no excuse for their failure. It has had enough advice, heaven knows, both in this House and in the Press, not only during the last two years but during the last eight years, and how has it defended the homes of the men out in France? I have letters here since the last raid from women, the wives of soldiers, who ask, "What sort of protection are we to have while our men are fighting in France?" and they also call attention to answers to questions in this House. I have had hundreds of letters dealing with that last raid which go to prove that the answers to questions apart from not being entertaining have no foundation in fact to satisfy the British public. I would like to show the Government that the public are not satisfied. I know that the Government are so overworked that they have not time really to think of what the public do feel about this matter. There is no question of panic at all. It is purely a question of this, that for two years and some months the Germans have been threatening and carrying
  2606
  out raids over this country, and yet the defence against Zeppelins to-day, although it has been amplified, is not more scientific than it was two years ago. Have we learned anything about it? It is all very well for Ministers in official communications to say that these things are of no military significance. That is not true. There is military significance in everything in war, and if there is any significance at all, there certainly has been in these raids. As I pointed out in the House, the other night, if one carried out similar raids in Germany by way of reprisal, if we raided one of their towns, we should very soon find what German men and women, the non-combatants, would have to say. I am satisfied that if we had the men and the material to do that, German opinion, seeing the price they had to pay for their raids over England, would very soon say, "Stay your hands." They do not want these raids over their towns, and I am perfectly satisfied that they in their turn would not be prepared to undergo the suffering they have caused here. As to the anti-aircraft guns, in answers to questions in this House it was stated that guns had been removed to make place for more efficient guns. I am sure I would be the last to complain of that, but I think what really happened was that a dummy gun was substituted in the empty emplacement. We have heard the whole story about the dummy guns. These guns were removed, and I suggest that when they were removed we did not put in better guns, because letters which I have received state that in a certain East Coast town no gun was fired at all, not a searchlight was shown. In another East coast town there was one very old-fashioned Boer War pom-pom, which was perambulated about on a motor chassis with, I think, an acetylene searchlight with which they endeavoured to light up the Zeppelin.
  We heard a cock-and-bull story about a fog. I have received letters from all parts, written by persons not interested in covering up anything, not interested in trying to make it appear that nothing had failed, but who simply make a bald statement of the fact that it was a bright, starlight night, and that the searchlight never lighted up the Zeppelin at all. That is after two years, and no wonder the country is fed up with it. In this very town, one person writes to me that they were sitting in a cinema theatre, reading on the screen, "This is the best protected town in

  2607
  England," and within two minutes the bombs were dropping around them and not a gun was fired. Who is responsible for that film; is it an official film; who is responsible for making those false statements on the screens at some of our cinema theatres, and giving false confidence to the public? I would like the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to state whether this is an official announcement, or whether it is that the cinema theatres are doing it to gull the public to go to the cinema theatre, an extremely dangerous place to be in, with inflammable material all round. If they are doing that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it is stopped. It was my intention not to make any mention of the things I said in the past on this occasion. I was very anxious, and I am very anxious, not to allow the justification of my actions to occupy either the time of the House or my time, or to bother about it at all; but since I spoke last the Air Committee of Inquiry into the administration and command of the Air Service has brought forth a Report. I have heard of mountains being in labour producing a mouse. It is not my intention to answer that Report in detail, but I am going, for the benefit of the House, to take just one case to prove how generously this Committee anticipated the wishes of the Government, and to prove that I was justified in that case, and if there is any other case that I have ever mentioned on the floor of this House or on the public platform which either the representatives of that Committee in this House or any member of the Government care to challenge me on the floor of the House I am prepared to substantiate it. My difficulty in that case, as it must be in all cases, is to make my point, which is a Service point, without not only involving but damning the career of the officers who are interested in this particular case. What did the Committee of Inquiry say about the one case which I will just put to the House? In their Report they state:
  "Statement by Mr. Pemberton Billing—Desmond was killed on some type of B.E. machine which had been repaired by the Royal Aircraft Factory. The repaired part broke at 4,000 ft. up, and the pilot was pitched out.
  Mr. Pemberton Billing's suggestion is that it was faulty design or in bad repair.'"
  I frequently attacked the Government as to spare parts, and I have also attacked official repairs. These are the facts as
  2608
  given by the Committee, founded presumably on statements of the military witnesses:
  "The date was 28th May, 1913. The place, Montrose. There was a suggestion made at the time that there had been a patch on the outside of the right wing of the plane, and that someone had broken the tip of the wing, then repaired it, and put a patch over the repaired part, the suggestion being that this was done by someone with a view to hiding some damage which he had done to the machine. The matter was closely inquired into at the time by a Committee, of which Mr. H. T. Baker, M.P., was chairman. The Committee have had the notes of the whole of the evidence given to that Committee before them."
  I would like just to mark that point.
  "There were twenty-three witnesses. The suggestion depends on the unsupported evidence of one man out of those twenty-three witnesses. No useful purpose would be served by reopening the matter, especially as some of the witnesses called have since been killed."
  Now listen to what the Committee say:
  "A perusal of the transcript of the notes of the evidence lead to the conclusion that the suggestion of a patch is quite unfounded."
  In fact, this Committee say that Mr. Pemberton Billing made a statement for which he had no justification. He said there was a patch, and there was no patch; he said there were repairs, and there were no repairs; he said the pilot lost his life through maladministration, and that the man was killed through the machine crumpling up in the air through bad design or bad repair, for which officials were responsible; and it is a lie, and the charge he has brought is without foundation. Let us look at the actual Report of the Committee on Public Safety and Accidents, which investigated the case, and the notes of which the Air Committee had before them. The Public Safety and Accidents Committee sat on 2nd June, 1913. There were present Major Sykes, Major Burke, and the Royal Flying Corp military representatives:
  "On consideration of the evidence the Committee regard the following facts as clearly established (1) that the aircraft was built at the Royal Aircraft Factory in June, 1912, and rebuilt there with new wings in August, 1912,
  The examination of the wrecked aircraft clearly indicated that the top right-hand wing tip had been broken at some time or another and repaired in three places.
  The joint between new and old piece of the main spar had been made in a most improper and unsafe manner.
  The toper splice in the woodwork, about 7½ inches long, was very roughly made and badly fitted, there being places in which the glue was an eighth of an inch thick. The splice was subsequently bound with whipcord, which was not treated with cobbler's wax or varnished to prevent it becoming loose. The new portion of the spar was not varnished, but left in its natural state.
  After the repair had been made, new fabric was put over that portion of the wing affected by the breakage. The new fabric was of a different material from the rest of the wing. The representatives of the Royal Flying

  2609
  Corps and of the Royal Aircraft Factory reported that their records contained no entry of this repair having been made to the wing of this aircraft since it was rebuilt.
  Pieces of the wing and struts were picked up a mile away from the spot where the aircraft struck the ground and in the direction from which the aircraft was seen to come, and in such positions that they must have fallen from the aircraft whilst still in the air.
  The Committee is of opinion that the primary cause of the accident is the failure of the faulty joint, in the repair to the rear main spar. This joint, subjected as it necessarily was to vibration when flying, and probably at the last, only held together by the wrapping of cord, the glue having failed previously, eventually gave way.
  The Committee is further of opinion that the repair referred to above was so badly done that it could not possibly be regarded as the work of a conscientious and competent workman."
  Sir W. BULL: What is the date of that Report?
  Mr. BILLING: The 17th June, 1913. What are we to say to a Committee which makes such a hading when it has access to a Report of this description, a Report made not by a packed Committee, but by independent authorities within twenty-four hours of the accident, with the machine at their feet to examine, who say that there was a patch, a big patch, that the wing had been broken in three places and clumsily repaired, not repaired in a conscientious manner, and that the man when told to fly a certain machine had confidence in his senior officer that it was a safe machine to fly. He gets into this groggy machine to which I have referred and is dashed to death from 4,000 feet, and then it is considered improper if I say that some of our men have been murdered rather than killed. All I have to say is that if this is a sample of the reports that we are to expect from the Air Committee of Inquiry, I do not look forward with any satisfaction, and I am sure the country does not look forward with any confidence, to its future findings. The great charge I brought against the Air Service was what? Faulty mechanism. I said that there was ignorance displayed on the part of those in supreme command. There has been colossal ignorance displayed, and there is appalling ignorance being displayed now by the supreme command. So appalling is that ignorance, so forcibly has it been brought to my notice, that unless before the 10th October some very drastic reforms take place, I shall have very much more to say in this House about the Air Service of our country than ever I said before.
  With regard to this engine which was designed by the Government officials—this engine which has been supplied to prac-
  2610
  tically all our pilots ever since the outbreak of war, in the military branch in particular. This engine has killed more men than any other mechanical contrivance in this War. We are told that this is an excellent and efficient engine. We are told that there is no justification for saying that it is mechanically impossible; that it is a very expensive engine to produce; that it is a very inefficient engine to produce! I asked a question in this House the other day, as to whether the Prime Minister would give the Air Committee access to a Report, extracts of which I propose to give to the House. I was told that there was no such Report; that it could not be found. Some gentlemen do not want to see these Reports. But there is still the pen of an honest man. Fortunately, there are one or two men—quite a number, I hope, though, perhaps, a minority—in the Departments yet who do consider that their country is something even greater than their Departments, and who do consider that if men are to be driven into the air with inefficient machinery that the least they can do is to say so. Here is the Report, from which I shall read brief extracts in the hope of guiding the hon. Member for Rugby (Major Baird) in his search for the original. Any other assistance I can give him I will be happy to do. Here is the Report. Since I raised the question in this House I have ascertained, for I did not know it, that this Report was made at the desire of the Ministry of Munitions, by one of the leading precision engineers in this country.
  Major BAIRD: Would the hon. Member say how he got that Report?
  Mr. BILLING: I have not the slightest intention of involving anybody but myself.
  HON. MEMBERS: The same as Bonar Law!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did you get it like the Colonial Secretary?
  Mr. BILLING: I did not extract it from the post. This is a Report on the labour problem for the Ministry of Munitions. He says:
  "Immediately the manufacturing of any of the component pieces or the erecting and assembling of the complete unit known as the Royal Aircraft Factory engine is attempted … nothing but trouble, disappointment, and scrap result."
  There is another point that is rather interesting:
  "That no particular unit piece excepting a few standard bolts in the whole of the R.A.F. engine

  2611
  could be looked upon as a manufacturing proposition. The general design of the whole of this engine was so bad and so ill-considered from the standpoint of manufacture that the most appalling difficulties were experienced in producing it at all. After it was produced the number of consumable spares required to keep the engine running were of such enormous quantities as to make the construction of such a device a farce."
  This is from the Report upon which these gentleman are basing their replies and attacks upon me. They can have this Report if they want it:
  "Considering these statements and examining Mr. Hannay closely as to the veracity of his accusations, he invited me carefully to go through the construction of this engine with him, and the facts and figures submitted to me were so astounding as to be almost unbelievable."
  I do not want to trouble the House too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on ! Go on!"]
  "Prior to my inspection of the actual constructional work, Mr. Austin—"
  I do not see why I should not give names—
  "Mr. Austin volunteered the statement that he would be only too pleased if he had no more of these engines to construct, as they were an impossible proposition to make and an impossible machine to maintain in working order when made. He told me, that in spite of this the Contracts Department, who had given, them the order for fifty to sixty per month, wanted this number immediately increased to 100 complete engines per month, and fifty complete sets of spares per month. I asked him if this meant that they required cylinders as well, and he said that cylinders were one of the consumable spares."
  Many of us know what a motor car is. How many of us when buying a motor car buy two or three dozen spare cylinders for the engine? What should we think of a salesman who tried to sell us a car and who not only recommended but insisted on undertaking that, on delivery, we should take four dozen spare cylinders for fear of a breakdown on the road? They have got motor cars running all over the country going to the factories of the people who are building them, and when they have got completed machines they tear the cylinders off, and I am told on good authority that the week before last in six days 1,800 spare cylinders were sent to France to keep some 200 or 300 engines going.
  "I asked what the life of such an engine was, and he told me in many cases it did not exist for more than twenty-five hours."
  When a pilot knows that, it must give him anxiously to think at what point that twenty-five hours is reached. Surely this House appreciates that the spare plant of an aeroplane is the crux of the whole problem. Should we supply our airmen with engines of Government design simply because some official has made some ghastly blunder which he has got to substantiate?
  2612
  He has spent hundreds of thousands it may be in experimental work which cannot be written off, and so he perpetuates his blunder, when all the time, if we wished to, we could be buying and building much more efficient engines. Only this morning it was brought to my notice that, not satisfied with this colossal blunder, another Department of the Royal Flying Corps is bringing out their own engines. This Department has had access ever since the outbreak of the War to all the drawings of all the engine people of this country. General Henderson said before the Committee that, the Royal Aircraft Factory did not have access to the manufacturers' drawings of their engines. Well and good, but there is another Department which did, and that is the Department which is now bringing out this wonderful engine; and I would like to know what experience this gentleman, whose name I would be very pleased to hand to the hon. Member for Rugby, has had for designing this engine? What right has he to waste Government time and Government money, even if we were not at war, and much more so when we are at war, in looking over the designs of private manufacturers, without slavishly following—if he did that it would not be so bad—but making improvements without knowing why they were done? What is the result? They produce an engine, and it is a failure. They give orders to one firm, to two firms, to three firms, whose names I will give the hon. Member, and before the writing on the order is dry they carry out the tests after giving the order, and they find that the engine is inefficient, and this has got to be altered and that has got to be altered. They go round to the firms, and do not even ask permission, but simply cancel these orders. This is not a single case. It has been multiplied, and the engine I am speaking of now is not the engine to which I have been referring, but the engine they are trying to build up to take the place of that engine. It says here that they made up to the two hundred and fortieth engine over 4,000 scrap pieces or parts. There are hon. Members in this House who know what a machine shop is, and perhaps, like me, they have worked in machine shops. You talk about 4,000 spare parts, and you read here that in very few cases of component parts does the scrap go down so low as 75 per cent, of the output. This is the official report, and what I want from the Government Bench is an assurance that this mechanical abortion shall be stopped

  2613
  before the Adjournment of this House, so that for two months more we do not go on squandering money.
  I am sure the £6,000,000 we are spending a day on the War would not justify my keeping the House for half a million or a million pounds spent between now and the reassembling of the House, but it concerns the lives of some of the best men of this country who come to me, although I cannot mention their names, and ask me to see that they get the best engine and the best machine. There is a very great deal more in this Report with which I do not propose to deal now, but I do ask that someone on the Government Bench will ask me for a copy of this Report and make some reassuring statement that the Committee of Inquiry will not leave such ghastly loopholes as this to destroy what little confidence they may have left. In these matters my reputation counts as nought, but I came here to do a certain job, and whether the members of the Government succeed in discrediting me in the eyes of the public or not does not matter. They can attack me as much as they like, but for the sake of the men who are laying down their lives I hope they will pay some little attention to the matters to which I have drawn attention. I did propose to read some letters I have received from East Coast towns, but really that is a matter which demands the attention of the Government. I am sorry for the hon. Member for Rugby (Major Baird), and this prevents me getting cross with him. At one time the difficult duty of answering questions was divided between the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Under-Secretary, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the Minister of Munitions; but since this new post has come into existence, since this official steel helmet which the Government have put on to protect them from air attacks in the shape of the Air Board has been created, the hon. Member for Rugby has got to take all the blame, and while I am sorry for him I am exceedingly annoyed that the genuine criticisms of the Air Service should be side-tracked in this way. The hon. Member for Rugby may be very sincere, but he cannot tell me why the defences of a certain North-East Coast town are hopelessly inadequate, and he cannot give me an assurance from the Government Bench that more efficient guns shall take their place, or that reprisals or something, at least, shall be
  2614
  done. He cannot even trace the little report that I told him so much about. I think it is time that the Government, with a* due sense of proportion in relation to other problems with which we are now faced, took this air matter into consideration just long enough to introduce action instead of apathy. A member of the Flying Corps, speaking to me on the question of the Government's position, said, "If blood is the price of incompetence, Lord God, we have paid in full!" That just about sizes it up. In Mesopotamia, the Dardanelles, Antwerp—wherever they have put their foot, and wherever they have tried to administer, there has been nothing but blood, sorrow, and mismanagement. They come with such regularity that it is almost possible to anticipate in any future action the order in which they will follow. Whenever criticism gets a little keen, and whenever either indifferent or—I do not know whether I am allowed to say it—impertinent answers are given, a Committee is appointed. I have greater hopes for some of the other Committees which have been appointed recently, but I would ask the House to appreciate that the findings of this Air Committee and that the attitude of it, so far as it has been at present revealed to us, do not command the respect and confidence of this House or of the country.
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into any of the more controversial matters which he has raised, but as he has made somewhat of an attack upon the Air Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, I feel that I ought to let the House know something of the methods which that Committee adopted in their investigations. The Air Committee was appointed as a committee which was to be presided over by a gentleman of judicial training and judicial mind. Our proposal was to invite, and we did indeed invite, evidence to be brought before us, not of a strictly legal kind, but the best evidence which anyone who had any suggestion to make, any criticism to make, or any charge to make against the Air Service could obtain. We heard, amongst others, the hon. Member for East Herts, who has just spoken. Indeed, I may say that it was because of his charges of criminal negligence against the higher command of the Air Service—primarily, at any rate—that this Committee were appointed and constituted. We heard evidence, whether direct or indirect, whether

  2615
  of their own personal knowledge or by hearsay, from anyone who chose to come before us. We not only invited the hon. Member for East Herts to come before us, but we gave him every opportunity to prepare his case. It is true—I do not make any complaint; I am merely reminding the House of the fact—that he treated us with considerable contempt; but eventually he did consent to come before us, and, as he had made charges, we were only too pleased that he should come and let us know what he knew and give us such information as he had got and as was available to him. He had provided for him some three postponements, going over a considerable number of weeks, in order to enable him to prepare the case which he had said in March of this year he was prepared at that moment to prove in this House to any individual Member. But we gave him such time as he required.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I would like to point out that the postponements referred to were with the express intention of giving the Committee an opportunity of taking a holiday, which I cheerfully assented to—the postponement after the first ten days.
  Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member's memory misleads him. We eventually had the hon. Member before us, and he produced any amount of hearsay evidence. Of course I quite appreciate his reason for refusing to mention any names. We appreciated that, and we heard all the hearsay evidence he had to bring before us. He brought no matter, no hearsay evidence which we could trace, to which we could attach a name or with regard to which we could ask for any person to be called before us. I mention that for this reason, that I am now going to tell the House what steps we took, as a Committee, to enable members of the Air Service to come before us without any possibility of their identity being known, either to General Henderson or to anyone in the Higher Command. What we did was this: We asked gentlemen, like the hon. Member for East Herts, to give us the names of any witness they desired should be called before us. We got from General Henderson a complete list of all the members of the Air Service who happened to be in this country, and we chose a list, which embraced not only those witnesses whose names were given to us by critics of the
  2616
  Air Service, like the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Bennett-Goldney)—
  Mr. BILLING: Not by myself.
  Mr. SHORTT: Really, I think I might be allowed to go on with my speech. We not only embraced their names, but a large number of others. Their names were sent in to Headquarters, and every name we sent in was ordered to appear before the Committee. So that nobody knew that any particular witness was called before the Committee, and nobody, neither General Henderson nor anyone else, knew which were the witnesses named by the hon. Member for Hertford, if he did name any, which he did not, by the hon. Members for Brentford or Canterbury, by Lord Montagu, or by anybody else. Therefore, it was perfectly safe for any member of the Air Service to come before the Committee and to give any evidence he chose.
  Mr. LYNCH: Might I ask if it was not the fact that two witnesses were identified afterwards, and were hauled over the coals by their superior officer for having given evidence?
  Mr. SHORTT: I did hear a complaint from Lord Montagu of one witness who, on his return from the Committee—the witness, by the way, was not called and did not give evidence—was embroiled in some way with the civil police, nothing to do with the military at all. That was the only case I did hear of. If the hon. Member will tell me of any other, I am sure it will be looked into.
  Mr. LYNCH: There was the case raised in this very House. That was only one case.
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot say. I have only heard of one, and I do not propose to detain the House any longer. These witnesses were able to come before us; they were examined without their names being disclosed. They were A, B, C, D, E; they were called by the critics. And the hon. Member for East Herts was invited to call any witnesses that he chose—any witnesses. He was not only invited to call any witnesses. He was pressed over and over again to say whether the cases he brought before the Committee were those upon which he relied and were those to which he attached any importance. He was pressed by the learned judge to say whether he had any more

  2617
  cases to which he attached any importance at all, and he said he had not. He was asked whether he had any more documents to produce, and he had none. Of course, if a document had been produced to the Committee, we should have been able to see who was responsible for the document, and if the person was available we could have brought the person before us. The reports which the hon. Member has mentioned to-night we have never heard of. When there was a chance of their being cross-examined, he never mentioned them to us at all. We had such evidence as was available to us. We had the whole of the evidence that could be brought before us, and upon that we had to decide.
  I do not propose to go into the question of the engine to which the hon. Member has referred. I can only say this: that upon that we have not yet reported, therefore it would be most improper for me to offer anything at all to-night. We have only reported what our opinion is as to the "murder" charges. We have not yet reported upon any of the much wider questions that came before us, or the wider criticisms which came before us. Therefore I do not propose to say a word about them. I will only say that we have had a very large body of evidence with regard to the "B 2 C," which is the machine the hon. Member has most faithfully attacked, and with regard to the engine designed by the Royal Aircraft Factory. As the hon. Member has once again used expressions which are calculated to cause considerable disquietude not only among the public but especially among those who have friends and relatives in the Air Service, I think I am entitled to say, without intimating in the slightest degree what the finding of the Committee may be, that the evidence with regard to that engine, its reliability, its usefulness, and with regard to the machine generally does not coincide with that of the hon. Member. He may be right; they may be wrong. That is another matter. It would not be right for me to go into further detail of anything the hon. Member has said, but I did wish the House to appreciate fully exactly what the Committee was doing, the methods it was adopting, and that we were attempting, as far as possible, to obtain all the information we could, and to do it, as far as possible, without disclosing the identity of any witness or of anybody
  2618
  who chose to come before us. I may say, in conclusion, that we have not yet finished. There is still an opportunity for the hon. Member if he thinks that there is any evidence that he can bring which we have not yet had. If he thinks there is anything he can tell us that we do not know, we will welcome him. He can come, and he will have the same facilities to give his evidence and the same safeguards for any witnesses he may bring that he has had all through the investigation.
  Sir A. GELDER: It is not my intention or desire to follow the hon. Member for East Herts in regard to the technical matters of which he has spoken to-night respecting our air defences on the East Coast. He has reviewed the matter to a certain extent broadly, and told us what is the lack of proper defences. The Secretary for War to-day said that our first duty was to win this War abroad. We are all in hearty co-operation with that sentiment. But added to that there is the necessity imposed upon His Majesty's Government of making adequate protection as far as practicable for the defence of this country against the murderous attacks of Zeppelins. I do not say that whatever we do we shall be immune from them, but not sufficient attention has been paid to this very important matter in the past. I also emphasise the fact that there has been no continuity of policy, no thorough scheme propounded for adequate defence. Part of the time it has been under the wing of the Admiralty, and part under that of the Army. Now I suppose it is under that of the Air Committee. As a result there has been no co-ordination, and the policy has been one of chopping and changing, to the disadvantages and to the lack of protection of the people in certain parts of the country.
  Major BAIRD: Everybody sympathises with the relatives and friends of people who have lost their lives as the result of Zeppelin raids; but we are at War, and that unfortunately involves loss of life. Up to now there have been thirty-four such raids. In ten no casualties occurred, and the total number of persons killed in the remainder was 334 civilians, and 50 military. That loss of life is very regrettable, but no one can say that it has had any influence on the conduct of the operations. The military damage caused by the raiders has been absolutely nil. I have received from

  2619
  the Commander-in-Chief and from my right hon. Friend the authority to state that, if any hon. Member who desires to be reassured or seeks information with regard to the defences in his own locality will come to the Air Board, the Board will satisfy him to the best of its ability. The Zeppelins have not got off so unscathed, as people might imagine, and this is rather important to remember. We have destroyed, officially reported—in the "bag"—so to speak—seven of them. Five others have been damaged to such an extent that there is every reason to hope that they have been practically destroyed, but it is unwise to count them if you cannot be absolutely certain about them. The Allies, as a whole, have accounted for thirty-five Zeppelins. When you come to count the amount of damage that has been done, I am bound to say that T do ret think we have any cause to complain.
  Mr. BILLING: Ask Admiral Jellicoe.
  12.0 M.
  Major BAIRD: You must remember that the Germans have been preparing for forty years for war, and we have been preparing during the past forty years for perpetual peace. You cannot suddenly improvise defences to make up for the time and the opportunities you have lost, and the money you did not spend in all those years. What reception would any hon. Member have got in this House, on whatever side he sat, if, four years ago even, he had suggested that we should spend £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 on defences against aircraft? We must make the best of it; the best of it is pretty good, and a good deal better than it is represented by hon. Members. And hon. Members should remember this, and it is necessary that they should realise this—it is very important—that the allocation of anti-aircraft guns, and of all artillery, must necessarily remain in the hands of the General Staff. They have to consider the whole problem from the military point of view. There is no possibility of considering it from any other point of view. You are waging a War, and you have to consider not only the requirements of this country, but those of our Expeditionary Force in France, and of all the forces which we have operating in other parts of the world. You have to consider that problem as a whole, and to distribute your armament and defences in such a manner as to render the most efficient service, and to contribute to the best
  2620
  of our ability to defeat the enemy. That is the only possible way to look at it. The greatest service which hon. Members can render—I hope they will allow me to say this—if they are not satisfied with the defences in their locality, or if they do not know what the defences are—is to come to us, to enable us to have the information given to them, and when they go down to their locality, to do their utmost to satisfy their neighbours and friends who live around them that everything possible is being done that can be done in the circumstances to secure them.
  I do not know that I am called on to make any remarks with regard to the hon. Member for East Herts. I wish he would remember that, though he is anxious for a reform of the Flying Corps, so am I. I should not be here if I were not. I approach the problem from a different point of view. But it really is no use his continuing these wild statements, because he has had a Committee set up to consider his complaints. The system of the hon. Member seems to be this. A Committee is appointed to investigate the charges he makes He is dissatisfied with the findings of that Committee, and lie constitutes himself an Appeal Tribunal, and gives the appeal in his own favour. I do not think that is very convincing.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He gets an article into a Sunday paper.
  Major BAIRD: I know the hon. Member is identified with the Press. But all these inquiries take up the time of officers who would be otherwise employed. People talk at large, but let us be business-like and, when the matter has been inquired into, accept the decision of the Committee. Who were the Committee? They were a very distinguished judge, two experienced and respected hon. Members of this House, a very distinguished general, a lawyer, and two engineers. The Committee sat for twenty-two days. The hon. Member occupied the whole of four days with the Committee, and part of two other days. That does not account for the time that he took up in cross-examination and examining witnesses. What Flying Corps in the world can show the record of our Flying Corps? I cannot imagine why the hon. Member should use such expressions as he did, with all the experience and the very honourable record he has. Undoubtedly it does create a sense of disquiet and anxiety among the parents of these

  2621
  glorious young men who are serving in our Flying Corps. Moreover, it is an anxiety which is not shared by the men behind the engines. It is quite gratuitous on the hon. Member's part. The engine to which I think he referred—R.A. F. la—is one which may have had the defects he described long ago—
  Mr. BILLING: The report was made last month.
  Major BAIRD: I prefer to have the report of hundreds of officers who fly these engines, and not the report of an individual who, through a gross breach of confidence, has communicated with the hon. Member, and who has gone down in the course of confidential work for the Government and made a report. He is not an expert on aeroplane engines. I am not going to discuss the merits or argue with the hon. Member as to the value of the two reports. On the one hand you have the men who fly the engines abroad, and who say they are good engines. After all, they always "get you home"—that is the expression used in regard to them. On the other hand, you have the report to which the hon. Member has referred. What earthly service is rendered by the hon. Member to us, a country at war, who are building up day by day this Flying Corps, which is doing the most marvellous work? Nobody will deny that.
  Mr. BILLING: I say that the majority of the pilots do not approve of that engine.
  Major BAIRD: The fact remains, if I may bring in a personal matter, that I have had much more experience of the Flying Corps than the hon. Member, particularly that part of it which chiefly uses these engines. Obviously he is misinformed.
  Mr. PRINGLEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Major BAIRD: What is the hon. Member's qualification for making that statement?
  Mr. BILLING: The hon. Member says he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put the question to me whether I speak as an expert. The question put did not relate to any expert know-
  2622
  ledge. It was as to the opinion of the men who do fly. I assert that their opinion is that of the hon. Member for East Herts.
  Major BAIRD: What I said was what were the hon. Member's qualifications for speaking as an expert.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am not.
  Major BAIRD: I do not minimise for a moment the question whether the engine is good or bad, because it would be a scandal to send men up habitually to do work with bad engines if you can send up better ones. But we do not do anything of the kind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member can go on repeating that as long as he likes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Billing) was listened to in complete silence in the long speech he made. The least he can do is to listen to the answer.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not reasonable if the hon. Gentleman makes a definite statement that I should have a right to express my disagreement?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is a good deal more than that. The hon. Member keeps up a running commentary of interjections which he has no right whatever to do. That is what I am asking him to refrain from.
  Major BAIRD: I am authorised by the Secretary of State to extend to any other Member the invitation I have already given, with a view to satisfying their friends. They must expect Zeppelin raids. As regards the specific points which have been raised, there is the question of lack of policy. At the beginning of the war, it is true, home defence was in the hands of the Navy. Since the beginning of this year it has been entirely in the hands, so far as land defences are concerned, of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces, and he has a very complete scheme of aerial as well as other defence which is being carried out as rapidly as the guns and aeroplanes required can be provided. That has been arranged on a systematic plan, and I give the hon. Member the assurance that no gun will be removed, except on replacement by a better one. I do hope that the hon. Member will take this assurance that everything has been done, and is being done, to secure the best possible means of dealing with a very important matter.

  RAILWAY ADSHNISTHATION.
  Mr. THOMAS: An appeal was made to the Government yesterday that in view of the many questions that would be raised, an arrangement should be made to carry on the Adjournment Debate for another day. Up to now we have discussed three subjects. I admit they are important subjects, but I submit that one of the most important subjects, namely, the food prices, is agitating the mind of this country probably more than anything else. Before coming to that, let me congratulate the hon. and gallant Member upon the very spirited defence that he has made for his Department. But hammering at the box will not dispose of the fact that there are in very many towns in the country grave apprehensions-as to the anti-aircraft defences. Those who represent constituencies which have known what it is to suffer from Zeppelins have had sufficient evidence of the grave apprehension that exists among their Constituents. It is unfortunate that this important question has degenerated into a personal contest between the hon. Member and others. The question is far too important to raise side and personal issues of that kind. It would be better if, when representations are made, that notice should be given to them and every effort made to ease the natural apprehension that exists.
  Major BAIRD: If hon. Members will only come to us if they have any representations to make we are authorised to endeavour to satisfy them to the best of our ability. I particularly want to put that forward.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sure we all appreciate that, and I ought in fairness to say that I have made representations. I was endeavouring to point out that it is useless to minimise the feeling that exists. I agree that nothing would play the German game more than for this country to bring our best men back from the front to defend us here. I agree that from the military standpoint it would be infinitely better to allow the Zeppelins to continue to come here if there were no other method of defence against them than bringing our men from the great work they are doing on the other side of the water.
  Coming to the question of food prices, there can be no doubt that at the present time, so far as the working classes of this country are concerned, they are feeling the question very keenly. Statements
  2624
  have been made repeatedly that so far as the general mass of workers are concerned they are better off to-day than they ever were before. I think that statement is true so far as some sections of the workers are concerned. It must be admitted that there are sections of the working classes to-day who are earning far more money than they ever earned before. It is equally true that with the wives and daughters and children working the income in certain homes is greater than it has even been before, but at the same time the great mass of the working classes are not earning more. The fact is that a very large section of the people have a very real difficulty in living.
  Take, for instance, the case of the railway men. There are at this moment 200,000 railwaymen getting 25s. a week or less. That is an indisputable figure. The admitted increase in the cost price of food is 65 per cent. Assume that the expenditure on food used to be at least 15s. out of that 25s., then you have the result that what could be purchased for 15s. in 1914, costs 25s. to-day. Or to put it in another way, it means that these people cannot possibly purchase or obtain the same amount of food that they existed upon in 1914. I submit that that is a state of affairs that requires careful and serious consideration on the part of the Government. I admit frankly that we cannot expect to be engaged in a War of this kind without some sacrifice being made. I have never adopted the attitude that we could be engaged in a great struggle of this kind without someone or even everyone feeling the pinch. But the difficulty that the working classes experience to-day, and the real point that irritates them, is that side by side with the growing and continually increased cost of living they see the great War profits declared from week to week, and there has grown up a feeling that they are suffering to-day because of other people who are making profits out of the great sacrifices of the masses, such a large number of whom have already given up their lives.
  But it is not alone the working men of this country who are suffering from the increased cost of living to-day. This increase in prices has also the effect of reducing the separation allowances of soldiers wives and children to practically half. And not only that, but there is another class affected who are the most unfortunate of all—the old age pensioners. The increase in their case has the effect

  2625
  of reducing the pension from 5s. to 2s. 6d. I do not propose to say anything of the railwaymen's demand except this. That demand would never have been made except for the increased cost of living. It would never have been made if the Government had shown that they were dealing with the question in some way that was likely to have an effect in reducing the prices. I can only hope that how that the demand has been made both sides will not be unmindful, as I feel sure they will not, of their natural obligations. But to show the effect of this increased cost of living I may recall that there has been a committee at work obtaining from various centres the actual statements of the circumstances of various households. I have here one statement from Sheffield, which I may read. It says:—
  "Before the War the husband's wages were 22s. a week. Now they are 30s. There are the husband, wife and two boys. They say: 'We use more bread and less potatoes—about 6 lb. less potatoes and costing more.' It the boy is asked to set the table he asks, 'Is it a bread dinner, mother?' When first the War started they had no meat at all. It was either a shank or ham bone at 2½d. per lb. Now that costs 4d. and 6d. per lb. We used to have ½ lb. of cheese a week, but have left it off altogether now; 1 lb. of sugar a week, and no bacon, and we get very little meat."
  One could go on reading extracts of that description, but probably Members in all parts of the House are familiar with the strong feeling that exists. I do submit to the Board of Trade that the whole country looks to them to take drastic and immediate action to deal with this question. If there is any evidence, as there is a strong suspicion that there is, that foodstuffs are being cornered, if there is any evidence that food is being held up for the purpose of inflating prices, I do hope the Board of Trade will recognise that in a matter of this kind it is not sufficient to issue instructions and pass regulations, but that they should go far beyond that and deal drastically with anyone who is found to be responsible.
  I rose primarily to deal with two other questions in which the Board of Trade is interested, and with which they have been dealing. It is a case of a railwayman named Davies at Briton Ferry. It is a case that affects not only the personal liberties of an individual, but the rights of citizenship. Davies was charged under the Defence of the Realm Act with distributing a leaflet against recruiting. He was charged in company with another individual, a steel-smelter, and was sentenced by the Neath Magistrates to a month's imprisonment. He was a member of our
  2626
  organisation, and his branch immediately sent to the society and said: "This man is charged with a certain offence, and we ask the Union to defend him." I want the House to observe that at this stage we said: "No. Whatever offence you have committed it was in your individual capacity. It has nothing to do with your employers; it has nothing to do with the Union; and we are going to have nothing whatever to do with it." Therefore, I want the House to observe that at this stage, so far as the Union was concerned, not only did not they condone the action but they refused absolutely to have anything to do with the case. The man was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. When he comes out of goal, he applies to the company for reinstatement. The other man, the steel smelter, applies to his employer for reinstatement. The Great Western Company says to Davies: "No, you have been charged and committed on an offence, and therefore we are no longer going to employ you. You are of military age, and automatically you go into the Army." His branch then says to the Union, this: "You refused to have anything to do with the defence of this man, but now the question arises as to whether you will, as a Union, take steps to see that the man is not doubly punished. Whatever crime he committed he has at least paid the full penalty for it. The law says he was guilty; he was sentenced to a month; and surely, having served the month and not complained, he is not, when he comes out of prison, to find himself further punished by the Great Western Company taking up the attitude that they will not employ him." We, as a Union, then stepped in. The men, let it be observed, said: "We never agreed with Davies. We totally dissociate ourselves from his offence, but we are not going to stand by and allow the railway company to punish him further, and although we did not at first sympathise with him, certainly now we are going to take our stand on the grounds of personal liberty and citizenship." We replied to them, and said: "No. You must not stop work. This is a case with which the Board of Trade can deal, seeing that the President is the president of the railway executive. Therefore, we would beg of you not to prejudice the position, but to give us an opportunity of dealing with the case ourselves, and of seeing whether we cannot adjust it."

  2627
  The steel-smelter went to his employer, who said: "We will not employ you," and immediately the employer said that the whole of the other men walked out at Briton Ferry. When they walked out, the employer said: "Rather than have a disturbance, we will employ you," with the result that the men all walked back to work. We said to the railwaymen: "You must not strike work. It is imperative in the national interest that you should not stop," and we exercised all our power and influence—the largest of all the unions, let it be observed. The railway company said: "No. Because you do not let your men do what the steel-smelters did, we will not employ the man." I myself saw the general manager of the Great Western. I put the case to him, and I want to say in common fairness that he met me courteously. We talked the whole matter out, but he felt that he could not reinstate the man. I at last persuaded him to have an interview with the man, and I said: "Very well, here is the young fellow. He will be able to state his own case, and probably express some regret." He has an interview with the general manager, and in that interview, after stating his case, he expresses to the general manager his regret, and says, "Not only am I sorry, but I give you a guarantee that nothing of the kind shall occur again," and he wrote this apology out:—
  "Sir,—I desire to repeat to you in writing the assurance I gave you at the interview this morning that I had no idea at the time I distributed the leaflets that this action, which led to my conviction by the magistrates, was a contravention of the law, or I would not have clone it. I have never knowingly done anything that was likely to injure recruiting, and if continued in the Great Western service you may rely that nothing will be done by me that will prevent the success of this country in the war. Yours obediently,—"
  and he signed his name. I submit when this man, who bad already done a month in prison, against whom the company themselves said there was never a complaint whilst he was in their service, who they themselves admitted was a good and efficient servant, and regarding whom, incidentally, they admitted that in his grade as a shunter he was essential in the national interest, had gone to the length, as he has, of giving this written apology, the company at least ought to have said: "Well, we will take you after that," but they refused. Again, the demand came from South Wales. I see the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) in his place, and I daresay he has
  2628
  heard of the great meeting that was held at Swansea, and probably he has received the resolution. Again the men from Swansea, Llanelly, Neath, and other districts met, and said: "We demand that you shall give us power to stop work"—that was after this apology had been made; after the man had had an interview with the general manager, and had been refused. Again we stepped in, and said: "No. We have never had an hour's strike on the railway since the War, and we are not going to have one if we can avoid it"—and in a district, mark you, the character of which the House should observe, because everyone knows the kind of feeling that ought to exist in a place like South Wales. The men took our word. We had an interview with the Board of Trade. As a matter of fact the whole of the members of this party, who had had a meeting, had arranged to move the adjournment of the House, because at that moment we felt there was likely to be a strike. At all events, at the request of the Board of Trade we met them. We—the Executive Committee of the Union—went into the whole question with the Board of Trade again, and the then Acting President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harcourt) said: "I personally will see the Great Western, and will ascertain whether I can do anything with them. I will do my best." On that assurance, our Executive Committee said: "Very well, we will again do our best to keep the men working so as to give you an opportunity of seeing what you can do"; and, in order that he should be further fortified with the intention of the individual stated—in the guarantee of good faith—a further apology was sent. This apology was sent to the President of the Board of Trade, with the power to give it as a guarantee to the company of the man's intentions:
  "Sir,—You will remember that at the interview you kindly gave me with regard to the question of my reinstatement I informed yon that when I distributed the leaflets which resulted in my being prosecuted, I had no idea that this action was contrary to the law, or I certainly would not have done so. I have never knowingly done anything which would either injure recruiting or interfere with the successful prosecution of the War, and can assure you that should you reconsider the position and reinstate me in the Company's service, I will continue to act as faithfully in doing my duty as I have in the past, and shall most certainly do nothing which will in any way interfere with or have a bearing upon the success of this country in the great War in which she is now engaged. I trust, therefore, that this very definite assurance, in addition to the punishment I have already recieved may enable you to reinstate me in the company's employ. Yours obediently," Signed.
  That assurance I myself took the responsibility of drafting in Davies' name and gave it to the acting president. We then

  2629
  received an intimation from the President of the Board of Trade that he himself bad endeavoured to do all he could, but, unfortunately, had failed to persuade the railway company to reinstate the man, with the result that in defiance of the central authority of the Union, in defiance of all our instructions, there is issued a circular calling a conference for next week in South Wales, where the men say this: "The Union having stopped us from getting this man reinstated by our methods, and the strike we had having succeeded in getting the other reinstated, we must take the law into our own hands." I put it to the House, as I put it to the Board of Trade, "Can you conceive of anything more disastrous than this: that, when the country is engaged in a War such as this, the down-tools policy succeeds in one case in winning, while conciliation and all efforts to try to avert a stoppage fail to succeed in the other?" Such a state of things is, I submit, a direct encouragement to the policy that we all deplore. I go further than that and I say the company has taken an attitude which they dare not take in peace time; because, let it be observed, this is a deliberate attack upon the individual and upon the rights of citizenship which would not have been tolerated for five minutes if it were not for the War.
  The Board of Trade are themselves, after all, the governing body of the railways, and the people who nominally control the railways to-day. They are the people who provide the finance, and I think it is useless for them to pretend or suggest that they have no power or jurisdiction over a matter of this kind. I frankly admit that if this man had been accused of theft or drunkenness or any such offence I would be the last to suggest that any employer should reinstate him; as a matter of fact the rules of our Union would prevent us even taking up that attitude; but what I do submit is that this man has committed at the worst a political offence. The Bench, although sentencing this man to his month's imprisonment, for what after all was a very innocent pamphlet, three weeks after bound over nine men for the distribution of the same pamphlet. I put it that all the facts tend to show that a very grave injustice has been done in this matter. It is because there is a danger of an explosion, because there is a genuine apprehension in Wales, and because these men feel that an unwarrantable ad-
  2630
  vantage has been taken by the railway companies that I hope, even at this late hour, the Board of Trade will intervene. I see in front of me two Great Western directors. I do not know whether the decision that has been arrived at in this case is the decision of the board of directors. If it is not I would submit to them that they could help the Board of Trade in this matter. If on the other hand they have already arrived at a decision I would say that the circumstances warrant a reconsideration of it. Surely in a matter of this kind it ought to be the policy of any board of directors to help and encourage and strengthen the policy of conciliation. It ought to be the duty of any body of directors to try and assist any central authority which was trying to show that they wanted to avoid a stoppage, and even if they should take a strong view of the offence committed they may at least say that the man, "having proved a good servant to us in the past, having paid the penalty for the offence committed, we shall, in the national interest and to stop further feeling, reinstate him." That would at least show that you can be magnanimous, and even if you have arrived at a decision I would beg you Gentlemen, not as Members of the House, but as railway directors of this particular company, to assist the Board of Trade, and by assisting the Board of Trade assist us as well. In urging this I want to submit that times are serious. You cannot isolate a question of this kind to one given district. The men will rightly compare it to actions that are taking place in other parts of the country. For instance, and to show the reverse policy of the railway company, let me briefly give a history of what has happened on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. Here, the reverse policy has been introduced. The railway company, instead of releasing the man and driving him into the Army, as they have done in this case, themselves actually gave a certificate which exempts him from military service if he will act as a blackleg.
  Here is a case where a strike was in operation, and where the seamen and firemen hoped for more money. They asked for the same rate that was paid by other shipowners. I myself, across the floor of the House, offered arbitration to the Board of Trade on behalf of the Seamen's Union. The Board of Trade said that they would urge the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to accept the offer, but the Lancashire and Yorkshire

  2631
  Railway Company said to the Board of Trade, "Hands off, this is our business." No other employer would say that; it would not be tolerated from any other employer; but when the offer of arbitration is made by the men the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company flout the Board of Trade and the strike proceeds. Then the Military Service Act comes into operation, and what follows? There is a deliberate inducement held out to men to act as blacklegs. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company not only offer the men a certain price, but they say, in addition to that, if you will only act as blacklegs we will give you this card, and this card says:—
  "You are hereby informed that your services are required in connection with the working of the railway. You will not therefore at present be required to join the Army, and should you receive a notice calling you up you should report to the Recrniting Officer who has sent you the notice, show him this card, give him any particulars he may require, and ask him to communicate with the railway company if he is in doubt. This card has been issued with the approval of the War Office."
  The result was that twenty men who had never been on board ship before and carried no discharge were engaged as blacklegs to break this strike. Two of them happened to be conscientious objectors, and I have defended conscientious objectors! But there is a serious principle involved. This House of Commons, even the most ardent supporters amongst its Members of the Military Service Act, never supposed that it would ever be used in this way—I strongly opposed it—but I am sure they never intended it to be used as a lever by any employer to induce men to act as blacklegs on their fellows.
  Mr. KING: But we said that it would be so used.
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but I at least hoped it would never be, and, as I am reminded of the apprehensions that were expressed, I may say that we had very clear and definite assurances on the subject. What I want to put to the Government is this: We are entitled to ask them to see, here and now, that any railway company, or any other employer, who issues certificates of this kind for purposes such as I have outlined, should be compelled to withdraw them immediately. They can allow this strike to continue if they like. That is another matter. But we do say and submit that employers ought not to have, in addition to the ordinary methods of carrying on a dispute between capital and labour, the additional inducement and
  2632
  advantage of the Military Service Act. What I have said shows that in these matters railway companies appear to have a law unto themselves. In the first place, in the case I have mentioned, they have adopted an attitude inconsistent with and contrary to the ordinary employer. In the second place, they have used powers that are not possessed by any other employer. For both these reasons, whilst regretting having kept the House so long at this hour of the morning, I have ventured to raise this question not only because of its importance, but because of the burning indignation in South Wales; because I am extremely anxious to avoid any trouble, and because I believe that justice will be done in this case. And the Great Western Railway Company need not, in a matter of this kind, consider their dignity, seeing that the apology of the man himself ought to be sufficient for them. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the Debate, the Board of Trade will be able to give satisfaction on both points.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not rise to follow the hon. Member in the speech he has just made; I rise for an entirely different purpose, and that is to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  We have now arrived at nearly one o'clock in the morning, and the hon. Member who has just spoken has opened up a very large and serious subject, upon which I have no doubt quite a. number of Members will be prepared and anxious to speak. It is certainly a subject which I think ought to be ventilated in the light of day, when there are more Members in the House, and when the speeches made are more likely to be repotted by the Press. I would point out, further, that by his speech the hon. Member has introduced another topic amongst the many topics which we have not yet begun to touch in debate. The Government were asked yesterday to give two days for the Adjournment Motion, but the Prime Minister refused. It must have been obvious, in view of the many topics of great importance still before the House and the country, that only one day for discussion of all these topics was entirely inadequate, seeing that the House is about to separate for the Recess. Before the Debate opened this afternoon a number of hon. Members raised this point, and the fact that we have arrived at one o'clock in the morning and have not touched the fringe of some of the most important questions which are

  2633
  agitating the public mind, including the food prices question which is agitating the working classes right through the country, and is causing unrest, and claims for advanced wages, proves their apprehensions to be well founded. It is most important that these questions should be discussed now considering that we shall not have another opportunity for something like seven weeks.
  1.0 P.M.
  It is now, as I have said, approaching one o'clock in the morning, and there are many Members who wish to take part in this Debate on topics as important as any that have come before this House. There is the question of pensions, both old age pensions and pensions to soldiers and sailors. Several hon. Members want to speak on these subjects, as I do myself. There are other questions which surely ought to be raised and receive further discussion before the House adjourns for such a long Recess. It is useless for the Government to assume that the country and the House are ready to go to sleep for any given number of weeks, when such burning questions are still outstanding. One cannot attend meetings or belong to any party without hearing continuous references of a contemptuous nature about the way work is done. That is not owing to the fact that Members of the House are not willing to go on and do their work and duty, but to the fact that the Government will never give an opportunity to Members to do the work. Therefore I sincerely hope the Motion will not be resisted. I cannot see what the Government will gain by keeping us up all night, as we probably shall be, instead of giving an opportunity of closing this Debate and resuming it to-morrow, when probably it will not take a very great length of time. Then these questions could be discussed at a reasonable hour, and, what is a very important result, not only the Debate, but the Ministers' declarations, would get that publicity which is of the utmost value to my mind in this question during the next few weeks. Another point ought not to be overlooked. After all, questions are not raised in this House by private Members for their own purposes. They are raised to enable Ministers to give replies to those questions in order to satisfy the country which is deeply interested in them, and if the replies are given in the early hours of the morning we all know that these replies will not be reported in the newspapers, and practi-
  2634
  cally no notice will be taken of them, and very important ministerial declarations, which it is important should be read throughout the country, will probably not be reported at all. Therefore I think it is in the interests both of the Government and of the House that we should now adjourn.
  Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I rise to support the Motion proposed by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that after the experience of the sitting, so far as it has advanced, the Government will accede to the Motion. It is quite true that on an earlier occasion in the sitting when the question of the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule was proposed, the Government resisted it on the ground that there would be ample time in the earlier hours of the sitting to discuss all the more important questions which would be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, but it has been quite clear from the progress of the Debate that that was impossible. The earlier part of the sitting was taken up by a discussion upon questions mainly relating to military administration upon which the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lloyd George) made a reply. The next question raised was one concerning Ireland, upon which a few Members representing Ireland here were able to make speeches, but upon which a number of others who had other aspects of that question to debate were unable to place their views before the Government. Therefore, we may take it, the subject was only partially touched. We have had a third speech dealing with the air defences of the country upon which a number of Members also spoke; and, now, at one o'clock in the morning, we have had a question raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), as important a question as has yet been raised, a question in which the whole of the interests of the working population are concerned. He has told us—I do not wish to enter into the merits—that the Military Service Act is being used for the purpose of prejudicing the workers in labour disputes. Now that was a matter upon which we had the clearest and most definite pledges from Ministers when the Bill was passing through the House, and yet when the hon. Member raised the question there was not a single Cabinet Minister on the Bench to deal with this serious matter of the adequate fulfilment

  2635
  of Ministerial pledges. We have no doubt the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Bonar Law) now present, but he has not heard the ca3e which has been made by my hon. Friend. He undoubtedly was one of those who gave pledges during the passing through of these Acts, but he has not heard the statement of facts from my hon. Friend, consequently he cannot be expected to make an adequate reply upon these facts. All he can say to the House is that he is anxious to make inquiries.
  Mr. ELLIS-GRIFFITH: To-morrow he may be ready to do so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Before to-morrow it would be possible for Ministers to learn what has happened in the Debate, and for them then either to answer the case made by my hon. Friend or, if they cannot answer it, to say that the state of things which he has revealed to the House will not be allowed to continue, in other words, that the pledges, to which the Colonial Secretary himself was a party, will be completely carried out. But that is not all. There are many other questions the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) in his speech dealt with very large questions in regard to prices of food and the effect of shipping freights upon these food prices, and there are many Members who are interested in both aspects of these questions and who wish to put before the House and the country their views upon that very difficult and complicated problem. It is quite impossible at this hour of the morning for us to have an adequate discussion of these matters in the House, or to have the replies from Ministers which such important questions require. In these circumstances I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Motion which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend opposite. I think, in all the circumstances, the Government will be well advised to accept the Motion.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The House will not be surprised if I say that the Government cannot accept the Motion to adjourn the Debate which has been moved by my right hon. Friend opposite. I am sorry I did not hear the case made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), but I have been in the House the whole day, and it seems to me evident that there has been as ample time
  2636
  as has ever been taken on any other occasion for the discussion on the Adjournment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Two days, it is true, were asked for the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, but I think the best indication of the wish of the House was given on the Division on the Motion that the Eleven o'Clock Rule should be suspended. On that occasion only twenty-one Members took the view now expressed by the Members who have just spoken. There has been a very wide discussion, and I do not think that anyone who has been present in the House will question the accuracy of my statement that nobody has refrained from expressing his views upon the subjects that have been raised. We have been told that the subject of Ireland was not sufficiently discussed. I think if we may take the number of Members from Ireland who are here and compare them with the number who have actually spoken, it will be agreed that there has been ample opportunity for discussing that subject this afternoon. As to the other subject which the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) has referred to, that of food prices, no one will question the importance of it, but I do not see that anything would be gained by attempting to raise that discussion again to-morrow, and the House will not forget that a very large part of the speech of my right hon. Friend was taken up with that subject. I am quite sure that, so far as can be seen, there is no general desire on the part of hon. Members in the House, that the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House should be adjourned over another day, and I am prepared to say also that that seems to me rather unusual that at this stage of the Sitting there should be a kind of debate which is obviously not intended to shorten discussion. I hope, therefore, the House will not agree to the Motion.
  Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I would like to say that from 2.45 I have been patiently wasting here. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that I prolonged my speech, but I was so anxious about this question that I sat out the whole length of the Sitting. God knows, no one would be more pleased to go home than I, but I felt I could not, unless this was dealt with.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but I did hear a great many of the speeches, and I said that there had been no general desire to prolong the Debate.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I wish to support the Amendment, and to express my surprise at the remarks made by my right hon. Friend. He says there is no general desire to speak here, but you, Mr. Speaker, know that I desire to speak on a very important question—that of shipping freights as affecting the food of this country. My right hon. Friend said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee spoke on this subject at some length. True, he did, but a more misleading speech never was made in this House. I desire an opportunity of replying to the right hon. Member for Dundee. The question raised by the hon. Member for Derby is one which, as the House well knows, has occupied my attention, and on every occasion on which I have been able to do so I have addressed the House on the question of the effect on food of shipping freights. It is true that is a question which is only second to the War in the minds of the people of this country, and I think we ought to have some opportunity of discussing it at some length, and of disposing of the fallacies and the mistakes which the right hon. Member for Dundee made to-day, and also of dealing with the right hon. Gentleman, who, I maintain, is personally largely responsible for the increase of freights and the rise of prices of the food of this country. I may also remark that the President of the Board of Trade, whose prolonged absence from, this House for so long, was due to illness, has now returned, and I regret to learn that he was not well enough to be present in the House to-night. But, I hope, if the adjournment of the discussion is carried, that he may be here to-morrow, and may be able to give us some very important information as to his recent visit to Italy, and what arrangements he has made in Italy, in conection with the supply to Italy of merchant ships, which might have a direct effect upon prices in this country. Therefore, without prolonging the discussion, I strongly support my right hon. Friend, the Member for Swansea, and I do so in the hope that if the Amendment is carried, the President of the Board of Trade may be here to-morrow, and will lend us great and valuable aid in discussing this question of the food prices of the country.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I must say that I sympathise to some extent with the demand which has been made by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Mond). There is no doubt that there are questions which
  2638
  there is a desire to raise, which have not been raised this afternoon. I am sure my right hon. Friend, the Colonial Secretary, will admit that if there are genuine grievances which it is desired to bring before the House, we ought not to separate for seven weeks without an opportunity of doing so. He, himself, has not been in the House this afternoon at all.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Not during the Debate.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was sitting at the other end of the bench.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Oh, he was sitting at the other end of the bench. The right hon. Gentleman was not in his usual place. I am sorry if I was mistaken, and I withdraw. No one can say, with any truth, that there has been any obstruction this afternoon, any waste of time, or any desire to delay the ordinary business of the House. There is, of course, the consideration, and we cannot shut our eyes to it, that arrangements have been made by many hon. Members and people on the assumption that the House will adjourn to-morrow. We have two possibilities, I think, before us. One is to go on debating these questions for another few hours, and to have a very long Sitting. The other one is whether it is not possible to give a few hours tomorrow, consistent with the Adjournment to-morrow. The Colonial Secretary might perhaps consider whether it would not be possible to continue the discussion) tomorrow, if there were a general understanding by hon. Members, not to prolong the Debate then beyond three hours. [HON. MEMBEBS: Oh!] Well, three or four hours—[An HON. MEMBEB: Five!]—as long as the questions that are really desired to be discussed are discussed. No one wishes the House to sit longer than would be desirable.
  Mr. PRINGLE: A Friday sitting, and adjourn at five o'clock.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Member suggests a Friday's sitting to adjourn at five o'clock, but I think it would be desirable, if possible, that we should adjourn tomorrow. Personally, I see no difficulty in that course. I do not know that it is desirable to set to a very late hour now, and I do not know that we should go on sitting, because I think the possibilities are that if we had a Division the House

  2639
  would be compelled to sit to-morrow, and that the Government would have to consider what course they ought to adopt. I would suggest to the Colonial Secretary that if the House came to a general understanding with him that the Debate should not be prolonged to-morrow, that he should so arrange his Royal Commission to carry out the Adjournment, that it would be possible to-morrow to raise a few points. I think that that is desirable, and I urge the Government to accept that course as a fair way out of the difficulties that have arisen.
  Mr. KEATING: I rise to support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, and I am surprised at the attitude of the Government in saying that a certain amount of time is sufficient to deal with the subjects which interest private Members. I do not suppose that anybody in this House will accuse me of having any desire to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. I have only spoken once or twice for several years in this House, and therefore I think I am entitled to say that it is not fair to private Members for the Government to act so arbitrarily in regard to the time of the House. There are many questions affecting my Constituents which they expect me to deal with in the House. Like every other hon. Member I am entitled to bring them forward, and Ministers, in my judgment, are acting very unfairly to private Members by the somewhat Olympic tone which they adopt towards them in this House, simply because private Members do not assert themselves more often and as vigorously as they themselves did when they were private Members.
  There are many questions which ought to be discussed much more thoroughly than they have been discussed. We are adjourning the House for seven or eight weeks, and we shall not have any opportunity of ventilating the opinions of our Constituents—and not only the opinions but the feelings and interests of our Constituents, which is a very different thing from having a mere academic opinion about anything. The hon. Member for Derby has just raised a question in which I take the keenest interest, and I am very anxious indeed to have that subject discussed in all its bearings. It is, to me—I can hardly find Parliamentary words to express my indignation that this poor man has been treated by a company which, after all—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the Motion. The Motion is that the Debate be adjourned.
  Mr. KEATING: I am sorry, and I hope you will not think I am taking advantage of my position. I happened to go quite out of the ambit of the Debate for a moment. But there are many questions which I think ought to be discussed more thoroughly than they have been discussed, and I hope that to-morrow will be available for their discussion.
  The suggestion made is one, I think, which ought not to appeal to us. I think we ought to have as much time as ever we like to discuss these questions. The country expects it of us, and I say frankly that there is too much palavering going on in this House, complimenting each other, and ignoring what the country feels. The country feels very strongly on this question, and I say that I shall use every opportunity of which I can possibly avail myself to express my indignation at the way in which private Members are being treated in this House.
  Major HUNT: I should just like to remind the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Bonar Law) that the Prime Minister this afternoon, as I understood it, undertook that there should be a chance for everybody to speak who wanted to do so. I think that was the pledge he gave. Of course, we cannot read it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will see to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPOBT that, that is for all practical purposes the promise he did make. Therefore, I hope that whatever he does he will not cut people out who want to speak. I really cannot see why he objects to sitting to-morrow. The House is going to meet, and I cannot see any reason why we should not go on with this Debate. Evidently a good many Members wish to do so.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to add a few words in support of what has been said in respect to the Adjournment of the Debate. As I said at an earlier hour, it is done partly in the interest of the Ministers themselves. It is almost impossible for men so hard worked as they are physiologically to maintain their intellect—I repeat the term although it may excite laughter—their intellect, at the height that Parliamentary practice demands at the hour of half-past one o'clock. The deterioration is already visible in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. If he is remarkable for anything at

  2641
  all it is for a certain superficial air of sweet reasonableness, and an argumentative form of conducting debate which he derives, no doubt, from his Scottish descent. But in his speech there was nothing of sweet reasonableness whatever, nothing we could follow, but only a sort of Front Bench petulance which we find introduced too often into their discourses. There are several important questions of which we have hardly touched the fringe, and some are of the most vital character, involving the expenditure of millions of money and a lavish waste of oceans of blood. On the question of Ireland itself, although we have had certain speeches in the House, there has not been one which touched on what is to me a vital question, that is, the idea of a bold reconstruction in the future. If I wait here until ten o'clock to-morrow, or twenty-four hours, I mean once and for all to speak my mind with the utmost fulness, and the utmost frankness on this vital question. Perhaps the lateness is visible even in my own remarks. If I had been speaking at six o'clock in the evening I might have spoken with a certain degree of restraint and prudence. That is a virtue which is held in very high esteem in this House, perhaps in too great esteem. My experience in reading history is that I have seen the shores of empires strewn with the wreckage of your prudent man.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the only question now to be discussed is the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. LYNCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I am giving reasons for adjourning the Debate to-morrow because I say, however unpalatable it may be to Members of the House, that the brains of the men now listening to me on the Front Bench are not at that high degree of efficiency which we have a right to expect from the leaders of this nation, and since I do not wish to weigh too heavily against the character for intellect which they enjoy in the country I attribute it to the late hour of this Debate, and it is a most forcible argument for an adjournment until we can discuss these matters in daylight. If we take an example from France, we find that although they expedite business as thoroughly as is done here, and often arrive at much more sage conclusions—they have shown in the whole conduct of public business during the War a far higher degree of efficiency in organising—
  2642
  most of their debates are conducted within the hours of four and eight o'clock p.m. Owing to the necessity of finishing within a reasonable hour, while their brains are still active and receptive, they have developed a system of committees which has been recommended here, and so they save what I will call this disgraceful procedure, and save respectable men from staying up at late hours of the evening. I mean to have my say. Not long ago, while the evening was still young, but still after twelve o'clock, I think I listened to a speaker on the Front Bench, beating the Table by way of emphasis—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the subject.
  Mr. LYNCH: I will say this, Mr. Speaker, in explanation, that the argument I was going to use was that one of the Members of the Government himself was carried away by a lack of restraint to use language which he would not have used if he had spoken before twelve o'clock, and that action was an enforcement of the argument that I had already put forward. Words like "miserable twaddle," and so forth, ought not to be applied to the Members of this House. To return to the point we are discussing, I would say that there was still a great number of highly important questions, questions which at any other period would have had a full day expended on each, and would be regarded by the whole country as of vital importance, which we have not reached in this Debate, which will be debated, and which certainly cannot be debated adequately if the debate on them is begun after half-past one. All these arguments are so forcible that the Government must have had some reason which they have hidden from us hitherto for withholding their consent from this very reasonable proposition. We have heard one Minister already defending the action of the Government in Ireland in prohibiting the free criticism of the Government by the public press, and one would think that there best refuge in this House was to close the Debate as rapidly as possible lest any reasonable criticism should be such as to depress the country, and encourage their enemies. I do not know if anyone else will speak in conclusion, but I would advise them at this late hour to revise their judgment, not to take a mere non-possumus attitude, but to consult what really is the temper of the House; not to

  2643
  be content with a victory, if there is a victory, in the Division Lobbies, but to note that private Members, who for a year past, have been deprived of their rights in this House, have reached a point where they will refuse to be dictated to by Members of the Government in regard to the conduct of debate.
  Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: I wish to say only a few words in support of the action of the Government. I have been a good many years in this House now, and I have assisted at this annual performance several times. It follows this stereotyped procedure almost annually. At about one o'clock in the morning, when we discuss a certain number of subjects, some Member gets up and tries to disarrange the whole arrangements of the House, and suggests an adjournment, wasting five-and-thirty to forty minutes, and perhaps three-quarters-of-an-hour. That is because we have forgotten what the object of the Adjournement and the Debate on the Adjournment Motion is. It is not to afford every private Member or anybody else the opportunity of raising every single question. At all events, when there are a great number of questions which everybody knows are to be debated it seems to me no Member pays any regard whatever to the rights of any other Member except himself. Very long speeches indeed have been made in this Debate. A long speech was made by the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and it does seem to me if we have got, as we have got, a good many subjects that ought to be discussed Members ought to have some regard one for another and not prolong their remarks unduly. Care should be taken, also, that not more than two or three Members speak on one subject, so that other subjects may be discussed and answered properly with reasonable regard to the convenience of the rest of the House and the rights of other people.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With the indulgence of the House, I should like to say a few words now as to what has been said. I was not in the least shocked by the observation of the hon. Gentleman opposite that whatever little intellect I had has disappeared at this hour, but I would like, if I could, to preserve the reputation which it is said I enjoy of trying to be reasonable. That I certainly wish to be. I may say further, that so far as
  2644
  my experience of the House goes I have never found the Government or anybody else refusing to meet as far as they could the wishes of those who were present in the House. The House must see, however, how difficult it was to agree to the proposal. Nearly all Members of the House have made arrangements to go away to-morrow, and it was very difficult for us to feel sure that the necessary business could be done. But I am prepared to make a proposal which I believe will find acceptance—at least I hope so—to the Members of the House now. It is to adopt the suggestion made by the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) that if the House is willing now to give the Government this Motion—"That the House at its rising to-day do adjourn until Tuesday the 10th October"—if they will give us that Motion now then to-day after the interval between the Government Orders someone from this Bench will move that the House be adjourned. It will then be possible to go on discussing that Motion till five o'clock.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long he will give us before five o'clock.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: From twelve o'clock.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Yes, but on the Debate.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know there will be nothing to occupy any length of time before the Debate begins. There are forty questions I think, and the Lords Amendments will not take many minutes. The rest of the time will be available. I think that is meeting the House very fairly and I hope they will agree to it.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As a matter of form I think it will be necessary to withdraw the Motion which is now before the House and substitute the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir A. MOND: In order to facilitate matters I will withdraw my Motion.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I would just like on behalf of some of my friends here who are anxious to speak now to say that they will be perfectly satisfied if they have an opportunity of speaking when we resume to-day. I do not know what the junior Ministers of the Government are getting excited about. I am dealing with the Colonial Secretary. Some of my friends are anxious to put forward certain matters dealing with Ireland. They intended to

  2645
  do so at this Sitting, and they cannot agree to this Motion unless they have an understanding that they will have an opportunity of doing so when the House meets again to-day. There are Lords Amendments to the War Charities Bill in connection with its application to Ireland. They may take some time to discuss. I think in view of the arrangement now proposed my hon. Friends are entitled to that assurance and to know that they will not be automatically cut out of the Debate when we resume.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, it is impossible for me to say who will be called during the Debate. I have never so far in this House, if an arrangement has been agreed to by those who have a Motion of this kind, known it not to be carried out. If the hon. Gentleman opposite is prepared to fall in with it and to agree that the House shall rise at five o'clock I shall be very glad indeed to see the proposal I make carried out. I think he himself must feel that in making that proposal I have met the House fairly, and that they will have the same chance as anybody else of bringing their matters forward. But unless there is general agreement that the proposal would be carried out there is no reason for making my suggestion. I hope therefore the hon. Gentleman will not persist, because unless there is agreement we cannot go on. I am sure he will agree himself that the proposal I make is a fair one.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if the Irish question is to be taken when the House meets again, whether it might not be possible to discuss the question of food, which is very important.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible for me to say anything on that. As I have already said, all I can do is to arrange for a certain time during which the House shall sit.
  Mr. LUNDON: I was one of those who was most anxious to speak upon the position in Ireland. I am in an even more difficult position than any of my colleagues because I want to make an explanation as to an incident that occurred yesterday. I think, if I am allowed to make that explanation, I will at least hear from over my head any opinions Members may hold as to General Sir John Maxwell. You may allow me, Sir, to say what I wish to say.
  2646
  I wrote you a letter asking if it would be possible for you to allow me to speak so as to deal with the question which I raised yesterday, and to apologise to the House for the statement which I made with regard to Sir John Maxwell, and also to explain the reason why I was dragged into making such an indictment against him. I insist, if I have to remain here during these Debates—I do not care how long they are—that I shall have my say. If the Colonial Secretary does not agree that Members for Ireland shall be allowed to speak on the Irish question, I shall go into the Division Lobby against him. Other Members from Ireland have spoken—they have given their ideas. My ideas are different from many of theirs, and I am as much entitled to be allowed to express them as they are to express theirs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: May I say that the reason I was not able to call upon the hon. Member—as I should gladly have done—was that I was under an obligation to the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing) to call him next. It was impossible for me to break that arrangement; otherwise I should certainly have called the hon. Member.
  Mr. MORRELL: Before the Motion is withdrawn, may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there will be any real objection to the suspension of the Five o'clock Rule to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no Five o'Clock Rule.
  Mr. MORRELL: All I want to know is whether that is certain, and whether, under this proposed arrangement, persons like myself, who have waited here for ten hours in the hope of raising a subject which we believe to be important, should not be shut out to-morrow by the operation of the machinery of the Five o'Clock Rule, but that we may have an opportunity of raising subjects which we consider important. I would point out that if the House goes on now there is no doubt that we shall get in, and I want to know is that we shall not be in, a worse position by assenting to this proposal.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If we sit tomorrow at twelve o'clock, are we to understand that there is a Five o'Clock Rule, or are we to understand by this arrangement that it is only intended that somewhere about five o'clock the House will adjourn?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We shall not be meeting under rules which govern Friday Sittings, and therefore time is unlimited.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: As matters stand at present, we shall virtually be under an obligation to cease speaking at five o'clock to-morrow, because the bargain which is being made will cut out anybody, and put in an invidious position anybody, who endeavours to speak after five o'clock. I am in the same position as my hon. Friend beside me. I have been waiting some ten hours to speak, and I have not risen because I thought there was no likelihood of my being called upon. I do not want, after waiting all this time, to run the risk of not being called. I am anxious to know whether there would be an obligation to cease speaking at five o'clock, if this arrangement is made.
  Motion, "That the Debate be now Adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That this House, at its rising to-day (Wednesday) do adjourn until Tuesday, 10th October."
  Mr. HAZLETON: Does that mean that we shall meet at Twelve o'clock to-day?
  Mr. GULLAND: Yes.
  Mr. KING: On a Point of Order. Can that Motion be moved without notice on the Order Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is practically an Amendment of the Motion that is on the Paper.
  Mr. KING: But the original Motion has been withdrawn. Can this Motion be moved at present, without being on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is practically an Amendment of the Motion which has been on the Order Paper for many hours.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day (Wednesday) do adjourn until 10th October.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Resolved, That this House do meet this day (Wednesday) at Twelve of the clock.—[Mr. honor Law.]

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 22nd August; Mr. McKinnon Wood]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 122.]
  It being after half past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Thirteen minutes before Two a.m., Wednesday, 23rd August

WAR.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PROMOTION).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PROMOTION).
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
  SMALL INVESTORS (LOANS TO GOVERNMENT).
  SMALL INVESTORS (LOANS TO GOVERNMENT).
  WORKMEN'S TOOLS (INCOME TAX ALLOWANCE).
  WORKMEN'S TOOLS (INCOME TAX ALLOWANCE).
  WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS.
  WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS.
  CIVIL SERVICE ASSISTANT CLERKS (WAR BONUS).
  CIVIL SERVICE ASSISTANT CLERKS (WAR BONUS).
  MARTIAL LAW (IRELAND).
  MARTIAL LAW (IRELAND).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  CHARGES AGAINST PRISONERS?
  CHARGES AGAINST PRISONERS?
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE (WAGES).
  AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE (WAGES).
  CARRYING ARMS, IRELAND (COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE).
  CARRYING ARMS, IRELAND (COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE).
NAYAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (PUBCHASE or TAXI-CADS).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (PUBCHASE or TAXI-CADS).
MUNITIONS.
  USE OF TINTLATES (RESTRICTIONS).
  USE OF TINTLATES (RESTRICTIONS).
  INTERNMENT OF ALIENS AND NATURALISED PERSONS.
  INTERNMENT OF ALIENS AND NATURALISED PERSONS.
  SUMMER TIME ACT.
  SUMMER TIME ACT.
  ENEMY ALIENS (MOTOR CARS).
  ENEMY ALIENS (MOTOR CARS).
  HOP IMPORTS.
  HOP IMPORTS.
  WAR AND PRE-WAR PRICES
  WAR AND PRE-WAR PRICES
  THURSO POST OFFICE.
  THURSO POST OFFICE.
  EXPORTS AND-IMPORTS (RESTRICTION).
  EXPORTS AND-IMPORTS (RESTRICTION).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.