Sitting of 14 December 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DEPORTATION OF BELGIANS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 37, 1916).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the. Belgian Minister respecting the Deportation of Belgians to Germany and the forced labour imposed upon them by the German authorities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 428 to 130, inclusive, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

Counties of Somerset (parish of Somerton) and Anglesey (village of Llanfair P. G.);

City of Kingston-upon-Hull;

Boroughs of Kidderminster and Boston;

Rural District of Pontardawe

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1915–16 (Medical Officer's Report) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE.
Copy presented of Report of the Postmaster-General on the Post Office for the year 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
Annual Accounts presented of Receipts and Payments for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
Copy presented of Seventh Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and Excise for the year ending 31st March, 1916, being the Sixtieth Report relating to the Customs and the Fifty-ninth Report relating to the Excise [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INLAND REVENUE.
Copy presented of Fifty-ninth Report of the Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WEST AFRICAN CURRENCY BOARD.
Copy presented of Report of the West African Currency Board for the year ended 30th June, 1916 [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 911 (Basutoland, Report for 1915–16) [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY.
Copy presented of Revised Rates for Billeting Soldiers under Section 108a of the Army Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) ACTS, 1911 TO 1916.
Copy presented of Regulation made by the Board of Trade, dated 6th December, 1916, entitled Unemployment Insurance (Supplementary, No. 2) Regulations, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    UNITED STATES (BLOCKADE MEASURES).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been represented to him that in many particulars the policy of the Government in regard to the United States has been of an irritating kind, without any compensation corresponding to the danger of producing misunderstandings; whether in future he will keep in view the importance of maintaining the best possible relations with the United States; and whether he will take steps accordingly?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): It is unfortunately inevitable that our blockade measures should cause inconvenience and consequently irritation to citizens of neutral countries, much as we regret it. I can only say that, consistently with the paramount duty of using to the utmost our legitimate belligerent rights, we have done, and shall do, all we can to make their exercise as little burdensome to neutrals as we can. I trust that I may appeal to all patriotic persons not to increase our difficulties on this subject by the use of reckless or intemperate language.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman cultivate, not in a formal but m a most assiduous way, good relations with the United States?
    Lord R. CECIL: We always have done so.

    DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (MONEY GUARANTEE).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the question of the money guarantee which has often proved an obstacle to the entrance of well-educated young men to the Diplomatic Service; and whether, in view of recent events, he will abolish this proviso so as to widen the area from which men of ability may be obtained?
    Lord R. CECIL: The proposals made by the Royal Commission are being discussed at the present moment, but I cannot yet say what changes will be made in the regulations for the Diplomatic Service.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the Noble Lord in sympathy with the general tenour of this question?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir, I think I may say so.

  GREECE.

    GREEK PORTS (BLOCKADE).
    Mr. ALDENasked whether the complete blockade of Greek ports implies that a state of war now exists between Greece and the Allies?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.

    KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in view of the attitude assumed by the enemies of the Allies in Greece and the increasing danger of delay, he can state definitely the intentions of the Government in regard to the authority of King Constantine?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Governments of the Allies are fully alive to the danger of delay in dealing with the unsatisfactory situation in Greece, and they are about to present certain demands to the Greek Government with a view to clearing it up.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this question.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman include any demand for guarantees for the supporters of M. Venizelos in Athens?
    Lord R. CECIL: In view of the fact that a new Government has been recently formed, I think it would be desirable not to press the matter further.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES (NEUTRAL PORTS).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the acts of piracy continued by enemy submarines and the indiscriminate sinking of Allied and neutral vessels with

    813
    the avowed object of diminishing or destroying the world's merchant tonnage (with the exception of German tonnage) and the effects this policy, if successful, would have upon the whole civilised world, he has already consulted the Allied Governments with a view to a collective or joint Note being addressed to neutral Governments, and more especially to the greatest of all neutral Governments, the object and purport of the Note being to arrange for the free admission to and enjoyment of neutral ports by merchant vessels armed for effective defence and protection against piratical submarine craft; whether this has already been done and, if so, can he state when; and, if not done, will he say why it has not been done?
    Lord R. CECIL: At the beginning of the War His Majesty's Government explained to the Governments of neutral maritime countries their view of the legal and historical justification for arming merchant ships for their own defence Since then, as occasion arose, they have communicated on the subject with the Governments of countries which British defensively armed merchant ships have required to visit. Of all the Governments approached only one at present refuses to admit defensively armed ships into its ports, and even that Government does not impugn the legality of arming merchant ships for defence. The French and Italian Governments have acted separately from His Majesty's Government in the matter.
    Mr HOUSTON: Will the Noble Lord give the names of the neutral Governments who have refused free admission to their ports of armed merchant ships?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think I would rather have notice of that question.

  IMPORTS INTO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.

    EFFECTS OF BLOCKADE.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked whether Germany obtains through the blockade by way of neutral countries supplies of fat and copper; and whether he will give statistics of the present importation of these commodities into Holland and the Scandinavian countries as compared with the normal importation in the three years preceding the outbreak of war?
    Lord R. CECIL: There is no foundation for the statement that Germany is obtaining these commodities through the blockade, as will be seen from the following figures of imports into Holland and Scandinavia:—
    The import of animal and vegetable oils and fats of all kinds into these four countries for the first nine months of this year was, in round numbers, 250,000 tons.
    The average for the corresponding period during the years 1911–13 was:

    Total Imports.

    Total Imports less Exports to enemy countries.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    441,000

    256,000

    With regard to copper, the total import of copper and alloys for the first nine months of this year was, in round numbers, 22,000 tons.
    The average for the corresponding period during the years 1911–13 was:

    Total Imports

    Total Imports less Exports to enemy countries.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    100,000

    31,000

    Taking the statistics for the quarter July-September, 1916, as compared with the average for the corresponding period during the years 1911 to 1913, the figures are as follows:—

    OILS AND FATS.

    1916.

    1911–13.

    Average Total Imports.

    Average Total Imports loss Exports to enemy countries.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    70,000

    147,000

    85,000

    COPPER AND ALLOYS.

    6,000

    33,000

    10,000

    I should explain that where raw materials have been imported into one of the countries for the purpose of being worked up and forwarded to Great Britain or to an Allied country they have been excluded from the import figures for 1916, since they are not destined for neutral consumption and obviously cannot be passed on to the enemy. Similarly imports into Holland on behalf of the Belgian Relief Commission have been excluded.

    IRISH LANGUAGE (NATIONAL FUND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can offer

    815
    any explanation of the conduct of the police at Moycullen, county Galway, in tearing down a poster announcing a collection for the Irish Language National Fund; whether there is any warrant for treating this as an illegal purpose; whether it is by direction, or as a means of getting promotion, policemen pursue Gaelic teachers from village to village in the West of Ireland, and send their children as spies to ceilidhthe; whether he has noticed that the Gaelic League authorities publicly advise restraint under this provocation; and whether the Government have decided to try to extirpate the Gaelic language?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): So far as the Government is concerned I know, and so far as individuals are concerned I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegations in the question except that in the case of a person suspected of promoting disloyalty, who happens to be a Gaelic League organiser, it was considered necessary to keep his movements under supervision.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired of any other authority but the police?
    Mr. DUKE: I know something from my own knowledge of the matter, without asking any person.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    YOUNG PIGS (SLAUGHTER).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the wholesale slaughter in Ireland of young pigs of from seven to ten weeks old; whether the number slaughtered for the London market has recently amounted to some thousands per week, the number killed by one firm alone reaching 1,000 per week; whether one of the reasons for this state of affairs is the want of feeding stuffs; whether the shipping companies refuse to carry this pork unless under a Government permit and, even with that, refuse to carry more than a tenth part of what is awaiting shipment; and whether he will take immediate action in regard to this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 7th Novem-
    816
    ber to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Kent. The Department have issued a new Order to prohibit the shipment or slaughter of breeding sows which comes into force to-morrow. As regards the latter portion of the question, the Department are aware that delay has taken place in the transit of pork from Ireland to Great Britain. They have taken the matter up with the carrying companies and believe that arrangements are at present being made to obviate a recurrence of such delay.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will say what steps the Department is taking to increase the supply of foodstuffs for pigs in Ireland owing to the scarcity of which pig-breeding has had to be discontinued and immature pigs are now being sold at twelve weeks old?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department have no powers to increase the supply of feeding stuffs for pigs in Ireland beyond taking all feasible measures to impress upon farmers the desirability of increasing, as far as possible, the area under tillage. There is no scarcity of foodstuffs for pig-feeding other than potaoes, and the Department have recommended farmers that where potatoes suitable for pig feeding are scarce swede turnips should be partially substituted therefor. The decrease in the number of pigs in Ireland is due, in the Department's opinion, not so much to the scarcity, but rather to the high price of feeding stuffs, nor has pig-breeding, as stated in the question, been discontinued, but the number of pigs is in certain districts being reduced owing to the causes stated. The Department have issued an Order, coming into operation on the 15th instant, which will prevent breeding sows from being slaughtered or exported. Immature pigs are being killed and exported because they command a higher price as pork than as store pigs. In the Department's opinion, if the sale and slaughter of these immature pigs were stopped, such a course would react injuriously upon pig-breeding generally in Ireland.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no scarcity except potatoes for pig-feeding stuffs in Ireland, may I ask if he is aware that bran and pollard are largely used for pig-feeding, and, owing to the standardisation of bread, it is impossible to obtain those stuffs?
    Mr. DUKE: That, no doubt, is a matter which will have to be regarded for the future, but the standardisation is so recent that it cannot have affected matters at present.

    LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has considered that the agricultural producers of Ireland could be greatly increased if the provisions of the Land Act of 1909 were realised with as little delay as possible; and whether, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners have had certain estates in West Clare in hand for years without settling the business, he will take steps to carry out the purpose of the Land Act of 1909 with the least possible delay?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have dealt as rapidly as their available resources permitted with the preparation of estates in West Clare purchased by them for resale, and that the great majority of these estates have been sold or are ready for sale. In so far as estates in county Clare are pending for sale to the Estates Commissioners, I am told that they are being dealt with as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in West Clare I, myself, could have done as much in six months as all these gentlemen combined have done in six years?

    UNTENANTED LAND (IRELAND).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the necessity for increased food production, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to permit small landholders to till untenanted lands which have been let or may hereafter be let to them temporarily by the Board on condition that such lands will be surrendered peacably, after reasonable notice, when required for final distribution amongst occupiers of uneconomic holdings?
    Mr. DUKE: I am advised that it would not be to the public advantage to take action in the direction indicated owing to the difficulties involved in subsequently disposing of lands so dealt with.
    Mr. DORIS: Why should not these poor people be helped and encouraged at the present time when a supply of food is so
    818
    necessary to till the land and produce food? Why should they be prevented in this way by a public Department?
    Mr. DUKE: It is obvious that we must consider what will be the economic effect.
    Mr. FLAVIN: What advantage is there in keeping large tracks of land for purely grazing purposes when there is a scarcity of food? Why not give these poor people an opportunity of breaking up this land and tilling it?
    Mr. DUKE: I have had a good deal of expert advice, and I find that the experts do not generally agree that it would be economically advantageous to break up Irish grazing lands on a large scale for purposes of cultivation.
    Mr. DORIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board to reconsider the matter? It is very important.
    Mr. DUKE: I will take care that the hon. Member's observation is communicated to them.

    POTATO CROP (IRELAND).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the most recent reports from various parts of the country of the shortage in the yield of the potato crop, of the hardship and suffering of the poorer classes in the towns, and of the fears entertained of an ensuing famine in Ireland, the Government now propose to take efficient steps to prevent all further exportation of potatoes from Ireland; whether the Government are taking step's to ensure an efficient supply of seed potatoes for next year's setting; and if he will state specifically what steps the Irish Government are taking in these matters?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter is being dealt with by the Irish Office and the Department of Agriculture in correspondence with the Board of Trade.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the declaration publicly made by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) at a recent meeting in Dublin, to the effect that the Executive in Ireland had decided to pre vent any further shipments of potatoes from Ireland except under licence; whether, since the date of the said declaration, the Executive have allowed

    819
    shipments of potatoes from Ireland to take place freely without permits or licence of any kind, and whether exportation of potatoes is now going on extensively from all parts of Ireland; and whether the Government have now decided, in regard to the question of potatoes and the food supply of the Irish people, to reverse the policy announced by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. No declaration of the nature referred to was made by the Vice-President. The resolution was adopted at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture on the 14th ultimo, urging the advisability of obtaining power to prohibit temporarily the export of potatoes from Ireland, save under licence. I have since been in communication with the Board of Trade on the matter. Since the date of the meeting of the Council of Agriculture shipments of potatoes have taken place from certain districts where potatoes are usually grown for exportation, but the exports of potatoes during October and November of this year have been considerably less than in the corresponding period of the previous year.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received information as to the potato crop this season in West Clare; and whether he can indicate any measures that may be necessary to prevent hardship to the poor people who depend greatly on potatoes for food?
    Mr. DUKE: Reports received by the Department show that the potato crop this year in West Clare is about 30 per cent. less than last year's crop. Where spraying was carried out the proportion of diseased tubers is not large. The Department are taking the only measures at present in their power in this matter, namely, urging farmers to select their seed at once and not to feed livestock with seed potatoes or potatoes suitable for human consumption.
    Mr. LYNCH: As this is not only a very complicated but very important question, may I ask that someone in the Department should be detailed to make a special study of the matter and to co-operate with the members of the Irish party on the subject?
    Mr. DUKE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that necessity has not been overlooked, and the Department has been at work on it with more than one of its ablest members for several weeks past.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: What has it done?

    SUGAR DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether complaints have been made in the South of Ireland owing to the preferential method of distributing sugar; who are the distributing agents for Kerry; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that all traders are given their proportionate and due share?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the FOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT (Captain Bathurst): The question of the proper distribution of sugar is at the moment engaging the careful attention of the Food Controller. He is naturally not in a position to make any announcement of the policy on the matter at the present moment, but hopes to be able to do so at an early date.

    FOOD CONTROLLER.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether a food controller has been, or will be shortly, appointed; if so, at what salary; whether offices and work in preparation for the duties of food controller have been organised; and whether the provision of home-grown food for both animal stock and the civil population will come under the powers of a food controller?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As regards the first part of the question, Lord Devonport has been appointed Food Controller and the hon. Member for Wilton will act as Parliamentary Secretary of the Food Control Department. As regards the second part of the question I am not in a position to make any statement at present. All the matters referred to in the third part of the question are well in hand. The encouragement of the production of home-grown food, including feeding stuffs, will be within the province of the Food Controller in co-operation with the other Government Department concerned.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will a Bill be introduced constituting the new Ministry of Food and the new Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention to introduce such a Bill.
    Mr. KlNG: Will it be introduced before this Session comes to a close?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it will be better to wait till I make a statement about business later.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will these Bills give the Government a right to appoint these new Ministers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman had better wait till he sees the Bill.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether it will be within the power of the Food Dictator to prohibit the use of grain and sugar for the production of beverages?
    Captain BATHURST: The Defence of the Realm Regulations give power to specify the purposes for which alone any such article may be used.

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether during the last three months the Board of Agriculture has made any request for public money for the provision of agricultural machinery, the employment of a special ad hoc staff, or the cultivation of at present waste and uncultivated land, with a view to a large increase in home-grown food in either 1917 or 1918; and, if so, whether he has refused the application?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Proposals on this subject have been made to the Treasury by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Treasury have invited the Board to work out their schemes in detail, and the matter is now under consideration.

    BELFAST LINEN TRADE (FEMALE WORKERS).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his official information shows that some distress exists amongst the women workers in the linen trade of Belfast, where these workers have only their own wages to rely upon for subsistence, but that this distress is mitigated in the case of most of these workers by the fact that they have men in their families or are in receipt of separa-
    822
    tion allowances; and, if so, whether he will advise the taking over by the Government for the period of the War of this industry which, whilst earning profits for the owners, refuses to pay a living wage to its employés, who are obliged to depend upon the earnings of their menfolk and the separation allowance of their soldier relatives to provide the necessaries of life?
    Mr. DUKE: I believe the assumption in the first part of the question is true. No ground appears to exist at present for advising the Government to undertake on public account the liabilities of the linen trade.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a quantity of female labour is employed in Dublin at a weekly wage of less than 7s. 6d. a week; and, as such wage is admitted to be considerably less than a living wage, whether he will consider it advisable to recommend the Board of Trade to apply the provisions of the Trade Boards Act to the industries in which these workers are engaged?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The advisability of extending the scope of the Trade Boards Act is at present under consideration, and in this connection specific information regarding low rates of wages in Dublin industries will receive careful attention. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, any extension of the Trade Boards Act would require legislation.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the statement that the owners of the linen mills and factories in Belfast were faced with the problem of either closing down their mills or running short time, owing to the condition of the linen industry, he will advise the Ministry of Munitions to take over complete control of these mills and factories for the period of the War?
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the statement that the owners of the mills and factories connected with the linen industry in Belfast were faced with the problem of either closing down their mills or running short time owing to the precarious condition of the linen industry; and whether, in view of the

    823
    amount of female labour at present unemployed, or only partly employed, in this industry in Belfast, he will consider the advisability of taking over complete control of these mills and factories for Government purposes for the period of the War?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to reply to these questions. The War Department has recently placed in Ireland contracts for 5,000,000 yards of dowlas for bedding, and the bulk of this order has gone to Belfast manufacturers. The Department has also under consideration tenders from Belfast firms in respect of a large requirement for linen tent duck. I do not think it is necessary to take over complete control of the Belfast mills and factories as suggested by the hon. Member.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, with regard to old age pensions in Ireland, he will take into account that 7s. 6d. nowadays represents less purchasing power than 5s. formerly, and will advise that the old age pensions be automatically increased, except in exceptional cases where the pension officer can give good reason for advising otherwise; and whether the Local Government Board will take the onus of the proof?
    Mr. DUKE: This question relates to matters over which I have no control, and should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RECRUITING DEPARTMENT (DUBLIN).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether twenty aged men employed in the Registrar-General's Office, Dublin, at recruiting work at 30s. a week were locked out for eight days, 25th April to 4th May, 1916; whether the Recruiting Department refused to pay the men for the time they were locked out; and, having regard to the fact that every employer in Dublin paid his employés for the week absent under similar circumstances, he will now direct that these men be paid what is due to them; also whether these men are entitled
    824
    to the war bonus paid to other men in the various recruiting offices employed at similar work?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that these men were employed by the hour and not by the week, and that any of them who attended at the office on any day during the period mentioned received a full day's pay. The men were not en titled to the payment of a war bonus, which did not come into operation until the following July.

    WEEK-END LEAVE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will reconsider the decision to deprive the soldier of his week-end leave in view of the fact that the sacrifice is a very unequal one, in that the soldier has to undergo his training separated from his wife and family and is only able to see them at his week-end leave, which comes to him once in twenty weeks, whereas the general public and munition workers are only called upon to remain at home with their wives and families and to forego the week-end holiday?
    Mr. FORSTER: As has already been announced, a modification has been made of the previous decision in regard to Christmas leave, but I am unable to announce a modification in regard to weekend leave.

    ASSISTANT SUBSTITUTION OFFICER (YORK).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it was with his sanction that a former political agent with no agricultural knowledge has been appointed assistant substitution officer in the York district after acting as military representative before the tribunals in that area; whether he is aware that this gentleman openly states that whenever a substitute for a farm worker is refused, however unsuitable he may be, he will ask the tribunal to cancel the certificate of exemption held by such farm worker, irrespective of the scale of labour agreed upon between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture; and whether, in order to prevent the further reduction of the output of home-grown food, he will see that all substitution officers have practical agricultural experience, and that all committees for examining labour census forms contain at least one practical farmer?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The substitution officer does the office work in connection with substitution, and it is not claimed that he has agricultural knowledge. He was not a military representative. The suggestion in the second part of the question is, I am informed, not accurate. Whenever an employer refuses a suitable substitute the farm worker's certificate will be reviewed, in consultation with the agricultural representative. Every employer has a trial of a substitute, and wages, etc., are fixed before the engagement is completed. The committees, which are appointed locally, contain, as far as is known, at least one practical farmer, and in some cases more than one.

    GERMAN BANK EMPLOYES.
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether an application has recently been made to the City Tribunal for the exemption from military service of four employés of the Dresdner Bank; if so, who authorised the application; whether Sir William Plender, the controller, was made aware of the application before it was made; whether he sanctioned it; and why there was any necessity to ask for the exemption of these clerks if the premises of the said bank are to be sold shortly, as promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that with the controller's knowledge an application for the further temporary exemption of the four employés named was made to the City Tribunal in order that the work still outstanding may be completed without delay, and that exemption has been granted until the 8th March next.
    Mr. FABER: Considering that British banks are practically stripped, and rightly stripped, of all men of military age who are fit for service, why should a German bank be granted this kind of indulgence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that that was a decision of the tribunal and not of the Government, and as I have pointed out the exemption is only until 8th March.
    Mr. FABER: In view of the tenderness shown to the German banks in the past, will some really strenuous and manly policy now be adopted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say that there will be no undue tenderness. If there has been tenderness in the past towards German banks, I am not aware of it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take no action unless he gets a letter from Cord Northcliffe?

    BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION, IRELAND (WOMEN CLERKS).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the principle guiding appointments of women clerks (temporary) in the office of National Education; whether vacancies for such positions are open to competition; whether they are publicly advertised; whether a candidate has to be nominated before being permitted to sit for examination; if so, in whose hands rests the power of nomination; whether, if a candidate has not sufficient influence to secure nomination, she cannot compete for the examination; who prepares the examination papers; who awards judgment on the merits of the examination, and whether the most successful candidates are always appointed; and whether an examination was recently held; if so, how many candidates competed and how many were refused permission to sit for examination on the plea of not having been nominated?
    Mr. DUKE: The Commissioners appoint temporary women clerks upon satisfactory proof of fitness for the duties to be performed. They receive applications from persons desirous of employment, without nomination. For eleven vacancies which are about to be filled 114 applicants sat for examination upon examination papers prepared by the Board's inspectors. The result has just been ascertained, and the eleven candidates in order of merit as shown by the results of the examination will be appointed on probation for one month and subject to the production of satisfactory evidence as to age and health.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of those who sent in applications were told that, in consequence of not having secured nominations, they could not be permitted to sit for the examination?
    Mr. DUKE: I was not aware of that, but if the hon. Member wishes it I will inquire into it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue an order, with regard to the filling up of all these temporary vacancies, that an advertisement should be put in the papers, so as to give everyone a chance?
    Mr. DUKE: I will consider that, if it is thought at all necessary or fair.

    ENGLISH RAILWAYS (PARCELS BY PASSENGER TRAINS).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the London and North-Western Railway Company and other English railway companies under the control of the Railway Executive Committee have intimated to the Irish railway companies that after the 11th instant no parcel of poultry or rabbits exceeding one hundredweight will be accepted by the English companies for carriage by passenger train; if he is aware that the Irish poultry exporters hitherto sent their poultry in hampers of three hundredweights and that it is impossible for them to procure sufficient hampers of smaller dimensions in time for the Christmas markets; and, seeing that this Regulation will affect the exportation of fowl and rabbits from Ire land for the Christmas markets, whether he will take any action in the matter?
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am in communication with the railway companies with regard to this matter, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result as soon as possible.

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps must be taken by petrol users in Ireland in order to comply with the new Order placing the distribution of petrol under the control of the military authorities?
    Mr. FORSTER: County and district inspectors, Royal Irish Constabulary, and superintendents, Dublin Metropolitan Police, are being authorised to issue permits for purchase of petrol to holders of licences under the Petrol Control Committee.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: In order to make it quite clear to petrol users in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is necessary in all cases to obtain permits from the constabulary before petrol can be purchased, notwithstanding the licences issued by the Petrol Committee?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is so, but if my hon. Friend wishes I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Could the hon. Gentleman say why there is this difference made between England and Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think a moment's reflection will furnish my hon. Friend with the information which he asks from me.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has read the letter written by C. L. Tranchell, police superintendent, Kandy, Ceylon, on the 19th June, 1915, to an employer applying for a permit to transfer labourers from one district to another; and on what law, if any, that police officer based the threat in his letter that if his order was disregarded the coolies were liable to be shot at sight?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): I have read what purports to be a copy of this letter, but I cannot vouch for its accuracy. Since martial law was at the time in force a police officer would be justified in explaining to any person the punishment to which he or others would render themselves liable by a breach of the Regulations issued by the authorities charged with the suppression of disorder.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether this police officer really has authority to shoot any civilian at sight?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to explain on whose instructions the police in Kandy, Ceylon, when on 28th May, 1915, they removed the wounded Sinhalese youth to hospital, where he died from his wound, omitted to arrest the Moorish trader who had shot him and whose identity the polce knew; and, seeing that this was the first shot fired' and one of the causes of the subsequent riot, will he explain why the Moor has never been arrested and tried?
    Mr. LONG: The official reports which I have received do not support the account of the matter given by the hon. Member; also serious rioting had already taken place and was in progress when this man is alleged to have been shot. While I understand that the police were unable to effect any arrest, there is no foundation for the suggestion that they refrained from action under instructions from any authority.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is a general re-inquiry going on as regards the proceedings of Governor Anderson of eighteen months ago; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of reopening the question of the conduct of Governor Eyre?
    Mr. LONG: Both those questions require notice.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what steps have been taken by the Government, in concert with the Governments of the self-governing Dominions, to provide homesteads for our disabled sailors and soldiers and their dependants upon the land in this country where practicable, but more especially in the vast uncultivated spaces of fertile land in the British Dominions overseas?
    Mr. LONG: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on behalf of my predecessor on 12th October.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a similar answer was given some time ago; and may I now ask whether it is not time that steps should be taken in order to provide for soldiers and sailors in the manner indicated in the question?
    Mr. LONG: Steps are being taken. Obviously it is not an easy matter to arrange in such a form that you can make any statement about it here. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no time is being lost, and, so far as the Dominion Governments are concerned, they are as anxious that a definite arrangement should be made as we are. We are doing our best to see that adequate preparations are made for these men.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has
    830
    received any communications with regard to this question from people in this country?
    Mr. LONG: I have been in office only for some days, so that I have not received: any communications.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries in the Colonial Office as to the scheme which was put forward by the Government of British East Africa for this purpose, and find out how it is going on?
    Mr. LONG: Certainly.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what concssions of public lands in Canada were made to Sir William Johnson and other United Empire loyalists who faithfully served the Crown during the revolutionary war in the American colonies from 1775 to 1783, and who after the war emigrated to and settled in Canada?
    Mr. LONG: I am unable to give the total area of public lands granted in Canada to United Empire loyalists and their children, but it is stated in Lord Durham's Report that, up to the date of the Report, 3,200,000 acres had been so granted in Upper Canada.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the facts with regard to what number of acres were allocated to officers, sergeants and men in these regiments, in order that we may be enabled to consider what would be an appropriate distribution after the present War?
    Mr. LONG: The best suggestion I can make to my hon. and learned Friend, is that he should come to the Colonial Office, where we will place at his disposal all our information. He will find there is a great deal there. I could not undertake to ask my officials, who are very heavily worked at present, to embark upon an examination which, I am afraid, would be a prolonged one.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I shall be delighted to accept the invitation.

  COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE:

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give

    831
    the result of the voting of the Australian soldiers in France in reference to the compulsory military service in Australia?
    Mr. LONG: I have no information.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that official intimation was given that the result of this ballot would be declared on 11th November, and is it not the fact that the reason why that has not been done is that the Australian soldiers voted seven to one against conscription?
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I am not aware of either of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman, but his latter statement I can say is incorrect. It is quite obvious that the publication of this information is entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Government, and not a matter for the Government here.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask how, if he has no information, as he told me, the right hon. Gentleman is able to contradict another hon. Member who has information?
    Mr. LONG: My contradiction was not as to the facts of the case, but as to the reasons for my action.

    DOGS.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the intention of the Government to reduce the number of dogs in the country; and, if so, will a full inquiry be made before any drastic Order is issued?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I am not aware of any such intention.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if any new conditions have been agreed on as regards the treatment of the Irish prisoners of war; if they have been now eight months imprisoned; whether he proposes to release them at an early date; and, if so, when?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not in a position to add anything to the answers given by my predecessor and by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this subject.
    Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the fact that the blundering and stupidity of his predecessor in the past have been the means of the right hon. Gentleman occupying his present position, will he not say whether the blundering and stupidity will now cease?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he will make arrangements to have an improved dietary scale for the Irish prisoners on their transfer to Lewes prison; if he will allow extra facilities to hem for Christmas; if they will be allowed to receive parcels of foodstuffs from their friends; and if Countess Markiewiez will be removed from Aylesbury to Lewes and be treated the same as male prisoners?
    Sir G. CAVE: The dietary of convict prisons is regulated by statutory rule and depends on the nature of the industrial employment. Special facilities at Christmas cannot be allowed, but prison diet on Christmas Day includes beef and plum pudding. The prisoner named in the last part of the question will not be moved, but she will be given, as far as possible, the same privileges as the male prisoners at Lewes.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for the release of all prisoners?

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the admissions of Sergeant-Major Newstead, when under cross-examination at the court-martial of the fifteen Irish prisoners at Frongoch; if Sergeant-Major Newstead admitted that the commandant stated that he would have discipline if he had nothing but dead bodies in the camp; if these statements are deeply resented in Ireland and are likely to cause further trouble in the camp; and whether the commandant has yet been proved to be perfectly sane by a doctor?
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the commandant of this camp has supported and requested an inquiry into the whole of this matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer I shall give to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Byrne) I think answers that question. I have asked to see the evidence taken by the Military Court, and am making special inquiries as to the conditions at Frongoch, and I hope that the hon. Member and others who have put questions as to the conditions at that camp will permit me to postpone my replies until the completion of my inquiries. I regret the last sentence in the hon. Member's question, which contains an unfounded reflection upon the commandant.
    Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, if the same question had been put about Captain Colthurst, what would he have replied?
    Mr. GINNELL(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State few the Home Department whether he has yet come to a decision with reference to release or amelioration of the condition of all or any of the 500 untried Irish prisoners now being starved at Frongoch; and especially whether the 350 of them now in special punishment in the insanitary south camp, and denied visits, letters, and comforts sent to them by friends, will be returned to the north camp for Christmas, and allowed to receive parcels from friends outside?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not true that anyone has been starved, and the reply I have given the hon. Gentleman will cover the remainder of the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman announce this week whether these 350 men will be allowed to receive parcels next week?
    Sir G. CAVE: I can add nothing to my answer.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can there not be a general amnesty of these prisoners, and could not that have been undertaken months ago?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice.

    SHOOTING OF ME. SHEEHY-SKEFFINSTON.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a telephonic report of the murders of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and two others in Portobello Barracks on the 26th April was sent by the adjutant, acting under orders from Major
    834
    Rosborough, to garrison headquarters and to the headquarters of the Irish Command in Dublin about 11 a.m. on the same day; that at about one o'clock men under the command of Captain Bowen-Colthurst shot two other unarmed men in Harcourt Place in the presence of a number of witnesses; that at 7 a.m. on the 28th April a body of troops under the command of Captain Bowen - Colthurst and Colonel Allett raided Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington's house, into which they fired a volley before effecting an entrance; whether, in spite of these occurrences, Captain Colthurst was retained in the command of troops until the 6th May; and will he say by whose instructions this was done?
    Mr. FORSTER: As regards the telephonic report, I have seen the statement in paragraph 38 of the Report of the Royal Commission. The statement in the second part of the question is, I am informed, not correct, and the third part is also, as regards the time of day referred to, not in agreement with what is stated in the Report of the Royal Commission. As regards the last part of the question, the facts are as follow: Captain Bowen-Colthurst was ordered on 26th April by Major Rosborough not to leave the barracks, and when Lieut.-Colonel McCammond resumed command after return from sick absence he confirmed the order, the effect of which was to retain Captain Bowen-Colthurst under his personal supervision. The, actual date on which Captain Bowen-Colthurst was placed under arrest was 5th May, and not 6th May, as erroneously stated in the Report of the Royal Commission.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was the arrest of Captain Colthurst owing to a telegram sent by Lord Kitchener from the War Office in presence of the private secretary of the late Prime Minister?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have made considerable inquiries with regard to that. It has not been possible to ascertain the circumstances in which the telegram was sent, but I am informed that no such telegram was ever received in Ireland.
    Mr. LAW: If Captain Colthurst was placed under the personal supervision of the officer commanding on 26th April, how was it that two days later he was able to go out into the street in Dublin and take part in an attack on the house of Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington?
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the murder of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington and two others reported that, as the result of a communication of the military authorities in London made by Major Sir Francis Vane, Captain Bowen-Colthurst was placed under open arrest on the 6th May; that the Prime Minister has intimated to Sir Francis Vane his appreciation of the service rendered in letting him know the state of affairs in Dublin; whether Colonel McConchey, C.B., commanding the 178th Brigade, General Friend, late Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in Ireland, and Major Rosborough, commanding the troops in Portobello Barracks, have all testified to the value of the assistance given by this officer in the defence of Portobello Barracks during the late rebellion; and whether he can say why Sir Francis Vane has since been relegated to unemployment?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have seen the statement in paragraph 53 of the Report of the Royal Commission. I have no information as to what passed between the late Prime Minister and Sir Francis Vane. In reply to the third part of the question, I understand that Colonel McConchey expressed an opinion that Sir Francis Vane's services had been of value. I have no information as regards the other two officers mentioned. The answer to the fourth part of the question was given in a reply to a question put by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 3rd August.

    GERMAN CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether the speech delivered by the German Chancellor in the Reichstag on 12th December has been subjected to censorship; and whether any restrictions of delay or revision has beer* imposed in publishing translations of this speech?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to both parts of this question is "No."

    SECRET SESSION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the French Chamber has held sittings in Secret
    836
    Session, during which the whole field of affairs, home and foreign, military and civil, has been thoroughly revealed and frankly discussed; and whether he will now comply with the desire of many Members of this House for a Secret Session of Parliament?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I think it will be better to wait till after the discussion on Tuesday before considering the last part of the question.
    Mr. KING: Can we have some intimation of the object with which this change is to be introduced? Is it to give more information to the House or is it to withhold it, as is the case in some countries, especially Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no intention to withhold information from the House.

    ENEMY PROPERTY (TRANSFER TO NEUTRALS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether the War Council will consider the desirability of the Allies issuing an emphatic warning that transfers during the War of enemy property to neutrals, whether in bulk or in blocks of shares, especially in shipping, will not be recognised in any arrangements that the Allies may find it necessary to make in the peace terms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government recognise the importance and value of the suggestions in the question, but do not think it desirable to lay down in public conditions of peace of this nature at present.

    LABOUR MINISTRY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister, whether a new Ministry of Labour is to be established forthwith; whether duties hitherto performed by the Home Office and the Board of Trade will be transferred to the Ministry of Labour; and whether, in view of the importance of preserving the health, harmony, and the maximum efficiency of our industrial forces, it is intended to increase the personnel and powers of the factory inspectorate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot yet give an answer definitely defining the details of

    837
    the new arrangement. The point raised in the third part of the question will no doubt be considered by the Minister of Labour.

    CHRISTMAS LEAVE FOR SOLDIERS.
    Colonel HOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the general public make sacrifices with regard to travelling for pleasure commensurate with the sacrifices which soldiers are ordered to make by foregoing their week-end and Christmas leave and possibly even their draft leave; and whether he will take into consideration the fact that if civilians only are allowed to travel the greatest sacrifice will be made by the poorer classes of civilians who cannot themselves afford to travel at full fares to visit their soldier relatives?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt seen in the Press, the War Office have now decided to grant Christmas leave to the same proportion of the troops in this county as last year.
    Colonel HOPE: Has not an Order been issued that troops are not to travel from the 23rd to the 26th inclusive?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think the reply I have just made will show that if any such Order was made it is now countermanded.
    Major HAMILTON: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will inquire to-day whether it is not a fact that an Army Council Instruction. No. 2312, has been issued, and was printed last night in all the command orders stopping all soldiers from travelling at Christmas time? Will he remember that at the last public holiday he gave an undertaking that soldiers would be allowed to travel, and that undertaking was not carried out in the command?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is quite true that an Order has been issued preventing travelling by soldiers from the 22nd to the 25th December inclusive, As far as I remember, those are the same dates on which soldiers were prevented from travelling last Christmas.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does not that stop all Christmas leave to soldiers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly not. They proceed on leave before the 22nd.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Does my hon. Friend's last reply equally apply to men on leave from the Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; men on leave from the front travel freely the whole time.
    Major HAMILTON: Is it the fact that soldiers and officers employed in the Ministry of Munitions received the same order, while civilians employed in the Ministry of Munitions may travel as much as they like?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will address his question to the Ministry of Munitions.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disappointment and irritation caused by the recently-issued War Office orders relating to Christmas leave for soldiers and sailors in training; and, where it is not possible to grant leave to such men during Christmas to visit their friends, will he provide that opportunity be given early in the New Year for the purpose of doing so?
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Christmas leave will be granted to the wounded soldiers in Ireland who are able to travel, since the number of them is small as compared with the number of wounded in Great Britain and the granting of leave would not involve any considerable inconvenience on the Irish railways?
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the public feeling on the subject and the disappointment which would be felt by the men, he will reconsider the proposal to restrict the Christmas leave of soldiers?
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can make any further statement as to Christmas leave for soldiers?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has already been announced that arrangements will be made to enable the same proportion of the troops in the United Kingdom to spend Christmas at home, as last year?
    Sir J. SPEAR: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether those who are unable to have Christmas leave can have leave early in the New Year?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will consider that, but I cannot make any promise.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will arrangements be made for free travelling?
    Mr. FORSTER: The arrangements for the issue of free travelling warrants will be the same as those that are in force now.
    Major H. TERRELL: Having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the answers of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he wilt consider the possibility of granting to all soldiers and sailors serving at home who obtain Christmas leave a prior right of travel over civilians in such railway facilities as are available?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This has been transferred to the War Office.
    Sir C. HUNTER: I asked at the Table for advice, and I was told to put the question to the Board of Trade.

    TAXATION OF SHIPOWNERS (ITALIAN DEGREE).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Decree was promulgated in Rome during August, 1916, whereby the Italian Government exempts all profits on cargo vessels bought abroad and registered under the national flag from fiscal dues or taxation during the first three years of their effective service; that all cargo vessels built in Italy registered under the national flag are exempted from any fiscal dues or taxation during the first five years of their effective service, providing the service begins prior to 31st December, 1918; that for steamers which are built after the publication of this Decree and during the period of the War all necessary foreign-made material for the construction of these vessels shall be imported free from any Customs dues; that a premium of 85 lire for each gross registered ton of the vessel shall be paid to the owners by the Government; that all steamers mentioned in the paragraphs will be free from any requisition for one year beginning from the date they are placed upon the national register; whether these inducements are offered by the Italian Government with a view to increase the Italian mercantile
    840
    marine; and whether he will explain how the present taxation imposed by the British Government upon British shipowners will encourage an increase in British shipping?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the Italian Decree of 10th August last, the provisions of which are correctly described in the question. The inquiry as to the effect of British taxation should, I think, be addressed to the Treasury. The object of such taxation is, of course, to meet part of the expense of the War out of excess war profits'?

    CONTROL OF SHIPPING.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on a certain day during the last month about 24 vessels were lying in a certain Channel port, most of them waiting for orders to proceed to other ports, and that about 42 vessels were lying in an adjacent port, most of them waiting for discharging berths; whether the Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool has privately given him the names of these ports and the dates; whether he can state how many of these vessels were British, and their total gross register tonnage, and approximately their total deadweight carrying capacity, including; bunkers, and approximately their total measurement capacity for cargo; whether he can state how many of these vessels were under requisition and how many were receiving Blue Book rates of hire; and whether, in view of the shortage of shipping and the high prices of food in this country, he will enter his protest to the responsible Government Department or authority against this waste and misuse of British shipping with a view to more intelligent and economical management and control?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My predecessor received a communication from the hon. Gentleman as to the number of ships waiting in certain French ports last month, and though the official figures do not in all respects agree with his, there is no doubt that there was very serious congestion. The French authorities are doing all in their power to overcome the serious difficulties with which they are faced, and we are doing what we can to assist them. I am not in a position to give in a complete form the particulars for which the hon.

    841
    Gentleman asks as to the ships concerned, but if he wishes it I will show him privately the information we have received.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the state of affairs described in my question is the usual state which has been existing for many months past, and will he tell me through what channel he got his information which did not confirm my figures?
    Mr. ROEERTS: I think I am entitled to ask forbearance from the hon. Member. I only entered office yesterday. I can assure him I will make further enquiries.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many of those ships are still there?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I must ask for notice.

    FREIGHTS ON COFFEE.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the explanation of the rise in freight of coffee from Liverpool to Africa between July and August last was furnished by the shipping companies; and whether he has power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to prevent this increase of freight being maintained; and, if so, whether he will exercise such power?
    Captain BATHURST: The explanation of the rise in freight on coffee, which was communicated to my right hon. Friend, was furnished by the shipping companies. I have some doubt whether the Defence of the Realm Acts could be used to regulate freights on coffee.

    MESOPOTAMIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning recent operations in Mesopotamia, and the position and prospects of our forces in that region?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think it would be better that my hon. Friend should await the general statements to be made by the Prime Minister next week.

    RAILWAY DISPUTE (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the employés of the Great Southern and
    842
    Western Railway Company of Ireland have handed in notices to cease work this week if their demands to be treated the same as employés on English railways are not conceded; if he will say what steps the Government propose to take to meet the men's demands for a war bonus the same as is paid by the Government to all English railway employés; and if he is aware that all the employés on Irish railways are contemplating a stoppage of work if their demand is not granted?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The President of the Board of Trade wrote to the hon. Gentleman on this matter on the 12th instant, and I am afraid that for the present I cannot add to his letter.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an answer to the question before the men cease work? They cease work next Monday, and this is the last sitting of the House before then.
    HON. MEMBERS: To-morrow!
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think, having regard to the fact that negotiations are at a very important stage at the moment, it would be undesirable to make any statement.
    The following question stood in the name of Mr. REDMOND:
    115. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken by the Departments concerned to deal with the crisis which has arisen with regard to the Irish railways; and whether the Government are now prepared to take over these railways on the same terms as the English railways were taken over, and provide a war bonus for the Irish railwaymen on the same basis as has been done for the English railway-men?
    Mr. REDMOND: I understand that this matter is being investigated at the present moment, and that negotiations are now going on. In those circumstances I would not like to ask this question unless the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is something which he can safely say.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. As has been stated, negotiations are now going on, and I think that it might do harm to say anything at present.
    Private Notice of the following question had been given by Mr. MAURICE HEALY: To ask the Under-Secretary for

    843
    the Board of Trade what steps the Board of Trade have taken or propose to take to avert the strike on the Great Southern Railway of Ireland, the locomotive men on that railway having handed in strike notices to take effect on Monday next?
    Mr, MAURICE HEALY: Having regard to the attitude which has already been taken by the Board of Trade on the question of the threatened strike on the Great Southern and Western Railway, I do not ask the question of which I have given private notice.

    EGYPTIAN COTTON (AMERICAN IMPORTS).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the largely increased imports of Egyptian cotton into America last year have given rise to a suspicion that large stocks have been accumulated for transshipment to Germany; and if he can state the result of the Board of Trade investigation into this matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The inquiries which have been made tend to show that there has been a very great increase in the consumption of Egyptian cotton in the United States, due mainly to the requirements for the manufacture of motor tyres and of artificial leather for motor cars, and that the large stocks can be explained to some extent by the desire of the spinners to safeguard themselves against interference with their supplies arising out of war conditions. There is no evidence that stocks are being accumulated for transhipment to Germany, but the position is being carefully watched

    MAXIMUM RAILWAY FARES (INCREASE).
    Mr. BROOKESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement on the proposed in crease of railway fares; whether this will exceed the usual Parliamentary rate of 1d. a mile in any case; whether this will apply to all classes; and whether any difference will be made in the case of schoolboys and schoolgirls and others compelled to take journeys for reasons other than that of pleasure?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Powers are being taken to increase the maximum railway fares at present chargeable, if necessary, but the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to make a statement as to whether or not there is to be any increase of fares?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think I shall have to confer with the President of the Board of Trade before making any statement.
    Mr. KING: If advances in fares are introduced, will they be equal over all the country, or will they be local and vary for longer or shorter periods?

    MERCHANT SERVICE (ROLL OF HONOUR).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that fatalities and the cause of them arising amongst the officers and men of the merchant service must be reported to the Board of Trade, he will now issue an official roll of honour bearing upon it the names of those officers and men of the merchant service who have lost their lives through the operations of the War?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I find that this question was raised by the hon Gentleman in January last, and it was not then found possible to adopt his suggestion. I will go into the matter and see whether it is now possible to take steps in the direction which he suggests.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as regards the historical records of the War, the Board of Trade are preserving all the information at their command bearing upon the services to the country rendered by the merchant service and by those engaged in it; whether the co-operation of the Admiralty has been sought for in this respect or is being undertaken separately by them; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps of the kind?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is preserved and every effort is made to make it as complete as possible. The Board of Trade are in constant communication with the Admiralty with regard to the services rendered by officers and men of the merchant service.

    TIMBER SUPPLIES (BRITISH COLONIES).
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of placing British timber orders with some of our own British Colonies instead of placing such orders with America; if he is aware that Victoria (B.C.) Canada, has unlimited timber supplies, and that quality, quantities, and prices are more favourable than we are now paying; if he will consider the possibility of assisting our own Colonies, whose sons are risking their lives on our British battle fronts; and will he inquire into the placing of such orders at once?
    Mr. BECK (Junior Lord of the Treasury): The desirability of placing timber orders with British Dominions has always been kept in view, and large orders have been placed in Canada. Orders placed in the United States of America have been limited to timber produced in that country only. The First Commissioner is aware of the timber resources of British Columbia, and a considerable amount of timber has been obtained from there. The question of obtaining further supplies has recently received careful consideration, and negotiations are at present in progress for a further supply, but (ho restrictions in placing orders, owing to the lack of tonnage, and the long sea voyage, have to be borne in mind.

  MUNITIONS.

    NEW BRIDGE, NOTTINGHAM.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in January last a portion of the county main road between Nottingham and Long Eaton was closed owing to a shell-filling factory being erected on each side thereof; that since that date the whole of the traffic on that road has been having to use a narrow bridle road across fields and several times each day has been held up for periods varying from twenty to forty minutes at a level crossing on a new railway siding constructed into the works; that in May last it was agreed by the Ministry of Munitions that a bridge should be erected over the railway to the satisfaction of the Notts County Council; that the foundations of the new bridge have been condemned by the county sur-
    846
    veyor, and the county council have intimated that they will decline to accept the new bridge as at present being constructed, and that if the bridge is completed on the foundations referred to it will result in a waste of public money to the extent of £6,000 to £7,000; that the general public are still being inconvenienced, and that many complaints are made of the delay in providing them with a proper road; and, seeing that other work in connection with the erection of this bridge has been done since it was intimated to the Ministry of Munitions that it was unsatisfactory, will he say whether the bridge will be erected to the satisfaction of the county council and whether the work will be expedited?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): My right hon. Friend is aware that some inconvenience has been caused by delay in the construction of the bridge referred to. There has been a scarcity of labour, and the urgent construction work on the factory has had first claim on that available. Instructions have been issued that the work on the bridge should be pushed on, and that it should be carried out to the satisfaction of the county council.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are grave doubts as to the foundations of the bridge and will ho guarantee that it is made secure?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The manager of the factory who is responsible for the work there would be quite willing that an examination should be made by an independent engineer.

    SMALLHOLDER TENANCIES (PORTON AND GOMELDON).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state why smallholders in the parishes of Porton and Gomeldon are being turned out of their houses and holdings at a month's notice, in mid-winter, after completing the sowing of their next year crops, contrary to the decision of his Department last summer that this would not take place; how these men and their families are to find accommodation elsewhere seeing that there are no vacant houses or cottages in the Salisbury district owing to the

    847
    proximity of the military camps; and upon what basis are they to be compensated for this sudden disturbance and the loss of their crops as well as their homes?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My right hon. Friend is having this matter further examined and hopes to be able to make a statement about it in a few days.

    BRITISH MERCHANT VESSELS (ARMING).
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a memorandum on the subject of arming of British merchant vessels; and whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the Government policy in this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is engaging the immediate attention of the Admiralty.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the official regulations, a lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve who has had over eight years' seniority as a full lieutenant is junior to and has to take orders from a naval lieutenant of little or no seniority at all; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy these conditions where an officer of senior grade is deemed to be junior to one of a lower grade?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is that a lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve, though his relative rank is senior to that of lieutenant, Royal Navy, cannot take command over a lieutenant, Royal Navy, no matter what the seniority of the latter officer is. It is not proposed to make any alteration in this regulation.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member has previously put this question, and can he say if there are any fees for the repetition of this question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not know that.
    Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member's statement is without a particle of foundation, and that I have never asked the question before?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say when those petty officers and men of the Royal Navy who have qualified for and become entitled to pension since the beginning of the War will receive the same; if the date of the commencement of the pensions will be the date on which the pensions became due, or will the date be deferred to the end of the War, when the man is discharged; if, in the event of the man being killed in action, his widow will have any claim on his pension for the past year; if the men who have become qualified for pension since the outbreak of the War may re-engage for a fifth five years, i.e., a further term of five years from the date of such qualification; if he can state the amount of increase of pension in such event; if such re-engagement can be made to date retrospectively; and if a petty officer's and man's pension is deferred pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The petty officers and men referred to in the question will not receive pension until discharged, but they are allowed to count their additional service for increased pension, which will be based on the total service to date of discharge; they receive in addition a special allowance of 2d. a day "detained pay" as from the date of completing time for pension. In the event of death, the dependants are eligible for pensions or gratuities, but they would not be paid the pension which would have been awarded to the man had he lived in addition to the pension or gratuity awarded in consequence of his death. As regards re-engagement for a further term of five years from the date of qualifying for pension, this is not now permitted; the men's services are retained up to a maximum period of five years under the Royal Proclamation. The following two parts of the question, therefore, do not arise. As regards the last part of the question, the pension scale applicable to petty officers and men of the Royal Navy is not fixed with reference to the amounts or rates of

    849
    earned pay, and the pension, therefore, cannot accurately be described as deferred pay.
    Mr. GINNELLasked how it is that all payments due to and in connection with the late Private Peter Farrell, No. 10089, 2nd Battalion, Leinster Regiment, killed in action on 25th August last while under military age, have been stopped from his dependant mother, Mrs. Rose Farrell, Lacken, Multyfarnham; a scale, subject to given conditions, having been laid down, why is it not followed automatically in cases satisfying those conditions; and whether, having regard to this woman's circumstances and the loss of her boy, her sole support, the allowance to which she is entitled will be paid to her forthwith as from the ate of her son's death?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made and the hon. Member will be informed of the result in due course.
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with regard to the case of Private Smith, No. 10036, late 15th Lancashire Fusiliers, now Class W of the Reserve, whether he is aware that this man and his son were in the attack of 1st July and were both wounded; that this man is now in bed incapable of work; that he has a wife and nine children; that his wife's separation allowance has been cut off, while he receives no Army pay and no pension; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with this and other similar cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: I had hoped to be able to answer this question to-day, but my examination of the general question involved has led me to think that further inquiries into the case are necessary. These are being made, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Private Harold Birch, No. 7000, 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers, went home without leave at Christmas, 1915, and that on returning he was punished on the understanding that his mother's pay should not be stopped; whether he is now in he 2/7th Lancashire Fusiliers, No. 3020; and whether he will explain why his mother's allowance is to be reduced for five weeks for this offence?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry will be made and the hon. Member informed of the result in due course.

    SS. "CANNING."
    Mr. HOUSTONasked why the steamer "Canning" has been lying in Liverpool since the 28th August, 1916?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: She is being fitted for service. I have satisfied myself that there has been no undue delay.
    Mr. HOUSTON: In view of the recent evidence as to the very great need of this vessel for the purposes for which it is intended could not the work have been very considerably accelerated? I should also like to know whether the vessel has been purchased by the Government!
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. The ship has been purchased and I have satisfied myself that no undue delay has taken place.

    MALT EXPORTS.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that, in spite of assurances repeatedly given on behalf of his Department that exports of malt would be rigorously restricted, 514,457 cwts. of malt were exported from the United Kingdom during the first eleven months of 1916 as compared with 232,099 cwts. and 224,909 cwts. in the corresponding periods of 1914 and 1913; and if he will take immediate steps to have exports of malt restricted in accordance with undertakings previously given?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade have been asked to reply to this question. During the last four or five months licences to export malt to foreign countries have been practically confined to malt of last season's malting, though in a few cases new malt has been licensed when it was required for the brewing of beer for consumption by the Allied troops. Stocks of last season's malt are now no doubt practically exhausted, and it is not proposed to licence any further quantities of malt for export to foreign countries except for brewing Army beer.

    TREASURY BILLS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, if

    851
    necessary, introduce legislation in order to bring to an end all uncertainty as to the liability of Treasury Bill holders, being private investors, to assessment to Income Tax in respect of discount received or to be received by them on the encashment of bills on maturity or otherwise; and whether the Treasury has given instructions that a test case be raised?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, profits from the source in question are clearly taxable under the existing law. In these circumstances there is no ground for the adoption of either of the courses suggested by the hon. Member.

    GERMAN BANKS IN ENGLAND.
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether the work of getting money from Germany to this country for German prisoners of war and interned Germans in this country and of distributing the money to the commandants of camps, which has hitherto been transacted through the Deutsche Bank, has now in fact been transferred to a committee and the account been transferred to the Bank of England or some other, and what, British bank; and why the work and the account were ever placed with the Deutsche Bank, which is an enemy German bank, the winding-up of which has already occupied twenty-eight months and is not yet completed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The arrangement of the personnel of the Committee has involved a certain amount of correspondence, and those arrangements are not quite complete; but it is hoped that the Committee will be finally appointed, and the account transferred very shortly. As respects the second part of the question, it was considered that the best way of carrying out this work was through the Deutsche Bank under adequate supervision.
    Mr. FABER: Is there any possibility of a British bank doing this kind of work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it probable that the new Committee will make other arrangements.

    ENEMY ALIENS (DEBTS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make ny announcement regarding the action the Government proposes to take in respect of the book debts of British traders; and what steps are being or will be taken to prevent the settlement by British firms of debts due to alien enemies until the interests of the British creditors of such enemies are adequately safeguarded?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at present in a position to add anything to what has been said by my predecessor on this subject, except that the question is engaging the careful attention of the Government, with a view to proper steps being taken to safeguard the interests of British creditors when the time comes to discuss terms of peace. British debtors are of course prohibited during the continuance of the War from settling debts due to enemies.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office with regard to the provision of ambulance for the Volunteer Force, whether he is aware that Lancashire and other counties have already got an efficient Volunteer ambulance force; and, if so, if he will explain why no provision is made for recognising the ambulance in the new Volunteer Regulations?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I am aware that there are in existence Volunteer ambulance units, but the desirability of using units of this force other than Infantry units depends upon the use to which such units can be put in connection with home-defence requirements. Until the Volunteer Bill now before Parliament has been passed, and the scheme which rests upon it has taken more definite shape, I cannot make any statement on the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    CAPTAIN BLAIKIE.
    Mr. PETO(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what steps he proposes to take with regard to the position of Captain Blaikie, commander of the Anchor Line steamship "Caledonia," and

    853
    whether he intends to make any communication with regard to the steps to be taken by His Majesty's Government in the event of the German Government deciding upon the judicial murder of this officer in the same way as Captain Fryatt?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can say nothing more than that the Government have taken the action which they think necessary.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked how many Irish teachers have been appointed to the commission of the peace; when was the first appointment made; on what grounds did the Commissioners of National Education come to the conclusion that to act as magistrates outside school hours was in contravention of Rule 88 (a); and whether the National Board are empowered to override the acts of the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that eleven national school teachers have, so far as the Commissioners of National Education are aware, been appointed to the commission of the peace and that the first appointments were made in or about January, 1913. The Commissioners consider that the performance of the functions of a magistrate by a national school teacher, even outside school hours, is a contravention of Rule 88 (a) of the Code inasmuch as, in their judgment, it tends to impair the usefulness of a teacher by placing him in a position which may bring him into conflict with local parties and cause friction likely to injure the interests of his school. The Board cannot decide whether any citizen shall be made a magistrate, but they have large statutory powers and duties as to the teachers under their control.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the number of assistant teachers in Irish national schools from whom salary has been withdrawn since January, 1915, owing to a fall in the average attendance, and the number at present under notice by the National Board; whether, considering the exceptional conditions of the present, the need for labour, etc., all such teachers dispensed with since January, 1915, owing to a fall in the average attendance will be allowed to re-enter for the period of the War; and whether the condition of average attendance regulating the reduction of a principal teacher's salary will be annulled for the same period?
    Mr. DEVLINasked whether, in view of the circumstances created by the War, he will support the recommendation of the Board of National Education in Ireland to the Treasury that the condition of average attendance of pupils should be suspended and ignored in all cases where it involves the dismissal of an assistant teacher or the reduction of the grade salary of a principal teacher?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the number of cases in which grants have been withdrawn from assistant teachers in national schools in Ireland since 1st January, 1915, consequent upon the failure of the schools in which they were recognised to maintain the required average attendance of pupils is about eighty, and that the number of cases of withdrawal of grants from junior assistant mistresses within the same period for a like cause is about fifty-five. These figures include all the cases in which it became necessary to withdraw the grants on the return of attendance at the schools received up to the present date. It is not possible at present to state the number of cases in which it may be necessary to withdraw grants should the average attendance of pupils at the schools for the quarter ending 31st instant be inadequate. The application of the Commissioners of National Education for power to suspend during the War period the operation of rules requiring withdrawal or reduction of salary of teachers consequent upon a decline in the attendance of pupils, which they are satisfied is due to circumstances connected with the War, has been submitted to the Departments concerned. I am not able to publish the communications which take place in consultations between the Departments.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: When may we expect the Treasury to give an answer to this request?
    Mr. DUKE: My hon. Friend asks me something I do not know.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he will consider the claims of the monitors and monitresses in the Irish national schools for the grant of the war bonus in view of the claims of this class of teachers for consideration in this connection?
    Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this question, may I call attention to the fact that the hon.

    855
    Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) has fourteen questions on the Paper to-day, and that the members of his party have sixty-one questions, or nearly half the total number, and may I ask you whether you can take any steps, in consultation with the new Government, to prevent this terrible waste of time of permanent officials in answering a string of questions all of a purely trivial nature, -and which have little or nothing to do with the War?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is probably aware that by custom any hon. Member is entitled to put down as many as eight questions, and when we reach the ninth question of the hon. Member for West Belfast I am afraid that I shall have to pass it over.
    Mr. REDDY: Why was he left out of the Government?
    Mr. DEVLIN: As the hon. Member has made special reference to the number of questions that I have upon the Paper, I should like to point out that it is very rarely that I have more than one or two questions upon the Paper in a week, and I think it is somewhat strange that this objection should be raised by an hon. Member who occupies nearly half the time of the House. I have this further thing to say. Any questions I put down I put down in the public interest, and not for private gain.
    Mr. REDDY: And not for office.
    Mr. DUKE: Monitors and monitresses are not recognised by the Commissioners of National Education as members of the teaching staff, but as persons who are themselves under instruction and training for the office of teacher. In these circumstances there is no sufficient reason for a grant of a war bonus to them.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will take steps to insure that the war bonus will be paid to the Irish national school teachers before Christmas, and that the system of monthly payment of salaries will be put in operation before then?
    Mr. DUKE: The payment of national school teachers on a monthly system has been brought into actual operation, and salaries for October and November as well as war bonus for the five months from July to November, 1916, will be paid before Christmas.

    Secondary Schools (Ireland).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, to prevent, as far as possible, divergence of instructions in the regulations affecting the conduct of secondary schools in Ireland and in order to maintain uniformity in the arrangements for the distribution of Grants in aid of the teaching of science in those schools, he will take steps to secure joint action between the National Board of Intermediate Education and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction on all matters in which the Department and the Board are jointly interested?
    Mr. DUKE: Upon the matter of written examinations in science subjects which is now in question between the Intermediate Education Board and the Department of Agriculture I see no immediate prospect of agreement, and this question is not of such magnitude as to warrant resort to legislation at the present time.

    Science Teaching (Ireland).
    Mr. COOTEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland threaten to suspend or destroy the practical teaching of science in secondary schools, introduced and fostered with success by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction since 1901; that in 1901 there were only about six schools in Ireland provided with laboratories, whereas there are now over 250 laboratories in the country: that as a result science teaching is developing rapidly and greater interest is aroused both in masters and pupils; that this Intermediate Board are determined to destroy this system and in its room to substitute the system of text-book study and written examination in use up to 1901; and, in view of the protest made by the Protestant head masters, the Christian Brothers, and the, assistant science masters of Ireland, and the bass to the youth of the country if this threatened change is made, will he take steps to protect the system at present in use, or have the whole question fully considered by an independent authority before departing from it?
    Mr. DUKE: The statistical matters mentioned in the question are dealt with as fully as possible in an answer given on the 15th November to the hon. Member for Kerry (South). The facts do not in my

    857
    opinion warrant the implied attack on the Board of Intermediate Education which is made in the question.

    Prison Service (Ireland).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether the new scheme for increasing the pay of Irish warders works out to the disadvantage of the married members of the staff and only benefits the unmarried men and assistant matrons; if so, what steps he proposes to take; and (2) whether the new scheme for the payment of salaries of Irish warders provides for the forfeiture and stoppage of allowances for fuel and light and allowances for promoted positions; whether, in the case of a warder entitled under the new scheme to an increase of pay of 3s. 6d. per week, or £9 2s. per year, there is entailed a forfeiture of £5 per year for fuel and light and £5 per year allowance for a promoted position; and whether the Government propose to do anything to remove the hardship of such a case?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that practically all the warders in the Irish prison service will benefit by the new scales of pay which, however, entail the discontinuance of the allowances for fuel and light, A warder now receiving the £5 allowance in lieu of fuel and light will, if he accepts the new scale, receive an increase of £9 2s. per annum less the £5 allowance a net gain of £4 2s. per annum. Where a warder has been drawing in addition to his salary an allowance for special duties he will, in most cases, receive remuneration for such duties in future by way either of promotion or of working pay. Where this is not possible the ease will be carefully considered.

    Irish Cattle Trade.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Killadysert Rural District Council pointing out that for a long period there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland and requesting the Board of Agriculture to revoke the detention regulation, as it dislocates the cattle trade, causes loss and detriment, raises price, and corresponds now to no useful purpose; and whether he will take steps accordingly?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department have received a copy of the resolution mentioned. The period of ten hours' detention at the
    858
    British landing places for livestock arriving from Dublin has been imposed by Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,. who have on different occasions intimated that this period of detention must be regarded as permanent. In the circumstances the Department do not see their way at present to take further action in the direction suggested.
    Mr. LYNCH: As this disease is nonexistent in Ireland and that the period of incubation is long past, will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps for the removal of the Order?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter has been considered, and the result arrived at is believed by the Department to be in the public interest.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if his attention has been directed to the losses incurred by Irish stockholders owing to the prevalence of the disease of redwater amongst cattle; and if the investigations which have been proceeding for the past five years into the cause of this disease and the means of prevention and cure have led to any practical result?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department will communicate direct with my hon. Friend in regard to this matter.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: May I expect a reply at an early date?
    Mr. DUKE: I hope so.

    Gooseberry Mildew.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is in a position to give a definite pronouncement on behalf of the Department in regard to the means to be taken to check the spread of gooseberry mildew?
    Mr. DUKE: As at present advised, the Department propose to continue without material change the measures taken under the American Gooseberry Mildew and Blackcurrant Mite (Ireland) Order, 1912.

    Pit Animals (Inspection).
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special inspectors of horses and other animals used in mines, under Section 109 of the Coal Mines Act,

    859
    1911, are now acting in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively; and how often in the course of the year do they make inspection of the animals in each mine under their charge?
    Sir G. CAVE: There are four special inspectors of horses for England, one for Scotland, and two for Wales. During the year 1915 they inspected 42,489 horses out of a total of 45,562 in England; 2,524 out of 4,626 in Scotland; and 10,101 out of 15,485 in Wales: and it is the duty of these inspectors, in addition to inspecting the horses, to investigate carefully the conditions under which they are kept and do their work. The other inspectors also very frequently inspect horses, but there is no record of the number of horses so inspected.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how often in the course of the year the inspectors make an inspection of the animals in each mine under their charge?
    Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member will find an answer to that question in the figures I have given.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the number of inspectors is sufficient to inspect adequately the 70,000 horses and ponies in the mines?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: When an inspection takes place, is notice given before the inspector visits?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will inquire as to that.

    Fair-Wages Resolution (Belfast).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to whether textile firms in Belfast engaged upon Government work are, or are not, paying wages in accordance with the terms of the Fair-Wage Resolutions; and whether the Board of Trade have yet decided to apply the provisions of the Trades Board Act to the textile industries in Belfast?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Any question of breach of the Fair-Wages Resolution is one in the first instance for the contracting Department, and not the Board of Trade.
    860
    No inquiries into this matter are being made by the Board of Trade, but the Chief Industrial Commissioner is in correspondence with the Flax Spinners' Association, Belfast, with reference to the workpeople's application for an advance of wages. The whole question of extending the operation of the Trades Board Act is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the matter, beyond repeating that the position of the linen industry in Belfast will be borne in mind. As my hon. Friend has already been informed, legislation would be required before any extension of the Act could be made.

    Questions to Prime Minister.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, under the arrangement by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to act as Leader of this House, no questions should be addressed to the Prime Minister, but only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will answer with authority all questions which would, in the ordinary course, be directed to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will, I think, meet the general convenience of the House, and it will certainly be more convenient to the Treasury, if hon. Members will continue to address their questions to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respectively, as they have done in the past, but on the understanding that questions addressed to the Prime Minister will be answered by me, as Leader of the House.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have running powers on each other's lines?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I, Sir, ask you with respect to the rule as to questions. As to the number of questions' permitted to be put by each individual member, I understood you to say, Sir, that the limit was eight questions. As I apprehend, that is not a regulation of the House in any form, either written or unwritten. Is it not the case that the matter is at your discretion, and can you see your way in these times to limit the number of questions submitted by each individual Member to not more than two or three at a sitting?
Mr. SPEAKER: My duty is to carry out the laws of the House, whether written or unwritten, and I think it is an unwritten law; at all events, it is an old-standing custom for all that, and I could not of my own responsibility forbid the Member's questions appearing upon the Paper. If the House were to pass a Resolution to the effect that no Member should put down more than two, or three, or four questions, whatever might be the number decided, I would be able to carry that Resolution out, but I do not think I should take upon myself a further limitation of the number of questions.
Mr. DEVLIN: As this question has been raised as to the number of questions put upon the Paper to-day, I should like to point out that there has been an accumulation of questions during the past fortnight, and that is why a large number of questions appear on the Paper in my name.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite correct. Of course, in consequence of the rather broken sittings we have had, and the uncertainty as to the replies, the number of questions has rolled up, and that accounts for some which stand in the names of hon. Members.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
National Insurance (Temporary Employment in Agriculture) Bill,
Friendly Societies Bill,
Local Government Emergency Provisions (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment;
Output of Beer (Restriction) (No. 2) Bill, with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An act to give effect to agreements on the part of members of Volunteer corps to attend drills or undergo training or perform military duty."[Volunteer Bill [Lords.]
Registration of Business Names Bill [Lords] —The Lords agree to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Registration of Business Names Bill, without Amendment, and agree to certain other of the said Amendments, with Amendments, and have made certain consequential Amendments to the Bill.

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) (No. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
VOLUNTEER BILL [Lords.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN".
William Kennedy Jones, Esquire, for the County of Middlesex (Hornsey Division).
BILL PRESENTED.
RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS (No. 2) BILL,—"to make temporary provision for rendering unnecessary the re-election of Members of the House of Commons on acceptance of office," presented by Sir GEORGE CAVE; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer state the business of the House for to-morrow and next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that it would be a great convenience to the House if I could make a statement as to the whole of the business for the remainder of the Session. I have looked into it and I think, if it is the desire of the House to facilitate business, it will be possible to prorogue on Friday of next week; but I am not prepared to give the list of measures which it will be necessary to take, because it is quite possible that, in the stress of work, some necessary measures may have been overlooked, and I can only say now that I hope it will be possible to make that arrangement.
  As regards the question put by my right hon. Friend, the business for to-day will be the Vote of Credit in Committee and Ways and Means in Committee; and I hope the House will also be able to give a Second Reading to the Munitions (Liability for Explosions) Bill.
  To-morrow, among the Bills which I shall ask the House to pass, is the Bill to make temporary provision for rendering unnecessary the re-election of Members of the House of Commons on acceptance of office. The Bill will take precisely the same form as a similar Bill at the time of the formation of the last Cabinet. I hope the House will allow it to go through all its stages to-morrow—it will be introduced formally to-day—and I am sure that the House as a whole will feel that Ministers should be present to hear the statement to be made on Tuesday.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the House meet at twelve to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The House will meet at twelve to-morrow, and the business will be, in addition to the Re-election of Ministers Bill, the Report of the Vote of Credit, Supplementary Estimates (Report), Ways and Means (Report), the introduction of the Appropriation Bill and of the Volunteer Bill, and other small Bills.
  936
  As regards Monday—the House will sit on Monday—a number of small Bills will be taken, among them the Government War Obligations Bill (Committee), the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill (Report and Third Reading), the Munitions (Liability for Explosions) Bill (Committee), and Supply—Army Supplementary Estimates (Report).
  On Tuesday, we shall take the Appropriation Bill. In pursuance of the promise given to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I have made inquiry, and I find that the Appropriation Bill covers every subject which can be raised, and I think it is not necessary to go further than that.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask, for the convenience of the House, whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give any indication whatever as to the possible length of the Session after the Prorogation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have been considering that, but, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is ill, and I am not prepared to give an answer to-day.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that only one day is to be given to the discussion of the Appropriation Bill? After the statement of the Prime Minister, hon. Members may wish to raise other matters on the opportunity afforded by the Vote of Credit. We desire to raise in a very definite form the question of peace negotiations owing to the statement made in Germany two days ago, and may I ask whether an opportunity will be given next week for a full discussion of that question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No. no!"]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is obvious that the allocation of time must depend upon the House of Commons. If more time is to be given it will be necessary to sit in the Christmas week, and I hope that may be avoided.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How late will the House sit to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no intention of attempting to force measures through the House by all-night sittings or anything of that kind. If I find that the House is not ready to give facilities to enable the Prorogation to take place on Friday, then we will have to continue to meet beyond Christmas.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will you suspend the Five o'Clock Rule to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  Ordered, "That the proceedings of the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed."— [The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Resolved, "That this House do sit tomorrow (Friday)."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

SUPPLY.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £400,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The last Vote of Credit—which the House will remember was for the amount of £300,000,000 —was moved on the 11th October, and it was expected that that would supply the necessary expenditure until Christmas. On Saturday last the actual facts showed that there was a balance of 40½ millions, which will carry us on until Saturday of this week, so that the House will see the necessity, to which I referred on Tuesday, of having to-morrow the Report stage of
  938
  the Vote of Credit now asked for. The Vote for which the House is now asked is £400,000,000. Assuming, and it must be assumption only, that the rate of expenditure continues the same as during the sixty-three days covered by the last Vote of Credit, this sum will carry us over seventy days—that is to the 24th February—and it will not then be necessary to come to the House before that date to ask for an additional Vote of Credit. There have been already four Votes of Credit during the present financial year. The total amount of those Votes is £1,350,000,000. To that must be added the £400,000,000 asked for now, and as this amount will not carry us to the end of the financial year—thirty-six days will remain—we must make allowance for the expenditure for that interval, and again, on the assumption that it is at the same rate as during the last sixty-three days, that will mean an additional £200,000,000. That will bring the total amounts of the Votes of Credit for the present financial year to the sum of £1,950,000,000.
  My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, estimated the total expenditure from Votes of Credit for the year at £1,600,000,000. Of course it is obvious, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that an estimate in times like these must be nothing more than conjecture. No one can attempt to foretell what the expenditure will be, but using the customary phrase, we find the actual expenditure will exceed the Estimate to the extent of £350,000,000. That increased expenditure is due to causes pointed out by my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister in moving that Vote of Credit. It is due to two factors: the increase in the cost of munitions and additional loans to our Allies and Dominions. But I shall try to bring the facts home to Members of the House more clearly by a brief analysis of the position. In making that analysis I shall adopt the method which was always used by my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister, and which I think is best, of reducing the expenditure to daily averages. In the last Vote of Credit, the Prime Minister dealt with a period of 190 days, and during that whole period the average daily expenditure was at the rate of £5,000,000. But he dealt specially with the last seventy-seven days of the period, and during that time the average had increased to £5,070,000 per day. During

  939
  the sixty-three days covered by the last Vote of Credit, the amount per day has increased to £5,710,000. That is, as the House will realise, an enormous increase. It is due, as I pointed out, to two factors —munitions and loans to Allies and Dominions.
  As regards munitions, it is really not necessary for me to say anything in explanation of the increase. Everyone knows what a change has been made in that respect. If I were to put before the House the actual figures representing the change with which my right hon. Friends, who were colleagues in the late Government are familiar, if for instance I were to take the actual amount of munitions turned out in June, 1915, and compare it with the amount turned out to-day, the difference would seem to the House and to the country almost incredible. Indeed, I am bound to say, repeating a view which I have expressed before, that considering the nature of this country, considering how entirely all its energies were devoted to peace, it is marvellous to realise the way in which, on the whole, she has been organised for war, and in my belief no better indication of that change, no more striking proof of the vitality of this country from an industrial point of view is to be found than in the enormous extent to which our munitions have been increased during the last year.
  The next cause of the increased expenditure was loans to our Allies and Dominions. The increase during the last sixty-three days on that head amounts to the enormous sum of £400,000 per day. It will be a gratification to the House to know that during the period of sixty-three days with which I am now dealing, as well as during the period of seventy-seven days which preceded it, that increase was entirely in respect of advances to our Allies. The amount advanced to the Dominions was almost nothing, for they had been able, by one method or another, to finance practically their own expenditure. It was pointed out by the late Prime Minister; indeed, it was not necessary to point it out, that in the struggle in which we are engaged these advances are just as much part of our own expenditure, are just as much necessary for the object which we as a nation desire, as if the money were spent in equipping our own troops who are fighting our battles in France to-day.
  940
  Two great advantages were possessed by our enemies. One was that they were prepared for war and we were not. But they had another advantage, and they have to-day another advantage which is almost as great, and that is that circumstances have so fallen out that the control of all the resources of our enemies is practically in one hand. One of the drawbacks of our alliance, as of every alliance of free countries, must be that it is very difficult to get this central control. To secure it in the past has been the object not only of this Government, but of the other Governments which are our Allies. During the last year—during the last six or nine months especially—a great deal has been done in that direction, and in my belief the success of this war, the rapidity with which we can bring it to a victorious close must depend on the extent in which all the resources of our Allies—men, munitions, money—can be pooled and thrown into the common cause, with the idea that we are fighting one fight which is the same to all those engaged in it.
  Looking at the figures which have been presented to me, I find there has been considerable saving in some miscellaneous expenses, especially on food and also in regard to railways. I think it worth while pointing this out to the Committee, but I do not dwell upon it for this reason, that as my right hon. Friend opposite knows it is largely a question of book-keeping. As regards food, for instance, money is spent out of the Vote of Credit in making purchases, and later on it comes back when the commodities purchased are sold to the public. Therefore, though there has been this reduction, it docs not mean any real economy, and for that reason I do not dwell upon it. With regard to railways, for other reasons the same thing is true. But I think there is one point in connection with the railways which, in listening to the introduction of other Votes of Credit, I have always noted, and that is, that the House is anxious to know what has been the effect of the bargain made at the outbreak of War. In regard to that I can only say there is complete justification for what has been said on previous occasions that it was a good bargain for the State. It was good, not merely from the point of view of the convenience—the immense convenience which central control gives, but it has been good also financially. I have not

  941
  been able to get detailed figures; I do not suppose I should give them if I had, but I may say this, that up till now it has been a good financial transaction, and though conditions have been changed, as the House knows, by the grant of a war bonus to the railway employés, I have every reason to believe, in spite of that, there will be no financial loss, but, probably, some financial gain in consequence of the arrangement which has been made in regard to the railways.
  I desire, as I indicated on Tuesday, to be as brief as I possibly can, and to give only figures that seem to be necessary. There is only one other set of figures I would like to put before the House, although in general terms they are familiar to the Committee, for they have been mentioned in connection with every Vote of Credit, and that is the total amount of the Votes of Credit since the outbreak of War. These amounts are:—

  For the financial year

  £

  1914–15

  362,000,000

  For 1915–16

  1,420,000,000

  For the present financial year, including the Vote of Credit now asked for, but not making allowance for the period that will elapse after this money has been spent

  1,750,000,000

  That brings the total amounts of the Votes of Credit since the outbreak of the War to

  3,532,000,000

  But that does not quite represent the whole. The House knows Votes of Credit do not represent the whole of the expenditure of the Government. I have asked this morning for an estimate, and have got it, of the additional expenditure in governing the country, taking everything into account over and above the Votes of Credit, and the figures given me are these: Up to the 9th December, 1916, the total expenditure from Votes of Credit since August 4th, 1914, has been £2,984,000,000. The total expenditure, apart from Votes of Credit, has been £478,000,000. This brings the total expenditure of the country since the outbreak of war to the stupendous figure of £3,462,000,000, and that is a figure which it taxes the imagination of any man to realise. I do not think we can in the least grasp what it means. It
  942
  is a colossal figure. I do not think it is an appalling figure. From the point of view of carrying on the War, which is the only point of view in the minds of this House and of this country, everything of this kind is relevant. I should like now to repeat the view which I have held from the beginning of the War. It is this: This is not a war in which, in my belief, it would ever have been possible to make arrangements to enable us to go on indefinitely as we did during the Napoleonic wars. In my belief that was impossible. Everything had to be thrown in. It is obvious to every Member of the House that the Armies which are now embodied by ourselves and by our Allies cannot be kept at the present figure indefinitely. All that can be hoped for is that they will be kept at a strong figure long enough to beat our enemies. In the same way as regards finance we cannot hope to go on on this scale indefinitely, but I, at least, believe that we can go on long enough to make sure that it is not from financial causes that we could fail to secure the victory.
  I said on Monday that I intended to avoid any general discussion such as is usual in moving a Vote of Credit. I thought at that time that that seemed a convenient course for the House. Since we last met, however, something has happened on which, I think, it is necessary that I should say a word, but only a word. The newspapers are full of peace proposals from Berlin. Up till now no proposals have reached His Majesty's Government. It is obvious that in these circumstances no Member of the Government can make any statement on the subject, and, in my view, it would be better that very little should be said in the House of Commons. There is, however, one thing which even at this stage I think it is necessary to say in moving such a Vote of Credit. My right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister—and I hope, in spite of what has happened, and my share in what has happened, the House will not suspect me of insincerity when I refer to this—in the peroration of his speech on the last Vote of Credit, when, of course, the weight of personal suffering then borne by the ex-Prime Minister moved the House of Commons to its depth, used these words:
  "They (the Allies) require that there shall be adequate reparation for the past and adequate security for the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th October 1916, col. 103. Vol. LXXXVL]

  943
  That is still the policy, that is still the determination of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the House will permit me to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the interest and lucidity of his statement. The mass of figures which he has related remind us of the magnitude and difficulty of his task. Having stood in his place for upwards of eighteen months I can wish him no happier fate than that he may receive, in the execution of his duty, the same generous support from this House that I was always privileged to receive. On my part I can assure him, if he will allow me to say so, that my association with him in office has not only increased my personal regard for him, but my admiration and respect for his talents. He can on every occasion rely with confidence upon my fullest support in the difficult task he has undertaken. On one point I should like, as I know he would wish me to do, to congratulate him also—that is, that he is fortunate in having behind him a body of public servants of very remarkable ability and of complete devotion to the national interest. He will find himself served as loyally and as efficiently as I was served, and I am quite confident he will achieve the greatest results in the high office which he holds. To turn to the figures which my right hon. Friend has given to the House. I hope in one respect his picture was a little blacker than events may prove to be necessary. He gave us as an average of the daily expenditure out of the Vote of Credit during the last sixty-three days the sum of £5,700,000. If my memory serves me, those sixty-three days have been in one respect exceptional. There were brought into the account of the Vote of Credit large sums expended in the United States which, had it been possible to keep the accounts properly up to date ought to have been brought into charge at the earlier period. I believe my figures are right when I say that the true average expenditure during the last sixty-three days would be rather under than over five and a half millions a day.
  Mr. BONAR LAWwas understood to assent,
  Mr. McKENNA: Consequently unless, as may very properly be the case, our expenditure increases beyond the present scale we may hope that the total of
  944
  £1,950,000,000 out of the Vote of Credit for the year may not be entirely realised. Last October, both my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister and myself, in speaking upon the Vote of Credit, warned the Committee that the Budget Estimate given at the beginning of the financial year was bound to be exceeded. As has been very fairly stated by my right hon. Friend opposite, the charge for munitions increases daily. It is 110 fault of the Munitions Department. It is no fault of the War Office. We are bound, to the utmost of our capacity, to supply our soldiers at the front with munitions of the latest pattern, of the latest size, and even of the latest cost. If, therefore, we find the estimates of March and April of this year have been greatly exceeded, we, as Members of the House—and I gladly recognise the duty—should exceed those estimates up to any point necessary for the proper supplies to our forces in the field. Again, in regard to other items of increase, I admit my responsibility for the increased advances to our Allies. That is a claim which we are bound to meet so long as we are able to meet it, and to the extent of our ability. The demands upon us are enormous. But there is one severe restriction with which my right hon. Friend will become only too well acquainted, the restriction that it is not easy to convert sterling wealth into dollar wealth. We have to pay in dollars for what we buy now, not only in America, but all over the world. In whatever country we buy, the arbitrage of exchange is brought into the dollar exchange, and we have to buy the whole mass of the imports for ourselves and for our Allies with cash in dollars. That is a limit upon our power to help our Allies. I am sure, however, I speak for my right hon. Friend in this respect, that there is no change in the policy of the Government; that within the limits of our capacity to find dollars we shall do our utmost to assist our Allies. I have nothing more to say. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to enter into other and wider topics, and I will conclude by again congratulating him upon his very lucid statement.
  Mr. WARDLE: I want to say in regard to this Government, that it is the policy of the majority of my party to support them in this new Vote of Credit. I hope we may see—I do not know whether or not it will be the case—this Vote of Credit carried, as others have been in the past,

  945
  without a Division, and without any disunity on the part of the House of Commons. I only desire further to say that I am delighted to hear the report of my right hon. Friend in regard to the bargains that have been made with the railways. It seems to me to confirm what some of us have said with regard to other problems, that had they been undertaken with the same disposition and in the same way earlier in the War many difficulties which the Government have since met with would have been avoided. I will respectfully follow the excellent example of the Leader of the House, and say nothing except this: that I agree to the full with the final words he has spoken.
  Mr. D. MASON: I should like to support the congratulations which have been offered by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his very businesslike, clear, and lucid statement. I should like, if I may, to refer to the last passage of the speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the hope that there would be—he understood there would be—no change of policy on the part of the present Ministry. I suppose he referred to their policy in regard to converting sterling wealth into dollar wealth. I do hope that there will be a change of policy. I, for one, think that the profligate and extravagant methods of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they had been pursued, would have got us into very considerable embarrassment. If there is any compensation in the change of Ministry, it is now that we have a different occupant of the office of Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the great difficulty which, he said, the present occupant of his late office would have in converting sterling wealth into dollar wealth. I think he is perfectly right in that statement. I think also he himself is bound to confess that his policy—or the results of it—have certainly not made the task lighter for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. His method of artificially supporting exchange and piling up our indebtedness to America has accentuated that position, has increased enormously, as the Board of Trade returns show, the excess of imports over exports, which question I hope the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will face very shortly, and which he will have to face. As I say, the artificial method pursued by the
  946
  late Chancellor of the Exchequer in issuing credits in America, artificially bolstering up exchange, and stimulating exports from America to this country has undoubtedly increased our indebtedness, as I think the Board of Trade returns bear out.
  Let us briefly examine these Board of Trade returns. I think Members will agree that when they find, exclusive of munitions, our excess of imports over exports will be something like £500,000,000, and that if we have to add to that possibly £200,000,000 for munitions, our excess of imports over exports at the end of the year will be something like £700,000,000. I hope that is a problem which the present Chancellor of the Exchequor will face, and if he will, either by a drastic method of cutting down imports, or by a direct system of taxation, reduce the consumption and the purchasing power of the people of this country, he will be doing something to meet that position. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer always met it by asking for further drafts on securities and increasing debt, and by staving off that which he was bound to meet sooner or later by extravagant borrowing on the part of the exchange. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet that problem, which is a very grave one. It is perhaps the key to the whole position, because, after all, finance is the key to the position. If this War is prolonged, which God forbid, but if it is prolonged—if the terms of peace are not satisfactory, then I assume the War may be prolonged—it is as well that we should face the position. The right hon. Gentleman himself has stated he does not think it can go on indefinitely, and he is sanguine enough to believe we can bring the War to an honourable and a satisfactory close under the financial capacities and reserves which we at present possess. But we are here surely for the purpose of examining the financial position. It is no use deluding ourselves that we have an unlimited supply of reserves, and when we have regard to the past two and a half years, when we know that throughout the country there has been little or no economy, that wages have been paid in excess of any known records in this country, and that theatres, restaurants, and expenditure generally, instead of showing any decrease, has mounted up during those two and a half years, that does bring home to us the necessity of

  947
  facing the position, and the supreme gravity of the task in which we are engaged.
  I do hope, therefore, that, with a change of Government and a change of control in the Treasury, we will face the position, because it is evident that if you pursue a system of creating credits in America and raise an excessive amount of money by borrowing rather than by direct taxation, you are bound to land yourself eventually in an awkward position and to embarrass your finances, as we feel we are embarrassing them. Take the action of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day in instructing Messrs. Morgan and Co.—after two Debates in this House protesting against the increase of floating debt—to try to place Treasury Bills on the New York money market. He naturally incurred a rebuff. The state of the floating debt, something like £1,000,000,000 to £1,500,000,000, has been brought forward by Members on all sides—by Members of the Conservative party as well as the Liberal party. It is not a question of politics, but of sound finance, which has no regard for politics. If finance is unsound it is not made sound because it is the finance of a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor is it made unsound because it is the finance of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. The laws of finance take no account of party, and if a policy is pursued of profligate borrowing and extravagant waste we are bound to suffer from it, and we are suffering from it to-day. That, I think, is a subject we in this House ought to face. That action of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer unquestionably did hurt British credit, because the action of the Federal Reserve Board in recommending institutions over there not to invest in our securities was undoubtedly to hurt British credit. Any banker will bear me out that the effect of that was at once reflected in the prices of our securities on the London money market. The reply given to our protest as to the excessive rate paid upon Exchequer Bonds was another action which affected our credit, and which unquestionably made it harder for the Treasury to finance this war. Therefore, I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman who has now succeeded to the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he is able to bring order out of the existing chaos he will de-
  948
  serve the gratitude and the appreciation of this whole House. He has a colossal task, as he himself described it, before him, and I hope he will face it with success. I should like to say one further word. I presume I would not be in order in going into the details of the method of raising the money for this Vote of Credit, but perhaps I may make a passing reference by saying I hope some action will soon be taken to fund this large floating debt, and to issue some form of long term loan so as to get us out of our present embarrassment more or less.
  In conclusion, I should like to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman himself touched upon, and that is the offer that has been made by Germany to this country. Of course, we are quite unable to discuss that, because, as he has very properly said, there are no terms before us. All that we know is what has appeared in the Press, that the German Imperial Chancellor has issued a Note, which, I presume, in due course will arrive to His Majesty's Government through some neutral Powers. But I would just, if I may, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as a member of the Government, while I for one do not abate one jot or tittle of our just demands in what we regard as a just War in its inception, I adhere to that attitude to which I have always adhered, although I have suffered perhaps through some misunderstanding in the desire for the speedy ending of this War in an honourable fashion, and I do not believe there is a dissentient voice throughout the country with regard to the primary objects for which we entered this War, and I think that if there are any dissentients at all it is with regard to the future, when you have some section of the community not content with achieving that which I hope we may achieve, the primary objects for which we entered into this contest, but who have some ideas of extending our domain or effecting a crushing victory upon the enemy. I do not believe that that is possible for one thing, and, in the second place, I think even if it were, it would be most unwise and impolitic. On a former occasion, I think, I quoted the Duke of Wellington that after an army had achieved the primary object for which it entered a campaign to pursue that for the sake of some temporary advantage, or to add a lustre to its name, was impolitic, and also, I think, an immoral proceeding.

  949
  We all recognise throughout this House and throughout the country the unquestionable valour and heroism of our men. If we feel that we have achieved, and I believe we are now within reasonable distance of securing, the primary object for which we entered this War, then we do feel that the heroic sacrifices of the men on the Somme, in Flanders, and in France, have enabled us to achieve that object. What was the primary object for which we entered this War? Surely it was to carry out our solemn treaty obligations, and to secure the complete evacuation of Belgium. Hon. Members forget, and perhaps the country forgets, that at the beginning of this War there was a very large and considerable section in Germany in favour of the annexation of Belgium—that there was a party in Germany who had the dream of getting down to the sea and carrying out an annexation policy with regard to Belgium. We forget that. We forget it was the heroic work of the British Army in the beginning of the War that checked the German legions in the onslaught on Paris. We forget it has been the heroic resistance of our men in France and Belgium that has prevented, and has now completely destroyed, the annexationist party throughout Germany. I do not think there is a serious politician now in Germany who talks of annexation, and if we refer to the German Chancellor's last speech we shall find that he himself—and let us give him credit for it—has never supported the annexation policy.
  Then, I say, when we are apt to think to-day that we have not succeeded as we might have succeeded, when we look to the more or less sterile or barren victories of Germany in the Balkan Peninsular, TO forget the great battle of the Somme, one of the greatest battles of history— we forget what, through British resistance we have achieved, because this very offer on the part of Germany is an acknowledgment of defeat, and an acknowledgment that we have achieved the objects for which we entered the War. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister, when he comes to make his statement, will bear that in mind. The Prime Minister has justly achieved in former days a great distinction and a great reputation for negotiation. He has shown himself to be a born negotiator, and, while he possesses at the present time, I believe, more or less the whole-hearted support of this country, I pray him, and I beg of him, not
  950
  to be carried away by a desire to add some great and spectacular victory to our laurels, but that he should have regard, as no doubt he will first and foremost, to the fact that we have achieved the object for which we entered the War; and, secondly, when he has regard to the financial position and the economical position of this country, he will not, in a desire perhaps to achieve some spectacular victory, pile up suffering for those who come after.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: May I add my congratulations to those of my right hon. Friend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very lucid statement! May I say also that I wish the Prime Minister every possible success, for indeed with that success is bound up the future of our country. There is one personal observation which I might make. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he was not allowed to see the Prime Minister, by the doctor's orders. I hope that does not mean that the Prime Minister is more seriously ill than we suppose?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no!
  Mr. LAMBERT: I appear rather as a critic. Of course it would be impossible for my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to criticise his successor, because he has been responsible for the finances of the country. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he thinks would be the best occasion—whether now or one day next week—on which to raise a question as to the changes in the personnel and in the command of the Grand Fleet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite sure it would be much more convenient, if the right hon. Member is willing, that he should raise that question after the Prime Minister has made his general statement.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I quite agree.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, with regard to the suggested offers of peace from Germany, that the Government are going to take the only sane attitude which they could take, and that is wait until they see those offers and see what is in them. I hope the Government will not depart from that course. I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be pressed into any other position than that

  951
  of saying nothing at all about them until they have been delivered in the ordinary way, and they know what those offers are. That is what the nation expects of them. We have been so accustomed during the last few years to pass large sums of money that the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to-day, namely, another £400,000,000, does not surprise any of us. As a matter of fact, I do not think any of us realise what it does really mean. I wish, however, to be quite sure that if we prorogue next week the amount of this Vote of Credit has no relation whatever to the length of the recess. It is a very important point from the point of view of the House of Commons, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, this sum will carry on the War until 24th February. Therefore, it would be quite possible for the Government to prorogue on Friday of next week until 22nd or 23rd February, which would, of course, be a convenient way of getting rid of the Members of this House; and with the best intentions towards us, I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be relieved if some of us were absent for a little time. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it quite plain that the amount of the Vote of Credit has no relation to the probable length of the recess.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can say that.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then, with regard to the spending of this money. There are one or two other questions which I wish to put. Money which is required for the Army and Navy, of course, none of us desires to criticise. I think the average view taken in this House is that whatever money is required must be found, and the only condition attached to that is that it ought to be spent in the most economical and least wasteful fashion. After saying that I should like to remind my right hon. Friend that in a recent conversation in connection with our own fighting on the Western Front I heard a remarkable story which illustrates the waste that has taken place. I shall not give any names, although I can supply them to him if desired. I heard of a small section on our fighting front in France where, after a certain battle was over, no fewer than 308,000 odd brass cartridge cases were collected,
  952
  of a cash value of £75,000. That is an example of waste on the fighting line. Similar examples of waste at home could be given, and while not desiring to make too much of it, I wish to emphasise the fact that in the spending of this money, and more so now than ever, because the Departments have now gained experience, we have a right to demand that this £400,000,000 shall be spent in the most economical manner possible. Now with regard to other services than the Army and the Navy, I should like to know how the Government are getting on with regard to the discussion of the amount of separation allowances. This money will provide for the continuance of the separation allowances paid to the dependants and wives of soldiers and sailors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Colonial Secretary, replying to me recently in the House of Commons, stated that the Admiralty and War Office had taken the matter into consideration, and not only taken into consideration, but favourably. Now we are approaching Christmas and are going into recess. There will be very little opportunity between now and the middle or end of January of directing public attention again, by questions upon the floor of the House of Commons, to this matter. Next week we shall be discussing the Appropriation Bill and more showy questions will be under consideration. Therefore, I wish to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the amount of separation allowance which is paid is insufficient for the needs of the wives of our soldiers and our sailors. We are talking to-day about spending millions of money in the support of our Allies fighting on the front. The best allies our fighting men have got are their women folk at home, and I think it is extraordinarily distressing to know of the individual circumstances of some of those women. A few days ago a soldier's wife wrote to me from Southampton, stating that her separation allowance totalled 17s., of which she paid 6s. 6d. for rent, and after paying for necessary food for the week, which did not include meat, she had 1s. 4d. left to provide any such luxury as meat, all sorts of clothes, and boots. Another soldier's wife wrote that her baby, now nineteen months old, could not yet walk, on account of the nourishment which she was able to provide it with being insufficient, owing to the smallness of her

  953
  allowance. I take it we are hoping to maintain this Empire, and that we look to the children of the Empire to carry on its traditions, and I do not think it is in the interests of the Empire that any soldier fighting at the Front should not be able to find his own child of nineteen months able to meet him on his own feet. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not keep discussing this in departments, but will make a substantial effort between now and the close of the year to come to the help of these women. They have stuck it now for many months. They have stuck it very bravely.
  To-day the Government appointed Lord Devonport as Food Controller to the nation. To-day we are getting in the hotels and other sections of the public, meatless days. What those poor women and their families want is not a meatless day, but one day of the week in which they can have some meat. I am not drawing a picture that is not true, or a picture the facts of which I could not fill in with correspondence from hundreds of those women, who are doing their best at home to keep up the hearts of their men folk. Amidst all these political changes, all these bickerings and these discussions as to whether this man or that man is the right man, do not let us forget the people who really matter. The women who have given their men to fight are depending upon us, who have more money, at any rate, than they have, for their maintenance. Therefore, let one of the first acts of the Government be in the direction of giving. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scotsman, or at any rate, very largely a Scotsman, and he knows the habit of Scotsmen at the beginning of the New Year. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the soldier's wife a good hogo-many. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a further question before I sit down. What are the Government going to do to make the Pension Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, of real value to the soldier? Are the Government really going to tackle the question of the Royal Warrants? If they are going to do so, are they going to provide more money than this Vote of Credit to meet the needs of the soldiers who are disabled, and the widows and dependants of soldiers, and all the social wreckage coming from a great war? We prided ourselves recently upon setting up the kind
  954
  of machinery which would make it possible for the State support to reach the soldier and the sailor in a quicker and a better way than it had previously reached them, but I would remind the House that there is a great deal which is untouched, and that with the best will in the world and with all the machinery set up the other week to deal with this problem, that machinery will be of no use unless you are going to fill in at the one end the raw material of money which will reach the soldier and the sailor at the other end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows how many loopholes there are already in the scheme for dealing with the need of the soldier and the sailor. He knows the large body of soldiers, totalling already nearly 70,000, who have been discharged from the Army now for months, and who have no pension of any sort at all, and whose wives and dependants receive no separation allowances of any kind. The Government know they must deal with those men and must provide the money to deal with them; and that is one only of the number of cases that must be met. I hope the House will not misunderstand me, because for the moment I am talking of the private soldier. I wish also to say that the cases of the wives and children of officers have to be considered more closely if they are going to get anything like the proper rate of assistance out of the regulations as we know them. I am not prepared for one to allow this Vote of Credit of £400,000,000 to go through unless we have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some considerable part of this money, and so large a part as is sufficient must be ear-marked and set aside to find the money for the changes which we are going to propose in the Royal Warrants. The Royal Warrants which govern the rewards of soldiers must be torn up and burned. They are called Royal Warrants, but it is a disgrace to the adjective that they are so called, for they are the meanest kind of thing that we have in any of our provisions for dealing with the men. Now is the opportunity for the House of Commons to insist upon the Government doing those things. I do not want this Government, in its initial stages, to forget their own people. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will before this Debate closes, to give me an assurance that out of this Vote of Credit there shall be provided sufficient money to finance a scheme, of increased separation

  955
  allowances and sufficient money to finance the changes which have been adumbrated by myself and others in this House and outside, changes in the Royal Warrants, which are necessary if you are going to make your pension scheme effective. The other matters with regard to the War I do not want to enter into. It is better to put my own point briefly and well and leave it there, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance for which I have asked, because if he does, so far as I am concerned, it means support to the Vote of Credit. I am aware that technically this Vote is for other things, but I am beginning to wonder whether the time has not arrived when some of us ought to make a stronger stand for the people who really matter, and who are generally overlooked in a great political upheaval.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. David Mason), who made reference to the grave issue which has arisen in consequence of the statement made by the German Chancellor. A number of hon. Members of this House had determined on the Vote of Credit to raise the question of peace negotiations, but owing to the new and grave issue which has arisen we met together and decided to hold over what otherwise we might have had to say until after the speech of the Prime Minister on Tuesday next. I have only risen to make the point clear that our attitude is not due to any weakening in our consideration of this question.
  Mr. WATT: I have only two observations to make with reference to the statement made to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I desire to offer to the right hon. Gentleman my congratulations on the fact of his attainment to the high office which he now fills. I saw a recent statement that he had disclaimed being a Scotsman, but whether he is a Scotsman or not, I am sure that he will be the first to admit that a great deal of his success is attributable to the fact that he was resident for many years in Scotland, and we rejoice at the high position which he has now attained. With regard to the loans to Allies, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the increase in the daily expenditure which has mounted to the vast figure of £5,710,000 per day, was Sue to the
  956
  fact that the Allies were getting £400,000 per day more than they were a few days ago. They were getting before £1,440,000, so that, adding £400,000, we get at the figure for our Allies and Colonial Dominions of an amount per day of £1,840,000 in loans. I do not think that Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past have emphasised that enough in their statements to the House and the country. Not one man in ten in the country is aware that out of the £5,750,000 which are being spent daily on the War, there are close upon £2,000,000 of that sum given away in loans. I think when the serious statement of the tremendous expenditure of this country is being announced to the House and the public the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give the man in the street the grain of consolation of knowing that £2,000,000 of that is returnable.
  I would like the right hon. Gentleman, when he has given up talking to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), to reply to this point, when he replies to the Debate. I would like him to tell us how much of those loans he anticipates getting back. He is a business man with business training, and when he lends money to any State or any Ally or Dominion he and his advisers certainly have in mind a figure which they think they will be able to get back. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman expects to get back 50 per cent., 75 per cent., or 100 per cent. of these loans. Another point in the right hon. Gentleman's statement was with reference to the price of munitions. It has been said that the advance in the daily expenditure on the War is due partly to loans to Allies, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was also partly due to an advance in the price of munitions. I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the increase is due to an advance in the cost of munitions, or to an increase in the quantity of munitions. I think the country is desirous that, at any rate, part of this increase should be traceable to an enhanced quantity of munitions in the daily output, and we shall be glad to know that it is not traceable entirely to an advance in the price of munitions. I wish to say that a great deal of the success of the War in the future lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. I believe the War will come to a successful and victorious issue, but that largely depends on whether the right hon. Gentleman can get, by one way or

  957
  another, the cash to carry it on. If there is any rock on which he will split, it is the rock of want of cash, and if the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the Committee an assurance that in his view, and the view of his Department, we shall be able to finance the War to a successful issue, I am sure we shall more gladly pass this Resolution.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: The figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us this afternoon are, as he says, colossal, and I wonder sometimes whether even British credit can stand such enormous sums. There is one aspect which I do not think has been sufficiently considered. It was said some months ago that what we had already spent on the War would provide a comfortable cottage and an acre of land for every family in the British Isles. I suppose that now it would provide nearly two acres. The point I wish to draw attention to is that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer punishes us severely by taxation, nevertheless the great mass and bulk of this money is borrowed money, and someone will have to pay the interest. Our children and their children, and their children, and their children for many generations will have to pay. They will not only have to pay, but they will first have to earn it, and it looks as if there will be a charge on the National Debt of something like £150,000,000 a year for interest on debt. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a great deal more!"] Is it likely that generations of Englishmen yet unborn will go on working and toiling and sweating for produce which they will never enjoy and never consume in order to pay interest on this debt? I am not sure that one generation of Englishmen has a right to impose a burden of that kind on its successors. I want to say that these generations yet unborn are likely to be men who will not have much sympathy with the terrible enterprise in which we are engaged, and I think they will probably condemn the whole of this costly enterprise as the foolhardiness of their forefathers. I hope that by that time they will have set up amicable, harmonious, and pleasant relations with their neighbour nations, and that they will forever have abandoned the barbarous methods of settling their disputes with one another by destroying one another and one another's property. I hope we shall have set up instead a tribunal and judge, and that we shall accept his deci-
  958
  sions just as readily as we accept the decision of the umpire at Lords or the referee on the football ground.
  Mr. LYNCH: The Leader of the House, in the course of his speech, suggested that this Debate should be cut short, and that subjects of vital interest should not even be touched upon. That was his judgment, but just as the other night, referring to a right hon. Gentleman who is now his colleague, he spoke of his rhetoric, and, contrasting it with his own, said that he preferred his own rhetoric, I have contrasted his judgment with mine, and I prefer my own judgment. We have now reached the point at which we are entitled to ask, "What are we fighting for?" In view of the spectacle which the House presents to-day, it amazes us to find that we are now asking for £400,000,000 for a war of which we can see no issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"]—and of which the position step by step is growing steadily worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Months ago, in speaking on this very subject, I said that only one thing was constant, and that was the continual stream of blood, the continual squandering of wealth.
  Do not think, however, that I have risen to make a peace speech. In listening calmly and considerately to peace advocates I have, in spite of myself, been impressed by the terrible force of their arguments, by their pointing out the unprecedented slaughter in this War, rising to amazing proportions, and by the way in which disaster and ruin are spreading throughout the length and breadth of Europe, and, facing these arguments like an honest man, I have felt compelled to say that they have almost entered my very bones. Yet, on the other hand, I would say, terrible as that may be, I hold that there may be one thing more terrible still, and that is of one's own free will to come under the heel of a conqueror and eat the bitter bread of oppression. Still that is a spectacle which has not been removed from the horizon, and I ask the Government now, What do they intend? Are they making for peace, as I believe the late Government were making for peace, if not ostensibly, honestly facing the issue, yet by the very futility of their acts and of the plans which they formed? Is the present Government going to drift in the same indeterminate way, or is it once and for all going to make up its mind to face the issue clearly to found in bold lines the necessary plans, and to

  959
  carry those plans determinedly to their realisation, no matter what the sacrifice that makes for ultimate victory? The right hon. Gentleman pointed out one advantage of Germany, namely, they have one leadership, whereas the leadership of the Allies is divided. I should in turn like to point out that although there is one leadership there are four nations, and that one leadership has been gained by a certain predominance of ability, of willpower, and of greatness of plan. Is that impossible for the Allies? Should there not be one of the Allies, or one representative of the Allies, standing out far beyond the others, not in any way dominating them unfairly, but rather leading them by common consent? That one leader, or small number of leaders, might project the great plans, and infuse into all the others the necessary confidence to carry them into proper effect.
  I intend to-day to speak with the utmost boldness and candour. The issues are far too serious for me to have any confidence in that game which has been played so long of seeking to meet the great victorious German advance by hiding the truth from this House and from the country. I will deal for one moment with the Western front, and I will say that there the operations during the last two months have been, if not a signal failure, at least a failure of such a kind that those responsible should take into serious consideration whether there should not be a radical change in the command. That proposition ought to appeal to all except those who, I believe, are unfortunately in the majority, and who in place of reality and in place of merit and in place of achievement, put mere names and reputations and titles. Some few months ago at the beginning of this year, we saw the determined advance of the Germans at Verdun. Time and time again—it is a matter of history now—Verdun was imperilled, but the German advance was finally stopped by the marvellous valour of the French troops. Looking back in retrospect, will any man say that the advance of the Germans upon Verdun was anything but a set back for the Germans? That is the view accepted in this country. Now look at the matter on the other side. The Great Push, as it was called, was begun in the early days of July. At the sacrifice of so many hundreds of thousands of men that I
  960
  dare not give the figures, that advance has resulted, in what? In placing the Allied Forces face to face with precisely the same strategic problem as met them six months ago. Has that been a failure? Has the man entrusted with that great advance been a success, a man, moreover, who in his operations to achieve results wasted four times the numbers of lives of British soldiers as in the corresponding French move? Yet I will venture to ask the Minister for War whether he has the courage to replace that man. Has he the courage before the world in face of the title and reputation of that man to set him down as lately the Generalissimo of the French Army, who had given greater proofs of energy and of talent, has been replaced by another? I say that if he, the present Minister of War, lacks that moral courage he is unfit for his position, and if the Prime Minister fails to recognise that, he, too, will be found wanting, and in history will be seen to have been unfit for his position.
  I turn from the Western front to touch upon the question of Greece. I speak on that subject with more confidence, because many months ago when my speeches were met almost with derision in this House, I offered a prevision of events which has been justified point by point, while those who answered me, those great men of judgment, those great leaders of the nation, those mighty statesmen, would be ashamed at the present moment to read their own speeches of twelve months ago. I ask with amazement: What power resides in them or in their offices that they have been able to persuade the House of Commons to accept as proof and valid arguments the abominable nonsense they have uttered? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not in his place, and I venture to say that is probably the best argument he could use, for I do not know a more miserable spectacle of a great statesman than that shown by him on the few occasions on which he has attempted to reply on this question—footling arguments, insincere excuses, gropings and fumblings with the whole question, unworthy of a man who is one of the leaders of the nation in this great crisis. He did, however, say this: He denied emphatically that this question had anything to do with a matter of dynasty. He said, further, that it was a question for all the Allies,

  961
  and that all the Allies were agreed upon one common policy. I am able to refute him by his own words, because only the other day a very lengthy and striking speech was delivered in the Italian Chamber by Signor Boselli, the Prime Minister. He spoke with remarkable freedom and clearness, and with what the Italian papers called "a remarkable amount of wit, or esprit." During the course of his speech Signor Boselli touched on this question of Greece, and in the clearest and most decided terms he said that it was a dynastic question, and he referred to the whole movement of M. Venizelos in these very words, which for greater accuracy I took verbatim from the "Corriere della Sera": The Governments of the Allies
  "would not favour adventurous anti-dynastic movements."
  That is the manner in which this movement of the patriotic Greeks, the friends of the Allies at whose invitation they came to Greece, is treated in the Councils of the Allies of which this Government forms a part. How can the Under-Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rising perhaps in another place, declare that the action of the Allies is completely removed from the question of dynasty, when in the clearest terms before all Europe one of their representatives has declared that it is the essence of the whole question, and when they refuse to support those who had been called their friends, and at whose invitation they engaged in that affair, on the ground that they were adventurous anti-dynastic Greeks? It may be said in defence. "After all, admitting the Under-Secretary of State falsified the position, yet that indirectly justified him in substance, because that is the policy of the Allies." I say "No, he cannot avail himself of that argument." That was the argument of one of the Allies, and it is easy for those who have not the courage to strike out a bold policy of their own, the only policy likely to lead them to victory, to shelter themselves behind another of the Allies and say, "We agreed with that policy, and it cannot be attacked because it is the policy of us all." Signor Boselli, in this remarkable speech, gave other grounds proving that this was an anti-dynastic movement. He sketched the Mediterranean policy of Italy. It is possible that in the ultimate division of the spoils he might have seen
  962
  a rival in Greece which might claim what he hoped would be Italy's future possessions. From my place here I would say to the Italian Minister, "You are selling the bear's skin before the bear is killed, and pursuing that policy will not lead you to victory, not to a division of spoils, but to such a defeat that Italy herself, so far from being one of the participant victors, will suffer the fate which has been meted out to Roumania."
  What is going to happen in Greece now? As far as I can read the signs of the times, it is this: The Germans, having got the great oil wells and the grain fields of Roumania, will be content and close their campaign there. They will then come with overwhelming forces and throw themselves on to the French and Serbians who have fought so magnificently in Serbia, and will crush them by the mere weight of numbers. Then, joining hands with King Constantine, they will turn against Sarrail and make of Salonika another Corunna. Does not that seem not only a feasible plan but a plan capable of sure execution? It was the plan I predicted in this House almost twelve months ago. Twelve months have been wasted by our statesmen and by the Government, not in forming plans which, even if beaten, might have held the enemy, months wasted not in obstinate fighting, but in mere hesitations, delays, insincere excuses, nothing at all which in the least gave the electric touch of great men capable of leading a great nation in a great crisis. I will say further, that when history sums up all these events, and when history sees upon one side bold conceptions, bold imaginations, great and valid plans, forced rapidly and successfully to realisation, great feats of intellect, great cohesion and great courage; and on the other side the antithesis of all these great qualities, delays and hesitations, with that fatal vice of politicians, particularly in this country, of being content not to meet a crisis but to throw off the responsibility upon others; then not only will such feeble representatives be beaten, but history will say that it is just that they should be beaten. What, then, can be done? As I said before, I do not wish to make a speech either of peace or of despair. What still can be done? It is to form plans in which you yourselves believe, well considered, bold, great plans, with the very sign of success stamped on their inception; and after having formed those plans, to push them

  963
  through resolutely at every point with the momentum at command of the total Allied Forces. By that means victory is possible, but even by that means victory is not possible without months, perhaps even years, of a most desperate and terrible struggle.
  But consider for a moment what should happen if now the Germans joined hands with Greece. They will have all that part of Eastern Europe at their feet. They will have a clear run down to the Suez Canal. If you are not able to resist them at Salonika, or Bucharest, what guarantee have you that you can resist them at the Suez Canal? If you are unable to resist them at the Suez Canal, they have all Asia at their feet? Or if neglecting that plan which chimes in with their year-long ambitions, they are content for the moment to close up even that campaign, close up the Balkan campaign, close up the Roumania campaign, and now that Austria and Italy are almost at a deadlock, if they were not only to redouble the forces which are pressing Italy, but to multiply them, say, tenfold, could Italy resist that shock to a greater degree even than Roumania in a parallel case? What a spectacle would then be presented with the middle of Europe under their feet, with only Russia with its far away legions to oppose. Under such circumstances what would be the security for Calais, and if Calais is not safe, would you consider London safe; and if, neglecting all these warnings, you are playing not for victory, but for a renegade peace either directly, formally and honestly or by drifting, by hesitations, by delays, by a cowardly refusal to regard the problem in its reality, I would say that then you will not have improved your position, but your defeat would be accompanied by the ignominy of having deserted your friends, of having run away from Serbia, of having been afraid to tackle Greece, and of having left Roumania derelict to its fate. If then Germany, having made peace, were to reorganise her forces for another conflict, would this country obtain allies? And on what grounds? Would it be for faithfulness to friends, for capacity of fighting, for staunchness or integrity? No; this country would be isolated, and the whole forces of Germany, which the combined Allies find it so difficult to resist, would be hurled irresistibly against this country,
  964
  whose history would be closed as definitely as that of Carthage was closed in the mighty shock with Rome. Those are the issues which, when really seen by great statesmen, will sweep away such miserable hesitations as those that tied the hands of the late Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: On a point of Order. Should not the hon. Gentleman address himself to the issue before the House, rather than place other issues before us as he is doing?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say that, while it is rather difficult to follow the hon. Member through his arguments, I did not observe that he was going beyond the question.
  Mr. LYNCH: I agree with what you have said as to what was merely a querulous interruption. I was conducting a serried argument. I will now try to reduce my arguments to terms which could be understood by the meanest intellect. I will endeavour to put the issue in formal terms: that we are asked to vote a colossal sum of money, that we have a right to see why that money is expended and how. One of the great features which calls for that expenditure is the campaign on the Western front, and the campaign on the Eastern front, and I hold that on both of those fronts the campaign has been conducted with signal incapacity; and I hold further that in this country, as its past history has shown, there never has been a time when men of genius could not be called forth. There never has been a time in the history of France when, under the stress of a great crisis, men of genius were not called forth, as when the great Danton stamped his foot upon the soil and an army of devoted patriots sprang up. We had examples then of great men—Napoleon Bonaparte, Hoche, Desaix, Ney, Kleber, and the rest, who saved the country in peril and left their names to illuminate history. In this country men like Wellington have come to the front in the hour of need. We ought to have this test, which any man of business with a turnover perhaps of two or three thousand per year would not hesitate to put to his own employés, and that is to give them every chance to show their merit—to make good, as the Yankees say— and if they are unable to make good and to show victory, or the guarantees of victory, then no matter what had been their Press reputations, their garters or their stars, sweep them away until you have

  965
  found men who can fight and win. I say, using that test, not only with regard to the Army, but with regard to the Government itself, and making that rule apply from top to bottom until you have found the men big enough, I believe they would in a few months change the aspect of the whole of this campaign. Such a man has been found in other circumstances, not by laying stress on the "Oxford manner," not by talking such humbug as that we will "muddle through," and that we are "not a logical people," and "that Oxford does not make brains but character." Get your men of brains, no matter where they come from. Test them by merit, and test merit by result. We have the great example, to which I have referred before, of the good homespun Abe Lincoln before us.
  I will cease. Unhappily the opportunity will be given to me again and again to make speeches somewhat similar, but I hope not upon similar occasions. I wish well to the Government. I believe that the crisis and the whole events of the War have brought out two men of outstanding ability—one the present Prime Minister, and the other the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, they are the only two men who made any impression abroad. I say that while within my own small means I will second their actions, yet I will regard those actions critically and also test their merits by results. I desire to make a suggestion. At the beginning of this War all the chances were in favour of the Allies, and one by one, like spoiled children of victory, they have thrown away those chances, and, as I said the other evening, they are becoming the spoiled children of defeat. Avenue after avenue has been closed by their stupidity, by want of courage, by want of character, by want of grit. I think one or two avenues still remain open, and one of those is the fabrication of a gigantic air fleet. I was the first man in this House to draw attention to the necessity, or, at any rate, the enormous importance of that idea. Years afterwards, yes, literally years, the late Government did wake up to the idea that something should be done, and they gave us, not the gigantic air fleet we asked for, but an Air Board! Does the present Government think that Hindenburg and Mackensen are going to be defeated by these mere machinations of politics, these wire-pulling tricks, this chicanery of Parliament, this habit of off-shouldering
  966
  responsibility? If they are going to tackle that question, and it will be a sort of touchstone of their whole character, they will at once sweep away that ridiculous Air Board, and give us an Air Ministry which will resolutely set itself to work to do that which is within its capacity, and utilise the one avenue of victory still left open to us. They will proceed to lay down on definite lines this great air fleet, studying the matter carefully and scientifically, and yet at every turn where difficulties arise crushing them down by the momentum which the promise of victory will give.
  Colonel Sir MARK SYKES: On a point of Order. The hon. Member who has just sat down made several criticisms of a Prime Minister of an Allied State. As far as I can see, the publication of those criticisms would supply propaganda to the enemy, and would produce friction and ill-feeling amongst our Allies quite unjustified by the feeling in this country.
  Mr. LYNCH: So far from having said anything in any way to injure even the susceptibilities of our Allies, I have quoted nothing that was not in extenso and verbatim in the "Corriere della Sera," which I read out a few minutes ago. There is no man in this House who is more desirous of victory with honour than I am, and no man in this House would be more revolted to find German domination in Europe. Rather than see them enter Paris I would wish to sacrifice my own life at the front.
  Sir M. SYKES: The hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of counteracting the propaganda to which I referred.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I have just returned from the Somme front, and I would be lacking in my duty if I did not ask the indulgence of the House for a few words in reply to some of the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Lynch). As one who has been out at the Somme front, it is with a sense of amazement that I have listened to some of the things he said. I have great respect for him. Out there, so far as one can go, one follows the proceedings of this House, and I personally read his speeches with interest and with pleasure. But I was amazed to-day to hear him say that the position—and I took a note of his words—on the Western front was "steadily growing worse."
  Mr. LYNCH: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish to misinterpret me. It was the whole position which I said was worse. As regards the Western front I said that the strategic problem was precisely the same now as it was when the great advance was begun.
  Mr. SHAW: I do not think that the hon. Member, whose second thoughts appear to be somewhat better than his first, has really improved his position. Certainly he left the impression on my mind, and I think also on the mind of the House, that he included in that wild denunciation which he made of the methods of our commanders, the position on the Western front. He spoke of the futility of the plans which have been executed on the Western front. Does he still adhere to that, or does he wish to make any change?
  Mr. LYNCH: Not the slightest change. I judge by results. The results have shown.
  Mr. SHAW: But it is necessary to judge by results when results have had a chance to work themselves out, and it is a foolish judgment indeed which calls for results in face of difficulties which are not even now appreciated in this country but which, on account of the magnificent efforts that have been made, are being overcome. The hon. Member calls for an Abraham Lincoln. He calls for some big man, and complains of the stagnation of affairs on the Western front. I doubt whether even the biggest man in history could make marshes of mud dry with a gesture. The hon. Member knows, as everybody else knows, that the campaign upon the Somme has not stopped from inanition. It has not stopped because we are unable to beat the Germans. The outstanding feature of the present situation, as is well known to the Germans—and there is no harm in saying it in this House —is simply mud, thick consistent mud, which makes it impossible for either ourselves or the enemy—and he shares the same knowledge—to move up heavy pieces, and there is no ground whatever for fearing that, once decent weather conditions are restored, we shall not be able not only to resume the offensive on a vast scale, but to improve greatly upon former results.
  It was with a sense of great pain that I heard that hon. Member talk about the Higher Command. If there is one man in
  968
  France who is trusted by every officer and man, from the highest to the humblest, and in whom every soldier places the charge of his life in absolute confidence that it will be used to the best advantage of his country, it is Sir Douglas Haig; and when one considers the stupendous difficulties with which the Higher Command had to contend on the Somme, what has been achieved within the last six months is without doubt amazing. It is something which no sneers from any Member of this House can ever minimise, and to which history will in due course pay its proper tribute. I do not complain that the hon. Member has used criticism, but I must say that from the highest to the lowest the British Army trusts its leaders, and though I have differed on many points within the last few months from the present Prime Minister, I say here and now that he is idolised by the armies of France, and that his presence at the head of affairs, together with the confidence which they have in their leaders is one of the great factors in the victory that is coming next year. I do not complain in regard to criticism. If a very junior Member of the House may be allowed to say so, I think that there has been far too little criticism in the House of Commons in the past. When I had the honour of entering this House the Coalition Government had just taken office, and there was a feeling of fear in reference to Ministers, and many Members of this House felt daunted when they were called upon to criticise. Ministers then, I thought sometimes, were divided into two classes—those who thought the House of Commons a necessary evil, and those who thought the House of Commons an unnecessary evil; but I gladly gather from the fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present throughout this debate in a dual capacity, and has undertaken the burden of the Leadership of this House, that he at any rate is an exception to both categories.
  In the difficulties which have occurred all along the House of Commons bears a very heavy responsibility. It was said by Pitt that the disasters of the American War were traceable to the servility of the House of Commons, and, if I do not mistake, the servility of the House of Commons during the first eighteen months of the present War had some responsibility for the shortage of munitions, the lack of co-ordination and the lack of men, and if

  969
  these factors had not existed the War would have been nearer a triumphant close to-day.
  One came back from the front with a most uneasy feeling. It was shocking to find that even at this moment, when the lines of the Somme are strewn with the bodies of unburied British soldiers, there was nothing in the Press, and nothing in the smoke rooms of the clubs but gossip about personalities. Therefore I welcome, and I am sure that my hon. Friends who have come back with me for the time being welcome also, the excellent display of spirit by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe, and I am sure that after that every man at the front will believe, that among the head participants in recent events there is nothing petty and nothing trivial. That is the spirit in which alone our difficulties can be overcome. They are much greater than many Members of this House realise today, and I firmly believe that if we are to carry out the express object with which we entered into the War, by force of arms alone, then we are engaged in a struggle for a victory which nothing but the most complete national unity and the most absolute devotion to the task in hand can ever achieve.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I think the Committee will agree that it is worth while to have had this Debate, if only to have heard the eloquent appeal of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I understand that Tuesday is to be devoted to those larger aspects of the War, such as Cabinet control, and I venture only to trouble the Committee with one or two points connected with the Navy. First let me say how general is the regret throughout the Navy at the loss of the services of the former chief, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had shown in his administration, if I may say so as a student of naval affairs, all the qualities which should belong to a great First Lord of the Admiralty, and had he possessed the Board which he ultimately appointed I am quite sure that none of those particular aspects to which I myself have drawn attention, and asked questions about in this House, would have occurred. He possessed to an unusual degree the affections of the Service itself, and, had he possessed such naval advisers as he has now given to his successor, the naval aspects of the War
  970
  would have been strikingly different from what they were during the past few months. It is unnecessary, with such a Board in existence, to deal with past mistakes, and it is very far from my intention to gather beads to add to a rosary of crimes with which to impeach the Admiralty. I am sure that everything possible will be done by individual members like myself to strengthen a Board such as we possess now—a Board of great prestige and authority.
  What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did was to make vital changes. He brought into the Board of Admiralty two admirals who had command of Fleets throughout the War, one of whom had borne the responsibilities of the Grand Fleet from the very first day of the War up to a few weeks ago, when he went to the Board of Admiralty. Sir John Jellicoe brings to the Board all the prestige of an admiral who has borne very great responsibilities—responsibilities which involved keeping that great Fleet, which is practically a Navy in itself, on its war station, while, as the past First Lord said, it possessed no submarine-proof harbour along the whole East coast. That Fleet was the pivot of all the operations on all the fronts, for no operations in Europe could have gone on for a month against the German forces, nor could this country itself have held out for a month, if that Fleet had met with disaster. The right hon. Gentleman has also brought to the Board another admiral—Sir Cecil Burney, who has commanded a Fleet throughout the War and also Sir John Jellicoe's right-hand man, the captain of the Fleet—and it necessarily results that the Board which we now possess is one which can speak to our Allies with great authority and will do much to co-ordinate Allied efforts.
  It is necessary in a case where efficiency depends upon very few men, the efficiency of the Service depending on the Board of Admiralty and that of the Fleet on its admiral, that the responsibility which attaches to the First Lord of the Admiralty and all those men is a very grave one, and it takes a very special type of civilian to choose those men so that we may get the best admirals at the Board and in command of the Fleets. The right hon. Gentleman not only brought to the Board of Admiralty probably the best admirals who could form a Board, but with great courage has appointed a junior admiral to

  971
  the command of the Grand Fleet itself. In Sir David Beatty the Service gets an admiral of great prestige and authority, who has had unique experience in this War. He is the only admiral who may be said to have fought with capital ships of the "Dreadnought" era against capital ships of the "Dreadnought" era possessed by the enemy, except for the few minutes during which the rest of the Grand Fleet was in action at the battle of Jutland Bank. On two occasions Sir David Beatty has been pitted with his Fleet against capital ships of the enemy. He also had fighting experience in the Battle of the Heligoland Bight at the beginning of the War. The result is that we get to the command of the Grand Fleet an admiral who has been proved by war, who has great prestige throughout the country, throughout the Navy, with our Allies and with the enemy as well, and who enjoys, to a very unusual extent, the affections of the men of the Fleet and of this country.
  I said just now that it requires unusual qualities in the civilian First Lord to be able to choose the right men and it necessarily also follows that when men enjoy such great command and such unusual powers as the command of fleets, rivalries also spring up and it requires a very unique quality of mind on the part of the civilian chief in order to prevent those rivalries from coming to a head. In the past they did exist very frequently, notably in the case of Keppel and Palliser, when the whole country took sides; and recently they existed in the case of Lord Beresford and Lord Fisher. If the right type of civilian chief had been at the head of the Admiralty when the rivalries first commenced between Lord Fisher and Lord Beresford, he would by tact and ability have prevented them doing any harm to the Service. Undoubtedly the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was in that respect a civilian chief to whom the whole Navy would look up with respect, and who would prevent anything of the sort happening. Sometimes, because I have been in the Navy and am a student of naval affairs, members and others asked me who could possibly succeed the former First Lord if he were to leave the Admiralty. I said the Navy would deplore such a change, but there was in my view only one man who possessed those requisite qualities and who could succeed him and be capable of choosing the best men and preventing anything in the nature of rivalries breaking
  972
  out in the Service, and that is the First Lord who has actually been chosen. I am not speaking after the event, because I have said so in the recollection of many Members. Now, Sir, I propose to branch off to some of the many naval questions which will come before the Board and also before the Cabinet. They are questions of great importance in regard to the future. We know that this War is a question of transport supplies and numbers and that the supplies and numbers depend upon the solution of transport questions to a large degree. Whenever we plan to embark on an expedition like what may take place in Salonika involving a reinforcement or any attempt to cut the route across the Berlin-Constantinople-Bagdad railway, it involves an enormous amount of shipping, and therefore the transport question governs everything, as it does the economic conditions in this country. Therefore I would urge the Cabinet to tackle that question at once. The U boat campaign which is being carried out against our steam transport routes is carried out with the very object of creating difficulties for us in our most vital point, our shipping transport, and I would ask the Cabinet to declare that the arming of merchant vessels is the most vital consideration before us in this War, because, if ever we get to the point at which we can supply some 6,000 3-inch or 6-inch guns to our merchant vessels, we shall have solved this U boat menace, so it ceases to be a grave danger. I say 3-inch to 6-inch guns because not all merchant ships by any means could stand the strain of 6-inch guns.
  But more measures than that are involved. We ought to take out of the hands of the Inventions Committee those inventions which deal with the submarine menace and make that a special department under, perhaps, so distinguished an admiral and inventor as Sir Henry Jackson, who ought to be allowed to choose his own committee, and such a committee ought never to sit in London. It ought to go to the naval ports to be able to requisition what it likes from the torpedo gunnery schools and from the dockyards, be armed with large public funds and be able to examine, without any red tape whatever, into every invention dealing with the submarine menace. The other questions which come up in connection with the submarine menace are these: Are we making the very best use of our forces? There is at this moment, for

  973
  instance, a large Greek flotilla which is not being brought into use at all. The French took possession of it when the Allies brought pressure to bear on King Con-stantine's Government. Why not bring that flotilla and the Greek sailors, who are favourable to us ana have joined M. Venizelos, into existence as an armed force for the protection of Greek waters? The Greek sailors know best the Greek waters and the methods of supplying German submarines. Then there is the question of the Grand Fleet, which is the pivot of all our operations, which must be supplied with whatever is vital to it, but which must not necessarily be supplied with whatever is useful to it. There are other vital needs of naval warfare, and they must come before the merely useful requirements of the Grand Fleet. We must obtain the services of more destroyers in order to cope with the submarine menace. The next question is, How are we ever to get a munition route to Russia which will adequately munition Russia so as to enable her to bring in her enormous numbers of trained soldiers who at present cannot be munitioned? Some people think it can be done by the use of a much larger force in the East, but that involves again the question of a very large amount of shipping. There is the question as to whether we might not do so by opening up a route into the Baltic, whether by making new alliances with the Scandinavian countries, or by other means. Apart from that, however, I suggest that if we could but open the route to the Baltic for one day—and I think it perfectly feasible and practicable in conjunction with our Russian Allies— we could pass in a number of submarines, and then the whole blockade question would take on another aspect. If we could pass in thirty or forty submarines into the Baltic—the crux of the blockade question lies in the Baltic—we should be able to blockade Sweden and we should, by stopping her trade with Germany, take away from the United States their principal argument that we are not carrying out an efficient blockade. We should then be able to carry out a much more stringent blockade all along the line.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it in order to advocate the blockade of a neutral country?
  Commander BELLAIRS: I was not advocating the blockade of a neutral Power.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not for the Chair to intervene in any matter of policy, but it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going into very dangerous waters.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I should put it this way, that the United States Government complained that our blockade is unfair because it cuts off the American trade with Germany and does not cut off the Swedish trade with Germany; and the way I ought to have put it is that we should be able to cut off the German trade with Sweden by placing submarines on the route between Germany and Sweden. We should then be able to strengthen our blockade in ail quarters of the world, because the American argument would be gone. I only put forward these suggested points as I think they ought to be faced at once by the new Cabinet. We have had many opportunities in this War and we have lost them. I think the hon. Member below the Gangway who enlarged on that point might equally well have made it in regard to naval affairs as well I desire that we should not lose opportunities in the future. It must be the case that a policy which was perfectly legitimate, and would have been rewarded with success at the beginning of the War, through the changing conditions which are going on from day to day, is unlikely to succeed now, and we have to adapt our views to modern conditions. But opportunities are soon lost, and we must be quick to realise them and think of them in advance. There was a sculptor once who carved a statue in which the face was concealed by hair, and it had wings on the feet. The sculptor was asked what it represented, and he said it represented opportunity. People asked him why was the face concealed. He said because opportunity was seldom recognised. They asked why it had wings on the feet. "Because, when recognised, men must be quick to grasp it, or it will be gone for ever." I trust that in the future our opportunities will be quickly recognised by the new Government and will not be lost.
  Mr. SHERWELL: In the admirable speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) there was one statement which, I think it is due to the House of Commons, should receive a single comment. He referred to the shock which he and brother officers received when, on returning from the front, they found the club smoking-room absorbed in the discussion of

  975
  personalities. Since that statement was made to the House of Commons it is only fair that a Member of the House of Commons should hasten to say that for that condition of things the House of Commons itself is not responsible. Whatever internal difficulties the Cabinets of the last few years may have suffered from, they have never been due to the action or feeling of the House of Commons. So far as the Vote before the House is concerned, while I appreciate fully what I understand to be the view of the Leader of the House, that this particular Vote should not properly be made an occasion for a wide discussion on matters of policy, I doubt whether he, as a good Parliamentarian, will be altogether satisfied with the conditions and the course of the present Debate. What is the position? The Government is asking the House to give it another Vote of Credit of very considerable dimensions. The purposes for which that Vote may be used are covered and protected solely by vague and general phrases. I recognise perfectly, as every Member of the House of Commons will recognise, that it is impossible under present conditions of warfare, and, having regard to the present position on the different fronts to require from the Government any intimate detail of the forms of expenditure for which this Vote may be used. The right hon. Gentleman, in giving out that very serious and impressive statement concerning the great increase in the average daily expenditure for the conduct of the War, intimated to the House that the increase of expenditure was chiefly caused, first, by the increased cost of munitions, and secondly, by loans to our Allies. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman— and of course I have no doubt he will be sufficiently alive to the point—that the conditions of the present Debate may not necessarily serve as a precedent for the conditions of subsequent Debates. May I point out to him that in regard to these two great sources of expenditure the House of Commons, from first to last, has never had a single word of enlightenment or a single scrap of information? I do not say, and I would not suggest, that it is possible for the Leader of the House to give to the House of Commons in public discussion any intimate details or information concerning the way in which these two expenditures will be appropriated, but I would point out to him that
  976
  whilst other forms of public expenditure have in the course of the War come under a more or less superficial and cursory process of examination by various special Committees that have been set up, these two particular sources of expenditure have always been rigorously excluded from the survey of any Committee that has been appointed since the War began. We all of us are aware that no inquiry was allowed by the Committee of Retrenchment in national expenditure into the forms of expenditure of the Ministry of Munitions, nor, was that Committee enabled to investigate as to whether there were possible economics in regard to that great spending Department.
  In view of certain more or less authoritative announcements that have appeared in the daily Press that it is one of the intentions of the new Government to establish certain Committees by which this House may become; more fully in formed in regard to matters of policy and expenditure than has been the case, I would suggest that in the interests of the War itself, and in the interests of the efficient conduct of the War, and having in mind the perfectly frank and candid allusion which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the possible ultimate exhaustion of the resources of this country for fighting purposes, it is desirable that the new Government at a very early stage should establish some representative Committee—I do not mind how small —which may be informed by the Government of the purposes for which these various Votes are required, in order to avoid the necessity of divulging information which might not possibly be safely divulged to a full Committee in Session.
  It is extremely important that the granting of these Votes for huge sums of money should not take the prefunctory form which they have taken in the past and are taking at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some forms of expenditure being remunerative. I gather he made an incidental reference to the deal of the Government with the railway companies. That is a point about which the House has a right to ask for some information. We were told when the arrangement with the railway companies was first made that the late Government had guaranteed the companies their full profit on the basis of a pre-war standard. It is a matter of common knowledge that from the date of that arrangement the

  977
  facilities of the public have been more and more restricted, the staffs have been more and more depleted, and there is no evidence yet available to the House to show that the companies are being put to expenditure comparable to their pre-war expenditure. The time has come when the Government should give the country and this House some assurance on this point. If there is a continuance of these withdrawals of facilities and conveniences— which no member of the public really resents, and which are necessary, it may be, for the successful conduct of the War— we have the right to ask that some security shall be given to us that these savings of expenditure are not still further enriching the railway companies, and that the railway companies shall not receive compensation on a pre-war basis, unless they are necessarily and naturally being put to a standard of pre-war expenditure. There is another point to which I would like to refer, and which is of considerable importance. We have had an intimation that the Government is making various proposals to form separate Ministries. There is to be some process of decentralisation, for instance, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned. We are to have a Minister of Shipping and a Minister of Labour. I have read a report in the Press, which I hope is entirely unfounded, to the effect that the new Minister of Shipping is to be raised to the peerage and to have his seat in the other House. I hope the Government have no serious intentions in that direction, for considering the enormous importance of the Ministry of Shipping under present conditions it is probably one of the Departments which at all costs, and at all hazards, should be represented authoritatively in this House. In regard to the question of the Ministry of Labour, I gather that that will require legislation. I regret the intimation given by the right hon. Gentleman that our time for discussion is, according to the plans of the Government, somewhat restricted. He is aware that this question of the Ministry of Labour is a proposal which has been advocated by very many of us for many years past. In the estimation of some of us it may be made one of the most important Departments of the State, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman that when that Bill is presented to the House, full opportunity for discussion and examination of the Government's detailed proposals should be given?
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are in Committee of Supply. We must not discuss legislation, actual, or anticipated, in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I understand that the expenditure of the Government in reference to the creation of a Ministry of Labour is covered by this particular Vote. Therefore, while I do not make any reference to ordinary legislation, I hope the Government will give us full opportunity for discussing their proposals in connection with the creation of a Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I had intended to offer some friendly criticisms in regard to this Vote of Credit, but when I heard the wild and whirling words of the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) I thought there was very little left but to go cap in hand to Germany and say, "We are a miserable lot of creatures, what terms will you take to settle with us?" Then I heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw) and I was cheered up again, and I thought we might vote this money. I deprecate entirely, amateur strategists giving advice across the floor of this House. What is the use of our paying large salaries to our chiefs of staff, and putting them in the great positions they occupy, if we are going to bandy across the floor of the House words as to what they ought to do or ought not to do. According to the hon. Member for West Clare, the Army is wrong, and there is no chief there worth his salt. It is the same with the Navy. If that is so, I think that what he ought to do is to go to Trafalgar Square, stamp his foot, like Danton, and somebody will come up and put the whole thing right. It is ridiculous. It cannot do any good in our present condition to make these suggestions of what should be done here and what should be done there. It is outside our purview. The House of Commons is not a chief of staff, either in the Navy or in the Army, and we ought to leave these things to the Chiefs of Staff and the Army Council.
  In regard to this Vote for £400,000,000, I would make an appeal for a wise spending of the money. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that last year the present Prime Minister said that we are asked to provide for the Navy and keep it on the seas, to provide for a large

  979
  Army, to finance ourselves, our Allies and our Colonies, to make munitions for ourselves and our Allies, and to provide transport. The right hon. Gentleman added, "To do all that is impossible." He is doing it, and a great deal more than that. Are we undertaking too much? An American humorist, in describing the life of Alexander the Great, said Alexander came to grief because he tried to do too much, and he added, "I have observed through life that when a man tries to do too much, he succeeds." I hope the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not come to grief by trying to do too much. There ought to be some curtailment of our liabilities. I think we have taken on just a little too much. However, I suppose they see their way to do it. I pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his job of framing his Budget, and still more do I pity him his job in floating the next loan. He will find that a very serious thing. I hope he will succeed, and so far as I can I shall do my best for him. The Government is up against a very stiff proposition if they are going to undertake to keep on doing all these things, which is far more than any of our Allies are doing. I say these things with the object of suggesting curtailment and limitation of our liabilities and responsibilities.
  I feel sure that close examination will show that there is a very large sum of money extravagantly spent in certain Departments. You are making far too many Departments, and you are covering London with far too many offices. If you go into one of these Departments which have been established you will find interminable corridors, crammed with girls, and there is no concentration. If the Bank of England were to carry on its business in a series of corridors, like rabbit warrens it would require the whole City. The Bank of England takes a business view of things, and there are certain large rooms which hold a sufficient quantity of people. In the War Office or the Ministry of Munitions there are a series of rooms with one or two clerks, instead of there being as in the Custom House or the Post Office or the Bank of England large rooms, with certain rooms set off for the heads of departments who can get into touch at once with any clerk or any assistant they want. If you want to get to a man at the War Office it is an interminable thing, and the same remark applies to the
  980
  Ministry of Munitions. In the Munitions Department there has been an effort made to concentrate the work; to get hold of a whole trade and to concentrate it and centralise it. If you had five years in which to do it, you might do it, but if you have only eighteen months you cannot do it. The result of this effort to centralise has been that a great deal of work has been multiplied. To those who have come into contact with these things it is known that there has been great delay in the manufacture of munitions through this attempt to centralise, instead of leaving the manufacturers themselves to deal with their own people, and to get the necessary means at hand to carry out their contracts with the Government.
  As my hon. Friend (Mr. Sherwell) has said, we have no means of judging what this expenditure is for. We have no estimates for the Army, Navy, or Munitions. Money is handed to those Departments and spent wisely or unwisely. I am afraid a great deal has been spent unwisely. That being so—I cannot complain of it in war time—the obligation is all the more strong and binding upon Ministers to see that strict economy pervades the whole of those Departments, so that when they do come to give an account they will not be ashamed of their stewardship.
  Mr. BILLING: I should not occupy the time of the Committee if I thought there would be any opportunity of raising the question of the Air Service before the House adjourns. I quite realise that the new Government—and I should like to be among the first to congratulate the new Government—has before it many tasks of greater magnitude, but I would like to ask the present Government that at least they should not take a very definite decision— I am looking to this now Government to take definite decisions—before there has been some debate in this House on the reconstruction of our Air Services. I am sure that the majority of the members of the Committee agree that a reconstruction of the Air Service is absolutely necessary, even more necessary now than it was twelve months ago. The position is more critical to-day and the employment of a great Air Service is even more important to-day than it was twelve months ago. So far as I can see, the position is this: At the present moment we have a Naval Air Service, whose operations, such as they are, are under the direction of a Lord of the Admiralty. It is not in a position to

  981
  carry out great operations because of the very reason for its existence—that is, to provide the eyes for the Fleet, because they have not the material for that purpose. They have a great personnel. Their existence as a Naval Air Service is rather difficult. On the other hand, there is the Royal Flying Corps, which is doing excellent and wonderful work in France under the direction of the War Office. The construction of machines is most important. The control of inventions as regards new types, which we are obliged to keep up to date, is one of the most important things. Owing to the friction that has arisen between the various services—the Army and Navy, the Flying Corps and the Naval Air Service—they have now decided, I understand, to put the construction in regard to this highly technical science in the hands of the Munitions Department. I should like to register a protest before that is done. I know the feeling of the whole of the trade in this country. I know that certain officers have had complete control as regards construction both on the naval and the military side. It has been a mistake from the beginning to allow officers of varying rank to have the control of the design and construction of aeroplanes, for the simple reason that on all these Committees that are set up we find a young officer, probably with one stripe on his arm, who is a master of the subject, having to oppose another officer with four stripes on his arm who has only just taken up the work, with the result that there has been and always will be confusion.
  We are not going to solve the question by handing it over to the Munitions Department. To whom in the Munitions Department are they going to hand it over? It is a highly technical job, and it is quite a new science. Are they going to hand it over to officers, because practically every man in this country who understands the science of aviation is an officer, and is either in the Army or the Navy or has joined up. Are they going to take men who are experts from the Army and the Navy, or is the Army to lend them all the experts or is the Navy to lend them all the experts? I should like to ask the Government—and I do it in no carping or critical spirit—to think very seriously at the present moment, and when the reconstruction of what is or what should be a great offensive service is in the melting pot, not to take the easiest way out. The easiest way is not always—indeed, it is very rarely—the way out. We must have
  982
  an Aircraft Construction Board, and it would be preferable if that were completely in the hands of civilians. If the construction of aeroplanes, the deciding of the types and the giving of orders is going to be made piecemeal in the hands of the Munitions Department, it will simply make another Department, and you will have to take officers from the Army and Navy or the constructive side of those sections to form that Department. I can assure the Government, from inside knowledge, that if that is done, the Department will not serve and the petty jealousies and that sort of thing which we want so much to defeat will occur. An hon. Member opposite, in certainly one of the most stirring speeches I have heard in the House for a long time, raised the question of personalities in clubs. It is the same inside the Services, as a good many officers know. The whole question is, not what shall we do, but who shall do it? The most important thing to decide, after deciding what shall be done, is to start with quite an unbiassed mind as to who is the most capable of accomplishing the task, quite apart from what he is or how many stripes he may have on his arm or how many stars he has on his shoulder. That is how I look at the matter. The position now is highly critical.
  A good deal has been said this afternoon on the question of the submarine peril. I would point out that submarines have to go somewhere to get supplies and that they have to be constructed somewhere. I would suggest that the submarine is best tackled before it starts out or goes home. Surely our Admiralty are in possession of the facts. They should be in possession of charts and maps as to the position of the submarine bases. I do not want to mention numbers, but I can say that at the present time we have thirty or forty or a hundred or a hundred and fifty times more machines in the Naval Air Service than we had two years ago. We do not know what to do with them. We are lending some squadrons to the Army and are lending other squadrons to co-operate with the French. I would point out to the present Government that it is a mistake to say, "We have got three or four thousand machines which may be required; what shall we do with them?" I am going to suggest something. Fifteen per cent. of the personnel of that Service is being employed at the present time under war conditions. I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, so far as the Naval Air

  983
  Service is concerned, to make a point of employing new squadrons in raiding submarine bases. There ought not to be a day or an hour, having machines of the type that we possess and plenty of them, when the enemy submarine bases are not being attacked. We ought to make submarine attacks impossible by constant and persistent raids—not by intermittent raids, say, one in three days. There is no need to report the raids in the newspapers. There should be one incessant raid of those bases where submarines and enemy destroyers are operating.
  What is even more important is the preparations we are making, both in regard to the policy of construction and the policy of aggression, with regard to the air in the future. I do not want to repeat now any remarks I have made in this House on previous occasions, but I should like to point out that we have in this country at the present moment facilities for producing in the next six months five thousand aeroplanes without interfering in any way with the other munitions of war. If an Aircraft Construction Board could be set in operation you could have those machines in six months, if the design were standardised. I am quite aware that there is a danger of standardising the design for fighting machines or for observing machines, because if the enemy improves on that type of fighting machine he puts you out of the running. But there is no danger in standardising the design of a bomb-dropper. If a machine has a speed of eighty miles and is capable of carrying two, three or five hundredweights of explosives, provided it is accompanied on its raids by the latest type of fighting machine which is equal or superior to that of the enemy, there is no danger in standardising it. If we are going to produce them in any large number, we must back some design. You can never produce in great number by constantly changing the type. If we standardised the best type of bomb-dropper we might in six months very easily have five thousand aeroplanes of that type without in any way interfering with the output of munitions in this country, with the exception of the engines. I endeavoured to persuade the late Government, and will endeavour to persuade the present Government, that with respect to the engines we must look to the American market. We cannot, I am confident, produce the engines in this country that we want for the job without seriously inter-
  984
  fering with the output of munitions which we cannot get abroad and which are urgently needed. I am suggesting the method, not of taking the American engine, but of standardising the English engine and taking over the American shops for producing it. The only point to be considered is the practicability of doing it.
  7.0 p.m.
  We can have the pilots at the same time. I have been trying to persuade the Lords of the Admiralty since December, 1914, that we were wasting our time in training pilots in this country. I have pointed out to them that my experience of aviation has shown me that it is a fortunate day when a young learner gets on an average four minutes in the air in England. In the initial stages of learning to fly, the atmospheric conditions must be more or less favourable. The result is that these young fellows are waiting about the aerodrome for their turn or for the weather. You can go to these places and find fellows who have not been up for a week. I understand that we have approached the French Government, that we have got their permission, and that after twenty-eight months of war and twenty-four months of persuasion someone has gone to the South of France to see if he can select a site. I would persuade the Government to take the matter in hand and to put it in charge of somebody. It does not matter whether it is under the Army or the Navy. Get rid of the intrigue in every way you can. Make it somebody's job—a civilian's job—to go to the South of Franco and provide facilities for training 500 pilots a week. That is a sweeping statement, but it is possible that with 100 machines—I say that we have now in this country 2,000 machines that could be employed—or 200 machines in the South of France, where the climatic conditions are favourable, we could be training pilots for twelve or fourteen hours a day, instead of merely early morning and afternoon, as we do at home. I would ask hon Members to consider what might have happened if we had started in February of this year a definite constructive policy, always having at the back of our heads a definite offensive policy, after consultation with those men who have had experience in operations in the field or in operations of bombardment by aeroplane, and to consider what we might do with 5,000 aeroplanes. What a different complexion

  985
  we should have put upon the War? To carry out what I propose would create public opinion in Germany, and would show that we were really carrying the War into their country. That was a view which I stated some time ago, and if it had been adopted six months ago, or even two months ago, we should have had this air service. The task is not an insurmountable one in any way.
  I have been asked when I thought the War would be over, and my reply was that I thought it would be at an end twelve months after the Government wakened up; and I can assure hon. Members that if only we took up this question of the air service seriously now, in six months' time we should be able to introduce a greater offensive still. It is because I believe this so seriously—and my belief is not founded on mere ideas but upon experience—it is because I believe in the possibility of a great air service, that I beg the Government to take the whole matter seriously into their consideration directly the opportunity arises. I beg them, however, not to take a short cut by handing the construction of aeroplanes to the Munitions Department or to anybody willing to undertake it. In France, the Army has every machine it wants, and I ask the Government to give to the Army or the Navy every machine it wants, where it is proved that it would be of value to either. In regard to the naval air service there is no justification for employing a gigantic personnel—no reason either on earth or on the sea. I would comb out some of them, as well as some of the Royal Flying Corps, and I would ask the Government to form this air service, and call it an Imperial air service if you chose, but it is no matter what you call it so long as it is created a separate service, a unit apart from the Army and the Navy, as a great aerial offensive service, which could operate under the direction of the Army, if you like, or it could be left to the Navy when necessary. But, without being critical of the naval air service and its functions, or of the Royal Flying Corps, I submit that they are not the material which is wanted. There are firms in this country which are still competing with each other, and the Naval Air Service, the Royal Flying Corps, and now incidentally the Munitions Department, are concerned in this matter. I submit that the present Government should make a clean sweep,
  986
  as they can do before any influences are brought to bear in one way or the other, and proclaim its intention of creating a Ministry of Construction or a Board based on the same principle as the Naval Construction Board, and this Air Construction Board would then be solely responsible for supplying the wants both of the naval branch and the military branch of a great Imperial air service, which I sincerely trust before the end of the War will come into being.
  Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday); Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £400,179,480 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MUNITIONS (LIABILITY FOR EXPLOSIONS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. J. W. WILSON: It is rather difficult to understand the Bill as printed, and perhaps we might have some explanation of the measure. Insurance for explosion covers a much wider area than an ordinary fire risk, and I want to know whether third parties are protected, and whether in this Bill is included the taking over of that important risk on behalf of the Government, so that claims shall be more promptly met. Will the Government have power to charge certain premiums as against the contractors, and then take over the liabilities which otherwise would only rest against the contractors or the firm in whose works the explosion occurred?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am sure the House will sympathise with me in the position in which I

987
find myself. The Second Reading of this Bill was to have been moved by the Minister of Munitions, but, as the House knows, he, for the time, is not a Member. Only a few minutes ago I had a message to say that I was expected to move the Second Reading, and it was for that reason I did not rise, and I had hoped that it would not be necessary. I think, however, that I am sufficiently acquainted with the case to reply shortly to my right hon. Friend. There have been one or two explosions, which, unhappily, took place in munition works, in different parts of the country, and it was found that the sufferers from the explosion, and particularly third parties, had a difficulty in getting compensation owing to the difference of opinion as to where responsibility lay. In some instances the firms who were carrying on the works where the explosion occurred held that the responsibility was not theirs, but that it rested on the Government. The view of the Government was that the responsibility ought to have rested with the firm. As the result, owing to this difference of opinion between the firms and the Government, people who had suffered, and who ought to have had immediate compensation, were kept out of that compensation for what, to them, was a considerable period of time. I am sure everyone in the House will agree that there ought to be no haggling as to where the responsibility for paying compensation in these cases properly lies. The sufferers were not responsible, and they were entitled to compensation for loss or injury arising out of the operations carried on either directly by the Government or for the purposes of the Government. But it did not appear, and I think the House will agree, that the whole of the responsibility ought to be taken over by the Government in those cases where the contractors had a right to cover a risk of this kind, and this Bill is brought in to enable the Government to assume the whole liability, and thus remove any question as to whether it rests with the firm or with the Government, and in that case the Government ought to have power to take from the firm the required payment from the firm for a premium to cover part of the liability. Practically that is the whole Bill, and I hope the House will pardon me if I leave it at that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. James Hope.]

SPECIAL REGISTER BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—[Mr. J. Hope]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

HOUSE OF LORDS (FOREIGN PEERS).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I rise to ask a question to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his best attention. So far back as 27th July last, after having implored for eighteen months—from November, 1914—I obtained from the late Prime Minister on the floor of this House a distinct promise that he would yield to public opinion in regard to this matter and take early and immediate steps to remove from the Peerage the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Albany and also to remove the names of those and other enemy princes from the Orders the decorations of which they are entitled to wear. Having obtained that promise from my right hon. Friend I never took any steps in the matter from that day till this. Other hon. Members did put questions to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to it, but I was content to rely upon his promise that legislation would be introduced. But there has been no such legislation, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to bear in mind that these honours held by these personages—honours such as the Grand Cross of the Victorian Order, could be taken away from them simply by a stroke of the pen in the same way as Knights' of the Garter are deprived of their Order.
As I have said, the late Prime Minister undertook to do this thing, but it has not been done. I am precluded by the Rules of the House from showing how it could

989
be done by legislation, but if an opportunity is given me I am prepared to bring in a proposal on Tuesday next showing how it can be done in half a second, irrespective of legislation. Peerages are granted by Letters Patent, and they can be taken away by Letters Patent. It is a crying scandal that this should continue. It is a crying scandal to us all, especially to those who have lost those near and dear to them, that enemies of this country should be allowed to continue to hold the highest honours which it is in the power of the Crown to confer, and that after two and a half years of warfare these high honours should still be enjoyed by men who are in command of enemy troops. It is a scandal. It is an outrage on the feelings of every soldier in the field, and I ask that this matter be attended to without delay. I could give an instance at the present moment where the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath is held by a traitor to this country and yet only a short time ago, with a great flourish of trumpets, this very same Order was conferred on the Czar of Russia and on the King of Italy. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the retaining of such an honour by a German traitor prince—a German octoroon. I feel strongly on this matter. There must be no ring of privileged persons—there must be no one allowed to insult the country in this way, and if there is any power behind which prevents the necessary action being taken it must be stopped. If my right hon. Friend will look at "Burke's Peerage" he will see in the Order of the Bath no fewer than sixteen German princes. This thing is not tolerable, and I would like to ask what these honours are worth if they are thus to be held by enemies of this country? People feel very strongly about this matter. The thing should be stopped at once. We ought not to have a single enemy prince holding any of these high honours, and at the same time in command of the troops who are fighting against us. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that these men are removed from these Orders as soon as possible.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I must, like some of my colleagues, claim privilege as a member of the new Government, because I have not had time to look into this matter. I understand that what the hon. Member asks was promised by the late Government. If I may say so, I share, in this matter, the prejudices, if they be pre-
990
judices, of the man in the street, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question shall have my best attention.
Mr. MacNEILL: I am quite satisfied with that.

SERVICE MEN—CHRISTMAS LEAVE.
Major HAMERSLEY: I wish to raise the question of Christmas leave and travelling facilities for soldiers. I believe it has been laid down that no soldiers now serving at home are to be allowed to travel on the railways in England on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday at Christmas time. That will necessitate any men who are going to get leave securing it from Thursday till Tuesday, and as many men are in an advanced stage of training and almost ready to embark for service abroad it will be absolutely impossible to grant them such a long leave. The regulation will therefore result in many of them getting no leave at all. There seems to be some sense of injustice felt that similar control is not to be exercised over the civilian traveller. Surely it would be better for soldiers to have their leave than for civilians to be allowed the opportunity of spending a few days at the seaside at Christmas. It would be far better for civilians to be kept at home and for the soldier to be granted the privilege of travelling. I wish, therefore, to ask the Government to give attention to this matter, and, if possible, to make this concession to the soldiers. It may be said there is a difference between controlling civilian travelling and military travelling, but surely arrangements could be made by which a certain percentage of the soldiers may be allowed to travel and a portion of the trains reserved for their use during these days. After all, it is only a matter of management; with a little organisation it can be done, and if it were done it would remove what is felt to be a great injustice.
Major H. TERRELL: The order which has been issued is, I believe, similar to one which was made last year, that no soldier, except soldiers coming from abroad, should travel on the railways from the 22nd to the 25th inclusive. I know that last year the order led to a great deal of heart-burning, especially on the part of men belonging to Reserve battalions training in England. These men felt, and rightly felt, that their interests were being

991
treated with scant consideration. It was, at any rate, so far as the soldier was concerned, a real grievance. It is suggested that the chief object is to clear the lines for soldiers coming from abroad. I agree, and no soldier serving in England will dispute the right of the man from the front to proceed uninterruptedly to his destination. But the men serving in France get ten days' leave, and they could, if the military authorities chose, get that leave in good time so as to enable them or, at any rate, a large proportion of those who are coming over for Christmas, to avoid travelling during those four days. If the military authorities would take the trouble to so arrange it, the men could leave in good time, and then the soldiers who are serving in England—mainly men in Reserve battalions, many of whom have to travel from camps in the South of England up to Scotland—could also get their leave. These men, as a rule, get four or five days Christmas leave. If they are to receive it just before the 22nd, it is of no value, because they will not be allowed to travel within the four or five days referred to in the order, and they would be unable consequently to return in time. There is another point to be borne in mind, particularly with regard to the training camps. Generally speaking the 24th, 25th and 26th December are practically dies non for training purposes. There is very little training done on those days, and if the War Office have any regard to economy they should take care that as many men as possible have their leave during those three days. If the men are kept in camp at that time their services are not being used for training purposes, and their time is practically wasted so far as the country is concerned. It is very essential that as many men in the training battalions serving in England as possible should be allowed to travel on these days in order that they may take their leave and get back in due time. I accordingly appeal through the Financial Secretary to the Secretary of State for War and to the War Council to consider whether they cannot do something to remove the hardship which is caused to these men. I have had many opportunities of discussing the matter with the men. I know it is with them a real grievance, and we ought to do our best to remove even the suspicion of grievance on the part of men who are serving their country. I hope this matter will receive immediate consideration.
Colonel CHALONER: I am certain all officers will agree with me it is impossible to get the full amount of work out of men unless they have proper opportunities for relaxation, and unless they are allowed a chance to get right away from the ranks occasionally. I should like to see these restrictions enforced on civilians rather than on soldiers. No civilian should be allowed to travel on these days unless he can prove it is a matter of illness or some other extreme urgency. It would then be possible to find room for the soldiers to travel, and this would conduce to the better training of the men and would help to fit them to take their place in the fighting ranks all the sooner. The men who are offering their lives for the service of their country should be the last to be allowed to suffer by restrictions of this kind.
Major CARNEGIE: I only want to say a word or two on behalf of the Home Service units which have not been mentioned. It should be remembered that these men are now established units; when their duties are considered it will be seen that it is an absolute impossibility to any officer commanding to be able to grant five or six days' leave. If this Army Council Instruction is insisted upon it means that there will be no Christmas leave for these men at all.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There are two aspects of this question to which I want to direct the attention of the Financial Secreary, and to ask for information upon. From the answers which have been given I understand that at Christmas the same proportion of men from the various units are to receive Christmas leave as received it last year. There are two points in regard to that I should like to raise. The first is in respect of the ordinary week-end leave given to the soldiers serving at home. Is that to be continued? This is quite irrespective of Christmas. Secondly, may I ask if there is some exceptional provision being made: is the leave to be extended to the New Year as well as to Christmas? That is a point of very great importance to our Scottish regiments. It may not be quite appreciated in the South, but while the festival of Christmas is an English Church festival it is not in the same sense a festival in Scotland. There it is the New Year which is observed, and it is at the New Year when people desire specially to

993
see their friends. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that the facilities which are being given to the English regiments for leave at Christmas will also be given at the season of the New Year to the Scottish regiments. I would also emphasise this point, although perhaps, after all that has been said it is scarcely necessary: I am sure it is the unanimous feeling of this House and of the country that if there is any sacrifice to be made in respect of travelling for present purposes it ought to be made by civilians and not by soldiers. Who at the present time are the soldiers? They are not servants. They are not hirelings. They are the people themselves. They are the very best, and worthiest, and noblest of the country. They themselves, irrespective of travelling and other matters of the sort, are making sacrifices incomparably greater than are being made by any class in the country. They may, on going to the front, say in the words used of old, "Morituri te salutamus." This week-end leave may be the last opportunity that many of them may have to see their relatives before going to the front, some of them, it may be, never to return. If there are to be any sacrifices of personal convenience and personal pleasure I am certain that it is the will, not only of this House, but of the country, that those sacrifices ought to be made and must be made by civilians.
Mr. BUTCHER: I join in the appeal made by those who have spoken to the War Office to reconsider the directions contained in the recent Army Instruction. If this prohibition upon soldiers against travelling between the 22nd and the 25th of this month is maintained you will have this, not only, I think, unreasonable but positively astounding result, that in matters of this sort you not only give a preference to the civilian over the soldier, but you give the civilian the free right of travelling in these days and put what looks like absolute prohibition on the soldier. How can that be justified? I think most people in and out of this House will agree that if there is to be any preference and priority in this matter of travelling at Christmas time, that that preference should be given to the soldier, whose sacrifices, it has well been said, are immeasurably greater than any sacrifices of any civilian who remains
994
at home comfortable and in safety, while the soldier makes this great sacrifice, in many cases of his life, for us. Is it too late to recall this order? The Government, we know, have complete control of the railways. Is it not possible for them, if they anticipate a great crowd of travellers between the 22nd and the 25th, to say either one of two things: either to say that the soldier shall travel in those days and the civilian must not, or, if that is going too far, to say that the soldier shall have priority and preference in travelling, certainly as regards the Home Service. The War Office have, if I remember aright, already said this in the Army Instruction in regard to the soldiers coming on leave from abroad. What is the difficulty about it? Let civilians take their place in the train if there is room. I do, however, urge upon my hon. Friend in this matter to meet the feelings of, I believe, the vast majority of the people of this country, and to say that preference in this matter shall be given to our soldiers. It will be for the War Office to devise means, if they can be found, to give what facilities are necessary to civilians for travelling. In the first instance, however, let us see that our soldiers have the opportunity, so far as we can give it, to go home and see their families at Christmas, and at any rate enjoy that short period of leave which their military duties will allow them to enjoy.
Sir H. CRAIK: I was disposed to be very grateful at first—and I still am— for the concession made by the War Office in respect to this matter. But I am now learning that the concession does not go quite so far as appeared, or as it was reported to. I am told that only about one-tenth of the soldiers will get really this longer Christmas leave, and that for the great bulk of the soldiers who like to get home to see their relatives, if only for a short time, that this restriction on travelling between the 22nd and the 25th will probably prevent them from doing so. I know my hon. Friend may say that there has always been restriction in this matter of travelling between the 22nd and the 25th. It is quite true. Consider, however, the burden we are imposing upon the soldiers, and the strain that is inflicted upon their relatives who may desire to see them before they go out, and who may wish to have what may prove unhappily to be the

995
last opportunity of a family gathering. Merely because it has been a habit of past years to restrict travelling on these days is no reason why restriction should now be carried out, and so deprive a very large number, beyond that meagre tenth, from having what may perhaps be only a single day at home with their parents or families. That is a very strong point.
For myself I should like to see the matter so far stringently dealt with as to require permits for civilians if they desire to take the places of soldiers travelling. I am told that it is too late now to establish a system of permits. It is a great pity the matter was not thought of sooner. I am quite certain that civilians, if called upon, are ready to make any sacrifice in favour of the Army in this matter. I have received an enormous flood of letters about this matter. Some of my correspondents have enclosed extracts which contain very striking words. They convey a great deal of sarcasm. These enclosures are long lists of advertisements with particulars of the hotel facilities at the various watering places where there are the attractions of concerts, balls, and so on. This strikes at the very heart of the matter. Can one wonder that the soldier and his relatives are indignant at finding this Army Order in one column of the newspaper and in another these advertisements of pleasures for civilians who are at home—the soldier who is making a sacrifice and the civilian who is not making a sacrifice! If no system of permits can be established—and I am quite ready to be told, because I do not know, that it is too late—let us adopt the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. Let a certain portion of every train be set aside for the use of soldiers, and until the soldiers find a place in that portion of the train let no civilian be allowed to enter the train. If a system of permits or allotment of places in the trains can be arranged so as to reserve a large proportion for the accommodation of soldiers, so much the better. At this time they deserve our first consideration and have first claim upon our attention. If there needs must be curtailment let it be on the part of the civilians who are going away for their own enjoyment.
Major HAMILTON: There have been several reasons given by hon. Members in different parts of the House as to why
996
we are pressing for this leave for soldiers. I find that my reasons are somewhat different. The life of the ordinary soldier at the present time is constantly a life of control. He is constantly under orders. His week-end leave is extremely limited. He is not allowed to go away on Saturdays and Sundays as can civilians, and he has been looking, ever since the last general holiday, to the fact that in this House at that time a promise was given that his leave should not be curtailed at holiday time. We have now arrived at the Christmas holiday to which he has been looking forward, and this order comes out — the order that the soldiers are not to travel on certain days, and also that no further week-end leave is to be granted to those in the Home-service units. These men are separated from their wives and children by an Act of Parliament compelling them to come into the Army. They are not even given-week-end leave, and so they will not see their wives or children, and especially their wives. I do feel that it is not only bad for the country, but that it is bad for the morality of the Army that these men should not be allowed periodical leave to go home. On that ground, and on the ground that this very order shows very clearly that what is wanted is not an Army Order in this matter, but action by Parliament, I put the matter forward. It is very easy for a Government to control the soldier. He has got to do as he is told. They all do that, and behave splendidly as well. What is wanted is that this House should make it clear to the Government that Parliament should now control the civilian and give the soldier a chance. The soldier has been controlled ever since he was a soldier—many of them from the beginning of the War. Some of them have been serving in units which are kept at home. It is not their fault that they are not in France. They are longing to go, but they are kept at home for the defence of this country—rightly so.
Why should these soldiers of the Home units be picked out to be controlled while civilians working in munitions or other occupations can travel about as much as they like, not only at week-ends, but at Christmas and New Year and any other time when they can bo spared from their business? I do think it is most sad that this Army Order should so clearly differentiate between the civilian employé in the Ministry of Munitions and the soldier

997
Employé, whether he be officer, non-commissioned officer, or private soldier. It is laid down in this Army Order that officers and soldiers working in the Ministry of Munitions are not to be allowed to travel on these days at Christmas, and are not to be given week-end leave. My experience of the Ministry of Munitions is that, as a rule, the hardest working men there are men in uniform. They are heads of departments, or, at any rate, in a responsible position in the departments. They work long hours, and surely if the civilians in a department can be spared at Christmas to fill up the accommodation of the railways, then the soldiers should be allowed to travel in the same way. My appeal is directly to the representative of the Government that he should realise, as I have realised since putting a supplementary question to-day, that the overwhelming majority in this House, and I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in the country, think that those soldiers who can be spared, both at the week-end and at Christmas, should be given preference over the civilians. It is the Government's duty not to take the easiest method of controlling the populace at this time by issuing an Army Order to those serving in the Army, but it is the duty of the Government to find some means of controlling both the Army and the civilian population, so that the Army should have a chance and should not always be held back while others are travelling about and enjoying themselves.
Mr. BILLING: I feel I should like to rise and support this, and I do so for one very particular reason. This Christmas is possibly the last opportunity that many men will ever have of getting home at all. It is always difficult for a soldier to get home at week-ends or even on leave. On the other hand, the civilians in this country can visit their homes as and when they like. It is quite an easy thing for the munition worker or any other man in civilian clothes to get leave or get home if he wants to, but it is a very difficult thing for a man once he is called up to get leave, and I do appeal to the Government to give that matter consideration. I would also like to suggest that if there is anything lying behind this, if there is some mysterious something which makes it essential for the welfare of our country that the soldiers should be kept mobilised all through Christmas, I should like to suggest that
998
the Financial Secretary to the War Office might intimate such a thing. I am perfectly certain that if the men knew it was in the interests of the country that they should be kept in the camps over Christmas, they would do it, but it does seem to me rather unfair that those men, who, for reasons either physical or mechanical, have been exempted and are working in munition factories throughout the country, and there are moreover, hundreds of thousands of men in this country who are doing absolutely nothing for the prosecution of this War, including the men who are both framing and writing the very advertisement alluded to by the hon. Member opposite, and including the men who are catering for these civilians, who are doing nothing to serve this country— I say it does seem unfair that these men should have this freedom, while men who are prepared to die for the country should be penalised on perhaps their last Christmas.
I do appeal to the War Office to give this matter serious consideration. There is a certain amount of sentiment about Christmas. It is not only a question of the men themselves. To my personal knowledge there are many families who are looking forward to sons, brothers, and in some cases husbands coming home for what possibly, some may look upon, possibly erroneously, as the last time they will see them. I think unless some very serious reason can be given, quite apart from the slight congestion of traffic, these men should not be penalised in this way. If there is going to be any congestion of traffic, let the civilian suffer, and give the soldiers the benefit of the right of way through. I would suggest that if a man can produce a leave ticket he shall be permitted to buy a railway ticket, and that no man in this country for those days who cannot produce a leave ticket shall be permitted to travel. No doubt it would put him to some trouble, but there is no reason, if anybody is going to be put to trouble, it should not be the civilian rather than the soldier.
Colonel HOPE: I hope it will not be thought that any soldier would not make any sacrifice he considered necessary in the interests of the country. What I think does rankle is that the civilian is to have the privilege to travel and that the soldier is to be put under this restriction—not, I believe, on account of any

999
military exigencies, to which the soldier would cheerfully respond, but simply in order to allow the civilian to travel freely There is one small point I should like to make, and that is, the soldiers have to be kept very hard at work training now, and everyone realises it is very difficult to give them five or six days' leave; but, under this present order, it will probably be now not necessary to work them very hard on Sunday and Christmas Day. Yet they will not be allowed to leave their camps, in order that civilians may travel. I hope this order will be reconsidered, and that, if it is necessary to stick to the order that soldiers should not travel, the same disability shall be put upon civilians.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can assure the House I feel as much sympathy for the soldiers as those who have spoken so eloquently on their behalf, and, if the matter rested with the Army Council, I have no doubt that the Army Council would say that nobody but a soldier should be allowed to travel at any time. Of course, the matter does not rest with the Army Council. The decision which I had to announce the other day, and which has subsequently been modified, was a decision which was taken by the War Committee, not in order to impose unnecessary hardships, or to inflict an undeserved grievance on the soldier, but a decision which was necessitated by a review of all the facts as they stood revealed. It was found that there had been a large increase of traffic, a good deal of unnecessary traffic, a good deal of it traffic that, at any rate, might possibly be postponed until some less busy season of the year. They found that on the one hand. They were met on the other by a strong and insistent demand from France for increased railway personnel and for an increased supply of railway rolling stock, and I think that what the House has got to bear in mind is this, that when we are talking about giving Christmas leave we have got to remember the conditions under which Christmas leave can be given and under which it is possible. We have heard a good deal in the last few minutes about the hardship inflicted on the soldier in prohibiting travel between the 22nd and 25th December, the two dates inclusive. I think exactly the same restriction was imposed on the travelling of soldiers last
1000
Christmas, and we did not hear any outcry about it on that occasion. I do not think there really is the great grievance which has been represented. My hon. Friend the Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) asked, Can the men who are left behind in camps be told that their presence in camp is necessary? I think I can give that assurance in a word. The whole question was carefully reviewed last year, and it has been carefully reviewed this year, and under no circumstances can you allow more than 10 per cent. of these units to be absent at the same time.
Major TERRELL: Does that apply to the training Reserves?
Colonel CHALONER: Are civilians to be treated in the same way?
Mr. FORSTER: I am not dealing with civilians.
Major TERRELL: Does it apply to the training Reserves?
Mr. FORSTER: It applies to all—I think it applies to all.
Major TERRELL: Can you say why?
Mr. FORSTER: It has been alleged that it is a great hardship on men, who possibly may never have an opportunity of seeing their families again, that you should deny them a visit home on this occasion. I think my hon. Friend will have seen that this limitation does not apply to what is known as draft men. That is to say, men who are sent abroad are given, wherever it is possible, unless exigencies absolutely prevent it, the opportunity of going home for a farewell visit, so that I do not think it has been quite fair for my hon. Friends to strengthen their case by a reference ad misericordiam on that ground. The Army Council are just as anxious as anybody else that all the men who can be spared shall be given the fullest measure of leave, but there are certain disciplinary reasons which are present in the minds of the military members of the Army Council which I think will make the restriction on week-end leave unavoidable. What the Army Council have kept in the front of their minds is that they are giving a much larger amount of leave to the troops at the front. They are arranging for very much larger numbers of men to come home from the front on leave. We are going to give them priority. We

1001
are going, as far as possible, to keep; railways clear for them, and to give them as much of the rolling stock as is necessary in order for them to get home. My hon. Friend has said, why cannot the men from the front have their leave arranged on such dates as to prevent this congestion? The reason is this: The numbers at the front are so enormous at the present moment that, if we are to give everyone at the front an opportunity of coming home, as we hope to do, before what we call the busy season begins next spring, we have to keep the flow of men from and to the front continuous, and I understand it is essential, if we are to give the men from the front their leave, and not to make the promise illusory, that the railways must be kept as free for them as possible.
8.0 p.m.
There is one further observation, and that is, we have to deal with this traffic with a very heavily diminished 8.0 P.M. amount of rolling stock, and when my hon. Friends invite us to put a strict limit upon the quantity of civilian traffic, I may tell them that I think the civilians will find travelling very difficult during those four Christmas days.
Mr. BUTCHER: Why not limit it altogether?
Mr. FORSTER: Do not let us lose sight of this, that there are civilians who are working just as hard.
Major HAMILTON: Not such long hours.
Mr. FORSTER: I will not bandy words with my hon. Friends. I can tell them that there are many civilians who are working just as hard as a great many of the troops who are now serving in this country, and there are a great many civilians who are just as much entitled to consideration.
Major HAMILTON: Are they separated from their wives?
Mr. FORSTER: Yes, a great many of them are.
Major HAMILTON: Why?
Mr. FORSTER: Because they have to work away from where their families are residing.
Major HAMILTON: Permanently?
Mr. FORSTER: To a great extent.
Colonel CHALONER: Will it be divided equally between the soldiers and the civilians?
Mr. FORSTER: I will, first of all, deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend who asked whether or not we were going to limit the facilities to be given to a proportion of the troops, and whether we could not also give leave to those who are now deprived of it in the New Year? I should hope that we may. I am not in a position at the moment to make any definite promise. As the railway companies were not able to make the very drastic restrictions before the beginning of the New Year I hoped we might be able to arrange so that the same opportunity should be given in the New Year's leave as is given in Christmas leave.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will it be 10 per cent. in the New Year as well as at Christmas?
Mr. FORSTER: I am not going to make that promise. I will only tell my hon. Friends that I will do my best.
Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of abolishing festivities, and preventing people from travelling, who do so simply for the sake of changing their position?
Mr. FORSTER: I will represent that to my hon. Friend. The question has been raised whether or not we cannot distribute the opportunity, giving soldiers preference, or, on the other hand, restrict civilian traffic to those who have permits. That is naturally the first thing that occurred to one when it proved to be necessary to make these restrictions. The first thing one thought of was, What arrangements can we make for limiting civilian traffic to those who have a journey to go? That was inquired into, and I am told that the system of permits proved to be impossible.
Major HAMILTON: Why?
Mr. FORSTER: I cannot tell you why. It was largely a railway matter, and as I am afraid I am not a railway expert I cannot, for the moment, answer the question why. It is quite obvious what the feeling of the House really is, and I can only say now, as I said at the beginning, that I am just as anxious as any Member that soldiers should have the fullest possible facilities. I will undertake that the

1003
matter shall be re-examined in the light of the obvious wish of the House of Commons, and I do not doubt that the Cabinet will reconsider the question. But I must say this, that we shall have to face restrictions in the near future. Even if we are able to give increased Christmas leave now, which I doubt, we have got to face the fact—and it is no uses shutting our eyes to it—that the War is coming
1004
closer to our doors, and we are going to feel it more and more. We must make up our minds to put up with discomfort. We have got to make up our minds to face grievances cheerfully. I can only say that, as far as I can, I will see that the soldier does not suffer.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eight o'clock till To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

The Government formed by the Rt. Hon. DAVID LLOYD GEORGE, December, 1916, has been constituted as follows:—

WAR CABINET.
Prime Minister—Rt. Hon. DAVID LLOYD GEORGE, M.P.
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords—Rt. Hon. Earl CURZON, E.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E.
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons—Rt. Hon.
BONAR LAW, M.P.
Ministers Without Portfolio—
Rt. Hon. Viscount MILNER, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.
Rt. Hon. ARTHUR HENDERSON, M.P.

OTHER MINISTERS.
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—Rt. Hon. Lord WIMBORNE.
Lord Chancellor—Rt. Hon. Lord FINLAY OF NAIRN, G.C.M.G.
Lord Privy Seal—Rt. Hon. Earl of CRAWFORD and BALCARRES.
Secretary of State for the Home, Department—Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE CAVE, K.C., M.P.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—Rt. Hon. A. J. BALFOUR, O.M., M.P.
Secretary of State for the Colonies—Rt. Hon. WALTER H. LONG, M.P.
Secretary of State for War—Rt. Hon. the Earl of DERBY, E.G., G.C.V.O., C.B.
Secretary of State for India—Rt. Hon. J. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, M.P.
First Lord of the Admiralty—Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD H. CARSON, E.G., M.P.
Minister of Blockade and Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—Rt. Hon. Lord ROBERT CECIL, K.C., M.P.
President of the Board of Trade—Rt. Hon. Sir ALBERT STANLEY, M.P.
President of the Local Government Board—Rt. Hon. Lord RHONDDA of LLANWERN.
President of the Board of Agriculture—Rt. Hon. R. E. PROTHERO, M.P.
President of the Board of Education—Rt. Hon. H. A. L. FISHER, M.P.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Rt. Hon. Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY, Bart., M.P.
Chief Secretary for Ireland—Rt. Hon. H. E. DUKE, K.C., M.P.
Secretary for Scotland—Rt. Hon. R. MUNRO, K.C., M.P.
First Commissioner of Works—Rt. Hon. Sir ALFRED MOND, Bart., M.P.
Attorney-General—Rt. Hon. Sir FREDERICK E. SMITH, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General—Sir GORDON-HEWART, K.C., M.P.
Minister of Munitions—Rt. Hon. C. ADDISON, M.D., M.P.
Postmaster-General—Rt. Hon. ALBERT H. ILLINGWORTH, M.P.
Minister of Food Control—Rt. Hon. Lord DEVONPORT.
Shipping Controller—Rt. Hon. Sir JOSEPH PATON MACLAY, Bart.
Minister of Labour—Rt. Hon. JOHN HODGE, M.P.
President of the Air Ministry—Rt. Hon. Lord COWDRAY.
Pensions Minister—Rt. Hon. G. N. BARNES, M.P.
Lord Advocate—Rt. Hon. J. A. CLYDE, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General for Scotland—T. B. MORISON, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Attorney-General for Ireland—JAMES O'CONNOR, K.C.
Solicitor-General for Ireland—
Paymaster-General—Rt. Hon. Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT, M.P.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury—S. H. LEVER, Esq.
Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Agriculture—Sir RICHARD WINFREY, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Trade—G. H. ROBERTS, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministry of Munitions—
F. KELLAWAY, Esq., M.P.
Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS, Bart., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Education—Rt. Hon. J. HERBERT LEWIS, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Local Government Board—Rt. Hon. W. HAYES FISHER, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Home Office—Rt. Hon. W. BRACE, M.P. Parliamentary Secretary, Colonial Office—A. D. STEEL-MAITLAND, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, India Office—Rt. Hon. Lord ISLINGTON, G.C.M.G.
Parliamentary Secretary, War Office—J. IAN MACPHERSON, Esq., M.P.
Financial Secretary, War Office—H. W. FORSTER, Esq., M.P.
Financial Secretary, Admiralty—Rt. Hon. T. J. MACNAMARA, LL.D., M.P.
Civil Lord of the Admiralty—E. G. PRETYMAN, Esq., M.P.
Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury—
Lord EDMUND TALBOT, M.V.O., D.S.O., M.P.
Hon. NEIL PRIMROSE, M.P.
Assistant Postmaster-General—HERBERT PIKE PEASE, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Air Ministry—Major J. L. BAIRD, C.M.G., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Food Control—Captain CHARLES
BATHURST, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Pensions—Colonel Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Shipping Control—Sir L. G. CHIOZZA MONEY, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Blockade—Rt. Hon. F. LEVERTON HARRIS, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labour—W. C. BRIDGEMAN, Esq., M.P.
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury—
JAMES F. HOPE, Esq., M.P.
J. W. PRATT, Esq., M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—
STANLEY BALDWIN, Esq., M.P.
JAMES PARKER, Esq., M.P.
TOWYN JONES, Esq., M.P.
Lord Steward of the Household—Rt. Hon. Lord FARQUHAR, G.C.V.O.
Treasurer of the Household—Colonel J. CRAIG, M.P.
Comptroller of the Household—Sir EDWIN CORNWALL, M.P.
Lord Chamberlain of the Household—Rt. Hon. Viscount SANDHURST, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E.
Vice-Chamberlain of the Household—A. CECIL T. BECK, Esq., M.P.
Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms—Rt. Hon. Lord COLEBROOKE, C.V.O.
Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard—Rt. Hon. Lord SUFFIELD, C.B., M.V.O.
Master of the Horse—Rt. Hon. the Earl of CHESTERFIELD, K.G.
Lords in Waiting—
Rt. Hon. Lord HERSCHELL, M.V.O.
Rt. Hon. Lord KENYON, K.C.V.O.
Rt. Hon. Lord STANMORE.
Rt. Hon. Lord RANKSBOROUGH, C.V.O., C.B.
Viscount VALENTIA, C.V., M.V.O., M.P.
Rt. Hon. Lord HYLTON.

FOOD SUPPLY.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  FERTILISERS.
  FERTILISERS.

  MUSTARD CULTIVATION.
  Mr. ACLAND
  The question which my hon. Friend raises is important and will be closely examined. Mustard certainly cannot be considered a national necessity in the same sense as wheat, and farmers would, I think, be wise not to assume that the acreage which they may place under mustard, in excess at any rate of that normally grown, will be specially profitable to them next season. It must not, however, be supposed that all the mustard is grown for use as a condiment. It is also grown as a catch crop or for green manure.

  MUSTARD CULTIVATION.
  BREEDING STOCK.
  BREEDING STOCK.
  SEED POTATOES.
  SEED POTATOES.
  COMMON LANDS (RESTORATION).
  COMMON LANDS (RESTORATION).
  VACANT LAND (CULTIVATION).
  VACANT LAND (CULTIVATION).
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  FLOUR.
  FLOUR.
  RICE POLISHING.
  RICE POLISHING.
  CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURE.
  CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURE.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL CENSUS.
  AGRICULTURAL CENSUS.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  GRASS FARMS (IRELAND).
  GRASS FARMS (IRELAND).
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  COMMON LANDS (CULTIVATION).
  COMMON LANDS (CULTIVATION).
  YOUNG PIGS (SLAUGHTER).
  YOUNG PIGS (SLAUGHTER).
  DAIRY PRODUCE (TRANSPORT).
  DAIRY PRODUCE (TRANSPORT).
  POLICE REPORTS (IRELAND).
  POLICE REPORTS (IRELAND).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
COST OF LIVING, IRELAND.
  GOVERNMENT MEASURES.
  GOVERNMENT MEASURES.
  LIVESTOCK TRAFFIC (IRELAND.
  LIVESTOCK TRAFFIC (IRELAND.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  VOLUNTEERS.
  VOLUNTEERS.
  MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
  MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
  COURTS-MARTIAL (POWERS).
  COURTS-MARTIAL (POWERS).
  PROPERTY OWNERS' CLAIMS.
  PROPERTY OWNERS' CLAIMS.
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (DISMISSAL).
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (DISMISSAL).
  IRISH CONVENT TEACHERS (WAR BONUS).
  IRISH CONVENT TEACHERS (WAR BONUS).
  CAHIRCIVEEN CASE.
  CAHIRCIVEEN CASE.
  PEAT DEPOSITS (IRELAND).
  PEAT DEPOSITS (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  ENTERTAINMENT TAX (AGRICULTURAL SHOWS).
  ENTERTAINMENT TAX (AGRICULTURAL SHOWS).
  ADMIRALTY TRANSPORTS (BELFAST).
  ADMIRALTY TRANSPORTS (BELFAST).
  NAVAL RAIDS (PRESS CENSORSHIP).
  NAVAL RAIDS (PRESS CENSORSHIP).
  CONFIDENTIAL ADMIRALTY WORK.
  CONFIDENTIAL ADMIRALTY WORK.
  FIRST SEA LORD (POWERS).
  FIRST SEA LORD (POWERS).
  NORTH SEA MINEFIELD (GERMAN STATEMENT).
  NORTH SEA MINEFIELD (GERMAN STATEMENT).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  GUN WHARF, PORTSMOUTH (DISCHARGE).
  GUN WHARF, PORTSMOUTH (DISCHARGE).
  REJECTED MEN.
  REJECTED MEN.
  LINOTYPE OPERATORS.
  LINOTYPE OPERATORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
  MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
  ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (ARREST).
  ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (ARREST).
  HUNT SERVANTS.
  HUNT SERVANTS.
  BALLYVONARE CAMP, COUNTY CORK.
  BALLYVONARE CAMP, COUNTY CORK.
  ARMY PROMOTIONS.
  ARMY PROMOTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS, DEVONPORT (FOOD).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS, DEVONPORT (FOOD).
  EXERCISE OF CROWN RIGHTS (SUBJECTS' LOSSES).
  EXERCISE OF CROWN RIGHTS (SUBJECTS' LOSSES).
  ARMY PAY (INEQUALITIES).
  ARMY PAY (INEQUALITIES).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (TREATMENT).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (TREATMENT).
MUNITIONS.
  DISTILLERIES (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  DISTILLERIES (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  SMALLHOLDERS (SALISBURY).
  SMALLHOLDERS (SALISBURY).
  QUEEN'S ISLAND WORKERS (BELFAST).
  QUEEN'S ISLAND WORKERS (BELFAST).
  NITRATE OF SODA (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  NITRATE OF SODA (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.
  HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.
  FAIRS.
  FAIRS.
  INDIAN ARMY (SQUADRON COMMANDERS).
  INDIAN ARMY (SQUADRON COMMANDERS).
  LORD RONALDSHAY.
  LORD RONALDSHAY.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT PROSECUTIONS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT PROSECUTIONS.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
  PEACE MEETING, HAMMERSMITH.
  PEACE MEETING, HAMMERSMITH.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (ELECTRIC TORCHES).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (ELECTRIC TORCHES).
  POSTPONED HOLIDAYS.
  POSTPONED HOLIDAYS.
  NEUTRALS (LANDING).
  NEUTRALS (LANDING).
  PAPER (RESTRICTED IMPORTATION).
  PAPER (RESTRICTED IMPORTATION).
  SOUTH WALES MINERS (WAGES)
  SOUTH WALES MINERS (WAGES)
  FALSE REPORTS.
  FALSE REPORTS.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  NEUTRAL VESSELS (SUPPLY OF STORES).
  NEUTRAL VESSELS (SUPPLY OF STORES).
  COMPANIES' EMPLOYES (WAGES).
  COMPANIES' EMPLOYES (WAGES).
  SHIPBUILDING.
  SHIPBUILDING.
  BRITISH OVERSEAS TRADE.
  BRITISH OVERSEAS TRADE.
  SEWING-COTTON PRICES.
  SEWING-COTTON PRICES.
  COMMERCIAL FIRMS (GERMAN INTEREST).
  COMMERCIAL FIRMS (GERMAN INTEREST).
  COLOURED LABOUR.
  COLOURED LABOUR.
  BREWING INDUSTRY (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  BREWING INDUSTRY (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  ENEMY BUSINESSES (SALE).
  ENEMY BUSINESSES (SALE).
  AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  TEA (FREIGHTS).
  TEA (FREIGHTS).
  CROSS-CHANNEL TRAFFIC (DUBLIN COLLIERS).
  CROSS-CHANNEL TRAFFIC (DUBLIN COLLIERS).
  LAGER MALT (EXPORT).
  LAGER MALT (EXPORT).
  GANYMEDE AND GENEVA SOCIETIES.
  GANYMEDE AND GENEVA SOCIETIES.
  MERCANTILE MARINE LOSSES (HOSTILE SUBMARINES).
  MERCANTILE MARINE LOSSES (HOSTILE SUBMARINES).
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  FEEDING STUFFS (PRICES).
  FEEDING STUFFS (PRICES).
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (CENSORS).
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (CENSORS).
  FEEDING OF DEER (SCOTLAND).
  FEEDING OF DEER (SCOTLAND).
  GREECE.
  GREECE.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Fuller Estate, County Kerry.
  Fuller Estate, County Kerry.
  Medical Officers, South of Ireland.
  Medical Officers, South of Ireland.
  Exports and Imports (Ireland).
  Exports and Imports (Ireland).
  Kenmare Bee Association (Honey Prices).
  Kenmare Bee Association (Honey Prices).
  Local Government Surcharges.
  Local Government Surcharges.
  Science Examinations (Ireland).
  Science Examinations (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages, Portstewart.
  Labourers' Cottages, Portstewart.
  Irish Prison Warders (Pay).
  Irish Prison Warders (Pay).
  Housing (Dublin).
  Housing (Dublin).
  Resident Magistrates (Ireland).
  Resident Magistrates (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Clonmel Asylum Committee.
  Clonmel Asylum Committee.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Cultivation (Ireland).
  Land Cultivation (Ireland).
  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  National School Teachers, Ireland (Pensions).
  National School Teachers, Ireland (Pensions).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Hydrographic Department Messengers (Pay).
  Hydrographic Department Messengers (Pay).
  Admiralty Messengers (Overtime Rates).
  Admiralty Messengers (Overtime Rates).
  Council of India (Home Officers).
  Council of India (Home Officers).
  Royal Mail Service, India (Dismissed Sorter).
  Royal Mail Service, India (Dismissed Sorter).
  Indian Conspiracy Trial.
  Indian Conspiracy Trial.
  Political Offences (India).
  Political Offences (India).
  Unfounded Charge.
  Unfounded Charge.
  Steamship Collision (Inquiry).
  Steamship Collision (Inquiry).
  Linen Industry (Belfast).
  Linen Industry (Belfast).
  Train Service (Limerick and Tralee).
  Train Service (Limerick and Tralee).
  National Insurance (Unemployment Benefit).
  National Insurance (Unemployment Benefit).
  Mail Service (Ireland).
  Mail Service (Ireland).
  Glasgow and Island of Islay Mails.
  Glasgow and Island of Islay Mails.
  Postmasterships.
  Postmasterships.
  Irish Night Hails (Delay).
  Irish Night Hails (Delay).
  Diseases of Animals.
  Diseases of Animals.
  Divorce Court (Poor Persons).
  Divorce Court (Poor Persons).