Sitting of 23 August 1916

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION.
Copy presented of Twelfth Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is prepared to accept as a general principle that it is not advisable while we are at war with Germany to employ in countries adjoining Germany Consular officers who are of German descent and are closely connected with enemy subjects, and who, therefore, may reasonably be supposed to be more liable to German influence than other British subjects who have not such associations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I have nothing to add to my answer on this subject yesterday except that I am now in a position to say that Mr. Holzapfel voluntarily resigned his position on hearing of the criticism raised about his appointment. His Majesty's Government desire to express their appreciation of Mr. Holzapfel's conduct in taking this course.

    CIVILIAN PRISONERS (EXCHANGE).
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has yet been come to with Germany as to the exchange of interned
    2650
    civilian prisoners; and, if not, will he now consider the advisability of agreeing with Germany to send back the 26,000 interned civilian enemy aliens now in this country in exchange for the 4,000 British and Irish civilian prisoners in Germany and Austria?
    Lord R. CECIL: We are still awaiting the reply of the German Government to our Note of 9th August, the general tenour of which was stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 10th August. We think that the most pressing and practicable matter for the moment is to secure the repatriation of British and German civilians over forty-five.

    ARMENIA.
    Mr. BIRDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Report on the Turkish atrocities in Armenia has been written by Lord Bryce; and, if so, whether it will be laid before Parliament?
    Lord R. CECIL: A valuable Report, consisting chiefly of a collection of documentary evidence, has been prepared at the suggestion of Lord Bryce by Mr. Arnold Toynbee, and will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether a conscientious objector, D. G. Lindsay, is now undergoing two years' imprisonment at Wandsworth prison; and whether he will be able to put his case before the Central Tribunal?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): There is no conscientious objector of the name mentioned by the hon. Member at Wandsworth prison, but wherever he may be situated he will be dealt with under the scheme announced by the Prime Minister as the case is one which presumably has been dealt with by Army Order No. X. of the 25th May.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this conscientious objector entered as an ordinary prisoner, and that there are some very remarkable facts in connection with this case? Will the hon. Gentleman look into it?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. As far as I know, I am not aware that there is anything in the point which my hon. Friend suggests, but I will make inquiry.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will take steps to see that ministering elders, i.e.ministers, of the International Bible Students' Association, who are bonâ fide conscientious objectors, shall be exempted from military service; and, in particular, if he will inquire into the case of Henry Percival Peart, a ministering elder of the association, who appeared before the Bishop Auckland tribunal on 10th March and was given absolute exemption; and whether he is aware that on the appeal of the military representative at the Durham County Appeal Tribunal on 30th March this was altered to E. C. S., and that, as Peart was unable to accept the exemption, he is now incarcerated in Newcastle Gaol?
    Mr. FORSTER: Members or elders of this association who are bonâ-fide conscientious objectors have the same rights as other conscientious objectors, and I do not understand the suggestion that the War Office should take steps as to their exemption since exemptions on conscientious grounds are matters for the tribunals. I will inquire into the case of Peart, if the hon. Member will forward me his regiment and number.

    MIGRATORY LABOURERS FROM IRELAND.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether three young men, Patrick M'Nelis, Bullard, Glencolumbkille, John Stromlin, and M'Guinness, of Largy, Kellybegs, who came over to Scotland as temporary harvest labourers but who reside permanently in Ireland, have been served with notices to join the Colours under the Military Service Acts, on the ground of having filled registration forms in Scotland in the year before the introduction of compulsory military service; if so, whether immediate steps will be taken for the withdrawal of such notices and for the protection of these young men from further illegal action by the military authorities; and (2) whether his attention has been directed to the fact that three young men, migratory labourers, permanently resident in Ireland, namely, Patrick M'Nelis, of Bullard, Glencolumbkille, living in the Gtenoolumbkille police district, John Stromlin, and M'Guinness, of Largy,
    2652
    Killybegs, living in the Killybegs police district, who filled registration forms in Scotland last year before the institution of compulsory military service but who did not reside in Scotland after the harvest period, have been threatened with arrest by the police if they do not join the Colours under the Military Service Act; and whether immediate steps will be taken to secure from police or military molestation these temporary harvest labourers, who do not come, as she War Office has admitted, within the provision of the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will inquire about these men. General instructions are being issued which will, I hope, remove this difficulty.
    Mr. DORISasked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet completed his promised inquiries into the cases of Thomas M'Hale, Michael Nolan, and John Battle, Irish migratory labourers, who, although never ordinarily resident in Great Britain, were forced into the Army by the military authorities in England; whether these men or any of them have since been offered their discharge from the Army; and, if not, can he state upon what grounds they are detained against their will?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiries into these cases have been completed. It has been ascertained that all three men were brought before Civil Courts for the question of their liability for service under the Military Service Acts to be decided, as provided in Section 1 (2) (a)of the principal Act. In each case the Civil Court decided that there was liability to serve.

    UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to complaints made as to the conduct of the Mill Hill Army Medical Board in passing unfit men for military service; and whether any inspection of the work of this board by a competent medical authority has taken place or will be arranged?
    Mr. FORSTER: The only complaint which has reached me, as far as I can remember, was the complaint made by the hon. Member for Haggerston during the Debate yesterday, and I am inquiring into that. In the opinion of the Command, this board is doing its work well. It has been inspected lately, and this is the opinion of the inspector.
    Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to renewed com plaints made by the Weybridge Tribunal as to the passing of unfit men for military service by the Guildford Army Medical Board; and whether, in view of the fact that the War Office has already had to call the attention of this board to a com plaint of this nature, he proposes to take any further action to secure that only fit men are passed for military service?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have received no complaints and am not aware that the attention of this Board has been called to any shortcomings.

    FARM WORKERS.
    Captain BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that several thousands of regular farm workers have been exempted from military service by local and Appeal Tribunals until the end of the corn harvest or Michaelmas Day, but not afterwards; and whether, in view of the apprehension entertained by farmers throughout the country as to the possibility of ploughing and cultivating their arable land in the forthcoming autumn after their farm servants usually so employed have joined the Colours, and the threatened consequent reduction of the area sown with wheat and winter oats, he will give instructions to the tribunals to permit a further extension of time in the case of farm workers until after autumn cultivations and sowings have been completed, in all cases where it can be shown that this work cannot reason ably be carried through in their absence?
    Mr. FORSTER: The gravity of the situation is appreciated. Instructions have already been issued to tribunals with regard to it, but I will see if further instructions are necessary?
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will the same instructions be issued with regard to migratory labourers from Ireland who come here to do harvest work?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; they come under a different class of instructions, which are being issued with regard to them.
    Captain BATHURST: Do I understand that those instructions will be issued forthwith, as the matter is very urgent?
    Mr. FORSTER: What I said was that instructions have already been issued in regard to it, but I will look into the point
    2654
    to see if further instructions ought to be issued, and, if so, they will be issued as soon as possible.
    Captain BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, although these instructions may have beer issued, the Appeal Tribunals in many cases have certainly not been acting on those instructions?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is one of the things I want to look into.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (LEAVE).
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, while privates and non-commissioned officers belonging to the regiments in cluded in the Southern Command are usually given six days' leave after twelve weeks' training before leaving England for service overseas, officers under the same command before leaving for service overseas are usually refused more than three days' leave; whether there is any reason why officers in the Southern Command should not receive the usual six days' Expeditionary Force leave; and, if not, will he give instructions that where possible six days' leave should be granted?
    Mr. FORSTER: No definite leave period has been fixed for officers prior to embarkation, and it is not considered desirable to issue further instructions on the subject, I understand that no applications from officers for leave exceeding three days have been refused in the Southern Command.

    DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S REGIMENT.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to complaints made by men of the 2/7th Duke of Wellington's Regiment stationed at Wangford, in Suffolk, against the colonel in command, one of which complaints is that he caused a number of men who had fallen out of the ranks during a route march by reason of exhaustion and sore feet to be drawn up on the parade ground in the centre of the whole battalion in order that he might tell them publicly that they had no guts in them and that he wished that the other men would take the matter in their own hands and punish them, as they were slackers; and whether he will have investigations made concerning the complaints against the officer referred to?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but if my hon. Friend has private information from reliable sources I should be glad to be placed in possession of it.

    ZIONIST MULE CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information concerning the Zionist Mule Corps which has been revived in Egypt under the command of Captain Trumpeldor; and whether Russian Jews now in this country can volunteer for this unit?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret I have no information on this subject.
    Mr. KING: As somewhat important events are likely to arise in the next few weeks, will this information be asked for from Egypt?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will see about it.

    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Joseph Whelan, an employé of the London and North Western Railway Company, was exempted from military service on the application of his employers; that he has been called up by the recruiting officer at Finsbury Park without the consent of his employers; and what step will he take in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. KEATING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this man was called upon by the military recruiting officer on a Thursday, and that he was immediately sent away to his regiment, and is he also aware that fourteen days' notice is required, and that the Regulations seem to have been infringed in this case?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I am not aware of that, but I will make inquiry into the circumstances.

    WOUNDED OFFICERS
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that captains while in command of a company lese their third star if they are wounded and sent home; whether he is aware that there is very general discontent with an
    2656
    arrangement whereby an officer is a captain while fitted for active service, but if wounded on active service and sent home is deprived of captain's rank and pay and reduced to the rank and pay of a lieutenant and must, on returning to duty, take his chance of being promoted again; whether a captain, while in command of a company of the Special Brigade Royal Engineers, holds his rank on these conditions, although in this brigade there is only one captain to a full company, who frequently, with Infantry help, has as many as 1,600 men in his charge; and whether steps will be taken to rectify this state of affairs by making captains in command of companies in all cases temporary captains without liability, through no fault of their own, to revert to the rank of temporary lieutenants?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not quite clear as to the points to which the hon. and learned Member refers, but I will inquire into them and will communicate with him. Perhaps he would furnish me with particulars if he has any specific case in mind.

    PRESBYTERIAN TROOPS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary of State for War what are the present arrangements for divine service on Sundays for the Presbyterian troops stationed in Ripon?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries about the most recent arrangements and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    AUSTRALIAN COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the announcement of the Minister of Defence, Australia, that the proceedings of the Australian courts-martial abroad will in future be reviewed by a committee appointed in Australia with power to recommend remissions; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of giving British soldiers enlisted at Home the same security against the possible miscarriage of justice whilst they are on active service?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of any such statement having been made by the Minister of Defence, Australia, but presume it relates to Australian soldiers who have returned to Australia to undergo sentence, and thus have passed out of the jurisdiction of the British military authorities. With regard to the latter part of the

    2657
    question, the proceedings of courts-martial, whether at home or abroad, are reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General, London, and, if considered desirable, are submitted by him to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. This is additional to a series of most careful reviews by the various intermediary authorities through whom the proceedings pass.

    ATTESTATIONS.
    Major HUNTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether about 1,000 men who had gone to enlist at a town in Lancashire were sent to the South of Ireland to be attested there; and, if so, whether this was done from motives of economy or for any other particular reason?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no information about this case, but am making inquiries and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result.

    ARRESTED BBICKLAYER.
    Mr. HACKETTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether John Doran, of Thurles, county Tipperary, Ireland, a bricklayer by trade, was arrested in Glasgow on the 18th ultimo and compelled to join the Army; is he aware that this man only came over from Ireland to do some temporary work on the invitation of the Board of Trade officials; and will steps be taken to have him released immediately, and thus carry out the purport and intentions of the Military Service Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): I have just received a letter from my hon. Friend giving some particulars about this case. I am making further inquiries, and if it should appear that my hon. Friend has been correctly informed as to the facts I shall make a representation in the case to the War Office.

    FRIENDLY ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary what is the position of a young man of military age, born in Holland and residing there until shortly before August, 1914, who came to England in 1914 with other Belgian refugees and is registered as such; whether, having been born in Holland and having resided nearly all his life there, he is regarded as a Dutchman; and, if not, whether he is able to join the Russian, Belgian, or British Army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I regret that I cannot answer this hypothetical question. The answer would depend on the man's nationality, which, again, would depend on the nationality of his father and other circumstances not mentioned in the question.
    Mr. KING: If he has no nationality, what can he do? There are many people in this country who either have no nationality or do not know what their nationality is.

    TROOPS IN EGYPT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the number of men in Egypt suffering from eye trouble aggravated by the glare of the sun; and what is the reason they are not sent home or transferred to France?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this matter.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state if firms who supply artificial limbs for soldiers persuade the soldiers or their friends to buy what the firms call superior articles or to pay extra for having the Government ones improved?
    Mr. FORSTER: I directed inquiries to be made, but the result has not yet reached me.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether in any part of the country the Volunteer Force has been employed in guarding German prisoners of war; whether they have been so employed at Alexandra Palace; if not, whether he will consider the advisability of so employing them; whether the Volunteers give their service for similar work without payment; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the saving of money to be effected by employing Volunteers on work of this character?
    Mr. FORSTER: No Volunteers have been employed as guards for prisoners of

    2659
    war hitherto. The suggestion of employing them at Alexandra Palace will be considered.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of application for relief have been made to the Civil Liabilities Committee; how many cases have been decided; how many soldiers have been granted relief; and what is the total annual amount of the relief hitherto granted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Up to the 12th of August 68,121 applications bad been received by the Commissioners appointed by the Committee. Forty-one thousand three hundred and twenty-four of these applications had, on the 19th August, been dealt with by the Commissioners and their recommendations forwarded to the Committee. Of these cases 36,983 have been decided, and grants have been determined in 21,688 soldier cases. The total grants decided up to Saturday last represent an annual payment of £395,451.
    Mr. KING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any large proportion of these applications are actually refused, and decided in a negative or adverse sense?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should say a fair proportion.
    Mr. KING: Can any particulars be given?

    DISCONTINUANCE OF PENSION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider revoking paragraph 3 of the Command Paper which discontinues an Army pension on the grant of an old age pension; whether he is aware that this rule works very harshly; and whether old people of seventy and over will be awarded both as they are for entirely dif ferent purposes?
    Mr. FORSTER: As my hon. Friend is aware, this rule was very carefully considered, and I fear I cannot undertake that it will be revoked.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that all old age pensioners are entitled
    2660
    during the War to go to work, and not have that considered, so that they will not lose their five shillings? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that point?

    PENSIONEES EABNING WAGES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, when a pension is revised at Chelsea, the recipient is asked what wages he is earning and is informed that failure to reply will result in forfeiture of pension; why on revision the earning capacity is not considered; whether he is aware that many pensioners are only employed on account of the patriotic action of employers and because in many eases they cannot at the moment secure able-bodied men; and whether he proposes to introduce a fairer and better system?
    Mr. FORSTER: The pension is based upon earning capacity, not on earnings only. The man is asked about his earnings so that his actual position may be in view, but I am aware of the goodwill which is reflected in the amount of wages paid to disabled soldiers in many cases. The present system, as my hon. Friend is aware, is in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House to which these questions were referred.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the Report of the Select Committee consulted as to the basis of the pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is their direct representation.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Where there is a case of the reduction of the wages of an ex-soldier or sailor, is he at liberty to apply for a revision?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is nothing to prevent a pensioner applying for a revision of his pension at any time, but naturally he would not do so unless he had good grounds for asking for a revision. The mere fact of a reduction in wages would not be a good ground on which to make application, but if there is anything in the nature of his physical condition being affected, or increased disability, or anything of that kind, it would be very carefully considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why ask a soldier when his pension is being revised what are his earnings?
    Mr. FORSTER: We want to know exactly what he is earning.

    CHELSEA COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will ask the Paymaster-General to make a special Report to the House after the Recess of the administration of pensions by the Chelsea Commissioners; and (2) whether, with a view to giving the House of Commons more direct control over the administration of pensions by Chelsea, he can arrange for the Paymaster-General to answer questions in the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are certain administrative difficulties in the way of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will see if it is possible to overcome them.

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOUNDED SOLDIERS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether nearly 100 wounded men have been employed at Lemington Bond Stores loading heavy shells, for which they receive 1d. per hour additional to their pay; whether these men have had to sleep on the floor at New-burn Drill Hall with only blankets; and whether, seeing that these men have been wounded, better arrangements will be made?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no knowledge of this case, but I will have inquiry made.

    NEWSPAPER POSTAGE RATES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Messrs. John Menzies and Company, Limited, Edinburgh, are the only agents in Edinburgh who have a newspaper permit and that they are charging a fee on each newspaper sent to them by other newsagents of 1d. for forwarding; and whether this has the sanction of the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is, I believe, in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that the fee stated is charged where the book or paper is not purchased through the firm to cover cost of stationery and extra staff. As regards the last part, War Office sanction is not required and
    2662
    it is not a matter for their intervention. It is open to other firms to make different arrangements if the amount of their business warrants it and if they think it would be to their advantage.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the newsagents who do not receive this licence send their newspapers stamped to this firm, who have received a licence, and that on the top of that they are charged a 1d. extra?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is clearly not in accordance with the information furnished me, and, if my hon. Friend wishes, I will make further inquiry.

    SOLDIERS' PAY (HONG KONG).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what rate of pay a gunner in the Royal Garrison Artillery who volunteered for the present War and is now serving in Hong Kong is en titled to receive; if it is subject to deductions other than for separation allowance and National Insurance benefit; and, if so, whether he will give particulars of such deductions?
    Mr. FORSTER: One shilling and two-pence halfpenny a day as pay and three-pence as messing allowance, in addition to free rations. He is subject to a stoppage for the cost of messing. The actual amount is not known.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that soldiers serving in Hong Kong have in effect suffered a reduction of pay by reason of the fact that the dollar currency by means of which they are compelled to make their purchases in Hong Kong has appreciated considerably as compared with British money, by which latter their pay is presumably measured; and whether, having regard to the inadequacy of the pay which non-commissioned officers and men receive, he will see that they do not lose by reason of the rate of exchange between British money and the money circulating in Hong Kong?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question has been carefully examined. It is not considered that the appreciation of the dollar is sufficient to call for any special action at present.

    CURRENCY NOTES (NEW ISSUE).
    Mr. BIRDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Government have been contemplating the production of £1 and 10s. notes by a process hitherto never applied to currency notes though often employed in Germany for postcards; whether experimental work is causing the delay in the issue of the new notes; whether he can name a date when the new notes will be ready for circulation; and (2) whether he is aware that the experience of the majority of countries where notes are in general use shows that the best protection against forgery is the use of intaglio notes with protected typographical printing; and, if so, will he take into consideration the use of such notes?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The question of the production of the proposed new currency note is engaging constant attention, and I have the assistance of the best expert advice available. I do not think it is possible to discuss the technical points raised by my hon. Friend by way of question and answer.
    Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the French Minister of Finance, who has had very great experience of the issue of currency notes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will take the first opportunity I can to discuss the matter with him.

    BRITISH LOAN (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information concerning the launching of a new loan in America?
    Mr. McKENNA: Arrangements have been completed for the issue through Messrs. J. P. Morgan, of New York, of $250,000,000 British Government 5 per cent, two year notes at 99. The issue will be secured by the deposit with trustees of American securities, Canadian Government and Government Guarantee securities, and Neutral Government securities in equal proportions to the total market value of $300,000,000. The issue has been underwritten at 1 per cent.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much the Morgan house has made out of this War—how many millions?
    Mr. KING: Will there be anything in the way of commission besides the underwriting?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have given all the particulars I am in a position to give to my hon. Friend.

    CHEESE-MAKING.
    Captain BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the price of rennet for cheese-making is six times that obtaining prior to the War, is still rising, and is threatening to restrict the production of cheese in Cheshire, Wiltshire, and elsewhere; and whether the Board is taking any steps to acquaint cheese-makers with the value of possible substitutes and where they can be obtained?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The Board are aware that there has been a very considerable rise in the price of rennet, but, as it is still quite a small item in the cost of cheese-making, farmers do not, I think, make it the determining factor in deciding whether to make cheese or not. The Board have taken steps to increase the importation of rennet, and have issued advice as to the preparation of home-made rennet in this month's "Journal." The question of substitutes is under examination, but at present the Board do not think it desirable to advise the use of any of them.

    MILKING MACHINES (PETROL SUPPLY).
    Captain BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that in the Midlands and in the South of England there is a tendency on the part of dairy farmers to dispose of their herds of milch cattle owing to the existing or anticipated shortage of milkers or owing to their reduced allowance of petrol for running a milking machine; and what steps the Board is taking in this matter in order to avoid a scarcity of milk during next winter?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board are aware of a tendency to dispose or to threaten to dispose of dairy herds for fear of shortage of labour, and some instances have

    2665
    occurred, but not at present to such a degree as to justify fears of a severe shortage of milk during next winter. The Board will continue to endeavour to help dairymen to retain their indispensable workers. Farmers should do their very best to obtain and train women for milking work, for I think it will pay them to maintain their milking herds, and it is certainly right to do so in the interest of the country.

    OFFICE OF WORKS (SUNDAY LABOUR).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the staff men at the Office of Works are entitled to receive double pay for Sunday work; and if he is aware that a number of men under the control of the Office of Works receive double pay when called upon to work on Sunday?
    Mr. REA (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner does not exactly apprehend the meaning of this question, but if the hon. Member will explain it further my right hon. Friend will send him a full answer.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Beard if he can state how many old age pensioners forfeited their pensions because they were obliged to seek Poor Law relief from January, 1915, to July, 1916; and whether in all such cases the board of guardians will be permitted to supplement an old age pension without disqualifying the pensioner?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid the figures asked for in the former part of the question are not available; as regards the latter part, a person is disqualified under the provisions of Section 31 (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, from receiving an old age pension while he is in receipt of Poor Relief (other than relief there excepted).
    Mr. THORNE: How is it that no figures can be given about those who have forfeited their pension in consequence of the tremendous rise of food prices? I think it was announced in the papers the other day that the London County Council had something approaching 2,000.

    NERVE-SHATTERED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Statutory Committee on Disablement has given consideration to the necessity of providing in civilian life for the welfare of soldiers who have been discharged in numbers from the Army and who, though not certifiable, have not yet fully recovered from the effects of severe nerve strain due to the War; and whether, seeing that it is illegal to place such men under detention without formal certification, he will undertake that the convalescent homes contemplated by the Disablement Committee shall be free from any form of detention as well as from military control?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin on the 10th August and to the hon. Member for Galway on the 17th August. The Statutory Committee have no powers of detention.

    CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the concessions recently granted to Customs watchers will not benefit any of these men in the Port of London beyond 1s. per week, that many of the London watchers will have to wait nearly three years before they receive any increase of pay, and that the out-port watchers will receive an immediate increase ranging from 3s. to 5s. a week; is he aware that Section XII. of the Report of the Committee on the Customs Waterguard Service did not have any connection with the watchers' claims, but refers to the claims for London port allowance put forward by the established waterguard officers who are employed on entirely different conditions as regards pay, promotion, and pension, and that paragraph (6) of Section XVI. of this Report refuses to the out-port watchers their request for the London scale of pay; and, in view of the recent Report of the Board of Trade that the food-purchasing power of £1 has been reduced to 12s. 1d. as compared with August, 1914, if he will reconsider the granting to London watchers an increase of pay equivalent to that given to the out-port watchers to meet the high

    2667
    rents and travelling expenses in London and this further increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the facts stated in the first and second parts of the question, subject to the corrections that the immediate increase granted to the out-port watchers is 1s. to 4s. (not 3s. to 6s.) a week, and that Section XVI. (6) of the Report of the Customs Waterguard Committee expresses the view that "the conditions of service at Tilbury and Graves-end do not appear to differ from those prevailing at the out-ports generally," and contains no reference to the question of granting to out-port watchers generally the London scale of pay. With regard to the last part of the question, I fear that I can at present add nothing to my previous replies on the subject, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of granting a war bonus to the lower-paid classes of Civil servants is under consideration.

    NEW TONNAGE (NEUTRAL POWERS).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that three large steamers are being built in this country for a private firm in a neutral country with starred labour; and whether, although the British Government can requisition these ships during the War, he can say whether the Government would have to give these ships back to the neutral owners at the end of the War?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that two shipbuilding firms have contracted to build three large steamers for a private firm in a neutral country with starred labour; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The building of the steamers mentioned in the questions was allowed to proceed only on the express condition that no guarantee could be given that the vessels would ultimately be delivered to foreign owners, and the question whether they can be so delivered is now being considered by the Board of Trade and the Admiralty.
    Mr. THORNE: When the ships are completed, will the Government see that they are only used for our own particular trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is one of the conditions that will probably be made.
    Major HUNT: Are we to understand from the answer that it is not now certain that the ships made by starred labour will be able to be kept for this country at the end of the War—is that what the answer meant?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not certain that they will be kept for this country or that it will be desirable to keep them for this country at the end of the War.
    Major HUNT: Can you keep them if you want to keep them?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We can now make conditions which will enable us to keep them. That is what we have to consider, whether we think it is necessary to make those conditions or not. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have to consider neutrals, the trade of the world, and the shipbuilding trade of this country after the War, as well as our immediate interests during the War and after the War. The question is not so simple as it may appear.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman see when they are completed that we get a guarantee from the shipowners that they are not going to be used by neutrals?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If they belong to neutral owners they will in that sense be used by neutrals, but the condition can be made, at any rate during the War, that they shall be used solely in the interests of Great Britain and for trade which is approved by us.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it to be understood that starred labour of this country is to be used for the purpose, of building ships to supply neutral countries?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already explained to my hon. Friends our own ends are concerned with a very considerable period and not only with the immediate interests during the War, but shipbuilding facilities and the interests of this country in building ships not only for ourselves but for other nations of the world after the War, and those considerations cannot be lost sight of.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: How can it possibly be to the interests of this country

    2669
    that after the War vessels built now with starred labour should be handed to neutral countries?

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

    CLYDE DEPUTATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a deputation representing trade unions in Scotland waited upon him on Friday; whether the deputation consisted of the chairman, secretary, and a member of the executive committee of the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, and a member of the Scottish Miners' Federation; whether the deputation stated that, in the event of further restrictions on the sale of alcoholic liquor, there was a possibility of strikes on the Clyde; and if he can state whether the members of the deputation attended in their individual capacity, or whether they were specially deputed to act as representatives of their trade unions?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative. As to the last part of the question, I understood the members of the deputation attended in a generally representative capacity.
    Mr. SCOTT: Did the right hon. Gentleman understand that they were deputed by trade unions officially to make the threat that if the Government carried out a certain policy in the conduct of the War that would be met with strikes?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I cannot say I understood that. What I understood was—I asked this question, whether they were specially accredited representatives or generally accredited? and they said they were generally accredited representatives. I do not think they were representatives ad hoc.
    Mr. SCOTT: Do I understand that these representatives of the trade unions made the statement that if a certain policy were adopted by the Government for the conduct of the War they would be met by strikes on the Clyde? And do I understand that that statement is taken by the Government as representing the considered view of the trade unionists on the Clyde, and that this deputation were authorised by the trade unionists to make that threat to the Government?
    Mr. TENNANT: No. As I said before, I do not understand that they were authorised to make any threat. What I did understand them to say was that they were accredited representatives generally, and in the course of their statement they did not make a threat, but they said that they feared there would be trouble.
    Mr. SCOTT: Did they use the word "trouble" or the word "strike"?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, at the Old Age Pension Conference at Newcastle on Saturday a resolution was carried urging the Government to take steps for supplementary Grants from the Treasury or give powers to the local authorities to supplement the State pension in cases where concessions made since the commencement of the War had no value; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked within what time a decision will be arrived at with regard to a supplementary grant to old age pensioners, and in what form it will be announced?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I can for the moment add nothing to the reply I gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Houghton Division. The form which the relief should take is receiving careful attention, and I hope that it will be possible to make a further announcement shortly.
    Mr. THORNE: Will it be possible to give a definite reply to this question between now and the 4th September, because the Trade Union Congress is meeting then, and I am very much afraid the Government will get a trouncing unless something is done.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I might call threatening language. There will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will there be an announcement during the Recess?
    Mr. LUNDON: Will any proposals be made in reference to increased old age pensions in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not stating that there will be a definite uniform scheme brought up. It will probably be found that special circumstances have to be taken into account.

    POLAND (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. KEATINGasked whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend a Constitution for Poland of which the main features will be: representation comprising one-seventh of the Russian Duma in which its members will be in a permanent minority; a nominated Executive containing Ministers pledged to resist Polish autonomy by armed force; and the institution of martial law for an indefinite period?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to make any recommendation on a matter of internal policy of another State.

  MUNITIONS.

    POSTAL SEBVANTS.
    Sir S. COLLINSasked the Post master-General if he is aware that certain postal servants have been permitted to enrol as munition workers, but when they do so the period of service does not count for superannuation; and, if this is so, will he take steps to adjust this apparent injustice?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The conditions upon which Post Office servants are released for munition work were laid down by the Treasury, and are applicable to Civil servants generally.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Does service in munition factories carry pensions?
    Mr. PEASE: It counts for increment, but not for pension.

    HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions when the Committee on Holidays in Relays expect to issue their Report?
    Mr. REA: The Committee have submitted their Report to the Minister of Munitions, and a statement of its purport and of the action proposed to be taken thereon was made on the 10th August. My
    2672
    right hon. Friend is willing to consider the publication of the Report, if there is a general desire for it.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (DEPORTATION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information concerning a man named Leifkin, who, being a Russian Jew resident in Southport, was summoned at Liverpool on the 17th to the Dale Street Police Court because he had inadvertently left Southport leaving his identity book behind; whether he is aware that, at the hearing of this case, the magistrate stated that the Russian Consul had asked that Leifkin should be deported to Russia; and whether he will undertake not to let Leifkin be deported until after 10th October?
    Mr. BRACE: The Home Secretary has no information in regard to this case. If any question of deportation comes before him, he will consider it carefully on its merits; but as this case, apparently, has no connection with the question of military service, no such undertaking as that for which my hon. Friend asks can be given.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    DETAINED AT HOLLOWAY (MILLY WITCOP).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether Milly Witcop, of 33, Dunstan Houses, Stepney Green, was arrested on 29th July, taken to Tine Street Police Station, kept there over six days, then removed to Holloway, was there refused the usual visits from friends, and is still being treated as a criminal though no charge has been brought against her; what official is responsible for the arrest of this innocent lady; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BRACE: This woman was arrested under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and detained first at Vine Street Police Station and afterwards in Holloway Prison, where she is now interned in pursuance of an-Order under Regulation 14B. She has been visited several times by her sisters and her child, and she is not being treated as a' criminal. Subject to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on any representations which she may make to them, she will be detained in internment in the interests of the public safety and the defence of the Realm.
    Mr. KING: Will she have the benefit of the promise made that a written statement of her offence or the ground of her detention will be given her?
    Mr. BRACE: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a promise my hon. Friend may be quite sure that it will be carried out.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the uncertainty in connection with the warnings to employers not to employ men liable to military service; and whether any penalty will be, or can be, imposed on persons who employ friendly aliens of military age not called up by their respective Governments?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of any uncertainty on the subject of the employment of men liable to military service. The Military Service Act does not apply to aliens.
    Mr. KING: Can it be officially announced that there is no reason why employers in the East End of London should not employ friendly aliens of military age? There is really a good deal of doubt on the matter—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.

    DEPOSITED SECURITIES.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the Canadian securities and those of neutral countries are not received on deposit in sufficient quantities, it is the intention of the Government to apply for powers to impose the special Income Tax on the income of such securities if not deposited?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, without doubt. But I trust everyone will realise that it is a public duty to deposit these securities, more particularly securities of the Canadian and neutral Governments, without delay.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Will the Income Tax be charged on holdings under the statutory amount? I think the minimum amount received is £1,000.
    Mr. McKENNA: The usual abatements of Income Tax will be allowed. Deposited securities under the scheme will not affect the Income Tax laws at all. What my hon. Friend was referring to was the imposi-
    2674
    tion of an additional Income Tax of 2s. in the £ in respect of securities which are not deposited.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Will that penalty apply to lesser holdings than £1,000?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. When I ask Parliament to impose the tax I shall ask Parliament to impose it in respect of all securities which we offer to take. Securities in amounts under £1,000 can be deposited through a banker.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of offering some other facilities for these smaller holders, especially now the list is extended to other securities?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I should be very glad to consider any possible additional facilities.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: There seems to be some doubt about this matter. Supposing a person deposits securities which the Government have to sell, at, we will say, a profit of 10 per cent., will they give the person who deposited them only 5 per cent.?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. If securities are sold—and they can only be sold at all where it is necessary to sell them—then whatever the price may be the Treasury will get no advantage out of it, but the depositor, or the class of depositor, will get the advantage. Depositors of that class of securities will get the advantage. In no circumstances will the Treasury get the advantage, consequently there is no inducement to the Treasury at any time to sell. We are undertaking not to sell unless it is necessary to sell.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position quite clear? In a supplementary question the other day I asked him the price, and he mentioned—I think it was a slip of the tongue—the face value of the securities plus 5 per cent. I see he has corrected that to the current market price. Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the wrong impression which, I think, exists, that the current market price of many of these securities has very greatly depreciated during the War, and that if he purchases these securities, even plus the 5 per cent., it must still show very heavy loss in case of sale to the original holders?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must understand that the securities, which are lodged as collateral securities for a time

    2675
    loan, can only be sold, to put it plainly, if the British Government is unable to meet its liabilities. In such a contingency as that, which I regard as extremely remote, I suppose the holders of those securities would be willing to suffer with the rest of the citizens of this country. That is the only contingency that I can foresee in which the securities may be sold. That is what we describe when we say that the securities will only be sold if it is necessary to sell them. The terms which we offer are these: We say we will not take these securities until it has become necessary to sell under the conditions I have described. We will give the owner the price at which the securities stood when he handed them over to us when we made our request.
    Mr. HOUSTON: The market price?
    Mr. McKENNA: The market price at the time we made our request, together with 5 per cent. We consider that that is a very fair offer, because under the conditions which I have named, the conditions under which it will become necessary to sell, I think these securities would stand at a very much lower price.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Not necessarily. I wish my right hon. Friend to understand that I am only putting this question so that the position may be made quite clear. I take no exception to what he proposes. I only ask that the position may be made quite clear so that those concerned may understand it.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am very much obliged.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it made quite clear, have instructions been issued that holders of smaller amounts than £1,000 will not be subject to the penalty of excessive Income Tax? Is it also made quite clear as to charges at the bank, and so on? I believe there is a good deal of confusion—
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the second point is perfectly clear. As to the first point, it does not at present arise, as neither small holders nor large holders are subject to the additional Income Tax at present. But, undoubtedly, if securities do not come in in sufficient quantities, it will be my duty to ask Parliament to impose the additional tax.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Amendments to—
    Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Bill, without Amendment.

    National Insurance (Approved Societies Rules).
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether some approved societies under the National Insurance Acts are required by their rules to inform an applicant for admission of the acceptance or rejection of the application within a specified number of days, whereas other approved societies are bound by no such rule; whether the rule referred to was made obligatory by the Insurance Commissioners upon the societies whose rules contain it; whether the inequality as between one society and another has been pointed out to the Insurance Commissioners, who have replied that they are unable to consent to the deletion of the rule from the rules of any approved society; and, if so, whether he will undertake to put all approved societies on a common footing, either by abolishing the rule referred to or, preferably, making it obligatory on all approved societies?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The rules of all societies approved after a certain date contain provision regarding the acceptance or rejection of applications for membership. The Commissioners have taken and are taking administrative steps with a view to obtaining the insertion of suitable provision for this purpose in the rules of all societies.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I may perhaps recall to your memory, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this Amendment of the House of Lords, that an Amendment, not in these precise terms, but at any rate to this effect, was down on the Paper when the Bill was in Committee in this House. The Government were prepared to accept it, but it was ruled from the Chair that an Amendment dealing with the future of Parliament did not fall within the scope of the Bill, and that if it was proposed to go forward with it, it would have to be by separate legislation. In consequence of that ruling the Amendment was not put. The Lords have now inserted this Amendment. I wish to ask you to be good enough, for the guidance of the House, to give us your view as to whether the Amendment is still open to the objection which the Chair took when the Bill was in Committee here, namely, that it was outside the scope of the Bill, or whether the Amendment, having been passed by the House of Lords, can now be incorporated into the Bill by the House of Commons assenting to what the House of Lords has done? If I may venture to say so, I would submit that this is not a case of privilege such as frequently arises, because there is, in the ordinary definition, no money involved. I think the House would be obliged to you if, on this matter of order, you would give your ruling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Rules of Procedure are different in the two Houses, and each House is the judge of its own Rules of Order. According to the Rules of Order in this House, this particular Clause was ruled out of order by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who stated that it could not be inserted in the Bill. In the House of Lords, however, apparently the same ruling did not obtain, and in the view of the House of Lords this provision was one which could properly be inserted in the Bill. It does not, therefore, now come before us as an Amendment in which the Question of privilege
  2696
  arises. I can take no exception to it on the ground of privilege. It is for the House to decide the question on its merits as to whether or not it will accept the Amendment.
  The PRIME MINISTER: In those circumstances, I wish to move that the House agree with the Lords Amendment. It is an Amendment we ourselves were prepared to accept in Committee. Indeed, we promised to inrtoduce a Bill to give effect to that decision. It is obviously for general convenience that we should be saved the necessity of taking a Bill through all its stages through both Houses if it is possible to carry out that purpose by the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment accordingly considered.

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Removal of Restriction as to Steps to be taken for Preparation of Registers.)
    Notwithstanding anything in Section two of the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916, or any other Act, any steps may be taken in September and October for the purpose of the preparation of a new Parliamentary and local government register of electors as are required to be taken under the Acts relating to the registration of electors in April and May.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, to agree with the Lords Amendment at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "But should a dissolution of Parliament take place before any Act for the preparation of a new Parliamentary register has been passed and such register has been brought into force, the Parliament so elected shall exist for a period not exceeding two years."
    Mr. HAZLETON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. When this Amendment was placed upon the Paper by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, the Chairman of Committees moved that; it was outside the scope of the Bill. I should like to know your ruling, Sir, whether allowing this Amendment to be moved means that any amendment which is outside the scope of a Bill and which cannot be moved in this House, can be inserted in the Bill in

    2697
    another place, either by the Government or by any unofficial Member, and so place that Amendment in order here when it comes down again for review?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought I had made that point clear. I have only to repeat what I said in answer to the Prime Minister—that each House has its own Rules of Order. In accordance with the Rules of Order in this House, this Clause could not be inserted, but, according to the Rules of Order in the other place, this provision could be inserted. That is how it comes into the Bill. It is for this House to decide now whether, on the merits of the case, it proposes to accept the Amendment, or whether it disagrees with the Lords.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  WAR CHARITIES BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

    FOOD PEICBS.
    Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. JOWETT: I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the subject opened up by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) yesterday. I refer to the question of food prices, and the profiteering which is going on at the present moment. We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, although he had many opportunities of which he did not take advantage so far as public knowledge is concerned, for evincing even now an interest in this question. It is a question, I believe, which every Member of the House will admit is causing very great concern among people of the working class. My
    2698
    right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) recently put an inquiry to the Board of Trade as to the extent to which the cost of living had been advanced during the War, and from the reply given to my right hon. Friend—to put it in another form than that in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade himself put it—it appears that a wage of 20s. per week in July before the War ought now to be from 29s. to 30s. a week in order to have the same purchasing value. To put it in still another form, the pre-war sovereign has sunk in purchasing power, for all ordinary articles that are within the working class means, from 20s. to 13s. 10d. and even 13s. 4d. That is the net result so far as figures can show the net result. But I would like to point out this additional consideration which ought to be borne in mind, namely, that it is not merely that things are dearer in cash of which we have to take cognisance at the present time. Much adulteration is going on. So many articles are sold inferior in quality to what they used to be that the money value does not actually represent the real fall in the purchasing power of the working man's sovereign. Alongside of that—and this adds to the aggravation so far as the working classes are concerned—are the enormous profits that are being made in every trade and in every industry.
    Figures with regard to shipping we are all more or less familiar with. Questions have been put in this House time after time showing what enormous profits have been made. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) put a question with reference to one firm, and the information contained in his question, which was not denied by the Minister who replied, was to the effect that the company to which he referred had made profits during the last year equal to 187 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put another question respecting another shipping company—a company which, it appears, it is proposed to wind up, and, as showing the enormous prosperity that that company must have had during the War, the winding-up was to be on this basis: The fleet of ships were to be sold for £1,250,000. The other assets were expected to realise £750,000, making in all £2,000,000, and this would allow a compensation of £2,000

    2699
    to be given to each director, a compensation to the firm that had been acting as agents to the company of £250,000, and it would allow 30s. to be paid for every £1 preference share, and £50 for every £10 ordinary share, £7 paid up. Is it to be wondered at that when these facts are being continually stated in the public Press, and particularly when at the same time every housewife knows how increasingly difficult it is to make ends meets, there is a growing state of dissatisfaction?
    1.0 P.M.
    What is now being felt is that the Government, and especially the Board of Trade, are guilty of callous indifference to this very vital question affecting the welfare of the mass of the population of this country. When directly war broke out and the bankers were in a difficulty and were in the first few days of the War shown to be practically insolvent, the Government at once took steps to rescue them from the situation, giving them power to pay to the extent of 20 per cent, of the liabilities in paper with the British credit behind it. This shipping industry, which has since done so well out of the War, was afraid when the War broke out to send their ships across the ocean. The Government instituted a system of insurance, carrying 80 per cent. of the risk to enable them to carry on the business and to make their profits. The State for years and years has been keeping a Navy at an enormous expense, one of the chief reasons of which was to keep shipping secure, and enable this country to be fed. What has been the result? They have received an additional privilege and power to make profit, and incidentally to put profit into the pockets of the shareholders of the shipping companies because of the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a way to deal with this matter. It was not a novel method; and it has been referred to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and, others time after time in this House and out of it, namely, that the shipping should be controlled by the State in the same way as the railways, and if that had been done we should have taken away the power which has passed into the hands of shipowners to use their properly against the public interest, and enabled them to exploit the people of this country. This sort of thing ought
    2700
    to end. The people outside want to know what the Government is going to do. If it is said, as it is sometimes said, that there is no remedy, that is not true.
    Since the beginning of the War, when these difficulties and problems have cropped up, the practice of the Government has been to institute some sort of Advisory Committee consisting of persons who themselves were interested, and who therefore have not made the best of the situation from the public point of view, but have been extremely anxious to preserve their own interests and their right to make profit.
    Take, for instance, the conduct of the Board of Trade with respect to the captured vessels. Those vessels could have been used to help to break any organised effort on the part of shipowners to put up the freights. What did the President of the Board of Trade do? He appointed a committee of shipowners to determine what the freights should be. What is more natural than that the shipowners, in determining the rate of freights, should be guided by this consideration to some extent, that the freights should not be put at such a point as would interfere with their own business and with the freights that were being charged under ordinary circumstances? Just the same thing has happened with regard to all other ordinary requirements. The Board of Trade has appointed Committee after Committee, on which the consumers, the people who suffer from high prices, have not been properly represented. Take the case of wool. We heard of a number of names of persons who have been appointed to deal with the question of wool and wool prices, and they consisted mostly of farmers and wool merchants. Really, the consumer is deeply interested, and a far better plan would be to get a Committee of Members of this House representing all interests in the community in order that they should have regard to the general interests of the public rather than to the interests of certain industries. It is not for want of comment or for want of appeals to them that the Board of Trade and the Government generally have not dealt with this matter before. Take, for example, the industry with which I am most familiar. So far back as November, 1914, in this House, suggestions were made to deal with the

    2701
    wool trade and the textile industries, which, if they had been adopted, would have made an enormous difference.

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod (Captain Butler), having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
    The House went, and having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. Anglo - Portuguese Commercial Treaty Act, 1916.

    2. Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act, 1916.

    3. Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916.

    4. Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916.

    5. Telegraph (Construction) Act, 1916.

    6. Law and Procedure (Emergency Provisions) (Ireland) Act, 1916.

    7. Time (Ireland) Act, 1916.

    8. Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916.

    9. Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) Act, 1916.

    10. War Charities Act, 1916.

    11. British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1916.

    12. Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Act, 1916.

    13. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Act, 1916.

    14. Craven Estates Act, 1916.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. JOWETTBefore the interruption, I was proceeding to give an example of the way in which the Board of Trade had neglected to take action with regard to different industries so as to safeguard the public against high prices, and I was reminding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that in November, 1914, suggestions were made in this House for dealing with the wool industry. The suggestion was that the Government should enter into nego-
    2702
    tiations with the Australian, New Zealand, and Cape Governments in order to take the whole of the extensive wool supply of these very large producing Colonies in order to help to control prices. That suggestion might well have been adopted judging by what has since been found to be necessary in dealing with the home supply. If the Government had, to begin with, approached the Colonial Governments with the object of taking the full supply at the pre-war rate, plus any percentage that might have been found on inquiry to be justifiable, it is quite certain from all that we know of the attitude of the Colonial Governments, and their willingness and desire to help, that they would willingly have fallen in with any such suggestion. It would have prevented the tremendous leaps—they cannot be described in any other way—that prices have taken since then to the profit, the enormous profit, of a very small number of individuals, comparatively speaking, to the rest of the population.
    There are ways in which, by means of the application of the principle of working on commission, the whole of the khaki output of the West Riding of Yorkshire could have been executed at a very modest cost, and so far from helping to drive up prices by the fact that the Government were in the market, it would have helped to steady prices for the public generally. But, of course, when the Board of Trade follows a line such as it has followed, of just getting certain persons in to give advice, calling them an Advisory Committee, those persons being men in business, and in that very business, it cannot be expected that the suggestions they make will be of the drastic character that alone will fit the necessities of a time such as that in which we are now living. I mention this particular industry because I know most about it; but it seems, so far as one can judge, that in regard to other commodities the same principle could have been followed. What was there to prevent the Government, at the beginning of the War, getting into negotiation with Canada in order to take its enormous wheat supply, and so on? It is not for private Members, at any rate it is not their particular duty, to suggest means, but it is for the Government in some way or other to protect the people of this country from starvation and privation, because, although there is a very general

    2703
    belief that the working people have had their wages advanced sufficiently to cover the increased cost, a greater fallacy could not be imagined. A certain small proportion of the workers may be in that position, but a far larger proportion are in this position: that they have received their bonuses, but not sufficient to cover the extra cost. There is still another considerable proportion of the population whose wage rates are as they were before the War, and whose only advantage, whose only means of getting more money in order to meet these higher prices, is to work longer hours, and to have more members of the family bringing in and contributing to the family income. I am not saying that in the circumstances that is not justifiable and right, but it must be borne in mind that it is only in such cases as those to which I am now referring, due to the number of workers in the family bringing in a bigger family income, and by more regular work and longer hours of work they are able to exist at all in these times when things are so hard. What I want to say, so far as my Constituents are concerned, is that the Government should get a move on on this question, and that they should take some drastic action. If necessary, put the people on rations. Why not? Whatever is necessary, do it; but do protect the working people of this country against the fearful charges of food they have to meet, with the inevitable result that they cannot get sufficient of it, and that they have to have recourse to means of substitution, and so on, that are against the interests of the people and against the interests of the State.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The prolongation of this Debate to a second day was, in my opinion, rendered necessary by the very grave importance of the topic to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I am sure it will be amply justified if the two Departments represented by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Acland and Mr. Pretyman) will give us some assurance that something is being done in reference to this very important subject. That it is an important subject there is no doubt, and it is a fallacy, if I may say so, to limit the importance of it to the duration of the War. The subject will be just as important for two or three years after the War as it is now, and therefore it is not merely a war problem, but a post-
    2704
    war problem also that the Government Departments have to take into account. I need not say that the primary importance of it consists in the fact that this rise of prices deals harshly with the poorest of the community. I agree entirely with, and adopt, what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, namely, that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country who, although they may get higher wages, are worse off now than they were in pre-war days. That is the first question that has to be taken into account. It does not end there. A great deal of the industrial unrest is also due to this matter. We may say what we like about a demand for a 10s. increase, in spite of a final settlement in October last, by the railwaymen, but if their wages remain stationary and the price of necessary commodities goes up, I do not think there is anyone who can blame those men for saying, "It is absolutely necessary for us, in our own interest, to have higher wages to deal with this problem." We are therefore confronted with a vicious circle, and it is a matter with which the Government must deal. The hon. Gentleman referred to the callous attitude of the Board of Trade. That is strong language to use, but what I think they have done is this: that they have postponed dealing with it. They have been hoping against hope that something will turn up, but nothing does turn up, and I do not know how anything will turn up unless they see themselves that it does. I think the object of this Debate will be secured to a great extent if the Government will tell us in general terms what their attitude is towards this question. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Harcourt), when he was acting on behalf of the Board of Trade a few days ago, said that the rise in the price of bread was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Government. Is that really the attitude of the Government?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): It is true.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: If it is, as I understand it, and the circumstances are beyond their control, then the Government is unable to deal with this question. The hon. Member himself, in a very important answer he gave to a question yesterday, said:
    "Mr Pretyman denied Mr. Thorne's statement that there was a corner in wheat in London to the extent of 1 200,000 quarters."

    2705
    I do not think he denied it. He said he did not know. That is my recollection—that he had not been able to discover any attempt at cornering. He stated:
    "The price of No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat quoted ex ship in London was reported as 52s. per quarter of 4SI6 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 portion of the rise, not more than 3s., was accounted for by freight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd August, 1916, col. 2471.]
    Are we to understand that the Government's attitude is that this very serious rise in prices is due to circumstances beyond their control, that they cannot alleviate it, and that they are really unable to deal with this problem? If that is the position it is a very serious one; but if it is the position, the sooner they let us know it the better. It would be a pity to waste time over the matter if they simply told us that the problem is insoluble. The Government have done so many things in the past which appeared to be impossible that I do not despair of their finding a solution even of this question. Let us consider the question of Manitoba wheat, to which the hon. Member referred yesterday. I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that this is an example of what the Government might have done: They could have gone to the Canadian Government and bought all the Manitoba wheat for the two years past. If the Canadian Government had been asked to do it, they would have done it. Would the Canadian Government not have done it if the suggestion had been made to them by His Majesty's Government? Of course they would. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture appears to be amused at that suggestion. I do not see anything irrelevant in it. The Australian Government do these things. They do commandeer. Why should not we, by friendly arrangements with the Canadian Government, get the whole of the supply of Manitoba wheat? The Government have taken no such steps. Instead of consulting the Canadian Government and getting this Manitoba wheat they are the victims of the Chicago speculators. I do not think that is a very dignified position for the Government to take up. There was an obvious remedy so far as this case was concerned. The hon. Gentleman repre-
    2706
    senting the Board of Trade said that only 3s. of the rise was due to the rise in freights. The question of freights is rather a difficult matter, especially in regard to the manner in which it has affected the rise. It is said that in respect of the 9d. loaf, 2d. is due to freights. It may be so, or it may not. It would be very interesting for us to know the facts with regard to that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will deal with that.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: The hon. Gentleman said the advance' in respect of freights was only 3s., which is not very much. It is an astounding thing that he should have given the answer he gave to-day to Question 42, namely, that starred labour is now engaged in building three large ships for shipowners in neutral countries at a time when we want every ship we can get to carry this wheat.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: After the War.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that after the War he would have no control at all over these ships. If he looks at the OFFICIAL REPOET to-morrow morning he will see what his attitude was. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that his attitude was that after the War was over it did not matter about these ships.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not at all.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Then it is important. If it is, I hope he will have a condition put in the contract for the delivery of the ships that we shall have control of them not only during the War, but also after the War for a certain number of years. With regard to the foreign supply of wheat, what we ask the Government is this: Is this rise in prices, or is it not, beyond the control of the Government? If it is beyond their control there is an end of it, and we need not discuss it further; but if it is within the Government's control, will they exercise that control over possible wheat supplies? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that a great amount of Australian wheat is now held up and cannot come to this country. I should have thought that these three neutral ships might very well be engaged upon the work of bringing that wheat over. If they had that Australian wheat at their disposal, not only would they have more wheat, but they would not be to the same extent the victims of Chicago speculators,

    2707
    who are driving up the price of wheat. With regard to foreign supplies of wheat, I admit that there are circumstances which make it difficult for the Government to interfere. As regards the home supply, I understand that it represents one-fifth or one-sixth of the total supply of wheat for this country. I turn to the consideration of another question. Can we do anything to increase the supply of wheat within this country? Those of us who have been advocating National Service in this House for a long time—I advocated it more than twelve months ago—I am bound to say thought that the first duty of the Government would be, knowing that they were likely to be confronted with a situation of this kind, to give orders that the land of England should be used in the best possible way during the War. It was an obvious thing to do. What did they do? They issued circulars and gave advice. What was wanted was not circulars, but commands to these people. I would put the farm of every farmer in the country and every acre at the public disposal. I know that that may be a laughable proposition for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Hear, hear
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I do not think it is laughable at all. The high prices are so serious that we can afford to take a little risk in doing new things in order to deal with a situation of this kind. The farmers are advised how to till their farms. That, of course, is quite right; but why not compel them to take the right course for the public good? Why do you not give commands instead of exhortations, and tell these people to do what is in the interests of the country? I have seen some of these circulars, and I have heard the perorations of Ministers. To give one steam plough to a farmer would be far better than all the perorations to all your speeches. If you do nothing more than give a farmer a steam plough that would be better than all your advice. It may be said that this only applies to between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total of the wheat supply required for this country. I know it is only a small portion, but the circumstances are such that you must take every step you can in order to remedy the position. The control of British agriculture is not a negligible matter so far as this problem is concerned. Perhaps I may be told—it would be a very relevant observation—that if you make
    2708
    your arable land produce more, the labour problem might be a more difficult subject than it is now. I admit that, but the Govvernment must take all these things into account. Although the claims of the Army are considerable and stand paramount with the Government, I am bound to say that the food of the people is almost of equal importance at the present juncture, because you cannot win the War, whatever the soldiers may do, unless you keep the supply of food at a certain level. Not only must you have it for the purposes of the soldiers, but you must have it also to prevent dissatisfaction in this country.
    A few years ago the hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Captain C. Bathurst) wrote a very interesting book upon this problem, in which he anticipated some of the problems with which we now have to deal. He made it quite clear that it is a great mistake to contrast on the one hand the production of bread-stuffs with the production of meat-stuffs on the other. We speak of them sometimes as if the more bread the less meat, and the more meat the less bread. That is a clear fallacy. In his book, for which I have a great admiration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman compares our country with Denmark, and says about Denmark:
    "There the dairying industry is taken concurrently with that of wheat growing and market gardening. Here such industries are deemed to be mutually exclusive."
    They are not exclusive. My hon. Friend has referred to wool. There are other questions. Coal is as much a necessity as meat in this country, or will be in a few months. There is the question of milk—a very serious question, especially for young children. My hon. Friend has referred to rations. Really, is there anyone, whatever his preconceived opinion may have been, who objects to rations on principle? I should have thought not. Any course that the Government can take, provided that it answers the purpose and if it does not solve the problem mitigates the hardship, will have the support of the House and the country. The Government is much too nervous as to what it will do. It has the support of the country, perhaps more than it deserves, but certainly much more than it seems to recognise, and any step that it may take I am sure will be supported; and, with regard to rations, at any rate, it would be a great thing for the poorest people, and it will give them some security that they would have sufficient meat and sufficient bread. I may be

    2709
    told they have tried that in Germany and prices have gone up. That is quite true, but that does not dispose of the point, at all, because if they had not got the bread tickets and meat tickets prices would have probably been very much higher than they now are.
    I really think we are very well justified in having this second day in order to raise this question. It is a question that has been agitated by the Press and has really made a great impression upon the country. It has not only led to a great deal of hardship, but it will lead more and more to industrial disputes, and I ask the Government to make up its mind once for all whether anything can be done. If anything can be done let them, as frankly as they are able, with due regard to the public-safety, take the House of Commons into its confidence and tell them upon what lines they propose to act. I feel sure this is one of the most urgent problems we have to deal with, and I hope during this Recess they will apply their mind to the subject. One of the advantages of a Recess is that the Government will have more time to apply themselves to a solution of this question. They may not be able to say anything definite to-day, but with regard to anything being done for home agriculture time is pressing. If anything is to be done with regard to the next harvest now is the time to move in the matter, for the matter is urgent, and I hope very much that with regard to these outstanding questions, now that Ministers have a Recess, not that they have a holiday, but, at any rate, they will be relieved from daily attendance at the House, they will really apply their minds to this question and will come to a conclusion whether it is soluble or insoluble, because the moment they say it is insoluble, and produce reasons in support of that view, a great many people would say, "Very well, we must bear it and suffer." I do not understand how the Government really can take 60 per cent, of the excess profits of the shipowners. My hon. Friend complained with regard to these excess profits. To whatever extent these huge profits are related by way of cause and effect to the high price of bread, it must be remembered that the Government itself takes much of it—to the extent of six-tenths—and, therefore the Government is making money at the expense of the poorest people. We must remember that in justice to the shipowners. They themselves are tak-
    2710
    ing advantage of the financial policy that is raising the price of bread. That has really been put forward more than once as a defence. It is a very grave aggravation of the difficulty we are in, and I hope the Government will, in the Recess, try and solve this question, and I am sure if the Recess leads to a solution of this question it will be welcomed in the country. Something at length will have been done after two years of war, and it is high time we solved this important question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I should not have intervened had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) yesterday, a speech which I see described in leaded headlines in the Press as a very remarkable speech. It was remarkable in more senses than one. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, although he had notice that I intended to criticise his speech. It is a pity he has been absent from the Debates in this House, more especially during February and April, when this question of food prices and the shortage of shipping and various other matters were discussed. Further, if he had been here lie might have seen a good deal of correspondence in the "Times" and other newspapers regarding the question of freight, more particularly directed to Italy. I listened to the speech with attention and astonishment. It was remarkable for the ignorance which it displayed of a subject upon which he spoke with authority. He appeared to me to be entirely ignorant of the most elementary parts of the question. He dealt with shipping as if it was the most simple of all problems, whereas it is not one problem but a multiplicity of problems—very intricate, involved and elaborate. And when an amateur like the right hon. Gentleman enters upon it he gets hopelessly lost. On a memorable occasion, when he returned to this House to make a severe attack upon his late Department—the Admiralty—he told us that he had been clearing his mind in the trenches. I thought he had cleared his mind most effectively, for he appeared to have emptied it of every particle of information which he ought to have obtained when he was' First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with shipping. He made a serious attack upon shipowners, and at the same time evidently overlooked the fact that he, of all men, was most responsible for the rise in freights, to which he attributes the rise in the price of food, because of the wasteful methods of the Admiralty in

    2711
    regard to British shipping, and he is credited, I know not with what truth, with being the author of the Dardanelles Expedition, which was the first impetus to the great rise in shipping. If he had known anything at all about the question he would have remembered that at the outbreak of the War freights remained normal and the prices of food were normal, and it was only when the Admiralty requisition so much shipping and wasted it so uselessly that prices began to rise, and they have gone on ever since.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: When was that?
    Mr. HOUSTON: It began at the end of 1914. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that this rise was not due to natural causes nor to military causes. I maintain that it is due almost entirely to military causes. We are at war. And not only has some 60 per cent., I believe, of the merchant tonnage of this country being employed for military purposes, but we are told on the authority of Lord Curzon that some 500 other steamers have been handed over to our Allies for their purposes. Is it surprising that owing to the shortage of tonnage freights have risen considerably? It is a misfortune, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with the crude methods of the amateur, suggests that the whole tonnage of this country should be commandeered and controlled by the Government he shows how utterly ignorant he is of what is going on. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman's métier at the present moment is to attack his late colleagues and the Government. I should have thought the severe verbal castigation he received at the hands of the present First Lord of the Admiralty would have taught him discretion, but he now returns to attack the Board of Trade. I hold no brief for the Government, and certainly not for any department of the Government, but in justice I must say that the Government have been exerting themselves considerably. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be entirely ignorant of what the Government was doing. Ha evidently was unaware that every British ship is under the direction of the Government, and must have a licence for the trade in which she is engaged. He was evidently unaware that the Deputy-Speaker of this House is the. chairman of
    2712
    the Food Requisitioning Committee. In fact, he was so ignorant that he appeared to be unaware of anything and everything in connection with shipping. His ignorance is displayed when he says that so far as the shipowners are concerned, freights are fixed by a stroke of the pen in the offices of persons living in this country. One can quite see now what an attractive, pleasant, and profitable occupation shipowning must be and it makes one surprised that there are not more shipowners in this country, when all they have got to do is by a stroke of the pen to fix the prices in order to get increased freights, and to create profits in the enormous manner of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday.
    He alleges that the rise in the price of food is due entirely to freights. What about the price of meat? Has that been increased by freights? It is well known, or ought to be well known, that in the early part of the War, by a perfectly friendly, pleasant arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade—I regret he is not in his place to-day, as I ventured to express the hope on the Adjournment last night that he would be— and the shipowners of this country, the whole of the British refrigerating tonnage employed in the carriage of meat to this country was fixed at a rate of freight which did not exceed the pre-war rates more than from one-eighth of a 1d. to ¼d. per pound. On the other hand, however, we find that the prices of meat have increased enormously. I understand that even the cheaper portions of meat in the poor districts have increased to 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound, when previously they were only 4d. per pound. I am speaking of imported meat. In the poor districts of this country a certain class of meat which was sold sometimes at 2½d. per pound before the War is now being sold at 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound That is not due to freights. What about wheat? The right hon. Gentleman tried to argue that freights were responsible for the rise in the price of bread. I do not want to follow him into his argument, nor do I want to be tempted to follow the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would say that freights have not had the effect of increasing the price of the loaf no its present price. It seems to be forgotten that although the shipowners of this country are accused of making enormous profits, the Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ellis Griffith) bas justly pointed out, take

    2713
    60 per cent, of those profits, in addition to heavy taxation in the form of Income Tax and Super-tax. Then there is the wheat produced by the British farmer in this country. I do not want to make any attack upon the British farmer, far from it, but I want to point out that the British farmer is not subject to Excess Profits Tax. The Government does not take from the British farmer 60 per cent of those enormous and, as the right hon. Member for Dundee said, "those scandalous profits." The Government does not interfere with the British farmer, and the British farmer is exempt from several charges for the simple reason that he pleads ignorance that he cannot keep books—a very easy way of avoiding taxation. My right hon. and learned Friend in dealing with this question has suggested that we should increase the production of wheat in this country. For many years I have advocated that we not only ought to increase the production of wheat in this country by giving the farmer the inducement of a fixed price for his wheat, but that we ought to follow the example of the great Israelitish statesman when living in Egypt, and ought to have national granaries. We would not then be subject to fluctuations in price, which may be brought about by many circumstances living in an island as we do, such as failure of the wheat crop in various parts of the world. The crops have been affected in Manitoba and the United States, and this has been taken advantage of very promptly by our acute American and Canadian friends. The price has gone up, I understand, within the last five weeks in the United States and in Canada 50 per cent., while the price of wheat in this country during that period has only increased 10 per cent. Is that due to the British shipowner, or is the British shipowner going to be credited by the moderation of the increase in the price of wheat in this country, as against the enormous increase in the price of wheat in the United States and Canada, due entirely to the operations of the Chicago wheat pit.
    2.0 P.M.
    When the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and denounces the Government and the British shipowner—who, I suppose, is the companion in crime of the British Government—he ought to know a little more of his facts. I understand, although I may be wrongly informed, that the attack on the shipowner and the Government from this point of view was
    2714
    arranged at a little convivial party in a room off the Terrace, and it was decided that the great increase in the price of food would be a popular cry and a popular argument for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, since he left this House and went to the front, where he remained a short time, and has now returned to the political arena, has knocked at many doors. He tried the Socialistic door, only to meet with a very severe rebuff from the hon. Member for Blackburn, who pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that his Socialism was of a very late and tender growth. The right hon. Gentleman might decide on better duties than to return here merely to attack his late colleagues, who, when he was with them, of course, were everything that could be desired, and indispensable in every way. The right hon. Gentleman has proved, however, that one member of the Cabinet is not indispensable by leaving the Cabinet himself. In his very crude amateurish way he suggests that the Government should commandeer, requisition, or take over all the British shipping. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten about the neutral shipowner. It will be remembered that a distinguished relation of the right hon. Gentleman on one memorable occasion came to grief because he forgot the existence of Goschen, and the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, so far as his arguments are concerned, came to utter grief when he forgot about the existence of the neutral shipowner. He says that it is just as easy, even more easy, to control the whole of the shipping of this country than it is to control the railways or the munition works. He is a great believer, evidently, in absolute and universal control. It will be interesting to learn whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in the Cabinet, was an advocate or an opponent of controlled establishments. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, with regard to shipping, we have the same conditions as before the War, and that we have a moderate insurance. He forgets that, so far as insurance is concerned, a 5 per cent, premium is being paid at present on ships going from this country to the Mediterranean, so that if a ship worth £150,000 made a voyage of about a month's duration from this country to a Mediterranean port and back, the cost of insurance would be £7,500, and if the ship were taken at Admiralty Blue Book rates, which the

    2715
    right hon. Gentleman advocates, the owner would receive £4,500, out of which he would have to pay the crew's wages, the expense of provisions, and various other matters. But the right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary suggestion, which I have not yet, even with the experience which I have as a shipowner, been able to understand. He said:
    "I have in former times entered considerably into detail on this matter from the Government point of view, and I say that there is no reason whatever why we should not charter every ship at Admiralty rates and then re-charter it to the owner under such conditions as the interests of the State may require."
    There may be some hon. Member in this House who may be able to explain that operation to me. I cannot understand it. Does he suggest that the ships to be chartered should be chartered from the owners at the Blue Book rates, which the owners at the present time do not find generally fair, and that the Admiralty shall then re-charter these ships to the same owners under such conditions as the interests of the State may require? Presumably that would be at a higher rate of freight. If it is at a higher rate of freight, who is going to receive the difference? Is it the owner or the Government? The right hon. Gentleman has already denounced the Government for receiving portions of the profits of the shipowner in the 60 per cent., and if there is any difference between the Admiralty rates and the rates at which the ships are to be re-chartered to the owner, which would be higher, is that going to decrease the cost of food? Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) may be able to explain this operation to me. He may have inquired from the officials in his Department as to what it means, but I cannot understand it, and I question whether anyone else can. The right hon. Gentleman objects very strongly to the shipowners making profits and having in hand reserve capital at the end of the War, and he described this as wholly vicious and illegitimate from the point of view of State policy. Again I say that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely forgotten the existence of the neutral shipowners who at the present moment, because so many of our ships are engaged in military operations and in the service of our Allies, are rapidly capturing our trades in various other directions, thereby piling up enormous profits. It is well known that neutral shipowners can obtain anything from 10s. to 15s. per ton higher rates than the British shipowner, and they are not subject to the taxes to which the
    2716
    British shipowner is. Anyone who follows this subject will have observed the rapid increase in the mercantile navies of the neutrals—for instance, the Norwegians, the Americans, and others—and how the Americans and Japanese are capturing, not only our shipping, but our manufacturing trade in many directions. The right hon. Gentleman claims, I suppose, to be a statesman, but he cannot see that this country is an island and depends entirely upon ships for its existence. He evidently has overlooked the fact that if it had not been for the mercantile shipping it would have been impossible to have carried on this War as we have done.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: What about the Navy?
    Mr. HOUSTON: The Navy could not have existed without the help of the merchant shipping. What about the colliers who keep the Navy at sea in provisions, in food, in meat, and other things? What about the merchant ships which supply our Armies in Flanders and elsewhere? My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think that that was a very sensible or helpful interruption. If he wishes to underrate the services of the British mercantile marine, then ho is doing a disservice to this country. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a remarkable speech. No doubt if it had appeared in the columns of the "Sunday Pictorial" it would have had some money value, but to come down to this House and make a speech like that which he made yesterday was neither informative nor helpful. I do not think that his attempts to injure the Government have been more successful than his attempts to injure the British shipowner in the eyes of sensible people. I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman paragraph by paragraph through his speech of yesterday, but time will not permit, and other Gentlemen wish to follow in Debate. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman and turn my attention to the Board of Trade. I do not think that anyone can accuse me of being a friendly advocate of the Government. I do not hold a brief for them, but in the interests of justice and in face of the attacks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee upon the Government I felt bound to take up the cudgels in their defence. So far as the Board of Trade are concerned, I want some explanation from my hon. Friend. Again I say I regret that

    2717
    the President has not been here. I want to know what he has been doing during his absence? Has he yielded, shall I say, to the seductive demands of our Italian friends for more British merchant ships, because the more shipping we give away to help our Allies the less shipping we shall have to carry food for our own people.
    I must return for one moment to the right hon. Gentleman. When he was talking about the British shipper he forgot all about the Allies. Evidently he had not taken the trouble to look into the question and to learn for himself that from one-third to one-half of the foodstuffs of this country is carried in neutral bottoms? How is he going to control the neutral shipowner? This, which is such a simple proposition according to him, is a proposition which has exercised the minds of the Cabinet and more particularly of the Board of Trade. It has exercised the minds of the Committees which have been appointed by the Government to deal with these things and they have not offered any solution. The only result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy of requisitioning the whole of the British mercantile marine would be disaster. Neutrals would be driven away from this country, and suppose the right hon. Gentleman is encouraged to ask for control over the whole British shipping by reason of the success at his Department, when he entered into it, made with the 50 or 60 per cent, which he requisitioned, are you going to see such a glaring case of scandal as the "Aragon," which was left for eleven months lying in the Mediterranean as a sort of club for officers? Is that the kind of management which will reduce the price of food in this country? I think that my hon. Friend, though probably he does not like to agree with me, does agree with me in his innermost heart. I am quite sure from the speeches which were made in the past, and more particularly in February, when the representative of the Board of Trade followed me immediately in Debate, he did not and could not contradict a single allegation which I have made.
    I see my hon. Friend, who is a Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, and who has lately earned fame by writing a biography of the right hon. Member for Dundee, is taking notes, and I hope he will incorporate them in his next edition. Again, I regret that the right hon. Member for Dundee is not here, for I should?
    2718
    like to have asked him who was the genius—was it himself?—who was responsible for the requisitioning of oil-tankers which were converted into troopships. I should have liked to have asked him various other questions to-day, but his absence to-day is in strange contrast to his audacity of yesterday. I should like to have asked him who is responsible for these many changes in connection with the fitting out, the dismantling, the refitting, and the dismantling again of various ships. There are many questions of that kind I should have liked to ask him, and, frankly, I regret I cannot ask him. We have been told that at last, a long last, we are going to get fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government, which have been requisitioned, or, if you like, have been seized by the Portuguese Government, being German ships sheltering in Portuguese ports. The hon. Gentleman told us that the British Government were taking these fifty-two steamers over from the Portuguese Government at 14s. 3d. per gross register ton, and that we were paying all expenses. Surely my hon. Friend must be mistaken. I have endeavoured to point out that this 14s. 3d. per ton surely covered the expenses as regards repairs, insurance, and various other things. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us some explanation. He tells us that these fifty-two ships which have been taken over have been hired by the British Government from the Portuguese Government and put into the hands of one particular firm to manage, the firm of Furness, Withy and Company. It really strikes me that a firm which has already recently acquired a further large number of ships from the Prince Line will be overburdened with the management of a further fifty-two vessels, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Lewis, one of the directors of that company who is devoting the largest portion of his time to Lord Curzon's Committee, will not be called on to give up his services on that Committee for the purpose of managing these steamers.
    I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara), who has just entered the House, that it would be more economical if, instead of these fifty-two steamers being left in the hands of this company, they were handed over to the Admiralty—my right hon. Friend will

    2719
    see the confidence I place in the Admiralty—so that they might be employed as colliers for the Navy, or as transports, or for the service of the Allies, releasing the ships requisitioned from British owners to go back to their regular trade, and, if they are allowed to go back to their regular trade, competition, above all things, will tend to bring down freights and the price of food. People talk about rings, but the Chairman of the Food Regulations Committee (the Deputy-Speaker) has established a very excellent method, whereby he insists upon ships fixing 75 per cent, of the cargo carrying space for wheat. Sometimes the wheat is not there, and the result is, the regulation having to be complied with, that the owners take wheat at any price, with the result that freights are reduced. Really the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee appears to be entirely ignorant of all these sort of things, and, indeed, of the whole subject. I trust that my hon. Friend, when ho comes to deal with the subject of the Portuguese ships, will deal with those questions I have raised. I should be extremely sorry to sec Mr. Lewis taken away from the service of Lord Curzon's Committee, and I again suggest that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty should take over these fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government and thus save all trouble. I apologise for detaining the House; I should have liked to refer to the speech of the Member for Derby dealing with the question of food, which, in importance, is only second to the conduct of the War, and is quite as serious. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee had taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Derby, and had dealt with the subject in the same calm, temperate, dispassionate, and statesmanlike manner, it would have been better for this House, better for the country, and better for the right hon. Gentleman's reputation.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: The hon. Member for Derby, in the course of his remarks, levelled some criticisms at the Great Western Railway Company, of which I have the honour to be a director, and he referred to the case of a certain man who had recently been in the service of the company. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member, I think, insinuated that the company was making use of the Military Service Act in a some-
    2720
    what vindictive spirit. I would assure him, if he were in his place, that this is very far from the truth. This company, and I believe all the other companies, have carefully avoided raising any real grounds for insinuations of that kind. He also, in the course of his remarks, expressed the hope that those of us who are directors of railway companies, would adopt, a conciliatory attitude towards the men. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Great Western Railway Company, and I believe all the other railway companies, are only too desirous of being conciliatory, and on living on the best of terms with our employés, and that the last thing they desire, either intentionally or unintentionally, is to make use of any position arising through, I may say, of any special legislation which has been found necessary, to do anything which would be in the least unfair So any of the men. I think it will be generally admitted by the hon. Member that the proper working of the railways, which after all is a matter of most important national interest, and a subject of interest to all Members of this House, can only be accomplished in a way to satisfy public needs, where there is a certain amount of discipline and efficiency maintained amongst the people who are employed on those railways. The working of the railways is in the hands of the Government for the moment, but whether the railways are controlled by the Government, or whether they are worked and controlled by the companies, it is necessary that there should be a reasonable measure of discipline maintained
    What are the facts of the case which the hon. Member brought forward yesterday? He said that a. man called Davis was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour for distributing circulars which were held to be likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, or discipline of His Majesty's Forces. That is to say, that the man was convicted before a magistrate and sentenced to a month's hard labour for a breach of the law. In common, I think, with most railways, this company has a regulation, and at any rate this regulation has been in existence for over thirty years, and it provides that whenever any person in the employment of the company is charged with having committed a criminal charge he must, immediately on his being summoned or taken into custody, if such a

    2721
    course has not been previously taken, be suspended, and the suspension must be followed by formal dismissal on conviction. That is a regulation which has worked for a great many years, and I think will be regarded by everybody as a reasonable regulation. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted yesterday that if this had been a case of theft or drunkenness he would have considered it perfectly reasonable that dismissal should follow conviction. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman suggested that in this case it was hard that the man should receive what he considered to be double punishment, because he described it as a political offence. I cannot help thinking that, if double punishment is wrong, it is illogical to try and discriminate which class of offence should be visited with double punishment and which class should not. In any case, I cannot see how the company or any individual employer can take upon itself or himself to discriminate between various classes of crime and place themselves above the law in interpreting what are criminal offences and what are what the hon. Member would call political offences.
    Mr. THOMAS: The Cabinet itself finds there is some distinction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), after six weeks' imprisonment, was made a Cabinet Minister. Clearly no notice was taken of that case. If it were an imprisonment for stealing something, it would be an entirely different matter, and the same distinction applies in this case.
    Mr. MASON: It is quite possible that a Cabinet Minister has not the life of people under his charge, as on the railways. The Government as such might undertake to discriminate between these various classes of offences, but I do not think it is possible for a company or individual to take upon themselves to discriminate between one class of criminal act and another. I think the rule that a conviction for a criminal offence is to be followed by dismissal is one which everybody would hold to be just. Let me refer further to the facts. This man Davis, after he had served his month of hard labour, appealed for reinstatement and interviewed the general manager, but the application could not be agreed to. I think it must be admitted that it would be a very difficult position if a railway company were to be held bound to keep
    2722
    the positions for men holding peculiar or political opinions, and I think it could hardly be contended that the company should keep positions open for men who owing to their political opinions have got themselves put into gaol for periods of varying sentences. If a man is sentenced to two or three months' imprisonment it is obviously impossible for the company to hold open his position in the present conditions during the War. It is not a case so much of reinstatement. It is a case of having to certify that this man, who is subject by age to the condition of military service, is indispensable to the service of the country, and it is suggested that the company should do so, because he belonged to a grade of work which is of course indispensable to the carrying on of railways—namely, shunting. But this man has actually been away for three months—that is, a month in gaol and two months since—and it would be impossible for the railway company, in doing its duty to the Government and to the War Office, to certify that a man who had already been away for three months, and whose work therefore was being done, was indispensable to the working of the railway. I cannot imagine that it can be contended that the company could certify in such a case.
    The general tenour of the hon. Member's criticism was that the man was being punished because he was refused this certificate and because, being a single man of thirty-five, he would, of course, automatically become liable for military service. The Great Western Railway Company has lost 20,000 of its employés, and the greater number of them before the Military Service Act came into operation. The men flocked from the service of the railways to the Colours, and there was great danger in the earlier parts of the War of the railways being placed in great difficulty owing to the number of men who had gone. Those men did not regard it as a punishment that they were not compelled to remain at home, and in many cases very large numbers of them are very disappointed that they come within categories of work in which they have to be certified as indispensable. Therefore, I cannot see that this man has any reason to say that the fact that he is not being certified as indispensable is a punishment. The fact is, of course, that a certain number of men in all services do not like military service and are not in favour of carrying out the Military Service Act in an

    2723
    energetic spirit. I do not believe that the numbers of those men in any class in the country are very large, and I can hardly believe that a case of this sort will meet with very general support among the fellows of the man himself. This man Davis certainly cannot be described as indispensable for the reasons I have given. I think that if the company certified, as is desired, that he was indispensable they would be acting dishonestly to the Government, and I think that the company most certainly has a duty to the country and to the Government to let men go to the greatest extent that they can be spared.
    Regulations have been issued by the company stating under what conditions men will be spared, and, if I may be allowed, I should like to read one of those regulations which says:
    "That, in releasing men for service with the Colours, the youngest unmarried man tit for foreign service should he first chosen from the same grade and station or depot from which a man can be spared. If no single man is available, a married man without children, or the married man with fewest children under fourteen years of age, should be selected."
    That is obviously a very proper regulation. Another regulation says:
    "Subject to the efficient working of the railway being maintained, it must be understood that every effort must continue to be made to release as many men as possible for service with the Colours. This applies more particularly to the younger men. Each officer should, therefore, periodically review the list of men retained in his department."
    I think that shows that the whole question has been dealt with as fairly as is possible between the various men, and that there is really no cause to complain of the manner in which this difficult matter has been carried out. It is impossible in the case of this man to certify that be is indispensable, and I think the company would be acting in a dishonest way to the Government if it did anything of the sort. If, as I presume he will do, the man will see that it is his duty, not being indispensable, to serve his country as so many of his fellows have done very willingly, then I do not see why the railway company should not, on his return with a great number of his fellow-workers to civil life, favourably consider his position with that of many others, and endeavour, if possible, to make it smoother than it might otherwise have been. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) will consider that in the spirit in which it is made on behalf of the railway company.
    Mr. THOMAS: May I have it clear what the offer means? Let me say at once I
    2724
    appreciate to the full the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matter. Do I gather from him the company could not now certify that a man was indispensable who, for over three months, has not been in the company's service, but that, in the event of his taking up his position, whatever it might be, after the War, the company then would be prepared to reinstate him as if he had never left the service? That is to say that they would wipe out the old offence, to put it in that way? Is that really what the hon. Gentleman suggests?
    Mr. MASON: My hon. Friend knows, of course, that it is impossible for me absolutely to commit the board of directors of a railway company. But it seems to me that, although we cannot absolutely reinstate this man at the present time, and we cannot certify that he is indispensable, yet I suggest that if the man joins the forces and serves his country in a patriotic way it seems to me only reasonable that we, the railway company, should try and stretch a point when he comes back and not go into past grievances, but consider his case with that of all those who come back. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to try and suggest some conciliatory way of meeting the case. I hope he will -consider that I have done as much as I could in the circumstances to suggest what would be a reasonable solution of a rather difficult position.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: I think after the very interesting discussion that we have had to-day there surely cannot be any question as to the wisdom of the decision of the Government in having given a second day, or part of a second day, for a Debate on the Adjournment Motion. The discussion raised by my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) on the question of food prices I hope will be received not only by the House, but by the Government as one of those questions which are of urgent and of pressing importance, and I sincerely hope that the Government are going to act with enterprise and courage and are going to deal with that very urgent and pressing problem in a much more effective way than they have attempted to deal with it for the last two years. But I rose more particularly to refer to the question of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for

    2725
    Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), in a very interesting speech, enumerated several points of importance, and incidentally made some reference to the question of coal. I want to raise one or two very specific points in regard to that subject with special reference to the operations and the administrations of the Limitation of Coal Prices Act, 1915. I think it will be within the recollection of the House that the Act referred to was passed only as a result of a very strong agitation in the country demanding that the Government should do something to protect the British public against the power of large financial interests imposing their will upon the consumers of coal in this country. I remember attending the conference that was held in the precincts of this House Not only were the consumers of coal represented at that conference, but our municipalities, our utility companies, and our large gas companies, in conjunction with the public, all joined in making an appeal to the Government to take some action to prevent the upward tendency in the price of coal, and after some considerable delay the Act referred to was placed upon the Statute Book.
    Some little time ago the Welsh coal-owners made a request to the Board of Trade that they should be allowed to raise the minimum price of coal, and, as is known to the House, the Board of Trade, in the judgment not only of the miners but of the public generally, very erroneously and unfortunately succumbed to the pressure and pleadings of the coalowners in Wales on that particular occasion. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain, which is an important industrial organisation, and I think I may say with due modesty, one of those organisations that has been in very close touch with the Board of Trade and the Government, and has rendered to the State, very special and signal services during the last two years—that important industrial organisation at once registered its protest against the action of the Board of Trade. I would like to point out that they not only protested against the concession that had been given to the coal-owners, but also, and I think justly, protested that they, as an important part of the mining industry of Great Britain, had not been consulted or conferred with in the least. I want to ask a very specific question of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade. That is this: When the coalowners of
    2726
    South Wales, put their case before the Board of Trade, and when the Board of Trade were discussing the representations that were made to them by the coalowners, was there any regard had, and, if so, to what extent, to the margin of profit enjoyed by the coalowners? I want to submit that it is not sufficient to be able to prove that the cost of production has gone up. I want to suggest that the question of the margin of profit is a fundamental and very important one indeed. It is a matter of common knowledge, a matter that has been the subject of much comment, editorial as well as on the public platform, that in South Wales in particular the margin of profit enjoyed not only in war time, but in peace time, by the coalowners is one of the striking features of the success of the mining industry in this country. Yet the coalowners come before the Board of Trade! I notice that in a letter sent to the Press by the representatives of the Coalowners Association there is this very significant statement made:
    "Without this concession many of the collieries would have been compelled to close."
    In the "South Wales Daily News" of 12th August that letter is given. In the leading article the editor not only repudiates the suggestion contained in it, but very wisely and very pertinently calls for evidence in support of the statement made, namely, that some of these collieries were being worked at a loss. When the Board of Trade and the Government have had as much experience of dealing with coalowners as some Members of this House have had, I venture to say that they will not be so impressed by, or so convinced of, the reality of some of these statements when those concerned speak, as they do in this manifesto that was sent to the daily Press, that unless certain concessions are made certain collieries will have to close. Going back upwards of twenty years, I have before my mind the fact of having to negotiate with certain colliery companies, sometimes on the question of wages, sometimes on the question of the water supply, or of sanitation, and the old argument was trotted out, that if we pressed our claim it meant that the collieries would be closed. Needless to say, the collieries are still in operation, and are still a very successful and profitable enterprise.
    I fear there is some ground and justification for the feeling, not only in this House, but outside, that large financial interests

    2727
    are able to exercise a power and influence that is not consonant with the interests of the larger body, that is the community as a whole. I think it is to the credit of the miners and their representatives, the executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, that they registered their protest against the action of the Board of Trade in that particular connection. In addition to the question which I have already quoted as to the margin of profits, and as to the evidence, if any, that the Board of Trade had submitted to them when the case was put on behalf of the South Wales coalowners, I want to ask this further question: Has a request been made by the coalowners in any other mining counties, and, if so, has any other mining county been granted the same concession that was granted to the South Whales coalowners? In the statement that was issued by the coalowners of South Wales they affirmed that unless the concession was granted certain collieries would close. Another point they put—and put with emphasis—was: because of the increase of the wages paid to the miners, added, of course, to the increase in the cost of stores, etc., it was imperative that they must have this concession, and be allowed to raise the standard basis of their coal prices. The point I want to make is this: I should have thought it was within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that wages are governed by prices. There are some of us who have believed that the reverse should be the case, and that prices should be governed by wages, but the fundamental fact is that the wages the coalowners in Wales were paying prior to the concession being granted by the Board of Trade were wages that we were entitled to on ascertained prices. I submit that the argument, at least in that particular, is not entitled to the consideration of the Board of Trade. I respectfully, and with all the emphasis of which I am capable, suggest to the Board of Trade that the coalowners did not make out a case, that the Board of Trade gave a concession to the coalowners without discrimination, and that the vast majority of them have been paying and are paying, not ordinary but abnormally high dividends, and to have given to them the power, which they have exercised, to raise the price of coal to the consumer, added to the very heavy burdens which have been imposed, especially upon the poorer people of this coun-
    2728
    try, is, consciously or unconsciously, to have done a very great injustice, especially to the poorest of our people.
    There is one other point. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to tell us if the question of the margin of profit was subject to consideration by his Department. When I speak of the margin of profit I do not want the hon. Gentleman to confuse it with dividend. They are not necessarily the same thing. I have been reading with interest the recent balance sheets of some of our large mining companies. Previously I have had occasion especially to refer to the system which is almost universal with our large mining companies in particular at the present day—that is that their dividend only represents a part of their profits. For instance, I read in the balance sheet of a certain mining company that it is paying a 50 per cent, dividend. But that dividend of 50 per cent, does not represent more than two-thirds of the gross profits. The amount of money out of current profits which is transferred, not only to reserve funds and to depreciation accounts, but is handed aver for the purpose of extensions and developments is very substantial. I refer to this not only because of its bearing upon this particular question and the probability of further requests coming from the other mining areas, but because of its relationship to the question of the Excess Profits Tax. I hope that the Government are having due regard to the important aspect of that particular question. I should think the probabilities are that the Department have seen a copy of the report that was published on Monday, headed "The Price of Coal. Attitude of Derbyshire Miners." It was a meeting of the Derbyshire Miners' Council, at which the following resolution was passed:
    "That should the Home Secretary give the coalowners in the Conciliation Board area similar permission to advance the price of coal beyond that allowed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Bill, as had been given to the South Wales colliery owners, the men's section of the Conciliation Board will immediately make application for a corresponding advance in wages."
    I am sure no one can be surprised, no matter what agreement there may be as between the mine owners and the workmen, if the Government are to give a further concession, that the miners must of necessity urge their claim for further increase of wages. On the other hand, I think the spirit expressed in that resolution that they do not desire or intend, unless that concession is granted, to press for further increase of wages, certainly

    2729
    ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Trade, and ought to be placed to the credit of the miners in that particular locality.
    The only other word I wish to say is this: The question of the price of coal has been and is urgent, and I am with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), who, in referring to coal, said that in the coming months it would probably be more important from many points of view. I hope the Government are going to anticipate, and, with enterprise, initiative, and fairness, seek to secure to the poor people in particular that they should have coal at a reasonable price, and that they will have due regard not only to the margin of profit, but the cost of production as compared with the selling price of coal. I know some people imagine that the miners are getting unlimited wages in these days. It is true that a very large number of miners are getting substantially higher wages, but it is also true that there are large numbers of miners in this country who, notwithstanding the relative increase in wages, are finding it very difficult in these days to make ends meet. My point is this, and I think the Government have got to face it, that the selling price of coal bears no relationship to the cost of production in the vast majority of collieries in this country. I merely state the point. I know a village where the only industry is mining, where the workmen themselves who go down into the mine and produce the coal are being called upon in these days to pay 27s. 6d. a ton for coal. That is not in London, but in a mining village near my own Constituency. The last time I was there coal was 1s. 3d. a cwt. The power of a coalowner to impose his will upon the consuming public must not be allowed to go unchallenged. The Board of Trade must operate and administer the Act, not with a view to the minimum, but with a view to securing the maximum of results for the consumers of coal. Of course I know the Act is very imperfect and is a very weak measure, but I venture to say that the public have got the minimum and not the maximum, and that in many particulars the Board of Trade might have administered that Act with more vigour and with much less regard to the coalowners of this country. Therefore, I say that I hope in the coming winter the Board of Trade will act with that enterprise and initiative so as to secure, especially for
    2730
    the poorest of the poor, that they shall have at least coal at a reasonable market price.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I apologise for intervening now, but I think I have waited twelve or thirteen hours on this bench, and there is a limit to the powers of nature, and I will now answer to the best of my ability the various points that have been raised. First, I will say a word or two on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I gather he accepted the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), and therefore I do not think I need say much about that beyond this, that the position is, as the House will clearly understand from the two hon. Members who have spoken about it, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, that Shunter Davis was convicted for circulating leaflets contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, not the Military Service Act, and that in that action he was certainly not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in any way supported by his union. My hon. Friend will also admit that netiher was the prosecution in any sense on the initiative of the railway company. Neither the union nor the railway company were concerned. The railway company have a definite rule that every man who is convicted of an offence thereby is dismissed from the service of the company. Under that automatic rule Shunter Davis lost his employment. Therefore, if the Board of Trade have to intervene, they have not to ask the railway company to reverse a special penalty which they have placed upon their servant, but we have, on the other hand, to ask them, and to press them, to make a special exception in his favour. Further than that, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, mere reinstatement would not meet the case, because, under the Military Service Act, every man of military age who is not treated as indispensable is taken for service with the Colours, and it is pretty clear, I think, that as Shunter Davis has now been absent from his work for three months, and has been replaced, it would not be very easy for the company to give that certificate, and, in the absence of that certificate, whether he is reinstated now or is not reinstated, Mr. Davis would come to serve with the Colours. He is a single man, a point which has not been mentioned.
    Mr. THOMAS: I did mention it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I admit that there are circumstances of difficulty in the case. The offence, I entirely agree, is not exactly in the same position as an offence of stealing or dishonesty. It is not in the same category as that. I think the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is a very happy one, and if Davis can see his way to meet that suggestion and serve honourably, and thereby purge any offence he may have committed, and afterwards returns to the service of the company, I think all the essential features of the case will be most happily met. I rather gather my hon. Friend will seek to bring that about.
    Mr. THOMAS: I will convey it.
    3.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend raised a further point about the Belfast boats. I need not go over the whole ground which has been debated here about a very unfortunate strike, which covered a large area, and was not confined to this particular service of boats but extended to five lines of boats running across the Irish Channel, and which has been settled in every case except in this particular one. In this case the company has replaced the men who have either gone elsewhere or are doing other work. The complaint is that the Military Service Act has been utilised for that purpose.
    Mr. THOMAS: Just as the hon. Gentleman has said that the Great Western Railway could not be expected to give a card of indispensability to a man who had been away for three months, I now want the hon. Gentleman to say that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company cannot give cards of indispensability for twenty men who have never been in their employment before.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: One man is doing the work and the other is not. As far as the railway company is concerned the question of indispensability does not depend upon the individual, but upon whether the work could be done by somebody else. Davis has been replaced, and somebody is doing his work. Therefore Davis is not indispensable.
    Mr. THOMAS: They gave the cards as a condition of doing the work, and Davis should be given a card to do the work.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The railway company absolutely deny that. It does not
    2732
    necessarily follow that men who are serving in the merchant fleet of this country are indispensable and cannot be taken.
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman has got a photograph of the card.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a special card.
    Mr. THOMAS: That is the only card.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Every servant of the railway company serving on their line in certain branches of work and particularly on vessels at sea receives necessarily one of these cards, and all these men have joined and are doing the work and necessarily and automatically they receive one of these cards. But that it not the charge. The charge is that this card has been given beforehand as an inducement to these men to go and serve, but the railway company deny that. They must get one of these cards when they are serving. These boats have to be run, and somebody must run them. It is alleged that these men who were engaged had no previous experience at sea at all, and that the ships are therefore being run under dangerous conditions and contrary to the regulations of the Board of Trade with regard to safety, which it is alleged are not being complied with. That is a matter which certainly will be looked into, and that is all I can really say upon that point. Before I come to the main subject of the Debate I should like to answer the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Richardson) in regard to the question of coal prices. He raised a question which has been very much discussed on the extra 2s. 6d. allowed to the South Wales coalowners on inland coal to meet the increased working cost. The reason that 2s. 6d. was given was because definite proof was forthcoming to the Board of Trade that since the fixing of the standard above which the Act allows an increase of 4s. there has been an increase of cost of at least 2s. 6d. A very much larger claim was put forward, but the Board of Trade did not consider the larger claim had been definitely proved. Of that 2s. 6d., 1s. 10½d. per ton was for increased wages, and the other items amounted to 7£d.
    It arises in this way. By far the larger proportion of coal in South Wales is export coal which does not come under the Limitation of Prices of Coal Act, and under these circumstances the average price of coal upon which the rate of wages is based has risen very largely. There

    2733
    have been three changes of wages since the Limitation of Prices Act was passed. There has been an addition of 12½ per cent., a reduction of 5 per cent., and a further increase of 15 per cent., bringing the total rise up to 22½ per cent. The effect of that rise was equally felt by the collieries which are mainly engaged in export coal trade, and who obtained the advantage of high prices which produce the higher wages, and also by the other coalowners who are mainly engaged in inland coal trade, but who receive no advantage whatever from the rise in price of export coal.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: How many collieries does that affects?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend has asked rue a very pertinent question. Here we get at the root evil of fixing prices, and it is very instructive that this point should be brought forward when it is being suggested that heroic measures are always possible, and as long as they are heroic it is said they are bound to succeed. That is the spirit which has rather pervaded this Debate. It is thought that as long as the Government do something bold and heroic everything is sure to be well. In this particular case we have taken certain steps. I do not say that they are heroic, but it is a step in the direction of fixing prices. We can only fix a maximum price. I think hon. Members will agree that we cannot go on fixing prices for every producer and say, "Your profits and costs are so much, and therefore you shall sell at this price, and your neighbours profits and conditions are so-and-so, and therefore you shall sell at a rather higher or a lower price." You can only fix the maximum price. If the prices are left alone everybody is in competition, and each man can take advantage of his own particular circumstances and opportunities, and by that competition and opportunities the price is regulated without any definite fixing at all. The maximum price has been fixed, not with reference to the majority or in reference to one or two special cases, and it is not suggested that we have fixed this maximum price, because there was one or two pits which were nearly worked out, and which could not make a profit. I do say that where there is any considerable fraction, or any single fraction at all, you have to fix your maximum, so as not to drive particular pits out of work altogether, and thus
    2734
    reduce the production of coal. You fix your maximum, not on the average or on the majority, but on the lowest fraction which you can adopt. The consequence is that your maximum, at once becomes a minimum. It is a necessary evil of fixing prices that you fix your maximum in reference to the worst circumstances of producing, and the moment you fix it there it is a minimum. Then you get into that vicious circle which my hon. Friend described. You have wages raised because of the high price of export coal, and that rise in wages is imposed equally upon the people who are producing inland coal. That involves a demand, which you are unable to resist, to raise the price of inland coal, and so you go round the vicious circle. It is unfortunate, but in this particular case it was unanswerable.
    My hon. Friend asked if the question was considered merely on the basis of dividends paid. It was most certainly considered; and it was not only considered on a basis of dividends, but also on a basis of profits. I quite agree that dividends by no means reflect the profits. There may be profits devoted to purposes such as those he described. He asked another very important question: "Have we had any similar demands for authority to raise prices from other colliery districts?" I may say that we have had none except from the Forest of Dean, which has already been mentioned in this House. That is a small matter. It is contiguous to South Wales, and it has not yet been decided. That is the only other application which we have had, and I sincerely trust that it may not be necessary to take any further steps in this direction. I have pointed out the evil of it, and I think it is only fair that I should also point out that there is some considerable advantage derived from it; otherwise, we should not have been justified in passing it. For instance, in this particular month of August certain cases have been dealt with. I do not think it would be right of me to give the actual name of the consumer, but a large public utility company in a large town in the North raised a complaint as to a quantity of 120,000 tons spread over twelve months, and the Board of Trade intervened and obtained a reduction of 9d. per ton, representing £4,500 per annum. In another case of a munition firm there were 800 tons per week and a reduction of 1s. 7d. per ton was obtained, representing £3,000 per annum. In the case of a railway company involving 50,000 tons spread over twelve months

    2735
    a reduction of 9d. per ton was obtained, representing £2,000. In the case of a local authority with 500 tons spread over twelve months a reduction of Is. 2d. per ton was obtained, and in the case of another local authority in Wales with 350 tons, a reduction of 1s. 9d. per ton was obtained. In the case of certain water companies reductions of 2s. 3d. and 2s. per ton have been obtained. I am glad to be able to tell the House that some reductions have been obtained.
    The difficulty is not only, or even chiefly, with coalowners. If facts can be clearly brought home to coalowners there is not any great difficulty in obtaining the reduction which is prescribed by the Act. The difficulty is to get the consumer concerned to come forward. There are a great many consumers whom, I am afraid, are rather more keen on getting the coal they want for themselves than of maintaining the general level of supply in the country, and they are very apt to go to the coalowner and say, "I want this coal. If you will only give it me, I will say nothing about it. I will give you an extra 6d. or Is. per ton." If consumers, instead of doing that, will come and ask the Board of Trade to see that they get their coal at the proper price, I undertake to administer the Act as firmly and as strongly as we can possibly do it, and in the spirit in which it was passed by this House. We have, as my hon. Friend knows, got in every coal area district committees who are working this Act. The whole question is obviously a difficult one. The moment you fix the price of any commodity, you come across the difficulty of providing the supplies required. It at once gives rise to the question of Government regulation and Government assistance in order to obtain the supply required by some body who is precluded from offering a higher price than his neighbour is prepared to give. We are dealing with that difficult matter through these district committees, and on the whole I think that considerable benefit has been derived. I do not think that I should be overstating the case if I said that if it had not been for this Act the price of coal might have been considerably higher than it is now, but it is going further than is reason able to expect to fulfil all the hopes and aspirations of hon. Members who assisted to pass it.
    2736
    I will now answer as well as I can the main question which has been raised in this Debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) who opened this Debate, and by several hon. Members below the Gangway. That is, the question of food prices. May I say, first of all, that you cannot consider such a large question as this isolated from the general conduct of the War. It is only part of the whole of the great problem of war in which we are engaged, and, important as it is, it is not of the first importance, though it may be second. The first thing, obviously, is to win the War as quickly as possible. I will take the question of ships to illustrate my point. You have conflicting calls upon a ship. It is required for the direct purpose of winning the War by carrying troops or munitions. It is also very desirable that ship should be utilised for carrying food to this country.
    Mr. HOUSTON: And also to meet the demands of the Allies.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not pretend to be covering the whole, ground, but what I have stated is sufficient illustration. There is that conflict, and therefore I am justified in saying that the question of food supplies cannot be regarded as an isolated problem. It is part of the general problem of winning the War. It has not been dealt with on that basis in this Debate, and I rather complain of it. It is so very easy, comparatively, to criticise and to suggest this or that remedy if you isolate your problem and produce one particular difficulty, and say, "This can be dealt with." Hon. Gentlemen who make that sort of proposal have, perhaps, never really considered what the effect of that action is going to be in other directions. I think my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Ellis Griffith) suggested that we should take the Australian wheat. It never probably occurred to him—it is perfectly simple—that it takes three times as long to bring wheat from Australia than it does from America, and, as the real problem is one of tonnage and shipping, would it really be wise policy to bring one cargo from Australia when you could be bringing three cargoes from America for the sake of getting your wheat a few shillings cheaper? That brings me to the point

    2737
    which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. He said that the argument had been used here, in defence of these high prices, that they tended to reduce consumption—that because the price was high less quantities of the article were consumed, and that was desirable in war-time.
    I never heard that argument used on this Bench, and I do not believe that the argument has ever been used by any responsible Minister in this House. I should most certainly not use it myself, and I should say that it is a direct reversal of the fact. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman making such a suggestion at all. I do not think he can really have studied the position. There is no doubt an advantage in high prices, but I do not say that it is a corresponding advantage. High prices are a great evil which we desire to check in every possible way, but there is no evil without some compensating benefit, and the benefit of high prices is that while they decrease consumption, they tend to increase production. Take shipping, for instance; if you have large profits in the shipping trade there follows an increase of shipbuilding and a putting of more ships on the sea, with the result that we get cheaper food and more food. It is a question not so much of price as of quantity. Quantity governs price. If you have more of any particular article than you desire to consume, that article will be cheap. Correspondingly, a scarcity of any particular article increases its price. All our efforts should be directed, as far as possible, to increase the supply, but to say that a rise of price is an advantage because it reduces consumption is a direct reversal of the whole facts of the case.
    It is very difficult from this side of the House to debate this question, for this reason: that the whole effort of the Government is directed to trying to get the price down. We are in daily negotiation with the different interests concerned, with different groups of shipowners, different groups of producers, and all the different elements which are engaged over this enormous area. If, in answer to the kind of criticism which has been made here in the House, I got up and entered into the defence of high prices, by giving all the various reasons which I could discover why the price of this or that article is high, that would be very injurious to our policy. I can-
    2738
    not come here and defend a state of things which I am trying by every possible means in my power to alter. If I advance arguments in defence of high prices, that will be brought up against me when I am trying to negotiate with private owners to get prices down. Therefore, I would prefer not to make a strong case when prices are high, or to state the kind of means the Board of Trade possess to try to keep prices down. I hope the House will accept that. But I will say this, that prices with which we are dealing are not prices in Great Britain; they are not prices in the British Empire; they are world prices, and before this War began the whole trade of the world was becoming very largely cosmopolitan. Communications are now so easy, especially by telegraph, information is so easily obtained from any part of the world, that the price of any particular commodity is a world price. The main reason why prices are so high throughout the world is owing to the War, which is a world war. If two small nations, or even two great nations, alone were concerned in the war at this time, the effect of that war would be comparatively small upon the world's prices, which cover the whole area of the globe. But the whole world is at war.
    May I take one fact alone. It is calculated that the consumption of food by a soldier, whether at the front or not—for every man serving the Crown as a soldier—is about half as much again as it would be in normal civilian life. That is the case with us, and probably it is still more accentuated in the case of other nations. In France, I believe, the proportion would be still higher, because the normal scale of living is not quite so high in that country as it is here; and if you take Italy and Russia, the fact would be found to be even more accentuated. If you calculate the untold millions of men in all the countries engaged in this great War who are now serving under their respective flags, you will find that the consumption of food amongst them is anything from half as much again to twice as much as in normal civilian life. That enormous increase in consumption throughout the world is quite enough to account for a considerable rise in price. That element is entirely beyond Government control, unless you would suggest that the Government should give less food to the troops who are fighting, a suggestion which I do not think any

    2739
    Member in this House would make. At the same time, it must be remembered that the matter is accentuated in every direction by the fact that supplies are simultaneously decreased by the withdrawal of labour from the land, so that every man who goes to serve under the Colours eats more and produces less. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellis Griffith) challenged me to give reasons why prices are so high He did so in what I think was rather an aggressive manner, and he asked why the Government cannot control prices, and if they cannot control prices, why do not they say so; whereas if they can control prices, why do not they do so? You cannot answer a question of that sort in that way. I say that the main factor in the rise is that while you increase consumption on the one hand you reduce production on the other, and that is a matter beyond the control of the Government.
    I do not deny that there are minor directions in which something could be done, and every attempt is being made to do that. It would obviously not assist us if I went in detail into the negotiations which are being carried on. The question whether any change in policy can be adopted is the question which is being considered by the Committee which has been appointed and which is presided over by my predecessor at the Board of Trade. I do not want the House to think for a moment that we are waiting for the Report from the Committee, and that we are doing nothing meantime. Our activities are being carried on in the direction of negotiation and in the direction in which we can make safe regulations. Take, for instance, the Regulations which we issued two or three days ago for the inspection of stocks. They are intended to be utilised to the full, and every advantage is to be taken of them. We have now full power to obtain full information and to ascertain the whole of the stocks of particular articles which are held in this country, and we can see whether they are being held in a manner contrary to the national interest. That covers not only the War now, but also the possibility of stocks being accumulated in this country awaiting the end of the War, when they could be sold at an advantageous price, and even be exported to our enemies. These Regulations would give us great facilities for dealing with that subject.
    2740
    The point which has been most discussed in relation to prices is the question of shipping and freights. Perhaps I may deal with that, in the first instance, in relation to the point raised as to the price of wheat by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Griffith). It is an interesting thing to remember that 5s. a quarter on the freight of wheat from the United States or Canada here represents a halfpenny on a 4 lb loaf. That is just what the figures come to.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I think the hon. Gentleman is rather overstating the matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think not. That is just about the figure. In regard to the question of freights, the Government are accused of doing nothing, but, as a matter of fact, the Government have taken virtual control of the whole of the shipping trade of this country. That fact has not been mentioned in Debate except by the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division (Mr. Houston). None of the critics of the Government mentioned the fact that the Government have already taken control of the whole of the shipping of the country and are utilising it partly in the national interest directly for the work of the War, and partly so as to conserve over the widest field the national interests of the country, both during the War and after the War too. There, again, you enter a wider area than that of the mere maintenance of the food supply of the country. In this connection the point was raised of the three ships now being built for neutrals in this country. Is it not a matter of great importance that after the War we should maintain our pre-eminence in shipbuilding, not only in respect of ships for this country, but also for the supply of ships to other countries? Is not our trade in building and selling ships in this country a matter of great importance?
    Mr. HOUSTON: It is an export trade.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. I do not say that it is equally important with the supply of food to the people of this country, but you cannot ignore it. The Government cannot afford to ignore it. When we are asked whether we will allow a certain number of ships to be built for neutrals we cannot ignore that consideration, and the question is, Can you, having regard to the requirements of the food supply of this country, afford in this particular case, and in one or two other cases, to ignore that which is to retain some of

    2741
    your export trade in shipping? You cannot ignore it. The Government have exercised their control by directing a very large amount of tonnage to the purpose of carrying wheat to this country. The effect of that has been to reduce freights. The freights which were about 17s. 6d. per quarter at the beginning of this year were brought down in the week of 1st July for a very short time. I do not make any claim that it was long enough to count. In the answer that I gave yesterday I did not base the figure of 3s. on the figure for the 1st July. The figure was actually brought down to 7s. For a considerable period it was down to 9s. Since then there has been a rise. The figures are as follows: On 1st July it was 7s.; 8th July, 8s. 5d.; 15th July, 8s. 9d.; 22nd July, 11s. 8d.; 29th July, 10s. 11d.; and on 19th August, which is the last figure available, it was 12s. 2½d. So that it has gone up from 7s. or 8s. to 12s. That rise of 5s. represents a ½d. on a 4 lb. loaf. If you take what is really more important, namely, the whole area of the rise in prices, and take the pre-war figures, you find that the pre-war figure was about 2s. 6d., and that it is now roughly 12s. 6d. Therefore you get 10s., and on a 4 lb. loaf you get your 1d. It is, therefore, quite easy for the House to see at once, if at the outbreak of war the 4 lb. loaf was 5½d. and it is now 9d., that it is perfectly clear that the rise in freights represents Id. out of the rise of 3½d.
    It is quite possible that these figures may show that the question of freights bulks rather less in the food prices than is supposed. The kind of language used by several hon. Gentlemen, including no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), was to the effect that the main factor in this rise was freights. Another figure which is worth while remembering—it is so obvious, but people do not always have it in their minds—is that £5 a ton on freight represents a ½d. in the £. Therefore, if things are consumed at so much per pound, and you look at the freight market, you know that if there has been a rise of £5 in the price of freights it involves a rise in the price of the commodity of ½d. a pound. That shows that freights, high as they are, do not form the largest part of the rise. This confirms the argument I have ventured to put before the House, that the main portion of the rise is due to the decreased production and the increased consumption which are directly
    2742
    caused by the War. I may mention another fact to show that the Board of Trade is doing something. A small Regulation has been made which has proved of great value in one direction. There are ships now going to neutral countries with coal. We make it a condition that ships going to neutral countries with coal are not allowed to take that coal to a neutral country unless they undertake to return here with a freight. That has had some considerable effect. That is the kind of direction in which we are working. I have given three or four instances of what we are doing— the appointment of these Committees, the direction of ships into the wheat trade, the Regulation as to ships which take coal being compelled to bring back food supplies or other necessaries that we require, and the Eegulation which enables us to examine all the stocks of the country and to take immediate measures if there is any evidence whatever of cornering or holding up. I am afraid I cannot deal with the whole of the ground which has been covered in this Debate; there are other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak; therefore I think I have occupied quite enough of the time of the House.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the Portuguese steamers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. The hon. Member asked me a particular question about the 14s. 3d. That is the rate paid to the Portuguese Government. The managers of these ships—Furness, Withy and Company—will run these ships and pay all expenses, and any profits left over after the expenses are paid will be handed to the Government. That is the position.
    Mr. HOUSTON: The hon. Gentleman cannot be right.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I am right. That is the information given to me.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Surely the Portuguese Government out of the sum received will pay the cost of the crews' wages, and provisioning and insurance?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That price has been obtained by bargaining.
    Mr. HOUSTON: It is a very bad bargain.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member may think it is a bad bargain, but that is

    2743
    the bargain which has been made. It is very valuable indeed to us to get the services of these additional ships.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Quite so.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: When we want something very badly we very often have to pay for it. I am afraid in war time it is vain to seek for the same equality which we could obtain in peace time. One of the main facts of war is the unevenness with which the conditions of war affect different people and different interests. Take it in the principal factor. Two men go to the front, equally brave and in every way equal to each other. One man is killed or maimed for life and the other goes home loaded with honour. Take the case of persons engaged in industry, both equally honourable and both in every way on a parity. One man's trade, equally legitimate with the other, happens to be adversely affected by the War. His business is not required in war time. His income goes. There are many individuals engaged in commerce whose whole business has been extinguished at a moment's notice, without warning of any kind, upon the outbreak of the War. Others, no more worthy or unworthy, happen to be engaged in an equally legitimate business in producing some article which is badly required in war time. Their incomes are doubled or trebled. That is inevitable. The same is found in different classes of labour.
    In this House we are always striving to see that everyone shall get the same chances, the same opportunities and the same conditions of living, as his neighbour in the same sphere of life. I dare say if we were at war for ten years we might succeed in arriving at it, but I hope we shall not find ourselves in that position. All we can do is to deal with these conditions as they arise, but we must do what we can to temper the hardships which fall upon those who are suffering and do what we can to see that those profits which are made are as far as possible deducted by the State and do not merely go into the pockets of the individual. I quite agree on principle with what my right hon. Friend said, that the State is sharing in the crime by taking part of the profits in the form of taxation. From one point of view I agree, but is it not better to do that than to stop trades and industries which are essential for the carrying on of the
    2744
    War? If we could find a better way, I would much sooner see the prices down and the profits not made than that a profits tax should be imposed. But if we cannot get the prices down and the profits are made, as a pis alter, because it is the only alternative left to us, we say those profits shall not all go into the pockets of the individual—the community, at any rate, shall benefit by them—and the State takes, in the first place, 60 per cent., in the second place 25 per cent, of the remaining 40 per cent., which is another 10 per cent.—that is 70 per cent.—and then in cases where Super-tax is paid another 8s. 6d. on the 40 per cent., which is another 7 per cent. That makes 77 per cent, in Super-tax cases, leaving 23 per cent, to the man who makes the profit. It is not very far from the truth to say that in an average case of large companies, where the profits go to wealthy people, something like 75 per cent, of extra profit is therefore taken for the State. I do not put that forward as a justification for high prices for a moment, but under the circumstances it is a desirable thing to do, although we very much wish that prices would go down and that profits were not made. My right hon. Friend made a definite suggestion and asked, "Why does not the Government provide every farmer with a steam plough?"
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Not every farmer. I said one steam plough was better than all the perorations.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will leave my hon. Friend to reply to that. I assure the House that the Board of Trade is as alive as any hon. Member who has spoken to the evils of high prices and the vicious circle which they involve in the matter of wages and labour disputes, and the great hardships which they cause to certain individuals, and no effort is being spared to deal with the evil, and we welcome this Debate as giving us an opportunity of answering criticism.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I rise because my right hon. Friend (Mr. Griffith) asked me some definite questions. I hope I shall be able to a small extent to relieve certain anxieties with regard to our condition as to food supplies. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is always so nice to be told just how one's job ought to be done. He made two quite definite suggestions as to how we ought to give orders

    2745
    in order to do our job properly. One was that we should give orders that calves should not be slaughtered. We have done it. Over a year ago we passed legislation which enabled us to deal with this question, and we have since issued a regular series of Maintenance of Live Stock Orders which, without going into details, have the effect of checking the slaughter of calves. It is a very small matter and I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend has not heard about it. We do not claim that it has done very much. We have mainly acted by. those other means which he rather deprecated—advice, circulars, appeals to farmers and trying to help them where we could in regard to their labour, their feeding-stuffs and railway difficulties, and so on, and the result is that the figures of the stocks existing in England and Wales that we take every year for the beginning of June show that the stock of horned animals in this country is a record for the whole history of the War up to date. There has never been more. There has been an appreciable increase this year over and above any other year we have ever had. I wonder how much any German Minister connected with agriculture would give to be able to say that. I think it is rather a tribute to the farming community, but possibly also to the many methods of encouragement that the Board of Agriculture has been able to undertake.
    The second suggestion was that we should give a command that more land should be placed under the plough. That again is not quite so easy. I have a great hope that agriculture will develop in the direction suggested. I believe that to put a very great deal of land under the plough might decrease the amount of stock which it feeds, although it increases clearly the amount of crop that is produced. I believe we need something like a revolution in agriculture in that direction. But I am afraid if we simply gave orders now that it was to be done the ordinary farmer would have some very pertinent questions to ask us. He would say, "Will you please give me implements?" That is the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the steam plough. Although we cannot provide a steam plough to every farmer who wants it, we have for months been negotiating and arranging with the Ministry of Munitions for firms of agricultural implement makers to be liberated, as the supplies of certain classes of shells they were making became sufficient, for
    2746
    the manufacture of agricultural implements. The farmer would say, "If you want more corn area, give me implements and give me sheds in which to house them; give me horses and give me stables in which to house them, give me labour and give me money to pay it, and give me houses in which to house the extra labour which I should require on my farm if I turned it into an arable farm from a grass farm." He would also say one or two practical things like, "Give me a guarantee that there will not be any wire worm in the land which I plough up when I attempt to take up the first grain crop from it."
    These things, I think, must be left to be worked out gradually after full consideration in time of peace. We cannot simply by giving an order secure that the things shall be done in time of war, particularly with difficulties as to labour and other things so great as they are now. However, I think the result shows that less drastic methods, less mandatory methods have had a reasonable success. The area under corn crops in England and Wales, so far as we can estimate it at the present time this year, although it shows a moderate decline from the area under grain crops last year, still shows an appreciable increase over the pre-war year 1914, and when you consider the real difficulties the farmers have had to contend with, I do not think that is a bad result. Cattle represent an absolute record, and the grain area represents an increase on the pre-war figures. I think that, for an industry which at the beginning of the War had less than 1,000,000 men engaged in it, including all the farmers, and which has been reduced by certainly 300,000 men since then, is not a bad record, and it is not a bad contribution that agriculture is making to the safety of the country. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I will do my best during the Recess to study whether more can be done in the direction he indicates. If I may make a suggestion, it is this, that if he would find out what we are doing, his suggestions in future would be even more valuable than they are.

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: There has not been a Debate in this House for some time on foreign affairs, and I take this opportunity of asking the Government, in view of the considerable adjournment which is about to take place, for information on one or

    2747
    two points. In the first place, I would invite the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary, to clear up, if he can, the situation in regard to the rumours that have been persistent in neutral countries and in this country, believed in by many Members of this House, and promulgated, as he knows, throughout the whole German Press, that indirect overtures have been made to this country with regard to the termination of the War and suggested terms of peace. I attach no importance to these reports, but there is no doubt whatever that the Germans are using statement* to that effect to delude, if possible, still further the people they are supposed to represent. Therefore, I think, it would be to the advantage of the Government, and of this country, if my Noble Friend could give a clear and direct statement on that point. There is a great indication of desire to believe in these rumours. I sympathise with them, because only the other day I put a direct question to the Prime Minister on the subject, and he said that the only advances that he had heard of were published in the newspapers. Many people read into that reply, seeing that it was not definite enough, that there must be something behind the qualified denial which the Prime Minister gave. Under these circumstances I would invite the Noble Lord to give us any information at his disposal. I would also ask him if he can give us any information in regard to the position in the Balkans. He knows that the censorship at the present time is very severe, and any information we are able to get we must try to obtain on the floor of this House. I know the delicate character of the situation, and I do not propose to introduce any matters which may in any way be in the nature of a difficulty to the Under-Secretary. I think, however, that he might give us information about one or two things. For example, is it the case that the advance of the Bulgars has been connived at by the Greek Government, and does it indicate a further act of hostility on the part of that Government? I would like to know whether he has any information that the Greeks have been fighting Bulgaria during the last week, and if he can give an assurance that the recent advance on the part of Bulgaria will not interfere, so far as he knows, in any way with the elections about to take place in Greece. I also invite him, if he can, to
    2748
    give us any information generally with regard to our present relations with Greece.
    Since our last Debate; on the blockade a new situation has arisen. The Declaration of London has been completely torn up, and all our Orders in Council have been cancelled by a new Declaration on behalf of the Government. I should like to know how far, in the opinion of the Government, that has affected the blockade. Has it made the blockade more severe, and can he produce proof that the blockade is being carried out more energetically than it was before. I would particularly like to ask him whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted in regard to the drawing up of the Order in Council which cancelled the Declaration of London. Can he tell us whether any Orders have been issued to the Fleet in connection with the cancelling of that Declaration, and, if so, can he tell us the nature of those Orders? Generally, how has the situation been altered by the cancelling of the Declaration of London? Obviously, the Government thought it was going to serve some useful purpose, and now, when the new situation has been in operation for some time, perhaps the Noble Lord will be able to tell us the result of the operation. In association with the blockade I would be glad if he could give us any information as to the working of the Denmark Traders' Association. We have not yet been able to see the secret documents connected with that commercial association. Has he reason to believe that that association is working loyally in accordance with the terms that were accepted when he made the agreement? Can he produce proof that the enemy is getting less through from that country than it did before the association was formed, because some figures in regard to the imports of Denmark are rather significant and somewhat alarming. Take cotton yarn. In June, 1913, before the War, 55,700 pounds; in June, 1916, 598,400 pounds. Is the Noble Lord quite satisfied that that enormous increase is not in any way finding its way into the hands of the enemy? I hope he will be able to give us some explanation of that enormous increase.
    4.0 P.M.
    I would also like to know whether the Noble Lord is satisfied with the recent working of the Netherlands Overseas Trust. Can he tell us how much money has been paid in fines? These fines go to the Dutchmen, and this country does not

    2749
    benefit from them. I think over 1,000,000 Gulden were paid in fines some time after the Trust came into operation. I heard the other day of a firm which does business in this country which was fined £25,000 by the Netherlands Overseas Trust for sending goods into Germany. Of course, they were very pleased to be fined £25,000, because, I am told, they had already made £75,000 on the deal. I would ask the Noble Lord to see that when any firm, whether it is a margarine firm or any other firm, is found defying the operations of the Netherlands Overseas Trust and has been deliberately fined for helping the enemy, steps are taken to see that that firm cannot carry on business in this country, directly or indirectly. There is no doubt whatever that there is ground for the belief that steady business in supplying the enemy from Holland is going on, notwithstanding the Overseas Trust. If you take the case of butter, for example, we find that, in the first six months of 1914, 7,000 tons went into Germany, and in the first six months of 1916 the amount was 19,000 tons. Cheese, the first six months of 1914, 6,000 tons; the first six months of 1916, 46,000 tons; meat, the first six months of 1914, 5,800 tons, and 40,000 tons in the corresponding period of 1916. I think that there is ground for asking for some explanation of these figures.
    I have often complained in this House of the Publicity Department of the Foreign Office. It has not been satisfactory from the very beginning of the War. It does not up to the present moment do the work which should be expected of it. Even in France the British point of view is not represented in French newspapers as well as it should be, notwithstanding the very able and numerous London correspondents. I would suggest that in every one of our Allied countries, and in every one of the neutral States, we ought to have someone directly in touch with the Foreign Office who would present at a proper moment the British point of view and deny statements made hostile to our interests. I refer to Italy in particular. It has been known for a very long time that the British point of view was never understood there at all. They have no conception of what we have done in regard to munitions or the raising of our great Armies. Hon. Members may have noticed the strong statements made the other day by Lord Northcliffe, who
    2750
    ought to be able to judge from his experience, in the dispatches which he sent from that country. Every Britisher who has any knowledge of Italy tells the same thing. Our accomplishments on the sea and in the field are not presented as they ought to be to the Italian people. They are most ignorant as to some of the most important things which we have done in this War. That ought not to be. We ought to report to the Press both in neutral and in Allied countries an account of our military operations. It is perfectly certain that if a smart man had had charge of Bulgaria and other countries their view point probably would have been different, and the result would have been much more satisfactory to us. With regard to America I admit that the position there is very much better than it was. But there is still a lack of prompt denial of lies circulated at the instance of the enemy, calculated to mislead public opinion there and injure the interests of this country, and I would ask the Noble Lord to say whether we cannot have more prompt contradiction of the statements made to our detriment in the American Press?
    I desire also to refer to the question of the Black List. How do the negotiations now stand? I was amazed at the length of the Black List. I do not know whether hon. Members have got a copy of it. It is procurable in the Vote Office, I believe. It contains an enormous number of firms in all parts of the world. What I would like to know is, is it really necessary that publication should take place? I have looked up the Act. The House will remember the Debates we had upon it, and that publication is not necessary. I understand that so far as America is concerned we were able to get on without publication for a very considerable time, so that any Britisher desirous of doing business with an American firm had simply to ask the Foreign Office if this firm was a prohibited firm. If the answer was satisfactory, of course he could go on doing business with the firm. The publication of the list has given rise to a great deal of irritation and controversy, and I would like to know the state of the negotiations at the present time. I am not complaining in any way of the publication of that list. If the Noble Lord thinks that it serves the purposes of the War, even America, as well as every other neutral, must be inconvenienced at a time like this if it is for our highest interests. We are fighting their fight as well as our

    2751
    own. I am not complaining in any way what the Noble Lord has got to publish, but what I ask is: Was not the working as satisfactory before publication was decided?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): My right hon. Friend has asked a very large number of questions, and I hope he will not think I am in any way wanting in respect for him at this time of the afternoon, and at this time of the Session, if I try as briefly as I can to answer them. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether any overtures of peace had been made to the British Government. I can say quite definitely and explicitly that no such overtures have been made. There is only one way in which overtures of peace can be made, and that is by communication of the enemy Governments to this Government. If any such communication had taken place the first thing we would have had to do would have been to consult our Allies. No such overture has taken place of any kind.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Not through other neutral countries?
    Lord R. CECIL: No; no overture of any kind has taken place; and if and when it does take place, it will be our duty to consult our Allies upon it. I do not think it would be desirable for me to go any further into this question beyond that simple statement. As to the Balkan position, I venture to think that what is most interesting about it at present are the military operations that are taking place at Salonika. It is quite obvious, even if I knew anything about them, which I do not, that it would be very improper for me to say anything in this House. As to our attitude towards the Greek Government, the House is aware that a little time ago it became necessary and proper for us to put certain demands before the Greek Government, and those demands were put to them in concert with our Allies, and they were accepted, as the House knows, and the Government over which M, Skoloudis presided was dismissed. A new Government was called into power under M. Zaimis, a gentleman who commands universal respect in Greece, a gentleman not engaged in party politics, and who mainly owes his position to the great respect in which he is, and his authority,
    2752
    and our relations with the Zaimis Government are, as far as I know, thoroughly satisfactory. My right hon. Friend then passed to a survey of the Declaration of London, and he asked me in effect why we have taken the step, with our French Ally, of issuing an Order in Council by which we declare that we withdraw our adoption of it, and what the effect of that action has been. There were several reasons why we took that step. In the first place, the Declaration of London was, as the House is perfectly aware, a compendium of rules governing belligerent rights and duties of nations, or purporting to govern the belligerent rights and duties of all nations. It was supposed to be founded on rules of international law which prevailed before it was made, subject to certain alterations which were made by it. In some respects it introduced changes in regard to what was unfavourable to our position as belligerents; in other respects it purported to introduce changes which were not unfavourable.
    But we were in this position, that it had no force at all in this country, except such force as was given to it, if any, by the Order in Council, which was instituted shortly after the outbreak of the War—I think in October, 1914, or perhaps earlier, I am not sure; it may have been in August, 1914, that it was adopted. The effect of that was that the terms of the Declaration of London were taken to be included in that Order in Council. Then we were in this position. In the well known case of the "Zamora" the Court decided that by Order in Council the British Crown could not extend its belligerent rights, and that those belligerent rights were determined by international law of which the Court, of course, was the judge, and that therefore, so far as the Declaration of London purported to extend our rights, the Order in Council did not do anything, because the rules of international law would still have been administered by our Courts irrespective of that Order. But so far as it diminished our rights, then the Order in Council could be relied upon by the claimant in the Prize Court, because it was a definite statement by the Crown that they did not propose to rely on their extreme rights. That was the legal effect of it. The result was, when the Government came to consider the Declaration of London in connection with the rule of law, which was very clearly propounded in the "Zamora" case,

    2753
    it became perfectly clear that the Declaration of London might do us injury and could not do us good, and therefore it seemed quite clear that it was desirable to get rid of it.
    That was not the only difficulty. Of course, it is a very difficult position I hold at present, because I do not wish to criticise my predecessor in any way. It would be very improper and very bad taste on my part if I did so. Therefore I hope I shall not be understood as passing any criticism on what he did. I do think that the experience of war has shown that an attempt to codify belligerent rights is not practicable at present, and I do not know whether it ever will be practicable. The circumstances of war changes so rapidly, the new inventions, the new developments of war are so numerous, that what might be a perfectly reasonable rule ten years ago might be an utterly unreasonable rule at the present moment. Therefore the Government came to the conclusion that even if the Declaration of London was an absolutely perfect code, and I do not for a moment suggest that it was, yet that it was undesirable really to attempt the codification of the rules of belligerent rights at the present moment. I doubt if any such codification will ever be possible. It was for those broad reasons and some others that the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable to withdraw the Declaration of London. Personally, I am very glad that course was taken. My right hon. Friend asked me whether the Order in Council that was drawn up was settled by the Law Officers of the Crown. I am not quite sure, but it met with the approval of a very high legal authority indeed, and I think we took every possible precaution to secure that it was a sound, legal document. If he has any criticisms to present of it, I hope he will do so in private, and I trust to be in a position to answer them. I believe it to be a sound document.
    My right hon. Friend went on to ask whether the withdrawal of the Declaration of London had in itself made any great difference in our blockade. I do not believe it has. If I thought it was really, in any serious degree, fettering our belligerent rights, I would not have carried on my duties under it so long. I do think it was desirable to get rid of it, and I do think it has made our way clear and exposed us to less misconception from neutrals in the future than we have had to bear in the past. Perhaps I may add a
    2754
    word on that point. It may sound absurd, but the reason is this: It became necessary, whenever we found there was a provision of the Declaration of London that really did hamper our belligerent rights, to issue a fresh Order in Council, saying that in that respect we did not propose to abide any longer by the Declaration of London. That is obviously not a very— what shall I say?—decorous position to adopt. It is perfectly sound, of course, but it looked as if we recognised the Declaration of London as being the higher law, but that whenever it happened to interfere with our interests we had to abolish it. That, of course, is not the true view to take, but it gave that opportunity for misrepresentation and misconstruction, and for that reason, among others, I was glad to see it withdrawn.
    My right hon. Friend passed to Denmark, and asked me how the arrangements with the Denmark Association were working. He asked me to produce proof. It is not very easy to produce proof in these matters. If I were to read out a lot of figures showing, as I think I might, that imports into Denmark have been very materially reduced as a result of that agreement, and if thereupon I took credit to the Government for the great success with which the agreement was working, I think the only effect would be to embarrass His Majesty's Government and to make it more difficult to secure improved conditions. Even in what I am now saying I am conscious that it might be better not to say anything, but in a democratic country you must take the risk of being misunderstood in some respects. One must endeavour to hit the happy mean between the different dangers. All I can say is that I believe the association have carried out the agreement with absolute loyalty and fairness. No one can complain of their doing what they could for the good of their own country. Of course it is their business to obtain all they legitimately can under the terms of that agreement. I believe they have loyally carried it out; they have desired, above all, that its terms should be observed by the Danes in general, and whenever they have come across any breach of those terms they have enforced the agreement with the utmost vigour.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the question of cotton yarns. I am quite aware that there has been an increase in the import of cotton yarns, although I

    2755
    do not think it is so great as my right hon. Friend stated. These things are very difficult. We do not believe that we have allowed to go into Denmark any more cotton in any shape than is required for the internal consumption of Denmark. You must take not only yarn, but raw cotton, cotton manufactures, and cotton waste; you must take the whole cotton industry together. Even so, it is a considerable increase on what they had before. But you must remember that these goods are to some extent interchangeable, and if the people are unable to get as much mixed goods as they used to get, they will probably want more cotton. Of course, they used to import considerable quantities of finished garments from Germany. You must allow for all that. All I can tell my right hon. Friend is, that the amount which we have thought it safe to allow into Denmark was very carefully considered upon the best expert advice that we could get, and I have no reason to believe that it has been materially exceeded within the past seven months. I hope my right hon. Friend will think that a satisfactory answer, arid will recognise the great difficulty there is in going into details in these matters. There have, from time to time, been attacks upon the Netherlands Overseas Trust. I do not mean to say that the Netherlands Overseas Trust, more than any other human institution, is perfect. I say we have every reason to be satisfied with its working as a whole. I do not believe that any quantity of goods is being consigned to the enemy. I do not mean to say that you may not find a little leakage; you cannot avoid that. Having a perfectly flat frontier and no natural obstacles, and in view of the very large prices ruling on the one side of the frontier, and the supplies of goods on the other side of the frontier, whatever precautions you take there will be a certain amount of smuggling. Of course, we cannot dictate to the Dutch Government what precautions they shall take. It rests with them. But I am bound to say that I think their laws are well conceived for the purpose of checking smuggling, and it rests upon them to show that those laws are properly administered and carried out. If there is any great defect in the administration which my right hon. Friend comes across and brings to my notice, I shall be very grateful to him, and shall
    2756
    do my best to see that; it is brought to the notice of the Dutch Government. Speaking generally, I believe the Netherlands Overseas Trust has worked well.
    There is an aspect of the Dutch situation which has caused us great anxiety. Holland is, of course, a producing country so far as agriculture is concerned. Before the War Holland exported a very considerable amount of its produce in various forms. Undoubtedly before the War it sent to this country a very much larger share of its produce than it has sent since. The Dutch are a commercial people. They can get very large prices from Germany, and they can get smaller prices from the United Kingdom. It is not a satisfactory situation from the British point of view. In respect of some of the articles mentioned the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. In the first six months of this year we almost lost the whole production. That is not satisfactory. It is obviously a situation in which it is not very easy to deal. I am not able to tell my right hon. Friend and the House exactly what we have done, but I can assure him—and he can have this satisfaction—thfngs are very much better than they were, and that in the last few weeks a very decided improvement has taken place. I have reason to hope that this improvement will be no less in the future than it has been in the past, and that we have every reason, I will not say to be satisfied—because so far as I am concerned, I will never be satisfied while any kind of foodstuffs are going into Germany—but to be able to say that, on the whole, we have not so very much of which to complain having regard to what went on before the War. It is a very difficult subject. We have had to consider it in a number of different ways. We have been engaged, for instance, in trying to limit the amount of fish that goes through to Germany both from Norway and from Holland. I think the measures which have been taken have been, on the whole, wonderfully satisfactory. My right hon. Friend will recognise how undesirable it is to discuss these things in detail, but I shall be pleased, if he cares to know, to show him the documents on the subject, and I think he will agree with me that the matter has been well dealt with. I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my great obligation, or rather, the great obligations of the country, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr.

    2757
    Leverton Harris) for the admirable work that he has done in connection with the subject. He has really done very remarkable and very admirable work. It would not be right of me, standing here and speaking for the first time since I have taken over the blockade, not to express my great obligation to all those who work with me in this matter, and not least to Lord Emmott, who has had a most thankless task in administering the. War Trade Department, which deals with the issuing of licences, a most difficult and thankless position. Whatever he does is certain to be criticised by one side or the other. He has worked with the utmost loyalty and devotion. The organisation which has been created under his auspices is one of the most remarkable achievements in the whole war, and I think some day or other, when the whole story can be dealt with in detail, the country will recognise the great debt it owes to him for the work he has done.
    Then my right hon. Friend passed to the question of publicity, a difficult subject also. I am surprised he thinks we have not done enough in France. After all, I believe that in this question of publicity, which is a very difficult one, there are two main lines which you can pursue. There is the line which the Germans are pursuing, which is to create elaborate State organisations, because that is really what they are. They are recognised to be State organisations, supported by State money and directed by the German Foreign Office and all that kind of thing. It makes a great show. They flood the country with leaflets and the papers with communiqués of various kinds. They have all the devices which are open to people who proceed on those lines, but I must honestly say I think the effect has been extremely, small. I do not believe the German publicity campaign in any country has been successful, and in some countries, notably the United States, it has been a dismal failure. I am sure any course of that kind would have been disastrous if we had attempted to pursue it. I believe the best form of publicity is this, and it is not an easy one to carry out; it is to give every opportunity to journalists of neutral countries to learn the facts, and to distribute them themselves in their own country.
    Mr. LYNCH: You do not quite carry that out.
    Lord R. CECIL: My hon. Friend may think not, and I dare say if he were in my place he would do it very much better, but we do our best, and I venture to think that, so far as the United States are concerned, we have not been unsuccessful. I know a great deal of criticism was made some months ago about the amount we communicated to the American correspondents. I can only say, if the House will forgive me for speaking of myself for one moment, that I have made great efforts to place at the disposal of the American correspondents all the information at all capable of being published. I see them every week on Friday, and we have a most—at any rate to me—interesting conversation, and I hope and believe that, on the whole, they have no ground— certainly I do not think they have the least ground—of complaint as to the amount of information they get from the Foreign Office.
    Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord answer one question, namely, whether in this information given to the Americans a good deal is conveyed which is not given and made public in this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: So far as the Foreign Office is concerned they are always ready to give any information that they can give to a British journalist, to a British Member of Parliament, or to an American journalist, or any other neutral journalist.
    Mr. KING: Equally?
    Lord R. CECIL: Equally; and if my hon. Friend comes to me and asks me any question, as he has once or twice, I think he will agree that I have always tried my best to satisfy him and to give him the information he has sought. At any rate, that has been my desire, and I have often said to the House, and I will repeat it now, that in foreign affairs, especially blockade matters, I am always anxious and always ready to give all the information to any Member of Parliament, or any group of Members of Parliament, who care to come and ask me. The only other question with which I have to deal is the Black List. My right hon. Friend did not quarrel with the Black List, which was passed by the House of Commons unanimously. I rather think my right hon. Friend took some part in the discussion on the Bill, and I do not think any criticism was passed on it. After all, what is the policy? It is only this: That this country thinks it reasonable that its property, consisting of credit and of shipping, should not be placed at the disposal

    2759
    of its enemies, and if a man, quite clearly an enemy of this country, whether he is technically or nominally a German, Austrian, or Turk, as long as he is clearly an enemy of this country, we have a right to say to our own countrymen, "You are not to trade with that man because by doing so you are assisting the enemies of our country and increasing the power of the soldiers of the enemy to deal with our own soldiers." That seem to be a broad principle, and I do not think there is any other country, including the United States, who, if they were engaged in such a contest as we are now engaged in, would hesitate to carry out a policy of the name kind.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked why we should publish these names, and I will tell him why. He will remember that by the Act it was made an. offence for any British subject to deal with anyone who is on the list or with a person declared to be of enemy nationality or enemy association. It is quite clear that if you are to make this a criminal offence you must give public notice of it, and you cannot leave it to them until they receive a summons from a Police Court informing them that they have transgressed the law. You must tell them plainly beforehand that they are not to deal with those people, and that is the reason for the publication. I am satisfied that when the whole of this policy comes to be understood the criticisms made upon it—and I am quite aware that in certain quarters criticisms have been ma.de—would seem to be quite misconceived and unsubstantial, and I am sure those who made them will be ready to recognise that in what we have done we have only carried out our plain duty as Ministers of the Crown in a country engaged in war.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Are the Consuls being notified to inform the captains of British steamers entering American ports of these facts, and telling them of the list of people they are not to trade with? I know one or two cases where lawsuits have occurred through captains not being notified.
    Lord R. CECIL: That is the difficulty, and I will look into that matter. My impression is that this list is sent to all the Consuls in the leading ports, and they are given some such instructions as those indicated by my hon. Friend.

    IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. LUNDON: I wish to draw the attention of the House to tae question of Ireland. Before going into the details of what I have to say, I would like to refer to an incident which took place on Monday last and explain how it came about. I had no intention of making the observation I did in reference to Sir John Maxwell. I am not saying this because I am being compelled to say it by anybody, but because I believe it is the right thing to do and because I think that observation ought to be withdrawn. What I did mean was that Sir John Maxwell had made charges of murder unjustifiably against the rebels in possession of Dublin, and by doing so he had rendered himself liable to similar charges being made against him by people who desire to do so. I hope the House will accept this explanation of what happened, and now I will go on with what I have to say. I think it is the bounden duty of every hon. Member of, this House, and particularly of those who sit on these benches, to do everything we can in order to bring back Ireland to a normal condition. What I have got to say to the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be said in any spirit of ill-will towards the people I am about to mention, and neither is it going to be said with the object of playing to the gallery in Ireland. We all want to make the path of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government of Ireland as smooth as possible. In his election address at Exeter he said that next to winning the War the most essential duty was the settlement of the Irish question. It is for that reason I am going to offer him one suggestion, a suggestion which I feel sure will help him to clear the way for that settlement which he hopes he will be able to obtain. If he does not accept my suggestion, then it does not matter to me. We have heard much about settlements in the last six weeks, and I dare say that we shall hear a little more when we meet again after the Adjournment in October. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House—and I call a spade a spade—that any settlement of the Irist question at this moment, even if it is Home Rule for all Ireland, will not bring Ireland back to normal conditions as long as you maintain two men in the service of the Government, namely, Sir John Maxwell and Major Price. The right hon. Gentleman says that at the moment it is not possible to withdraw martial law, but

    2761
    why not, for the sake of Ireland and for the sake of the people of Ireland, withdraw Sir John Maxwell and send somebody else to Ireland to carry out the duties which he is performing at the present time? Have you got no man of Irish sentiment, have you got no man who knows Ireland, and whose sympathies are with Ireland and with the endeavour to bring about a union between the North and South of Ireland and between this country and Ireland? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw Sir John Maxwell at the earliest opportunity. I do not care twopence whom he sends in his place. The right hon. Gentleman may ask me, "Why should Sir John Maxwell be withdrawn?" I will just read him a paragraph from Sir John Maxwell's Report. He says:
    "Once the rebellion started, the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police…had to be withdrawn or they would have been mercilessly shot down, as indeed were all those who had the bad luck to fall into the hands of the rebels."
    That statement is absolutely without a shadow of foundation, and it was because of that statement of Sir John Maxwell that I was led into making the observation I made on Monday last. Let me read a passage from the speech made by the Prime Minister on 11th May, on the conduct of the insurgents. He said:
    "I agree as regards the great body of the insurgents that they did not resort to outrage. They fought very bravely. They conducted themselves, as far as our knowledge goes, with humanity; indeed, their conduct contrasts—and contrasts very much to their advantage—with that of some of the so-called civilised enemies with whom we are fighting in the field."— [OKFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1916, col 966, Vol. LXXXIL]
    Sir John Maxwell stated that any of the police who might have had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the rebels would have been shot down. On Monday last I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and here is his reply:
    "There were 177 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police on duty in the streets of Dublin on Easter Monday from nine a.m. They were all withdrawn before three p.m. There were in addition eight constables on duty in Sackville Street from nine a.m., and one superintendent, one station sergeant, and twenty constables from twelve noon; the latter party remained in Sackville Street about one hour, and the other eight were withdrawn before three p.m. Two constables were killed and four wounded on Easter Monday. Members of the force were arrested and detained by the rebels at Jacobs' factory and at the Four Courts. The police in uniform, who were all unarmed, were withdrawn from the streets by order of the Chief Commissioner."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st August, 1916, col. 2251.]
    What I want to point out is this, that Dublin was in the possession of the rebels at twelve o'clock on Easter Monday, particularly O'Connor Street. Upwards of 206 police were on duty, according to the
    2762
    answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Two of them, unfortunately—and we all deplore it—were shot, one at the entrance to Dublin Castle and the other at the entrance to Stephen's Green. Four others were wounded. Dozens of police fell into the hands of the rebels and were taken prisoners at Jacobs' Biscuit Factory and at the Four Courts; and yet, although those 206 police were on duty in the streets of Dublin on Easter Monday for some hours, we are told by Sir John Maxwell that they had to be withdrawn, or otherwise they might fall into the hands of the rebels and be mercilessly shot down. What are the facts? The police who were taken prisoners in Jacob's Biscuit Factory and the Four Courts afterwards, in the Press of Ireland, publicly thanked the insurgents for the treatment meted out to them. I will not go into the question of the executions. My colleagues for the last three months have fully dealt with that. What I will say is that they exercise in the mind of every Nationalist Irishman a feeling of horror, and that feeling was all the more aggravated by the statement which was issued by Sir John Maxwell and for which there is not a shadow of evidence. I say that the man who made that statement wanted to blackmail the men who were incarcerated behind prison walls, and such a man is not worthy to be a governor of any country, much less Ireland. It is for that reason that I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to withdraw him from Ireland for the sake of Ireland, for the good of Ireland, and also for the good of the Chief Secretary himself, because I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has gone over to Ireland seeking to bring peace and prosperity there, for which we all so much long.
    I will now deal with another gentleman, Major Price, who describes himself as chief military detective in Ireland, and whom I understand to be Sir John Maxwell's right-hand man. From what he said before the Hardinge Commission, we may take it that Major Price is a very important personage in Ireland, and his chief evidence before the Hardinge Commission was an attack upon members of the Irish Parliamentary party and upon the Irish Lord Chancellor. He attacked particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). He also attacked certain magistrates in Ireland, describing them as persons of no

    2763
    standing and of practically no principle. He also asserted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been appointing magistrates over the heads of the county lieutenants. In reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) last week with reference to this particular matter, we were informed from the Front Bench by the Chief Secretary as follows:
    "I am informed that of the magistrates appointed by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the counties mentioned, none were appointed in opposition to the wishes of His Majesty's lieutenants of those counties who, in fact, were consulted in every case. No complaints have been received as to the misconduct or disloyalty on the part of any of these magistrates. One magistrate, appointed by virtue of his office as chairman of an urban district council, was recently superseded by the Lord Chancellor, as also one magistrate appointed for the city of Cork several years ago. As regards the general question of the appointment of magistrates, the Lord Chancellor states that in no case has any magistrate been appointed by him without careful inquiry and deliberation, and that it is his custom to take into consideration the views of His Majesty's lieutenants of the various counties."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1916, col. 2043.]
    What we want to know is this: Is the Chief Secretary going to rely upon the evidence of Major Price, or upon the Irish Lord Chancellor? I trust that after this Debate, and particularly after having heard the statement which I am now going to read, and which may be absolutely new to the right hon. Gentleman, he will be very cautious of Major Price and those associated with him. I am going to read a statement which was written by Mr. John McNeill a few days before he was tried for his life by court-martial. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the personality of Mr. John McNeill. If he would ask any officials of the Irish Government in Dublin, they would tell him that, despite the fact that Mr. McNeill was president of the Irish Volunteer movement, there was no more respected man in the city of Dublin. He was a member of the Senate of the Irish University, he was president of the Gaelic League and belonged to an old and respected family. Whatever political opinions he may have held there is not one of us or any of his political opponents who can say of him that he ever used an offensive word to any of his political opponents. Two days before he was tried he wrote this statement. I am going to read it to the right hon. Gentleman. I am almost satisfied it is the first time he ever heard of it, but it is not the first time that members of the Cabinet have heard of it. They were in full possession of the facts weeks and
    2764
    weeks ago, but I have yet to learn that they took any steps to bring Major Price to justice. This is the statement:
    "I was arrested by Major Price on Tuesday, 2nd May, and the following Thursday I was allowed out for exercise at Arbor Hill Prison and was set to walk up and down in front of men who were exercised with rifles pointed in my direction a few yards distant. Immediately afterwards I was sent to my cell and Major Price at once came into my cell. He began conversation about my getting a death sentence. He then said my life would be spared if I made a statement implicating 'persons higher up than myself.' He said it would be enough to make a statement. I was not expected to support it by giving evidence. I asked what 'persons higher than myself' meant, and he said Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin. I said I could not connect them with the matter in any way. He then told me of Mr. Birrell's resignation, speaking of it with great satisfaction. The remainder of his conversation dealt with matters concerning the volunteers generally. Before leaving he said he hoped mine would not be a capital sentence. The sergeant who brought me back to my cell afterwards came to me and said he had been in conversation with Major Price both before and after the conversation above mentioned, and he said to me 'I will give yon this great tip. I should make a clean breast of it all and you will come off all right.' The name of the sergeant is Jones, and I can identify him at any time."
    That is the statement made by Mr. John McNeill, and it carries our memories back to the days when the attempt was made to connect other Irish leaders with other movements. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to imagine for a moment the state of feeling which exists amongst the friends of the two hon. Gentlemen whom, according to Mr. McNeill, Major Price wanted to connect with the movement. Imagine the state of feeling in Belfast, to think that the friends of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), who almost risked his political reputation in drawing recruits for the Army, those who absolutely love him and adore him, men who, at his instigation, joined the ranks of the Army and went to France—imagine the thoughts which entered into their minds when they were told that a man of the stamp of Major Price attempted to associate the hon. Member with a scheme which was in the eyes of a good many people supported and financed from foreign sources! It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say there is unrest in Ireland. Why should there not be unrest? There is scarcely a public man in Ireland, from the North to the South, who will not ask you, "Is it true that this ruffian, Major Price, wanted to associate honest John Dillon with the Sinn Fein movement?" My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) has spent an honoured life in the service of his country. He has been loved by his friends and respected by his enemies, because, whatever he has to say of his enemies, he does not go behind their backdoors to say it. He is one of the most

    2765
    respected Members of this House, not alone by his colleagues and his friends among the Liberal and Labour Members, but by his political opponents in Ireland and by hon. Members who sit above the Gangway. What a nice thing that after thirty-five years in the service of Ireland, after his hard work for the last two or three years in trying to reconcile the peoples of these two countries, a man like Major Price should enter the prison of an Irish rebel to try to connect such men as my hon. Friends (Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin) with the Sinn Fein movement! Major Price is and will be of no assistance to you in Ireland. His name stinks in the nostrils of every honest Irishman, whether he be a Nationalist or a Unionist, if this case can be brought home against him. Even if it is not proved—and I am satisfied that he will deny the statements made by Mr. McNeill—every Nationalist is aware of Mr. McNeill's statement, and the water of the River Thames and the Shannon will not free Major Price from it. Therefore I say, for the sake of peace, and in order to bring back Ireland to that position, or near it, which she occupied, it is absolutely essential to get rid of these two gentlemen. I have made these remarks in no spirit of hostility personally to either of these two men. I have not made them in order to make any attack upon the Irish Chief Secretary nor upon those associated in the good work he is doing. I have made them because I know Ireland and I know its people as well as anyone on these benches. I have met them on the football field, the sports field, and the coursing green, and their one word and their last word to me is, "If you want to bring peace and happiness to Ireland, get rid of Maxwell and get rid of Major Price." It is, therefore, because of these opinions and the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend in the Debate yesterday, that I make this appeal to the Chief Secretary to withdraw Sir John Maxwell from Ireland, and to transfer the services of Major Price to some place where he can do less mischief than he has been doing in Ireland.
    Mr. LYNCH: I intervene in this Debate in order to place before the Chief Secretary the broad lines, or, rather, to outline the broad principles of a certain constructive policy which I believe will go far towards a settlement of the Irish question, which therefore is salutary to this country also. I propose to sketch out these
    2766
    lines with a boldness of conception hitherto unknown in Irish politics. At the very threshold of my remarks I would invite the Chief Secretary and all my hearers to dispossess their minds, as far as possible, of all the prejudices which have become traditional and which are so often kept artificially alive in regard to the relations between the two countries. Before coming to the question of Ireland itself, I propose, however, briefly, to cast an eye upon the progress of the War, because the War is such a dominating event that it is impossible rightly to consider the Irish question divorced from the question of the War. Naturally the problem of Ireland is a very different one if this War results in the complete subjugation of Germany and the complete dominance of England, or if we are face to face with a situation which will simply be prolonged for another two years in order that at the expiry of that time it may result in a situation somewhat similar to that we now perceive finally emerging in an unsatisfactory peace, which will be the first note in the death knell of these dominions. That is the question before Ireland. Hon. Members must see that it is a very practical question to Ireland as to how far they may be prepared to make sacrifices, and the object which may be attained by those sacrifices.
    5.0 P.M.
    With regard to all these questions, I shall endeavour to divert my mind of the clouds of optimism and pessimism, to look at the whole problem in the bold clear light of scientific contemplation, to observe the great play of dynamic forces, and to endeavour in that spirit to realise what will be the outcome. That is the method of regarding problems which, however natural and sensible, is hardly ever adopted by those whose duty it is to lead the nation along these difficult paths. They seem, by a sort of instinct or by Parliamentary habit, to be incapable of thinking apart from a cloud of hypocrisy and make-believe. With the facts as now above the horizon, the whole exterior situation is unsatisfactory. With the factors at present in operation the Allies are not winning the War, if the word "winning" be used in the sense, which alone can bring security in the future, of gaining a decisive victory which will once for all crush the military power of Germany. In order to avoid any kind of misconception whatever I would at this stage say that no one more than myself desires

    2767
    to see that military power once for all abolished from our modern civilisation. But the whole conduct of the War by the Cabinet has been foolish from the beginning, partly through lack of insight and prevision, and also through lack of character in those who are leading the nation politically. The qualities demanded were a wide outlook, a scientific estimation of the factors at work, a boldness of conception, a great plan of organisation, a clear line of guidance in the execution of that plan, energy of action, and a determined will to break down every obstacle that stood in the way of victory. In place of that we have had a striving for Parliamentary victories, weakness of character, futility of conception, vacillation of policy, and expedients whose standards were not measured by the great exterior problems, but by the victories and manipulations of Parliamentary groups. And I have been so much impressed by that aspect of the matter that I have asked myself the question, "Would not there be something wrong in the whole constitution of the world if those qualities, or rather those negations of great qualities were finally to result in great and splendid victories?"
    Months ago—though at that time I was listened to with inattention or scoffed at— I used words which are a reality to-day, while men of so-called judgment, who put judgment in the forefront as the one great quality, have been proved, by the outcome of reality, to have been wrong in nine cases out of ten, even where their judgment was unimportant, or even where it was vital. Even in these last great events, when we measure the actual cost and the actual advantage in military terms, we have seen a hecatomb of life sacrificed for no essential gain. The House was very much shocked, as was the right hon. Gentleman and all members of the Cabinet, when I suggested that the military commander responsible should be replaced. More than once I have demanded the recall of soldiers, men of enormous reputation, and that demand shocked the House at the time. But in due course there followed a response to that demand, and the country then first began to breathe with higher hopes. I say, great as is the reputation of Sir Douglas Haig at this moment, and good and capable soldier though I believe him to be, it seems to me obvious that in the problem before him his talents have proved to be
    2768
    insufficient. I said months ago that the then situation was such that only a stroke of genius could redeem it from failure. These men, trained in times when all was smooth, whatever their qualities, have, in the actual outcome, shown limitations, and they have been disastrous leaders. I say sacrifice one general after another, judge by results, until at last you do find the man of genius—and I dare say there are many such in the British Army to-day —who, by his first appearance, will immediately begin to change the aspect of the whole campaign and to give the nation, for the first time in these two years, an assurance of final victory.
    I have spoken in this way in order to introduce the Irish problem, because it imports greatly to Ireland to know whether Ireland has been asked to sacrifice hosts of men, young men of the country, whom Ireland can so ill-afford to spare, in order to arrive finally at a futile peace, or whether their sacrifice has been demanded of them in order that they can aid this country to a victory in which Ireland itself will fully participate. At the present time, whether you care to recognise it or not, there is a wave of what I should not call Sinn Feinism, but a wave of determined Nationalism sweeping throughout the country, in a manner of which I cannot recollect the like within my whole experience of Irish politics. There are men who a few months ago would have been puzzled to describe as what was Sinn Fein, whose whole thoughts were remote from any feeling of Sinn Fein, and who in their daily lives and political lives had no contact with that movement, but who now, if they have not adopted the name Sinn Fein, have at least absorbed its animating spirit. That is true, not merely of the young men of the country, and not merely of those who are engaged in politics, but of men in high and responsible positions— justices of the peace, well-established and steady-going merchants, and throughout the great body of the clergy. What has been the cause of that recrudescence or rejuveneration of the Sinn Fein movement? It had its origin in the rebellion at Dublin. I have been told by eye-witnesses of that event that at the beginning the greater part of the population of Dublin was incensed and angry at that outbreak, because they saw how prejudicial it was to their material interests, and a great many of them took it to be a movement hostile not merely to the Government of

    2769
    this country, but to the political direction of the leaders of the Irish party, and the first prisoners taken by the police were, I believe, often insulted by the people of Dublin itself. Then followed the sanguinary repression, and that has brought about a great revulsion of feeling. I myself can fully understand the nature of that revulsion of feeling which has since become so evident. If I were to endeavour to put my finger upon the most essential spot I would be inclined to say that it was not merely the unnecessary cruelty of that repression, and that it was not merely the cold-blooded manner of those executions, after all danger had passed, but that it was that peculiar attitude which has so often characterised English government in the past, and which rouses the very depth of resistance of the Irish nation; and that is the tendency to treat Irishmen as if they were on a lower level than Englishmen and as if you were a kind of ascendency party who thought your ascendency was some superior virtue of your own. It rouses the resentment of Irishmen, and rouses the spirit of pride which makes the deepest jar on the most sensitive feelings. I say that in this respect it is you who are wrong, and the Irishman is right. From my place in this House I will say to the young men of Ireland that now that that spirit has been created in Ireland it is their duty to maintain that spirit at the height even if the direction pointed to the most forward peak of their nationalism.
    You have endeavoured to combat that spirit, not by understanding it, but by mere brutal mechanical means of repression. Again and again you have warnings from Irish history and the knowledge of the Irish character that the way in dealing with an Irishman is never to endeavour to crush him under heel. I quite acknowledge that Irishmen may be difficult subjects to deal with, but they are responsive to generous treatment. There is in an impulsive nature often a curious overwhelming response to generous treatment, and the Irish people may be led, but they never can be driven. Again I say from my place in this House that I hope that they never will change their character in that respect. During the last 100 years, during the past 600 years, if it had been possible to crush Irishmen under foot and to obliterate them by coercion there would be no Ireland to stand up against you today, and no Ireland to aid you in your just struggles in foreign lands. There-
    2770
    fore, I advise the Chief Secretary to recognise that that spirit has come to stay, and, further, that it means the salvation of Ireland.
    I would touch on another point. Far too much has been made of the influence of German gold in connection with the rebellion. German gold was never the inspirer or instigator of the rebellion. If you proceed on these mere mechanical clichéswhich may be given you by police officers, you will entirely fail to understand the Irish problem. That movement had deep roots in the finest feelings of patriotism, in the old traditions of Ireland, in the old songs of Ireland, and the old memories of Ireland. Whether we like it or not, these rebels of Dublin and throughout the country are far more akin to the spirit of national Irish heroes than perhaps any others in the whole political movement of Ireland. But apart from national feeling, that rebellion had deep roots also in economic sources. Only a few days ago, passing through some of the side streets of Dublin, observing the poverty, misery, and sheer destitution of the people, and yet seeing in the interchange of a glance the intelligence and a sort of appeal to something higher than themselves, even though it be almost an unconscious appeal, I felt rushing up in my mind, as often before, a desire to do something real and effective to raise these people in the status of comfort or of civilisation. When I go through the country parts of Ireland and see how great is what one may call the raw material of the people—their splendid physical strength, their buoyant spirit, their courage, their generous nature, their lively intelligence—again I am spurred on to use my own exertions to the highest, knowing how much greater is the possibility of achievement of these people than anything yet vouchsafed to them in their terrible and tragic history.
    But in what way does the Government of Ireland regard these facts? Never with any kind of appreciation of the problem from the point of view of the people themselves, but always, or in nine cases out of ten, from the police point of view, labelling all these men with what is considered opprobrious epithets such as "rebel" or "Sinn Feiner," and labelling other citizens with eulogistic epithets such as "Unionist" or "Ascendancy party," or "loyalist," with repression for the one, no matter how much they

    2771
    may represent the real body of the country itself, and encouragement, rewards, and fostering for the other. I may mention a small detail, perhaps within the right hon. Gentleman's administrative capacity, which will pick out this aspect of the question. After the repression of the rebellion the wife of one of the leaders, a hard-working, grey-haired woman with three or four children, came to a prominent citizen in Dublin, not a politician, and asked him for assistance to enable her and her family to proceed to America, where alone it was possible for her to earn a living. General Maxwell himself was willing to accord the necessary passport. But the case was reviewed by a man whose name has been mentioned in the Debate to-day—Major Price—and he put down his veto. The passport was refused That poor woman is unable to obtain a living for herself and her family in Dublin, and has been refused the means of proceeding to America, and that on the ground that she might be exploited in America. She cannot be exploited further than by the recital of facts, and those facts are patent to the world. That is an instance where the Government of Ireland has been controlled, and where its actions have been made mean and petty, not by the counsels of statesmen, but by the indications of one who is practically a police officer.
    All through their Government system, all through the past, one will find that Chief Secretaries of good intention have gone to Ireland, that Lord Lieutenants of good intentions have gone to Ireland, but that they have never manifested themselves before the world as the real governors of Ireland. One searches into the machinery of government for the real pivots, and the real moving and controlling parts, and one finds it in the police system of Ireland. I would invite the present Chief Secretary to be a man so big, so great, and so large-minded that he will have the strength, the courage, and the soul to break through this disastrous system, and to represent his own kindly and generous views, and to see that they I become realised. To give one or two concrete suggestions. We heard in a previous speech the advice to send someone in the place of General Maxwell. I would go much further than that—with-
    2772
    draw martial law altogether. We have heard in another previous speech also the advice, perfectly good and sound so far as it goes, to have an entire revision by the Advisory Committee of the cases of Irish political prisoners. I go further than that, and say let us have at once a general amnesty. If you can raise yourself out of what I would call the pettifogging grooves, and narrow and petty legal points of view with which this question is so often regarded, you will strike the imagination of the people by that effort alone and obtain by it the most salutary effect.
    Wherever, after a severe struggle in which bitter memories have been produced, a great statesman has risen out of the melée and immediately afterwards has declared a general amnesty, you can hardly cite one case in history where such a statesman has had cause to regret his action. On the other hand, you can recite hundreds of cases where evil has resulted, and disaster, trouble, and grief of all sorts have been caused where such questions are unnecessarily kept alive week after week and month after month in their most irritating form. After the great war between the North and South in America, President Lincoln was beset by demands for vengeance. He was great enough to rise higher than all those suggestions and to proclaim a general amnesty, and in a very short time that gigantic struggle had passed into history. At a much later date, after the Philippine war, there were many demands, even in the Press, howling for revenge against the Philippines. President Roosevelt said: No, that is over; let us close it up, and we will do all we can to forget it. He proclaimed a general amnesty, and never has had cause to regret it. In South Africa the Boers had presented to them a problem not greatly dissimilar to that of Ireland, and even of a greater degree of magnitude. General Botha, a man not trained in the orthodox ways of statesmanship, a man of large and great and generous nature, taking a view far beyond that of the lawyers and the tacticians, looking to the great interests of South Africa, said: No, let us cover up this; let us not look into each individual case, but let us wipe all off the slate, so as to begin a new course with happier auspices.
    Those are the main lines of my suggestion—a bold, a great, policy: The withdrawal of martial law, the proclamation

    2773
    of a general amnesty, the abandonment of all attempts to curb and coerce the new spirit in Ireland, but rather to give it free play and free scope, no matter how far it will lead Ireland on the way to nationality. If the Chief Secretary be guided in all his career by those great principles, I believe he will reach a point where he may have sight of the promised land, but if he follows the advice of that ascendancy party which has a constitutional and radical abhorrence of all nationalism, and tries to keep the old traditions of Dublin Castle still alive, to curb the people, to manacle their Press, to browbeat the people, to incite the police to harry them, to secure the continuance of martial law, to keep up the irritation of the imprisonment of men, some of whom may be innocent, for their supposed connection with the Sinn Fein movement, then I may say he is preparing trouble for himself, misery for Ireland, and not less for this country a state of affairs fraught with disaster. The Chief Secretary will recognise that I have spoken not only with boldness, but with sincerity, and not with any attempt whatever to produce what one may call an effect in Ireland. I have sketched out a plan which, I think, is the boldest yet presented, because I would put no limits to the onward march of Irish aspirations at the present time, and I believe, with the utmost sincerity, that that is a plan which can be recommended not merely for the freeing of Ireland, but for the sake of this country also.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The hon. Member who has just sat down said he had spoken with frankness and without any desire or will to exploit the troubles of Ireland in order to make a sensation. I accept entirely what he himself said in that respect. In the place which I occupy I must attend to representations of one who knows the popular mind in Ireland so well as the hon. Member knows it, and who has so deep a sympathy with movements which are traditional among Irishmen, and which are hard to understand by those who are not Irishmen. If I do riot respond to all the suggestions which the hon. Member has made, I hope he will appreciate that I do not entirely fail to understand him, and I hope he will not think that there is any lack of a desire on my part to take advantage of the hon. Member's suggestions. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out how the rebellion in Ireland
    2774
    had its roots deep in the life of Ireland, and how it fascinated men, who, he said, breathed a spirit new in the land. We are not accustomed in this country to undervalue the errors which misguided men make, but the hon. Member must allow me to draw his attention to the practical facts which weigh upon my mind, and which seem to me to afford a corrective to the view that the remedy for Irish misfortunes or the satisfaction of Irish demands for progress or of the ambitions of Irish national spirit can be found along the path of violence and war. The finest part of Dubiln is in ruins; hundreds of Irish people, without any will of their own, have been made the victims of a little civil war in which they did not take part; and the feeling of the country has been inflamed to a point which adds to the difficulties of Irish administration.
    Take it that there were men in this movement of the purest life and highest aspirations. We now see what the practical disaster is which their course of conduct has produced. I listened with appreciation to the speech which the hon. Member, with the best of good temper and feeling, has made to the House; but I am bound, in the interests of this archipælego in which English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish are destined to live and work out their destiny, to point out the practical consequences of such an event as that which took place in Easter week. When men speak of Easter week in Ireland I wish they would look at its practical outcome. Let them look at the shattered homes, the ruined lives, and the misery brought upon their fellow-countrymen who had no part in the rebellion. If Irishmen moved by the profound patriotism of their race will only look to the well-being of their fellow-Irishmen, then, I think, they will be persuaded that the statesmen of Ireland were right who for a hundred years have brought Ii eland back time and again to the path of constitutional progress along which alone civilised states can proceed, and who saw that the true road of progress is the road in which with goodwill, with devotion, with some sacrifice of ideal, but with a desire for the common good, men may labour together in order that the happy results of national effort may be obtained. I do not know any intelligent man who grudges to Irishmen the development and the exposition of what are called national ambitions, but let it be upon lines and within limits in which it does not throw Ireland into flames or

    2775
    drench Ireland in blood. That is my appeal with regard to the adjurations we hear in these times as to the sentiment of nationalism detached from practical considerations. No man values more than I do manly independence, and it is a lamentable thing if an Irishman in his own country should not be able to feel proud of himself and of his country, or should not be able to regard himself as the equal of any man who can be found upon that soil. The hon. Member spoke of the ascendancy party, and matters of that kind. They are as distasteful to my mind as they are to his. It is a long while since the ascendancy party was doomed to equality. There may be members of it who do not see their way to walk in the road upon equal terms with their fellow countrymen, but they have got to learn. I pass from these generalities with the sincere assurance to the hon. Member and those who sympathise with him that in every effort by which not merely the material well-being but the patriotic sentiment of Irishmen can be legitimately satisfied, they will find on my part not only the sympathy of sentiment, but I hope practical effort. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Lundon) prefaced the contribution which he made to this Debate by the withdrawal of what I said last night was the most "odious epithet" which could be applied to a man in the circumstances of Sir John Maxwell. No one ever cavils at the terms of a withdrawal frankly and spontaneously made in this House. I was very glad that the hon. Member made his explanation. I pass from that to his practical proposal. He said to me again that which has been said to me with constant and not unnatural reiteration ever since I have held the office of Chief Secretary, "Withdraw Sir John Maxwell." He also said, "Dismiss Major Price."
    Mr. LUNDON: I did not say "Dismiss Major Price." Transfer him to some other post.
    Mr. DUKE: Transfer him to some other post; get rid of him; remove him to anywhere!
    Mr. LUNDON: Anywhere out of Ireland.
    Mr. DUKE: He cannot be so bad as I fear I am supposed to regard him if he is to be continued in the public service of this country. If you take the person-
    2776
    ality of Sir John Maxwell and the "transgressions," as it is said, of Major Price out of the atmosphere in which they have been discussed, hon. Members will agree they are men who have rendered, public service and are capable of rendering public service. No intelligent person, after an event such as that of last April, is surprised that there is bitterness. The true ground of astonishment is that there is no more. I want to say with regard to Sir John Maxwell that there is no ground at the present time in the matters which have been presented to me which I think could, in the mind of an administrator, be supposed to disqualify Sir John Maxwell from performing his duties.
    It is said that he stigmatised Sinn Feiners as being organised for murder and a policy of murdering the police. I do not think he did. I think what he said was that there was a reasonable apprehension of murder. I am speaking of facts, not of particular expressions. Hon. Members should bear in mind that Sir John Maxwell is not an expert witness but a soldier, and a soldier is apt to use blunt terms of speech upon a matter which is in his mind and which a more adroit person might easily avoid. But the gist of the matter was that the police in Dublin were exposed to the risk of murder in the streets. I do not think that Sir John Maxwell suggested, I do not believe that he intended, that the men who planned the rising were men who desired murder. It is a totally different thing to consider whether the police in Ireland were safe of their lives in the streets from those who had taken advantage of the rising and who bathed their hands in blood in a shocking way. Let me remind hon. Members of two instances. There is one which I suppose is the most notorious incident of the whole rebellion. There was a policeman at Castle Gate—I knew the outlines of the incident before I went to Ireland—there was a policeman posted in the ordinary way outside a gate leading only to Government offices, not to any fortified place, at a time when armed men had been drilling about the city and making sham manœuvres. He saw a body of them advancing and attempting to enter the Castle Gate, and lie put up his hand to arrest their advance. A volley was shot at him and he dropped dead. There is not a Member of this House who can stigmatise a transaction of that kind by any other word but one. That is one

    2777
    transaction. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Captain Gwynn) spoke last night of a transaction in which a relative of his was affected. His relative was at Stephen's Green, and he saw a person with a revolver hold up a carriage in which there was a lady, and threaten her. He intervened as any man would, danger or no danger, and he was shot down. An incident of that kind if it is fresh in the mind of a blunt soldier, is very apt to lead to some severe expression which might not have been used after reflection; and I would ask hon. Members not to attach consequences to an expression which is used about an event which they deplore, as we all deplore it, but look at the facts of the conduct of a public servant. With regard to Sir John Maxwell I ask them to consider whether at a time when the earnest desire of the Government is that the stigma of martial law—because there is no real offence in it—but that the stigma of it should be withdrawn from Ireland, is it a reasonable thing to suggest that, by way of preliminary, you should dismiss Sir John Maxwell, with something like disgrace, from a post in which he has tried to do his best? I ask hon. Members to consider that. I now pass from that topic to that of Major Price, who has been spoken of as the Intelligence Officer, and I have had an opportunity of making inquiry about him this morning, and I understand that he is the Intelligence Officer of the Irish Command at the present time.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Wanting the intelligence.
    Mr. DUKE: That is a condemnation which it is very easy to pass upon any of us; I will not discuss it. I have not had the opportunity of discussing that with his military superiors or the civil authorities in Ireland, but how is it, if he is so unfit for his post either in intelligence or in honesty, that he retains it? I will tell the hon. Member, from a very short acquaintance with Sir John Maxwell, that, if I were an inefficient soldier or an inefficient servant, one of the last men under whom I should wish to serve would be Sir John Maxwell. The hon. Member has made a specific charge in regard to John McNeill, a charge of gravity—I might almost say a charge of extreme gravity. The hon. Member says it will evidently be denied. What a position this is in which the hon. Member places me
    2778
    when he asks me plainly to transfer Major Price from duties in which, so far as I know, his military superiors—
    Mr. LUNDON: In my speech I referred to the fact that the statement made by Mr. McNeill was in the full possession of the Government eight weeks ago, and I asked what steps they have taken to bring Major Price to justice.
    Mr. DUKE: Eight weeks ago I was not in a position to suppose that the Cabinet would have possession of me, whatever else they might have had in their possession.
    Mr. LUNDON: I do not attach the smallest blame to you.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member will see what I am confronted with in a matter of that kind. He tells me that the moment I investigate the matter there will be one statement on one side and another statement on the other side. Does the hon. Member feel that an administrator would be wise, that being the state of the case, when there is very likely to be a conflict of testimony, to dismiss or transfer a public servant?
    Mr. HAZLETON: There is only Sergeant Jones.
    Mr. DUKE: So far as I am concerned, this matter does not rest here. I shall want to know the truth, and find out what I can about it. Is the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) right? The real question here is not who is going for a few days or a few weeks to administer martial law, but how soon can you free Ireland, not from any oppression of martial law, but from the stigma that martial law exists. That is the question which obliterates and eclipses these little personal questions. That is the question to which I have devoted time, and to which I shall devote time—whatever labour is required—in the sympathetic desire that as soon as possible the stigma of martial law shall be withdrawn from the sister Island.
    Mr. MORRELL Mr. MORRELL rose—
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present.
    Mr. LYNCHOn a point of Order. May I make an appeal to the Government to keep the House, in view of their bargain yesterday?
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to raise a point of Order with another man's hat on?
    Mr. KING: We kept a House for the Government, and they ought to keep a House for us.
    House counted, and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.
    House Adjourned till Tuesday, 10th October, 1916, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day (Wednesday).

    PETITIONS PRESENTED.
    The following Petitions were presented, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

    TUESDAY.
    National Food Stuffs (Control).— Petition from Kilmarnock, for legislation.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War.—Petition from Kilmarnock, for prohibition.

WAR.
  SUGAR SUPPLY.
  SUGAR SUPPLY.
  INCOME TAX (WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS).
  INCOME TAX (WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  COMPENSATION.
  COMPENSATION.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ALLEGED COMPLICITY).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ALLEGED COMPLICITY).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (BELFAST).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (BELFAST).
  WOOL PURCHASES.
  WOOL PURCHASES.
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS IN EGYPT).
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS IN EGYPT).
  COLONIAL DELEGATES (BANQUET IN DUBLIN).
  COLONIAL DELEGATES (BANQUET IN DUBLIN).
  VOLUNTARY RECRUITS (MINIMUM STANDARD).
  VOLUNTARY RECRUITS (MINIMUM STANDARD).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (ALCOHOL).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (ALCOHOL).
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL (PENSION).
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL (PENSION).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  SONS OF ENEMY ALIENS.
  SONS OF ENEMY ALIENS.
  COUNTY TRIBUNAL APPEAL.
  COUNTY TRIBUNAL APPEAL.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  EXEMPTION CLAIMS.
  EXEMPTION CLAIMS.
  TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
  TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
  MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
MUNITIONS.
  WOMEN'S BADGES.
  WOMEN'S BADGES.
  WORKERS' BADGES.
  WORKERS' BADGES.
  NOVOCAINE AND COCAINE.
  NOVOCAINE AND COCAINE.
  LINEN DUCK (EXPORT).
  LINEN DUCK (EXPORT).
  MAIL-CART DRIVERS (WAR BONUS).
  MAIL-CART DRIVERS (WAR BONUS).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Civil Service (Employment of Women).
  Civil Service (Employment of Women).
  Congested Districts (Ireland).
  Congested Districts (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Migratory Labour (Ireland).
  Migratory Labour (Ireland).
  Naval Entrants (Vaccination).
  Naval Entrants (Vaccination).