Sitting of 19 December 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Copy presented of Reports respecting Peterhead Harbour Works [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).
Copy presented of Order, dated 18th December, 1916, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Deposit Contributors' Benefits) Order, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHANNEL ISLANDS (CROWN RIGHTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 29th June; Mr. Annan Bryce;] to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 30th November, 1916, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. George Badrick, Staff Clerk in the Librarian's Department of the Foreign Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of Regulations relating to Income Tax Quarterly Assessments, dated 19th December, 1916, made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Summary of Returns as to School Attendance and Employment
1264
in Agriculture supplied by County Local Education Authorities of Children excused from School for Employment in Agriculture on 16th October, 1916 by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council dated 5th December, 1916, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PRICE OF MILK ORDER (No. 2). 1916.
Copy presented of Order by the Board of Trade dated 12th December, 1916, made under Regulation 2 J of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Regulations, 1914, varying the Price of Milk Order. 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SESSIONAL RETURNS.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDINT ORDER NO. 10.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1916 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 426, of Session 1914)."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session 1916: (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 421, of Session 1914–16)."— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1916, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways;

  1265
  Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1916 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1916, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.101, of Session 1914–16."— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government
  1266
  from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1916; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this. House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in. either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.110. of Session 1914–16)."— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented or printed in Session 1916; with the total number of signatures in that Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.102, of Session 1914–16."— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of. Select Committees appointed in Session 1916 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary-Paper, No. 0.103, of Session 1914–16."— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the days on which the House sat in Session 1916, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GRAND ORIENT SOCIETY (FRANCE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the subject and purport of the communications between the permanent officials of the British Foreign Office and the Foreign Committee of the French masonic secret society called the Grand Orient since the beginning of 1907; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House all the communications exchanged between those bodies in the months of May and June, 1914?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): No such communications have passed.
    Mr. GINNELL: Or between any of the staff of the Foreign Office?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.

    COUNT TARNOWSKI (SAFE CONDUCT).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have granted safe conduct for the voyage to America of the newly appointed Austrian Ambassador to Washington, Count Tar-nowski; and whether he has any statement to make on this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The request of the Austro-Hungarian Government for a safe conduct for Count Tarnowski was communicated to His Majesty's Government by the United States Ambassador in London and was refused. Mr. Page subsequently informed His Majesty's Government that the United States Government were desirous to receive Count Tarnowski as Ambassador from the Dual Monarchy and that they hoped that, in those circumstances, His Majesty's Government might find themselves able to grant a safe conduct for the Ambassador and his suite. His Majesty's Government did not desire to refuse a request thus put forward by the United States Government in their own name and an assurance was accordingly given that the Ambassador and those accompanying him would not be prevented from proceeding on their journey.

    COPPER (NEUTRAL IMPORTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many tons of copper have been allowed to pass into Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland during the last two months; and what was the amount imported by those countries during the same two months of the year 1913?
    Lord R. CECIL: The total amount of copper and alloys imported into the four countries during the last two months was 2,813 tons 10 cwt. The figures for the same two months in 1913 are not available, but the average import for two months during 1911–1913, less exports to enemy countries, was 6,887 tons.
    Colonel YATE: Did any of these 2,000 tons go to blacklisted firms?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think so, but I should clearly have notice of a question of that kind.

    SHERWOOD FORESTERS (STABLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 2/7th Sherwood Foresters, now stationed in Galway, have been officially ordered to pay half the expenses of erecting stabling for their regimental horses and mules out of regimental funds; whether permission to billet the animals was refused, and that the animals had to stand night and day in the open in the inclement weather recently experienced; and whether he will take steps to relieve the regiment from such payment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It was not practicable to billet the horses in Galway, and stabling is being provided. The regiment concerned will not be called upon to pay for this stabling.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether warrant officers who are in receipt of pensions and who have obtained the Military Cross, thus entitling them under Articles 775 and 1,157 of the Royal Warrant to 6d. per day increase of

    1269
    pension, axe being refused this increase on the ground that they were holding temporary commissions when they won the decoration; and whether this has the sanction of his Department, in view of the fact that these men are not eligible for retired pay as officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: No additional pension or gratuity is given in respect of the Military Cross to a commissioned officer.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware of the hardship among pensioned soldiers owing to the fact that when the draft book for pensions allowances is finished there is a delay of many weeks before the Baker Street office issue a new book, and that complaints made to that office in regard to this matter receive no attention; and will he, in view of the hardship to these men in being deprived for several weeks of their allowance, have the matter given immediate attention?
    Mr. FORSTER: In cases of ordinary renewal a new book is issued a week before the old one expires. Delays are, I understand, not common, and are usually due to the failure of the pensioner to forward his life certificate at the right time. I am informed that complaints always receive attention.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain on what grounds payment of a gratuity or pension is deferred to a parent if there is another son serving for whom he or she is drawing an allowance; whether the parent is entitled; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Mr. FORSTER: In certain cases, where one or two or more sons had been killed, payment of gratuity was suspended lest it should prejudice a claimant's pension subsequently arising; but orders have already been given not to defer payment on these grounds.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office concerning No. 7438, Private C. Brook, 9th Durham Light Infantry, C Company, 12th Platoon, British Expeditionary Force, France, a soldier who left his home and four motherless children, aged one, four, seven, and nine, respectively, when he joined the Army in the care of his sister-in-law Miss A. E. Taylor, who was then
    1270
    and is now acting as foster-mother to his children, whether he is aware that Private Brook when he joined the Army on 19th July last applied for dependant's separation allowance for Miss Taylor and his four children whereas payment was only made for the children; if he is aware that during the four months Private Brook was under training before he was sent to France he repeatedly asked for the omission to pay separation allowance for his children's foster-mother to be rectified; if he is aware that the hon. Member for West Bradford wrote to him on 7th October last explaining the whole circumstances of the case and pressing for payment of the full amount due, and again on 28th October pressing for early settlement, and that no detailed reply to the letter of 7th October was received until 7th November, when a letter was received which erroneously stated that Private Brook had not claimed separation allowance for Miss Taylor, whereas, in point of fact, Private Brook did claim for her and was assured by the person in charge at the Bradford recruiting office, whose name Private Brook believes to be Mr. C. Davidson, that all was in order, and Miss Taylor would be paid her allowance; if he will ascertain whether the matter has now been put right and all the arrears have been paid; and, if not, whether he will take steps to put it right and cause the arrears to be paid as soon as possible?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am unable to say whether all the facts are as stated, but as I informed the hon. Member on the 7th November, Private Brook on enlistment claimed separation allowance for his children, but not for Miss Taylor. The Territorial Force Association has already been instructed to take steps to obtain a claim in favour of Miss Taylor for investigation.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office respecting the late Private M. Halstead, No. 3942, 4th Battalion Cameron Highlanders, who enlisted on 9th November, 1915, and made an allotment of 3s. 6d. per week out of his pay when he enlisted and claimed separation allowance for his mother at the same time, and whose letters to his mother proved that up to the date on which he was killed in action, namely, 17th August, 1916, he was continually trying to get a settlement of the amount due to his mother for separation allowance, but with-

    1271
    out success; if he is aware that the War Office have decided to pay separation allowance for twenty-six weeks from the date on which the soldier's mother was notified of her son's death, but not for the period during which the soldier was ineffectually trying to secure payment to his mother of the amount due to her; and if he will see that the arrears which accumulated during the period in question are acknowledged and paid?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I informed the hon. Member by letter on the 6th instant, authority has been given for the payment of arrears of separation allowance from the date of enlistment.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement about increased separation allowances?
    Mr. FORSTER: A scheme is under consideration at the Treasury.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether the results of this deliberation with the Treasury will be made known before the House rises for the holidays, or will the House have to wait until February?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me to say that the utmost expedition would be used. We are very anxious that the House should have the scheme before it in order that it may judge of it.
    Mr. HOGGE: Shall we know before the House adjourns on Friday, or shall we require to wait until February?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Perhaps I might be permitted to answer. The scheme is one which involves a very large sum of money. It is being carefully examined, with every desire to expedite it, but obviously the House will not expect it to be rushed without proper examination.
    Mr. HOGGE: What I want to know is, shall we require to wait until the House reassembles in February before we know we can get an answer?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought I had given the answer. It will be dealt with before the House rises if it can be dealt with in that time properly and adequately. If not, the House must wait.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    HOME SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL LABOUR).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the soldiers who are medically fit for active service classified as C 2 and C 3 are working seven days per week on hay baling in Cornwall, with only half an hour allowed for dinner, including Sunday; and if he will consider the question of giving the men in question one day's rest in seven?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I am not aware that soldiers are working, as alleged, seven days a week on hay baling, and I fear that weather conditions would not ordinarily permit of it. If the hon. Member will furnish me with more precise details, I will have the matter inquired into.

    REFUSAL TO OBEY MILITARY ORDERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain the rule under which some men convicted by court-martial of refusing to undertake military service are sent to civil prisons, while others are sent to military detention camps; and, seeing that John Nunan, an Irishman of this class, refuses on principle to obey any military order, can he state any reason for imprisoning him in a military camp?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Macpherson): If the hon. Member will refer to Army Order No. 10 of the 25th May, 1916, of which I will furnish him with a copy, and Section 44 of the Army Act, he will find the information he requires.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Is not the reason for sending this young man to military detention the fact that he will not obey military orders, whereas he is quite willing to obey prison orders, and that therefore he will receive extra punishment? Is not that the reason why he is sent to military detention?

    DERBY APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has received representations with regard to the case of Thomas Cockeram, of Meynell, Langley, near Derby, which was dismissed by the Derbyshire Appeal Tribunal without Cockeram having an opportunity of being present or being represented at the hearing of this case; and, in view of the

    1273
    hardship of the man being refused a rehearing, as he had no notice of the hearing, whether he will advise the tribunal to grant a rehearing in this case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD {Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Local Government Board are in communication with the Appeal Tribunal in reference to the case.

    ARMY BOOTS.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether toe-plates are not being applied to the soles of Army boots when issued, and that officers state that an economy? would be effected by their application; will he state whether Army boots are being issued frequently or generally with out metal protection being applied to the soles; will he cause inquiries to be made among officers and men having had practical experience on active service as to the desirability of such application; is he aware that metal toe-plates are frequently supplied at the Front for repairs, and that such repairs would not be so soon needed if they were applied before the boots were issued; and whether the French soldiers are supplied with boots on the soles of which nails or other metallic means for preventing wear are applied?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: With the exception of boots for men in the Mechanical Transport, all Army boots are now fitted with toe-plates and heel-plates as well as hobnails in heel and sole; the outer sole is steel billed, to save wear. Boots are fitted in accordance with the indications of the military authorities in the field. I am not aware of the practice of the French authorities in regard to the fitting of their boots.

    ARMY PROMOTION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is satisfied that promotions in the Army are not influenced by any other reason than that of merit as tested by efficiency in the field; whether, if not, he can state why so many inefficient officers still hold high commands in spite of bad results; and whether he will take steps accordingly?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that efficiency is the only consideration.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the hon. Gentleman also satisfied that full efficiency has been attained?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether promotion in the Army Medical Services is determined by seniority or by merit?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Promotion in the Army Medical Service, as in other branches of the Army, is determined by seniority and merit.
    Mr. LYNCH: But in the event of seniority and merit not being associated, which is preferred?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They usually are associated.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    FIELD GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will ascertain and state whom Sir John Max well consulted last May, if any person, on the legality of trying persons not subject to military law by field general courts-martial, held in camera, in capital cases, and on the legality of having some such persons executed and others sent to penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of such Courts; whether he was, or is, aware that this procedure is unprecedented; whether he was, or is, aware that there is no law authorising it; and if he will specify the law on which Sir John Max well was acting?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to the replies which have already been given by the late Prime Minister, the late Home Secretary, and the Attorney-General on this subject.
    Mr. GIN NELL: In view of the alleged replies to which I am referred being evasions, I must ask the hon. Member whether Sir John Maxwell has been consulted with reference to this question, in which there is involved a charge of murder?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to the previous statements.
    Mr. GINNELL: This is a serious question, and I ask your permission, Sir, to put it down for to-morrow, to give the hon. Member an opportunity of consulting Sir John Maxwell.

    CAPTAIN BOWEN COLTHURST.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, having regard to the fact that Captain Bowen Colthurst was ordered on the 26th April not to leave the Portobello Barracks, which order was confirmed by Lieutenant-Colonel M' Cammond, if he will say why Captain Colthurst was two days later permitted, in company with a senior officer, to make a raid upon Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington's house, and whether any and, if so, what notice was taken of this fresh act of indiscipline prior to his arrest on 5th May?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am inquiring, and will let the hon. Member know.

    SENTENCES BY COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. BYRNEasked when the Irish prisoners sentenced by courts-martial will be treated as political prisoners?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made on this subject by my predecessor on the 14th November.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Will the scheme for the transfer of these men to Lewes be carried out before Christmas, and will the Countess Markievicz, who is in absolutely solitary confinement, participate in the amelioration which has been extended to the men?
    Sir G. CAVE: Practically all the prisoners have already been transferred to Lewes. The Countess Markievicz will participate in the same treatment as has been extended to the men.
    Mr. GIN NELL: In what prison?
    Sir G. CAVE: At Aylesbury.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the numbers of Irish youths, ranging from 16 to 19 years of age, still suffering penal servitude in the convict prisons of Dartmoor and Portland for offences described by the late Prime Minister as venial and pardonable errors; whether he is aware of the extent and intensity of the resentment in
    1276
    Ireland against this continued punishment; and whether all those youths will be released before Christmas?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. Ten of the convicts referred to are under 19. They were convicted and sentenced by a court-martial for active participation in the rebellion, which I am sure the late Prime Minister never described as a venial and pardonable error. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask has the right hon. Gentleman looked at "Hansard" for the 10th of May last, in which he will find the words quoted? I put the date in the question, but it was struck out at the Table.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am sure the words did not refer to the crimes to which my answer refers.
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes, they do.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that eight are under eighteen years of age, and that we received a guarantee that all boys under eighteen would be sent home?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot confirm the last part of the question. With regard to the ages, if the hon. Gentleman is right, it has to be remembered that some of these lads were convicted of offences, either amounting to, or approaching, murder.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the report of the House of Commons for 10th May, in which he will find what is quoted in my question?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When shall we get the report of the trials of these men, which the late Prime Minister promised, so that the House will be able to judge of the accuracy of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think I must ask for notice of that.

    CHRISTMAS DINNER (FRONGOCH CAMP).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Irish National Aid Association are anxious to supply a Christmas dinner to the Irish prisoners of war at Frongoch Camp if they are not released before that time; and if he will grant permission to the association to carry out their wishes and allow them to

    1277
    supply all prisoners in both the North and South Camps with the usual Christmas fare?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; I have given permission to this association to send into Frongoch Camp a consignment of Christmas fare. The men who are still in the South Camp will be allowed to share in it.

    PRISONERS IN ENGLAND.
    Mr. DORISasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of men from the Westport and Aghagower districts, county Mayo, are still detained in English prisons under the Defence of the Realm Act, and that no evidence has ever been adduced that they were in any way connected with the Irish rebellion, and that there are no grounds even for suspicion of their complicity in it; and, having regard to the irritation caused in their districts by their prolonged detention, he can now see his way to order their immediate and unconditional release?
    Sir G. CAVE: There are only eight men from county Mayo who are still interned under the Defence of the Realm Act. Their cases were fully considered by the Advisory Committee, who recommended their continued detention. As to the question of release, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes to make a statement to-day or to-morrow.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he remember that none of these men have been tried or charged, and what has become of our Habeas Corpus Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am quite aware of the facts. In every case the Committee has considered the facts and has advised accordingly.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Irish prisoners of war were sent to Lewes in convict garb and in chains; if he is aware of the indignation expressed in Ireland at such treatment; and if he will say whether this treatment has the sanction of the Government?
    Sir G. CAVE: My predecessor decided that those Irish prisoners who gave an undertaking not to attempt to escape during the journey to Lewes should be removed in plain clothes and in charge of warders also in plain clothes. The majo-
    1278
    rity of prisoners gave the promise and travelled in plain clothing, but those who refused to give this undertaking could not be allowed that privilege.
    Mr. LYNCH: What is the object of the Government's policy in regard to Irish prisoners; and is it hoped to conciliate Ireland in this way?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    PRISONERS' MONEY.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will cause instructions to be issued for the return of the sum of £66 19s. 1d. to Miss Julia Hannon; if he is aware that this sum was taken from her by a Dublin police detective and deposited in the Bride well Police Station on 11th April, 1916; if he is aware that the money is reported to have been lost whilst in charge of the police; and if he will say who is liable for its return?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am informed that the sum of £61 19s. 1d. was in the possession of the police in connection with a criminal charge against the person named at the time of the rebellion. While the rebels-were in occupation of the Bride well the press in which it was locked up was. broken up and the money, with other property, was removed. In the circumstances the police are advised that they are not liable for the loss.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the later portion of the question, and state who is liable, having regard to the fact that this lady was taken up on this criminal charge, was tried, found not guilty, and discharged? Who will give her back her money?
    Mr. DUKE: I answered that the police are advised that they are not liable.
    Mr. BYRNE: To whom is this lady to apply to get back her money?

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (PIECEWORK PRICES).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in spite of the Government's promise that the piecework prices of workmen once fixed should not be reduced unless the method of production were altered, Messrs. Waring and Gillow, contractors to the

    1279
    War Office, have persistently reduced piecework prices; and whether he will take steps to ensure that these reductions shall cease?
    Mr. FORSTER: A complaint of this nature has been brought to my notice and I have also received a communication on it from the firm in question. I understand that the head of the firm will take an early opportunity of seeing my hon. Friend, and I hope that in this way it may be possible to reach a satisfactory solution of such difficulties as may exist.

    MANNINGTREE CAMP.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will have an inquiry made into the alleged insanitary and intolerable conditions of the camp of the 4th Company, 107th Provincial Battalion Training centre, Manningtree, it being alleged that the men are housed in a disused malting house and have to sleep on ground saturated with pools of water?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made into this case. The men are living in a disused malting house, but the hon. Member will be glad to hear that there is no truth in the allegations which have been made to him. The ground is not saturated with water and the men are comfortably housed. I am further informed that the senior medical officer reports that of the 1,200 recruits in categories B 1 and C 1 who are at Manningtree, a large number will be pasesed shortly into Category A. This shows that the conditions are healthy.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has yet been given by Germany for any representatives from the United States to visit and report upon the camps in Poland and East Prussia where British prisoners of war have been sent on working parties; and, if not, whether steps can be taken to urge upon the Government of the United States the extreme desirability of obtaining such permission as soon as possible?
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am not quite sure to what working camps.
    1280
    in East Prussia my hon. Friend refers, but Mr. Jackson, of the United States Embassy at Berlin, visited the British prisoners of war at Libau on 16th October last and reported in generally favourable terms on their treatment. We were informed by the United States Embassy at Berlin early in October that steps had been taken to bring back the small number of British prisoners of war who were working in Poland.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of shortening the time of four months or more that is now required for the delivery of parcels from here to prisoners of war at Yozgad, Turkey in Asia?
    Mr. HOPE: His Majesty's Government are not responsible for the delay, which is largely due to the inaccessibility of this camp. We have already asked the United States Ambassador at Constantinople to press the Porte to remove our prisoners at Yozgad to a more accessible and more suitable camp.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable destitution among the prisoners at this camp through the failure to receive percels sent from here?
    Mr. HOPE: I am not aware of it as a fact, but I am afraid it is true.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When do you expect some improvement in this matter?
    Mr. HOPE: We have made very strong representations quite lately.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCELS).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether parcels posted to soldiers serving with the British Expeditionary Force by relatives do not in many cases reach their destination, and that out of seven parcels recently forwarded to Rifleman Llewellyn, No. 3493, A Company, 11th Battalion King's Royal Rifles, British Expeditionary Force, not one has been delivered; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. lllingworth): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I fear that

    1281
    on active service occasional delay or loss of parcels for the troops is inevitable. I had not heard of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I will have inquiry made in the matter and will acquaint him with the result.

    ISOLATION HOSPITAL, TUNBRIDGE WELLS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will have an inquiry made into allegations of serious insanitary conditions and the absence of essential precautions at the Isolation Hospital, Tunbridge Wells, where it is alleged that there is no isolation, the patients mixing indiscriminately with each other, and patients are allowed outside for hours a day mixing with any number of civilians?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made as to this hospital, which is under civil administration, and the suggestions in the question are not in accordance with the facts. The Tunbridge Wells Isolation Hospital is a well-equipped hospital, containing fifty-eight beds in four separate pavilions. The proof that there is no promiscuous mingling of patients lies in the fact that no case of cross infection has occurred during the War. Patients do not mix with civilians. The sanitary conditions are satisfactory, and the medical officer of health, who visits the hospital daily, states that no insanitary condition has arisen during the three years he has held office.

    HOME SERVICE.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the case of No. 5/56,183, T. R., Private F. Simpson, 84th Battalion Tyneside Rifles, Hornsea Bridge Camp, who has a wife and fourteen children (twins on three occasions), the eldest of his children being only thirteen years of age; and whether, having regard to the burden that would fall upon Mrs. Simpson if her husband was killed or disabled, he will either arrange to retain this soldier on Home service, as requested by the Bradford Soldiers' and Sailors' Dependants' Relief Committee, or to discharge him from the Army altogether?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I can add nothing to what was contained in the
    1282
    letter on this case which my hon. Friend will already have received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on November 3rd.

    SOLDIERS FOR AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether officers commanding troops at home have been requested to ascertain the men in their battalions who have been accustomed to agricultural work, with the view of providing suitable labour in the districts where the troops are being trained; whether he continues to receive complaints that farmers have been supplied with men unaccustomed to agricultural work; and whether adequate means have been taken to prevent unsuitable men being provided in future?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Returns are in the possession of the War Office showing the men from Home Service units who were engaged in agriculture prior to enlistment, and these men are being used for substitution in agriculture. No complaints have been received recently from farmers as to the unsuitability of men sent to them.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has yet received reports with regard to the continuance of that form of field punishment known as "crucifixion"; and when he will make any statement on the subject?
    Major HAYWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that there is inequality in the administration of justice in the British Army in France owing to the varying practice of commanding officers, some awarding field imprisonment No. 1 only for grave offences while others do so for minor irregularities; whether he is aware that this form of punishment is not only degrading to the victim, but by creating feelings of indignation and discontent in the minds of British soldiers who witness it tends to destroy the moral of the Army, besides leaving a bad impression on the minds of our Allies the French population; and whether, seeing that field imprisonment No. 2 is precisely the same punishment as No. 1, with the omis-

    1283
    sion of the part known as crucifixion, the Government will take immediate steps to abolish it and substitute field imprisonment No. 2?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must, in the first place, protest against the term "crucifixion." By its continued use, unfair and unnecessary prejudice is introduced. In accordance with the intention indicated by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, reports were sought from all the General Officers commanding Armies in the field. I would remind the House that it is upon these officers and not upon any of those who sit here that the responsibility—I must say the very onerous responsibility—lies of maintaining effective discipline without which, not only the safety of the Armies, but also the success of operations will be jeopardised.
    All the responsible commanders consulted except one agree that it is impossible to do away with field punishment. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in France, whose experience in this matter, of course, covers the widest field, strongly desires that this form of punishment should be retained, and in particular thinks that the abolition of Rule 2 (b) would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences. He attributes the rapid building up of discipline in the New Army units largely to the judicious use by commanding officers of the power of awarding field punishment, and he fears that the result of its abolition must inevitably be that recourse to the death penalty would become more frequent. I am sure that the House will recognise that civilian standards of what is suitable form of punishment are quite inapplicable to the necessarily stern conditions of active service. In such conditions punishment must be summary and concentrated; it must not, by being spread over a long period, deplete the fighting line and provide men, even men of good character, with a chance they may find it difficult to resist of getting away from field conditions. The essentials in field punishment are the infliction of physical discomfort and the stimulation of the sense of shame.
    The desire of the military authorities to use the necessary power of awarding exemplary punishment for its just objects, and for no more than its just objects, has, I think, been conclusively shown in the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Act, the provisions of which are well known, but in
    1284
    regard to which it may not be equally well known that the principle and details of the measure were suggested by the then Commander-in-Chief in France.
    Although, therefore, field punishment cannot be abolished, the Army Council see their way to provide some additional safeguards and to standardise the carrying out of the punishment when it is inflicted, but this requires some further consideration, and I am not in a position to furnish any details to-day.
    Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that a written report will be laid before the House upon the subject? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be in a position to furnish further details?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that. If my hon. Friend will consult me in private I shall give him all details I have in my possession and arrange with him to discuss the thing in this House if necessary.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the articles on this form of punishment appearing in the newspapers associated with the present Secretary for War now be suspended?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will inquiries be made as to the methods adopted in the French Army for maintaining discipline without this form of punishment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has made those inquiries.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the reports from the commanders in the field which the War Office has received be published?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not consulted my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, pending these decisions, that field punishment No. 1 shall cease in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as I know, field punishment No. 1 has never been enforced in this country.
    Mr. BILLING: If I give the hon. Gentleman instances will he assure the House that it shall not occur again?
    Major HAYWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many sentences of field punishment No. 1 have been inflicted on British soldiers in France since the commencement of the War; how many of such sentences have been awarded by courts-martial and how many by commanding officers under their

    1285
    summary powers, respectively; and whether this form of punishment has been inflicted for such minor offences as galloping mules on the highway, losing steel helmets, losing iron rations, firing a round of ammunition by accident when practising rapid loading, and first offences of simple drunkenness unaccompanied by aggravating circumstances?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not practicable to give the information which the hon. and gallant Member desires, but I would remind him, as has previously been stated in this House, that under the provisions of Section 44 (5) of the Army Act, field punishment may be awarded for any offence.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman obtain particulars of the case in which it is admitted by the War Office that men suffering field punishment died under the infliction?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no knowledge of any such admission made by the War Office.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my hon. Friend see that those persons who have circulated reports that men have died under crucifixion are dealt with according to law?
    Mr. BILLING: What is the most junior rank of officer who is capable of inflicting the punishment of crucifixion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that soldiers proceeding home on leave are kept waiting sometimes for three days at the French ports; that the arrangements for the rationing and billeting of these men are so inadequate that they have often to go without either food or sleep; and whether he will make representations to the military authorities in France as to the necessity for a better treatment of the soldiers returning on leave when detained at the ports?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Men are, of course, sometimes detained at the French ports, but there is accommodation for a large number of men at each of the ports commonly used. The feeding arrangements have been investigated, and it is
    1286
    found that rations are drawn for every day that men are detained at ports. Branches of the Expeditionary Force canteens are also available.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only accommodation is an open shed paved with cobble stones, and sometimes used for horses?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have inquiries made.

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ARMY).
    Major HAYWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many British soldiers have been shot by sentence of courts-martial in France since the commencement of the War; and whether the Government will take steps to abolish capital punishment in the Army except for offences in respect of which the extreme penalty could be inflicted in the civil criminal Courts and for offences under Sections 4 and 7 of the Army Act?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has already been stated to the House that the information asked for in the first part of the question cannot be given. The answer to the second part is in the negative, and I cannot hold out any hopes that it will be otherwise than in the negative.

    COURTS-MARTIAL, FRANCE.
    Major HAYWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many cases have been tried by court-martial in France in the British Army since the commencement of the War; and whether, seeing that owing to the exigencies of the Service courts-martial in France are generally composed almost entirely of regimental officers inexperienced in the administration of justice, even when trying the gravest cases, the Government will take steps to appoint specially for court-martial duty circuits of officers unfit for general service in the field but fully qualified by knowledge and experience to act as members, and thus not only obtain a better and more uniform administration of justice in the Army, but save the enormous amount of time that has to be spent by regimental officers on these duties who can so ill be spared from their battalions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not practicable to give this information. The suggestions which the hon. and gallant Member puts forward have been to a certain extent adopted for nearly two years, inasmuch as specially trained and legally qualified officers are attached to the various commands in France as also in England for the purpose of assisting Courts. Ever since the inception of the first court-martial in the British Army a Court has been composed wholly of regimental officers. I cannot accept the suggestion that they are inexperienced in the administration of justice under a military code. The establishment of a "travelling" Court is opposed to the principle which has obtained in the British Army from time immemorial that if possible one of the members of the Court should be an officer of the unit to which the accused soldier belongs. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the court-martial proceedings pass through the hands of many experienced and legally qualified officers before they reach the Judge-Advocate-General, where they are again reviewed, and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the administration of justice in the Army is carried out with uniformity.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that his Department has no statistics of the courts-martial that have taken place during the War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We have statistics in every case.

    ARMY ACT AMENDMENT ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has yet. decided to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee of Inquiry set up under the Army Act Amendment Act; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to the Report?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand this question has been postponed.
    Mr. McNEILL: Having regard to the fact that a gallant officer who is vitally interested in this Report will have to leave England before Parliament again meets, will my hon. Friend undertake that a definite answer shall be given to this question before Parliament rises, and in time to bring the whole matter up here if necessary?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the attention of the hon. Member been called to a decision given by the South-Western Court yesterday in which it was laid down that an attested man, who had been medically rejected would not be called up for military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot promise to give a definite answer to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. McNeill) without consulting the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. McNEILL: I beg to give notice that, if necessary, I will call attention to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

    IRISH REGIMENTS.
    Colonel YATEasked how many English, Scottish, and Welsh recruits have passed through Irish reserve battalions or service with Irish regiments since August, 1914?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that there are no statistics available, as a man's nationality is not recorded on his. attestation papers.

    EXEMPTED MEN (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether instructions have been issued to recruiting officers that men holding exemption certificates from tribunals should be ordered to present themselves voluntarily for medical examination and be threatened, if they do not do so, that the military will challenge the certificates of exemption held by these men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that any instructions of this character have been issued.

    ARMY COUNCIL INSTRUCTIONS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will facilitate the work of Members in answering questions on military points-addressed to them by their constituents by causing a copy of all the Army Council's instructions and similar memoranda to be placed in the Library?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Army Council Instructions are not like Army Orders, public documents. If, however, there were any general desire that copies of these instructions should be available in the Library for reference, my Noble Friend would consider the suggestion. Many of these instructions, however, deal with matters which are not likely to be the subject of questions to Members from their constituents.
    Major NEWMAN: Ought we to write to the Secretary of State for War? How are we to convey our wish to him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Through the ordinary channel.

    OFFICERS' EQUIPMENT (LOSSES).
    Major NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that officers when they become casualties often lose by theft or carelessness on the part of their units valuable parts of their equipment, such as binoculars and pistols, in addition to having their uniforms partly or wholly destroyed as the result of the injury they have received; has any Army Council order been issued that such losses and damage to uniform will be made good out of public funds; and, if so, will the order be made retrospective?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Regulations governing indemnification for losses are laid down in Section 19 of the Allowance Regulations. They do not admit of indemnification in cases where the loss was due to negligence on the part of the unit to which the officer belongs. Compensation is permissible under the Regulations in force at the outbreak of war for articles of uniform damaged beyond repair.

    HOME-GROWN TIMBER (CANADIAN LUMBERMEN).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the operations of the Canadian lumbermen employed by the Home-grown Timber Committee at Kirkconnel, in Dumfries-shire, whether he can state what is the working cost per cubic foot of timber after it has been converted and stacked at the mill, and also the cost per cubic foot of the same timber free on rail at Kirkconnel station?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): I regret that I am unable to give my hon. Friend the particulars for which he asks.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    DESTRUCTION OF PIGS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a number of farmers in different parts of the country are killing their sows and litters of young pigs owing to the increased cost of feeding stuffs, caused by the new Order with regard to the milling of wheat; and will he say what steps the Government proposes to take in the matter, seeing that if the killing of sows and young pigs continues at the present rate there is not only certain to be a great scarcity of pork in the near future but small farmers will be deprived of what to them has been in the past a valuable source of income?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, Sir; the Board are aware of the tendency to slaughter young pigs and sows on account of the high prices of food stuffs. I am glad to say, however, that the somewhat hasty action reported to have been taken in this respect by some farmers is by no means general. I hope that any such tendency will be checked when the arrangements foreshadowed by my predecessor in reply to a question on the 29th November by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire have been completed and are in full working.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Board pro-poses to prohibit the slaughtering of these small pigs?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I think so.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will he say what the Government propose to do in regard to the increased price of feeding stuff for pigs?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The hon. Member must put his question down.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is down.

    HOME-GROWN WHEAT (GUARANTEED PRICE TO BE FIXED).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if it is the intention of the Govern-

    1291
    ment to guarantee a fixed price for homegrown wheat so as to encourage farmers to till more land?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, Sir, it is the intention of the Government to guarantee a fixed price for the home-grown wheat crop of the season 1916–17. A full announcement on the subject will shortly be made.

    ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether seeds and fertilising stuffs, as well as machinery, are to be provided by the Government for the farmers of Great Britain; if so, by what method will the scheme be worked; and, in view of the desirability of affording similar inducements to Irish agriculturists, will he see that Ireland is treated in a similar manner as regards this question as Great Britain?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I can at the moment say no more than that the whole question of supplying the farmers essential requirements for the production of food next year is under careful consideration. As Irish agriculture does not come within the scope of the Board, questions relating to the policy to be adopted on that subject in Ireland should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.

    DESTRUCTION BY RATS AND MICE.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has or can obtain statistics showing the amount in tons of foodstuffs growing, harvested, and stored, including households, consumed, destroyed, or spoilt by rats and mice in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, in any twelve consecutive months; whether he can state the value in money of commodities of all kinds consumed, destroyed, or spoilt by rats and mice in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, in any twelve consecutive months; whether he is aware of the fecundity of rats and mice; can he state the number of rats one pair and their progeny can produce in twelve months; whether he is aware that rats and mice are germ and microbe carriers of the worst kind; and whether he will take legislative steps to enforce the reduction or extermination of these pests by means of rewards to or fines imposed upon county, borough, or parish councils, or other public bodies or individuals?
    Sir R. WINFREY: No exact figures of the losses caused by rats and mice to foodstuffs are available, but the Board are aware that the fecundity of these animals under certain conditions is great, and that rats may disseminate disease. The destruction of rats has been urged upon farmers by the Board, and they have issued instructions for the purpose in a leaflet which has been widely circulated, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member. It does not appear that the present time, when professional rat-catchers are scarce, is a convenient one for the introduction of compulsory legislation on the subject.
    Mr. HOUSTON: As it was impossible to hear a word of the answer I will put the question down again.

    BAKERS' YEAST.
    Mr. COOTEasked the quantity of bakers' yeast manufactured by the distilleries in the United Kingdom for the past year; and whether this yeast is a byproduct or manufactured direct?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No information is available as to the quantity of bakers yeast manufactured. I am informed that distilleries at which yeast is made require a special plant for the purpose, and that in them the yeast is the product of chief importance.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of setting up in Ireland a Committee which would have full powers to deal with the distribution of sugar in Ireland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the FOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT (Captain Bathurst): I am in touch with the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies in regard to the general distribution of sugar, and I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough)asked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether an official intimation had been given that arrivals of sugar after a certain date in October must be devoted solely to the use of brewers and brewers sugar makers; and, if so, whether, in face of the shortage of sugar for domestic use, he proposes to severely restrict the use of it in the production of intoxicants, aerated waters, fancy confectionery, and

    1293
    other luxuries; and whether, as a matter of national economy, he will take steps to restrain tradesmen from compelling the public to purchase goods they do not need as a condition of obtaining small quantities of sugar?
    Captain BATHURST: The Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies decided recently not to issue licences for the importation for other purposes than brewing of certain classes of sugar not well suited for ordinary consumption. By this means the space which its importation beyond those limits would have occupied was made available for other kinds of sugar or other necessary articles. The matters referred to in the last part of the question are engaging the Food Controller's attention, and he hopes to be able to announce shortly the steps he proposes to take in regard to them.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the statement be made before Christmas as to the proposed steps?
    Captain BATHURST: I can add nothing more at present. I can only repeat that the Food Controller is giving the matter his most urgent attention.

    FEEDING STUFFS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether, having regard to the fact that in the last twelve months the price of feeding stuffs has increased by nearly 100 per cent., and also that the Palm Kernels Trust and other companies interested in the importation and preparation of feeding stuffs have made increased profits in the same period, he will at once proceed to arrange for a plentiful supply of palm kernel, cotton, and linseed cake, at greatly reduced prices, to the farmers?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller already has the question of feeding stuffs under his personal consideration. I am not, at the moment, able to make any statement as to the steps which he will take.

    SMALL ECONOMIC HOLDINGS (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that adjoining what is known as the farm of Creggan, in the parish of Moore, close by Ballinasloe, in the county of Roscommon, there is a considerable number of
    1294
    hard-working, industrious, and thrifty occupiers of small economic holdings willing and eager to utilise it for the production of food; and whether, in view of the fact that the owner of this extensive nonresidential grazing tract is in possession of 2,000 acres of grass lands, he will suggest to the Congested Districts Board, to the Estates Commissioners, to the Department of Agriculture, or some other public body dealing with land in Ireland, or interested in the food supply of these countries over which he exercises control, to take immediate steps to have this farm purchased for distribution amongst the small tenants who, at this critical period, will turn it to the best advantage of those countries?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board, the Department concerned, inform me that the farm in question is tenanted and that they are not at present in a position to acquire it.
    Mr. REDDY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why?
    Mr. DUKE: They have not the legal powers.
    Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the late Chief Secretary said they had the powers?
    Mr. DUKE: Perhaps the hon. Gentle-man will put that question down. It did not reach me.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that several large potato exporters from the North of Ireland have been cornering potatoes with a view to exporting them in the near future out of Ireland; is he aware that two or three large shipping men in Dublin are doing likewise; and, in view of the shortage in the crops and the danger that if the cornering of potatoes is allowed to go on unchecked poor people will be faced with famine; will immediate steps be taken to ascertain fully the quantities of potatoes those potato merchants have stored up and, if necessary, have the Defence of the Realm Regulations put in force with a view to prevent such people from exporting at the expense of the poor of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have no information which would show that potato exporters in the North of Ireland or shipping firms in Dublin are acting at stated in the question. The

    1295
    Department are taking steps through the Royal Irish Constabulary to obtain at the earliest possible date a census of the potato stocks available. The Board of Trade have made two Orders to come into force on the 21st instant, one limiting the export of potatoes from Ireland, and the other regulating the use of seed potatoes in Ireland.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain who are the people in the North of Ireland that are cornering potatoes and whether they are doing so with the consent and approval of certain officials of the Irish Department?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not need to have inquiry made. I am satisfied that the statement is untrue.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Will the Chief Secretary see that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland punblishes a weekly list of those applying for export licences; also showing what quantity of potatoes they are allowed to export?
    Mr. DUKE: That question shall be considered.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to provide an adequate supply of seed potatoes for the tenants of labourers' cottages next spring, to be paid for by a loan extended over a period of years; and will he say if he can arrange a convenient date for an interview on the subject with a delegation from the Irish land and labour organisations?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture is occupied with this and other questions of increase of food supply. I will meet a deputation if it is desired, when I am in full possession of the views of the Department.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received resolutions from any bodies in Ireland asking that a short Act of Parliament should be passed immediately, compelling the owners of large grazing tracts to let acre allotments to the labourers only in the vicinity of such land for the purpose of agriculture during the period of the War; and, in view of the necessity of keeping up food supplies, will he undertake to introduce such legislation so as to enable the poor to provide potatoes and other necessities of life for their families during the war period?
    Mr. DUKE: Resolutions have been received recommending allotments to labourers among other suggestions for utilising grazing lands for the increase of the food supply in Ireland. The question of the best means of increasing the food supply of Ireland is being dealt with in consultation between the Irish Departments and the Food Controller.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any steps are being, or will be, taken to supply seed potatoes to the poor for the coming season by way of loan which will extend over a period of years?
    Mr. DUKE: All necessary steps will be taken. I am in consultation with the Local Government Board and Department of Agriculture on the question of what action is necessary.

    SUPPLIES OF SEEDS, MANURES, AND MACHINERY.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to see that any assistance in the way of providing seeds, manures, and machinery which may be given to the farmers of Great Britain with a view to the production of food will also be given to the Irish farmers; and will he instruct the Irish Department of Agriculture to take immediate steps to ascertain what are the intentions of the English Board of Agriculture with regard to these matters and have the interests of the Irish farmers properly safeguarded?
    Mr. DUKE: As regards the first part of the question, inquiries shall be made; and as to the second, I am informed that the Department have been in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, and other authorities, and have taken all the steps open to them to ensure that supplies of seeds, manures, and machinery shall be available by purchase through the ordinary channels to meet the probable requirements of the Irish farmers in the coming season.

    SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a circular issued by the leading cocoa manufacturers in the country threatening the Government with a long

    1297
    and bitter struggle as to the Early Closing Regulations; whether funds have actually been raised to prosecute an organised movement of this kind by Messrs. Cad-bury, Messrs. Rowntree, and others; and whether he intends to take any action?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have been asked to answer this question, as the Order referred to was issued by the Home Office. I have no information with regard to the circular mentioned in the question, nor is the Department aware of any organised resistance to the Order.
    Mr. CURRIE: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the circular will he give it consideration?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.

    SHIPPING PROFITS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government intend to take to control the shipping of this country; and if he is aware that shipowners are at present making huge profits as a result of the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): I am aware of the profits which have been made by some shipping companies. All British ships are now under full control. A very large proportion are requisitioned by the Government, and no ship can start on any voyage without a licence.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in various forms of taxation 78 per cent. of the profits of shipowners are taken by the Treasury, that our Allies are exempting shipowners from all taxation, and that the taxation upon neutrals is infinitesimal compared with that imposed upon British shipowners?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put those questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    BRITISH SHIPPING IN NEUTRAL PORTS.
    Colonel YATEasked how many British ships are now engaged in plying between neutral ports?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There are approximately fifty steamers registered in the United Kingdom trading regularly between neutral ports. In addition to this there are about a hundred ships belonging to the two large China companies which trade with both neutral and Allied ports in the Far East. These are mainly of small size.

    BELFAST LINEN TRADE.
    Mr. DEVLINasked whether the Report on the Belfast linen trade which appears monthly in the "Board of Trade Gazette" is entirely the composition of the Board of Trade correspondent, or whether it is the joint production of the correspondent and an official of the Board of Trade who collates and summarises the information supplied direct to the Board by the employers in Belfast?
    Mr. ROBERTS: All the information in regard to employment in various trades, whether supplied to the Board of Trade direct or through its local correspondent, is collated and summarised in the Department before publication in the "Labour Gazette."

    MERCANTILE MARINE (CERTIFICATED OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty of obtaining duly qualified certificated officers and engineers for our merchant steamers; that many of our merchant steamers, owing to the impossibility of obtaining a sufficient number of qualified officers and engineers, are running with less than the normal number; whether this shortage is due to the presence of so many of these maritime officers in the Army; whether these men would be serving their country more efficiently on board ship; and, if so, whether he will make representations to this effect to the proper authority with a view to release from military service a sufficient number of these officers and engineers to properly and efficiently man our merchant steamers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: So far as I am aware there is not a very serious shortage of certificated officers and engineers for the mercantile marine, and such shortage as exists, at any rate so far as deck officers are concerned, is due more to the require-

    1299
    ments of the Navy than to the number of certificated officers in the Army. I am aware that a good many marine engineers are employed in important work on shore The Board of Trade have the matter under observation and are prepared to take appropriate action when necessary.
    Mr. HOUSTON: As the hon. Gentle man's information appears to be defective, will he make further inquiries when he will find that the statement in the question is correct?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    LAPSES OF INSURANCE.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will say what number of insured persons of each sex has been notified to the Commissioners as having gone out of insurance up to 30th June, 1916?
    Sir E. CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): No steps have yet been taken to ascertain from Approved Societies particulars of their members who have lapsed from insurance. I am considering whether we can reasonably require societies to undertake the heavy work involved in supplying this information at the present time.

    INVESTMENTS (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
    Mr. CURRIEasked what funds have been issued up to 30th September, 1910, by the Insurance Commissioners to approved societies for investment; and what funds have been invested by the Insurance Commissioners on behalf of approved societies up to the same date?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: The funds issued up to 30th September, 1916, by the Commissioners to approved societies for investment in the names of their trustees amounted to £4,031,000. The funds invested by the Commissions on behalf of approved societies in securities selected by the societies amounted to £748,400 up to the same date.
    Mr. CURRIEasked whether, in addition to the depreciation of £4,500,000 sterling existing upon the £30.000,000 sterling invested by the National Debt Commissioners there exists a further depreciation in the funds invested by approved societies on funds invested by the
    1300
    National Health Insurance Commissioners on their behalf as at. say, the 30th September, 1916?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the general depreciation affecting investments must in some measure affect the funds invested by approved societies. No return has been called for from the societies, and, in view of the pressure at which they are working, I do not think it would be desirable to press for a return at present. As regards funds invested by the Commission on behalf of societies in securities selected by the societies, the amount invested to 30th September, 1916, was £748,400; the approximate value of the securities in question at current market prices on 30th September, 1916, was £702,150.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bad investments by the Government of the approved societies money must lead to a postponement of those extra benefits which were promised on the introduction of the Bill?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Several matters are being inquired into very fully just now. Later on the question raised by my hon. Friend no doubt will hive to be dealt with.

    ROYAL NAVY (MARRTED OFFICERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the growing difficulty experienced by married junior officers of the Regular Services and by married commissioned warrant officers in making both ends meet out of their pay; and can he see his way, in view of the fact that concessions have been made in other quarters, to make some allowance by way of bonus or increased pay in order to enable these officers to meet their liabilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Increases of pay, amounting to over £40,000 per annum, were given to certain junior officers in February, 1915, but no distinction was made between married and unmarried officers, nor were commissioned warrant officers included. I may remind my hon. Friend that an attempt has been made to meet the cases of officers who have entered from civil life for the War by the establishment of the Civil Liabilities Committee.

    NAVAL PENSIONERS (LEAVE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the disappointment occasioned on account of so many pensioners in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, who have been afloat in foreign waters since the beginning of the War, not obtaining leave; and can he assure the House that some effort will be made to replace them by selecting younger men and, in many cases, single men from the ratings who for the last year or more have been enjoying home comforts in naval barracks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his question of the 23rd November on this subject.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked a question which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I told my hon. Friend on 23rd November, the policy generally is to get home the older pensioners who on the outbreak of the War went to sea. Further, I said that if my hon. Friend would give particulars of any specially "hard cases" they would be inquired into.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have on two occasions sent him such cases, and this morning I sent him similar cases of men in foreign waiters who had never been given any leave since the War started?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not yet seen the cases sent this morning.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about the other two?

    SCOTTISH MOTOR-LAUNCH DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval officer who was in command of the Scottish Motor-Launch Department is now no longer in charge of that Department; if so, to what Department he is removed; and whether he will have the supervision of his new Department or be in a subsidiary position there?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I fail to gather the purport of my hon. Friend's question. There is no Scottish Motor-Launch Department, nor any special or
    1302
    separate organisation for dealing with motor-launches in Scottish waters, except as part and parcel of the whole administrative scheme of the Auxiliary Patrol Service. There was a Royal Naval Motor-Boat Reserve Committee, but that was-dissolved in July, 1915. If my hon. Friend has in mind the Scottish Section officer of that Committee, I may say that he is still being employed in Scotland and that there is no intention of removing him.

    PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS (PRO-GERMANISM).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will take steps to see that school teachers and schoolmasters who are linked up with anti-British movements shall no longer be permitted to hold appointments in our British schools; if he is aware that these anti-British and pro-German movements are endeavouring to get teachers and schoolmasters to join their organisations for future unpatriotic ends; and if he will consider the danger of allowing the mental development of British school children to be left to such persons who openly boast of their pro-German sympathies and who sneer at the British flag?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The appointment and dismissal of teachers in public educational institutions in England and Wales rests with the local education authorities and governing bodies. I have no information which would justify me in assuming that those bodies cannot be trusted to see that teachers in their employment do not abuse their position in the manner suggested. I may add that all the information in the possession of the Board shows that the teaching profession need not fear comparison with any other profession as regards its patriotism.

    POLICE (TRADE UNIONS).
    Mr. THOMASasked whether there is any objection to the members of the Metropolitan Police combining in trades unions similar to that of the Post Office servants for the promotion and protection of the interests of the police?
    Sir G. CAVE: This question has been repeatedly before my predecessors at the Home Office, and after careful consideration, I fully agree with the decision at which they arrived, namely, that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow members of a police force to belong to a trade union. The public safety depends, as the members of the force would be the first to recognise, on the discipline and obedience of the police, and (as the late Home Secretary pointed out in an answer which he gave in this House on the 28th November last), a disciplined force like the Metropolitan Police, with special responsibilities for the peace and order of London, can no more be conducted on the basis of trade union recognition, such as prevail in ordinary industry, than could the Army or Navy. The position of the Post Office servants, to which the hon. Member refers, is quite different. I would remind the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Police can always make any representations they like as to their conditions of service to the Commissioner of Police and through him to the Secretary of State, and I feel confident that they will never fail to receive the careful and sympathetic consideration which their admrable work deserves.
    Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the police in Paris are permitted to have a trades union?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think we must deal only with our own affairs.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the men were allowed to join a trade union there would be better discipline than at present.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid not.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inform the House of the subject and nature of the relations in recent years between the British Government and an accredited agent of the French Masonic Secret Society called the Grand Orient passing as an Englishman or an alien, according to his purpose, and under such names as A. S. Headingly and Adolph Schmidt; and where and in what position this person now is?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no knowledge of the person to whom the hon. Member refers.

    HOUSE OF LORDS (GERMAN PRINCES).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he can explain the delay in introducing the promised Bill to deal with enemy German princes holding seats in the House of Lords; whether it is intended seriously to proceed with the Bill; whether, if prepared, it will be introduced in the House of Lords; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the ttiles of G.C.B. and G.C.V.O. are still held by His Highness Prince Albert John Charles Frederick Alfred George of Schleswig-Holstein, now in arms against the Sovereign and people of this Empire; if so, why has this traitorous personage not been struck off the roll of these knighthoods, in accordance with the promise of the late Prime Minister to the hon. Member for South Donegal; (2) whether he is aware that the Emperor of Germany, the Crown Prince of Germany, Prince Henry of Prussia, the Grand Duke of Hesse, and the Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, all enemies at open war with the Sovereign and people of these countries, are holders of the Royal Victorian Chain in the Royal Victorian Order; why have they not been struck off, as the names of enemy princes have been struck off the roll of the Order of the Garter; and (3) whether His Royal Highness Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, who is in command of German troops at war with the Sovereign and people of this Empire, and who, before the battle of the Ancre, arrived in the neighbourhood for the purpose of reviewing the German regiment of which he is a colonel, is still a G.C.V.O.; and, if so, what is the reason for the delay in striking him off the roll of that order of knighthood, having regard to the promise given by the late Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Donegal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With the permission of the House, I will answer these questions together. As I have

    1305
    already explained, the Government are not in a position to deal with this matter before the Recess, but I have undertaken that, with this reservation, there will be no delay.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far back as the 27th of July last the late Prime Minister promised me on the floor of this House that legislation would be instantly instituted, and that he likewise promised me that other gentlemen would be struck off the roll of knighthood. That could be done by a stroke of the pen, utterly irrespective of Parliament. Why is the House to be trifled with any longer in this way?
    Mr. BONARLAW: During the ten days or so of the existence of this Government we have not had time to deal with anything that does not arise in connection with the War.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the impression which prevails in this country that these men are being protected on account of their relationship?
    Mr. MacNEILL: It was stated that there were difficulties in relation to that Bill. I believe there are none. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a Bill I have prepared myself, and that I would bring in to-morrow if I were allowed? I ask him to take this Bill and lay it before the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Mr. BONARLAW: I shall be extremely glad to get the Bill, and I have no doubt it will be of assistance to the officials concerned in the matter.

    SOMME OFFENSIVE (GERMAN LOSSES).
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether the French Government have published their estimate of the losses inflicted on the German Army on the Western front since the beginning of the Somme offensive; whether the Imperial General Staff have formed an independent estimate; and, if so, whether the two substantially coincide and what is the total estimated to be?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as is known the French Government has published no official estimate of the German casualties of the Somme offensive. Unofficial esti-
    1306
    mates have, however, appeared in the "Journal des Debats" and other French newspapers, which place the German, losses on the Somme at about 690,000. An independent estimate made by the General Staff substantially coincides with this figure.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are not these figures approximately the same as those which have been published in the Press in this country appertaining to our own casualties on the Somme from the 1st of July?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, they are.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

  MUNITIONS.

    EMPLOYMENT OF MEN OF MILITARY AGE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of men of military age, many of them single and under thirty years of age, still employed at the Ministry of Munitions; that the majority of these men cannot be considered as indispensable from the standpoint of qualifications; and will he cause a thorough investigation of this Department to be made by a well qualified business man with power to report to some authority independent of the Ministry of Munitions?
    The MINISTER OF MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The hon. Member is evidently not aware that a thorough investigation of the Department from the military service point of view has recently been made by a Committee, including two business men appointed with the concurrence of the War Office and unconnected with the Ministry, who have had a wide experience of "combing out" business firms. I am sending him a copy of the Committee's report. Out of a total staff of over 7,500 at the Ministry of Munitions, only seventy-three men between the ages of eighteen and thirty inclusive are being retained who are fit for general service, of whom thirty-six are single. These men are retained on account of their technical qualifications.

    MESSRS. WARING AND GILLOW.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions the reason why the establishment of Messrs. Waring and Gillow is not controlled, seeing that the firm is engaged solely on war work?
    Dr. ADDISON: Those establishments of Messrs. Waring and Gillow, Limited, at which only munitions work is being carried on are now controlled.

    SUPERPHOSPHATE.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether he is aware that the manufacture of superphosphate is hindered by the fact that the Ministry of Munitions exercise a monopoly in the necessary acids; and whether he will, in view of the need of stimulating the production of food, make arrangements with the Ministry of Munitions so that the manufacturers of artificial manures can at once deal with the accumulations of raw materials which they have on hand?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have been requested to reply to this question. I am aware that in Great Britain, as in other belligerent countries, the production of superphosphate has been reduced in consequence of a proportion of the sulphuric acid used for this purpose having been diverted to the manufacture of explosives. I can assure my Noble Friend that every effort is being made by the Ministry to release the largest possible quantities of acid for the manufacture of artificial manures, but it is regretted that no hope can he held out of substantially increased supplies being availiable for this purpose for some time to come

    BANK HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received any representations from the National Union of Shop Assistants with regard to the position of shop assistants in the postponement of this year's Bank Holidays; and whether any arrangements will be made to ensure that these shop assistants shall have other holidays in lieu?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Under the Proclamation recently issued shop assistants who, in consequence of the postponement of the Whitsun and August Bank holidays were deprived of holidays which, either by agreement or custom, they would otherwise have received, and who have not already been given equivalent holidays in lieu, are entitled to receive such equivalent holidays before 1st March next.

    CHILDREN MUTILATED BY GERMANS IN BELGIUM.
    Mr. A. K. LOYDasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether materials are available for identifying and tracing the survivors of those children whose hands were cut off by the Germans, and whose cases are referred to by letter and number in the Report of the Bryce Committee; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of making the information accessible, confidentially or otherwise, to persons interested in the future of those survivors?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. In all but two of the individual cases in which children were seen by witnesses mutilated in this manner, the child was either dead or dying as a result of the treatment it had received. In view of the fact that these children were in Belgium, which is still in German occupation, it is unlikely that they could now be traced, and any attempt to do so at this time might lead to the further persecution of the victims or their relatives.
    Mr. LOYD: Were there not other cases brought over here to hospital?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not the eases to which the hon. Member's question refers.

    GENERAL ELECTION.
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity of national economy and in view of the fact that a General Election conducted on the present legal basis involves an expenditure of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000, he is prepared in the event of an early election to secure legislation that such election shall be held on one day; and that only a limited use shall be made of overworked Post Office officials for the distribution of election literature, and other steps taken to curtail the cost of such an election?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Should the necessity of a General Election arise, the suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered by the Government.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have

    1309
    questions of intrinsic importance answered by Ministers acquainted with the matters to which they relate, irrespective of whether the Members putting them are supported by a party or not; and, in the case of a new question of intrinsic importance, whether he will have the present practice of reference to previous answers discontinued and an answer given ad hoc to the question on the Paper?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will always be the endeavour of His Majesty's Government to have questions of intrinsic importance adequately answered.
    Mr. GINNELL: When the references are due not to necessity but to evasions, will the right hon. Gentleman have the question on the Paper answered, and will he apply his promise to Question 12 on the Paper to-day, which I have postponed until to-morrow?

    ALCOHOL (MANUFACTURE AND CONSUMPTION).
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reported decision of the French Government to requisition alcohol for national defence purposes and to suppress its ordinary consumption during the War, he is in a position to make a statement as to the necessity of taking further restrictive measures in this country in regard to the manufacture and consumption of intoxicating liquors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that action has been taken by the French Government of the nature indicated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I am not in a position to make any statement.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked whether steps are being taken to ensure that every possible prisoner of war shall be fully employed either at Home or with the Expeditionary Forces?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes, Sir, they are.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Prime Minister what has been decided with regard to the composition and constitution of the Standing Arbitration Tribunal to deal with questions arising between the Government and its civil employés?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The terms of reference for the Standing Arbitration Tribunal to be established for the settlement during the War of claims for increased remuneration for Civil employés of the Government are now being settled, and it is hoped that it may be possible to announce the names of the members of the tribunal at an early date.
    Mr. WARDLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the constitution of the tribunal will be?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather my hon. Friend would wait until I am able to make a full announcement.

    SPECIAL REGISTER
    Major NEWMANasked whether, in view of the more uncertain political out look, the Government still intend to delay the setting up of a new or Special Register until the Committee of Members who for some months have been studying various franchise and electoral problems have terminated their labours?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not proposed to introduce legislation upon this subject in the present Session.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that since the new Government came into office the outlook is more uncertain?

    CAPTAIN BLAIKIE.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the probable treatment by the German Government of Captain Blaikie, of the Anchor Line steamer "Caledonia," who is reported in danger of his life owing to his bravery in self-defence against a German submarine; and whether he can make any further statement upon the subject in view of the action taken by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BONARLAW: I am glad to be able to inform the House that a telegram has now been received from the United States Ambassador to the effect that the German Foreign Office has given a personal assurance to the Chargé d'Affaires of the United States Government in Berlin that Captain Blaikie will not share the fate of Captain Fryatt. It is added that the German Admiralty consider the "Caledonia" as an armed cruiser, and therefore that in attempting to ram the submarine Captain Blaikie was only doing his duty.

    BANK OF ENGLAND (DEATH CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has now definitely instructed the Bank of England as bankers for the Government to discontinue the practice of declining to accept death certificates in common official form unless accompanied by unofficial certificates from undertakers, sextons, and gravediggers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am in communication with the Governor of the Bank of England on this matter and will communicate further with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to make any statement.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of bakers, butchers, and grocers assessed to Excess Profits Duty for the first two yearly accounting periods, with the total amounts of the previous standards and the profits of each accounting period?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear I can add nothing to the reply which my predecessor gave in answer to a similar question on 28th November last. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    INLAND POSTAGE RATES.
    Mr. E. CECILasked the. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering the imposition of any further taxation, he will reconsider the practicability of charging an additional halfpenny postage on inland letters and postcards recommended by the Public Retrenchment
    1312
    Committee, more especially in view of the successful results of this experiment in Canada and other British Colonies and of its recent adoption in France?
    Mr. BONAR. LAW: While I cannot anticipate the Budget statement, I can assure my hon. Friend that all possible sources of revenue will be duly considered.

    INCOME TAX (SUPERANNUATION PREMIUMS).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to secure uniformity of treatment, he will direct that the portion of the salary of members of the staffs of the university colleges which, under the Government federated superannuation scheme, is now deducted with a view to enable the professors and other members of the staffs. to enjoy a pension when they reach a certain age, shall be exempted from the payment of Income Tax, as in the case of ordinary insurance premiums?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Deductions of the kind in question applied in payment of premiums to life insurance companies are treated in the same way for Income Tax purposes as ordinary life insurance premiums.

    ENEMY BANKS.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Home Secretary whether the late sub-manager, deputy sub-manager, and accountant of the Deutsche Bank, and the late chief of the bill department of the Disconto Gesellschaft, who are German enemy aliens, and who were recently permitted by the late Home Secretary to remain un-interned, after their services at the said banks were dispensed with, are now under police supervision; whether two other officers, whose work at the said banks or the Dresdner Bank has lately been terminated, are now interned: and, if not, on what grounds were they exempted, and are they under police supervision?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir. The four persons referred to, who, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, were permitted to remain uninterned, are, like other enemy subjects, under police supervision. As regards the second part

    1313
    of the question, it has now been ascertained that all the remaining officers were interned last year.

    SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM (IRELAND).
    Colonel BURNasked the Chief Secretary if there is an Order in Ireland by which soldiers in uniform are prohibited from entering a public-house in that country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been asked to answer this question and have called for a report. I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the position as soon as I receive the necessary information.

    PRISONS SERVICE (IRELAND).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total amount of the economies to be effected by the reorganisation scheme to be introduced in the Irish prisons service; what is the estimated sum which will be required to provide the proposed increase in the pay of the prison officials; what sum of money will be saved annually by the discontinuance of allowances to married warders; what is the net increase given to the chief and ordinary warders and clerks; what amount, if any, will be required to increase the salaries of governors and other officials above the position of clerks; and what reduction will be secured in the amount required for the Irish prisons service as a result of the reorganisation scheme?
    Mr. DUKE: It is estimated that the savings will ultimately amount to about £1,200 per annum. The estimated sum which will be required to provide the proposed increase in the pay of the prison officers is £4,100. Of this amount £2,100 will, it is estimated, be saved by the discontinuance of allowances to married warders of fuel and light in kind or cash allowances in lieu. The net immediate increase to chief and ordinary warders and clerks is estimated to amount to £l,450, the balance of £550 being absorbed by the increase granted to female officers. There is no question of an increase to the salaries of governors and other superior officers. It is anticipated that the Irish Prisons Vote for the year 1917–18 will show an increase of £4,000 as compared with that for the current financial year.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a large number of warders, instead of receiving any benefit from this new arrangement, receive quite the opposite; will he investigate the matter and see whether there is any undue hardship being placed upon the warders who have been accustomed, up to the present, to receive certain grants and privileges?
    Mr. DUKE: I will if I can.

    NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the reduction in the average number of pupils attending national schools in Ireland is a consequence of the War, the Government have arranged to suspend the rules which, if enforced, would degrade teachers and inflict upon them loss of salary and of assistants on account of this reduction; whether. the Commissioners of National Education have advised the suspension of those rules; and whether the suspension will be retrospective, so that teachers and assistants who have already suffered from this cause shall be indemnified?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot at present add anything to the reply given to the hon. Members for Kerry (West) and Belfast (West) on the 14th December.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in a position soon to give us some information?
    Mr. DUKE: I hope so.

    IRISH NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the head constable of Callan, county Kilkenny, entered a residence and forcibly secured a copy of a poster issued by the Irish National Volunteers Committee; will he state if he did so by authority; and, if so, will he state the source of the authority?
    Mr. DUKE: The poster in question, which was exposed to public view in a shop, contained matter contravening the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The head constable called the attention of the shopkeeper to it, and, with his consent, removed it.

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Sir Henry Grattan Bellew has yet sent in his resignation as a member of the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, will he request that gentleman to resign his position on that Board, in the interests of the tenants in Connemara and other congested districts in the West of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: Sir Henry Grattan Bellew has not resigned his membership of the Board, and the Board does not think right to ask him to resign.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the necessity of having direct representation on the Congested Districts Board for Connemara, would the question of an additional member for that part of Ireland be considered?
    Mr. DUKE: I will communicate with the Congested Districts Board on that subject.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the new arrangements now in force with regard to the sending of parcels of food to British civilian prisoners of war in Germany prevent relatives from sending food which they themselves purchase, even when sent through the recognised Central Committee; and whether this arrangement can be modified so as to allow invalids and others requiring special diet to receive parcels of food chosen for them by their families, who know their individual needs?
    Mr. J. HOPE: Under the Regulations now in force it is necessary for friends of British civilian prisoners of war in German to give their orders for parcels to the Central Prisoners of War Committee or to establishments authorised by the latter. For invalids the Central Committee send out standard parcels of special food on the application of prisoners' friends, while in particular oases, where the standard parcel does not satisfy the invalid prisoner's needs, permits are given to their friends to enable the food required to be ordered at certain authorised shops.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in possession of sufficient information to make a statement with reference to labourers' cottages at Portstewart; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which the urban council of Portstewart proposes to increase the rents of 17 labourers' cottages in the townland of Mullaghacahall from 1s. 3d. to 3s. per week; whether these houses have been in occupation of the present tenants for 10 years and the rents punctually paid; whether one of the tenants is at present serving with the Army in France, and of the others 18 men have gone to the Front; whether the Local Government Board refuses to interfere on the ground that it has no jurisdiction; and whether he will take immediate action to prevent what these tenants regard as. a breach of contract and an act of oppression?
    Mr. DUKE: The income produced by the rent of 1s. 3d. per week was insufficient to meet the annual expenditure in respect of these cottages, and an amount equivalent to about 4d. in the £ on the rateable area of the Portstewart Urban District was required to make good the deficit. At the new rent of 3s. the houses are almost self-supporting. The statement that the houses have been in occupation of the present tenants for ten years is, I am informed, inaccurate. Nearly all the young men of the urban district of Portstewart have gone to the Front. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction to interfere with the urban district council in the matter of the rents charged for their cottages.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a good method of getting recruits, to raise the rates of labourers' cottages when the labourers are away?
    Mr. DUKE: I could not answer that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see the sense of my observations, and draw the attention of this council to the question?
    Mr. DUKE: I will send a copy of the hon. Gentleman's observations to the council

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I gave notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a question with reference to the appointment of Committees of this House in connection with the great Departments and on the models of the French Commissions, and he has asked me to postpone the question. It may possibly be dealt with in the speech of the Prime Minister today. If it is not, I shall renew the question on another day.
SEATING ARRANGEMENTS.

  MR. SPEAKER'S SUGGESTION.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a matter connected with the seating arrangements in the House. Information has reached me that, in your judgment, it will be for the convenience of the House if I, and some of my hon. Friends, were to leave this bench which we have set on for a considerable time past, and were to find seats in some other part of the House. On that may I say that why I, at all events, have not taken that course hitherto is this: When the Coalition Government was formed last year, and the Leaders of the party to which I and my Friends belong joined that Government, it was not considered then necessary to have any general change in the seating arrangements of the House. Whether that was right or wrong, it is not for me to discuss. At all events, when our Leaders entered that Government we remained on these benches. Now that Coalition Government has been reconstructed. The majority of our Leaders who were in the last Government remain in this Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "Indispensables!"]—and from my point of view all that really has occurred is that one Liberal Prime Minister has taken the place of another. Under those circumstances it did not occur to me that there was any special reason why I and my Friends should go to the other side of the House. That impression was strongly confirmed when we read the report of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister, in which he said that he and his colleagues were supporters of the present Government. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and myself and my Friends are in the same position. We are all supporters
  1318
  of the present Government. Under those circumstances, apart from any desire expressed by yourself, Sir, it has never occurred to me that there was any reason to cross the floor of the House, or to vacate our present seats; but nothing would be further from my desire, and I am sure of my hon. Friends also, than to inflict upon any of these right hon. Gentlemen an unwelcome proximity. Therefore, speaking entirely for myself, and possibly for some of my hon. Friends, although we should not for a moment nave thought of altering our seats, for which we have an affection, we should not persist in doing anything which was pointed out to us would be inconvenient to the House, and certainly, after the expression from you, Sir, I shall certainly try to find a seat elsewhere.
  Mr. G. FABER: All I wish to say can be said in the words of Captain Macheath, "How happy could I be with either—"
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is every Member of the House entitled to make a statement as to the position in which he sits in the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The circumstances are a little peculiar. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) for consenting to fall in with my suggestion. The suggestion was made for this reason. It has always been the custom of the House for Members who act together to sit together, and it has generally been found convenient. I do not think it is quite correct to say that the only thing that has occurred is that one Liberal Prime Minister has succeeded another. I think the hon. Member will admit that there is now an Opposition which there was not before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Where?"] I certainly understood that there was an Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It seems to me only in accordance with the tradition of the House, and the usual custom and courtesy observed, to allow right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench to have in their immediate proximity their private secretaries and others who have been in the habit of acting closely politically with them. I have not asked the hon. Member or any of the hon. Members who sit on that bench to go on the other side of the House. All I suggested was that it would be desirable that the bench immediately behind the Front Opposition

  1319
  Bench should be left vacant for those who wish to be in immediate proximity to the right hon. Gentlemen occupying the Front Bench.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I respectfully put this question to you, Sir? As you have told the House that the change which you desire is on account of the formation of an Opposition by the right hon. Gentleman the recent Prime Minister, I think, for the convenience of the House, we should know where we stand. Am I to understand—do you, Sir, gather that the action of the right hon. Gentleman is to reintroduce party politics?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am not the person to decide whether or not there is an Opposition. Events only can show that. The future alone can tell.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I only want to say one word as an hon. Member concerned. I have complied with your suggestion, as I think right and proper, but I should like very respectfully to submit that it is not desirable in this time of national stress that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite should draw any party distinction.

BILL PRESENTED.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND BODIES (LOANS) BILL,—"to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of councils of counties and of municipal boroughs, and other public authorities and bodies," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Gamble Institute, Gourock, Order Confirmation Bill.
Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill.
Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Bill, without Amendment.
Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, with Amendments.
Prevention of Corruption Bill, with an Amendment.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bil 141.1]
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    GOVERNMENT POLICY.

      PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)—rising at ten minutes after four o'clock—I am afraid I shall have to claim the indulgence of the House in making the observations which I have to make in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I am still suffering a little from my throat. I appear before the House of Commons to-day, with the most terrible responsibility that can fall upon the shoulders of any living man, as the chief adviser of the Crown, in the most gigantic War in which the country has ever been engaged—a war upon the event of which its destiny depends. It is the greatest War ever waged. The burdens are the heaviest that have been cast upon this or any other country, and the issues which hang on to it are the gravest that have been attached to any conflict in which humanity has ever been involved. The responsibilities of the new Government have been suddenly accentuated by a declaration made by the German Chancellor, and I propose to deal with that at once. The statement made by him in the German Reichstag has been followed by a Note presented to us by the United States of America without any note or comment. The answer that will be given by the Government will be given in full accord with all our brave Allies. Naturally, there has been an interchange of views, not upon the Note, because it only recently arrived, but upon the speech which propelled it, and, inasmuch as the Note itself is practically only a reproduction, or certainly a paraphrase of the speech, the subject matter of the Note itself has been discussed informally between the Allies, and I am very glad to be able to state that we have each of us separately and independently arrived at identical conclusions.
      I am very glad that the first answer that was given to the statement of the
      1334
      German Chancellor was given by France and by Russia. They have the unquestionable right to give the first answer to such an invitation. The enemy is still on their soil; their sacrifices have been greater. The answer they have given has already appeared in all the papers, and I simply stand here to-day, on behalf of the Government, to give clear and definite support to the statement which they have already made. Let us examine what. the statement is, and examine it calmly. Any man or set of men who wantomly, or without sufficient cause, prolonged a terrible conflict like this would have on his. soul a crime that oceans could not cleanse. Upon the other hand it is equally true that any man or set of men who out of a sense of weariness or despair abandoned the struggle without achieving the high purpose for which we had entered into it-being nearly fulfilled would have been guilty of the costliest act of poltroonery ever perpetrated by any statesman. I should like to quote the very well known words of Abraham Lincoln under similar conditions:
      "We accepted this war for an object, and a worthy object, and the war will end when that object is attained. Under God I hope it will never end until that time."
      Are we likely to achieve that object by accepting the invitation of the German Chancellor? That is the only question we have to put to ourselves. There has been some talk about proposals of peace. What are the proposals? There are none. To enter at the invitation of Germany, proclaiming herself victorious, without any knowledge of the proposals she proposes to make, into a conference, is to put our heads into a noose with the rope end in the hands of Germany. This country is not altogether without experience in these matters. This is not the first time we have fought a great military despotism that was overshadowing Europe, and it will not be the first time we shall have helped to overthrow military despotism. We have an uncomfortable historical memory of these things, and we can recall when one of the greatest of these despots had a purpose to serve in the working of his nefarious schemes. His favourite device was to appear in the garb of the angel of peace. He usually-appeared under two conditions, firstly, when he wished for time to assimilate his conquests, or to reorganise his forces for fresh conquests; and, secondly, when his subjects showed symptoms of fatigue and war weariness, and invariably the appeal

      1335
      was always made in the name of humanity; and he demanded an end to bloodshed at which he professed himself to be horrified but for which he himself was mainly responsible. Our ancestors were taken in once, and bitterly they and Europe rue it. The time was devoted to reorganising his forces for a deadlier attack than ever upon the liberties of Europe and examples of that kind cause as to regard this Note with a considerable measure of reminiscent disquiet. We feel that we ought to know before we can give favourable consideration to such an invitation that Germany is prepared to accede to the only terms on which it is possible for peace to be obtained and maintained in Europe. What arc those terms? They have been repeatedly stated by all the leading statesmen of the Allies. My right hon. Friend has stated them repeatedly here and outside, and all I can do is to quote, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did last week, practically the statement of the terms put forward by my right hon. Friend:
      "Restitution, reparation, guarantee against repetition."
      so that there shall be no mistake, and it is important that there should be no mistake in a matter of life and death to millions. Let me repeat again—complete restitution, full reparation, effectual guarantees. Did the German Chancellor use a single phrase to indicate that he was prepared to concede such terms? Was there a hint of restitution? Was there any suggestion of reparation? Was there any indication of any security for the future that this outrage on civilisation would not be again perpetrated at the first profitable opportunity? The very substance and style of the speech constitutes a denial of peace on the only terms on which peace is possible. He is not even conscious now that Germany has committed any offence against the rights of free nations. Listen to this from the Note:
      "Not for an instant have they (they being (he Central Powers) swerred from the conviction that the respect of rights of other nations is not in any degree compatible with their own rights and legitimate interests."
      When did they discover that? Where was the respect for the rights of other nations in Belgium and Serbia? Oh, that was self-defence! Menaced, I suppose, by the overwhelming armies of Belgium, the Germans had been intimidated into invading that country, to the burning of Belgian cities and villages, to the mas-
      1336
      sacring of thousands of inhabitants, old and young, to the carrying of the survivors into bondage; yea, and they were carrying them into slavery at the very moment when this precious Note was being written about the unswerving conviction as to the respect of the rights of other nations! I suppose these outrages are the legitimate interests of Germany? We must know. That is not the mood of peace. If excuses of this kind for palpable crimes can be put forward two and a half years after the exposure by grim facts of the guarantee, is there, I ask in all solemnity, any guarantee that similar subterfuges will not be used in the future to overthrow any treaty of peace you may enter into with Prussian militarism? This Note and that speech proves that not yet have they learned the very alphabet of respect for the rights of others. Without reparation, peace is impossible. Are all these outrages against humanity on land and on sea to be liquidated by a few pious phrases about humanity? Is there to be no reckoning for them? Are we to grasp the hand that perpetrated these atrocities in friendship without any reparation being tendered or given? I am told that we are to begin, Germany helping us, to exact reparation for all future violence committed after the War. We have begun already. It has already cost us so much, and we must exact it now so as not to leave such a grim inheritance to our children. Much as we all long for peace, deeply as we are horrified with war, this Note and the speech which propelled it afford us small encouragement and hope for an honourable and lasting compact.
      What hope is there given by that speech that the whole root and cause of this great bitterness, the arrogant spirit of the Prussian military caste, will not be as dominant as ever if we patch up a peace now? Why the very speech in which these peace suggestions are made resounds with the boasts of Prussian military triumphs of victory. It is a long pæan over the victory of Von Hindenburg and his legions. This very appeal for peace is delivered ostentatiously from the triumphant chariot of Prussian militarism. We must keep a steadfast eye upon the purpose for which we entered the War, otherwise the great sacrifices we have been making will be all in vain. The German Note states that it was for the defence of their existence and the freedom of national development that the Central Powers were con-

      1337
      strained to take up arms. Such phrases cannot even deceive those who pen them. They are intended to delude the German nation into supporting the designs of the Prussian military caste. Whoever wishes to put an end to their existence and the freedom of their national development? We welcomed their development as long as it was on the paths of peace. The greater their development upon that road, the greater will all humanity be enriched by their efforts. That was not our design, and it is not our purpose now. The Allies entered this War to defend themselves against the aggression of the Prussian military domination, and having begun it, they must insist that it can only end with the most complete and effective guarantee against the possibility of that caste ever again disturbing the peace of Europe. Prussia, since she got into the hands of that caste, has been a bad neighbour, arrogant, threatening, bullying, litigious, shifting boundaries at her will, taking one fair field after another from weaker neighbours, and adding them to her own domain, with her belt ostentatiously full of weapons of offence, and ready at a moment's notice to use them. She has always been an unpleasant disturbing neighbour in Europe, and no wonder that the Prussians got thoroughly on the nerves of Europe. There was no peace near where she dwelt.
      It is difficult for those who were fortunate enough to live thousands of miles away to understand what it has meant to those who lived near their boundaries. Even here, with the protection of the broad seas between us, we know what a disturbing factor the Prussians were with their constant naval menace, but even we can hardly realise what it has meant to Prance and to Russia. Several times there were threats directed to them within the lifetime of this generation which.presented the alternative of war or humiliation. There were many of us who hoped that internal influence in Germany would have been strong enough to check and ultimately to eliminate this hectoring. All our hopes proved illusory, and now that this great War has been forced by the Prussian military leaders upon France, Russia, Italy, and ourselves, it would be folly, it would be cruel folly, not to see to it that this swashbuckling through the streets of Europe to the disturbance of all harmless and peaceful citizens shall be dealt with now as an offence against the law of nations. The
      1338
      mere word that lead Belgium to her own destruction will not satisfy Europe any more. We all believed it. We all trusted it. It gave way at the first pressure of temptation, and Europe has been plunged into this vortex of blood. We-will, therefore, wait until we hear what terms and guarantees the German Government offer other than those, better than those, surer than those which she so lightly broke, and meanwhile we shall put our trust in an unbroken Army rather than in a broken faith. For the moment, I do not think it would be advisable for me to add anything upon this particular invitation. A formal reply will be delivered by the Allies in the course of the-next few days.
      I shall therefore proceed with the other part of the task which I have in front of me. What is the urgent task in front of the Government? To complete and make even more effective the mobilisation of all our national resources, a mobilisation which has been going on since the commencement of the War, so as to enable-the nation to bear the strain, however prolonged, and to march through to victory, however lengthy, and however exhausting may be the journey. It is a gigantic task, and let me give this word of warning: If there be any who have given their confidence to the new Administration in expectation of a speedy victory, they will be doomed to disappointment. I am not going to paint a gloomy picture of the military situation—if I did, it would not be-a true picture—but I must paint a stern picture, because that accurately represents the facts. I have always insisted on the ration being taught to realise the actual facts of this War. I have attached enormous importance to that at the risk of being characterised as a pessimist. I believe that a good many of our misunderstandings have arisen from exaggerated views which have been taken about successes and from a disposition to treat, as trifling real set backs. To imagine that you can only get the support and the help, and the best help, of a strong people by concealing difficulties is to show a fundamental misconception. The British people possess as sweet a tooth as anybody and they like pleasant things put on the table, but that is not the stuff that they have been brought up on. That is not what the British Empire has been nourished on. Britain has never shown at its best except when it was confronted with a real danger and understood it.

      1339
      Let us for a moment look at the worst. The Roumanian blunder was an unfortunate one, but at worst it prolongs the War; it does not alter the fundamental facts of the War. I cannot help hoping that it may even have a salutary effect in calling the attention of the Allies to obvious defects in their organisation, not merely the organisation of each but the organisation of the whole, and if it does that and braces them up to fresh effort it may prove, bad as it is, a blessing. That is the worst. That has been a real setback. It is the one cloud—well, it is the darkest cloud—and it is a cloud that appeared on a clearing horizon. We are doing our best to make it impossible that that disaster should lead to worse. That is why we have taken in the last few days very strong action in Greece. We mean to take no risks there. We have decided to take definite and decisive action, and I think it has succeeded. We have decided also to recognise the agents of that great Greek Statesman, M. Venizelos.
      I wanted to clear out of the way what I regarded as the worst features in the military situation, but I should like to say one word about the lesson of the fighting on the Western front, not about the military strategy but about the significance of the whole of that great struggle, one of the greatest struggles ever waged in the history of the world. It is full of encouragement and of hope. Just look at it. An absolutely new Army! The old had done its duty and spent itself in the achievement of that great task. This is a new Army. But a year ago it was ore in the earth of Britain, yea, and of Ireland. It became iron. It has passed through a fiery furnace, and the enemy knows that it is now fine steel—an absolutely new Army, new men, new officers taken from schools, boys from schools, from colleges, from counting-houses, never trained to war, never thought of war, many of them perhaps never handled a weapon of war, generals never given the opportunity of handling great masses of men! Some of us had seen the manoeuvres. What would now be regarded as a division attacking a small village is more than our generals ever had the opportunity of handling before the War. Compared with the great manoeuvres on the Continent, they were toy manoeuvres. And yet this New Army, new men, new officers, generals new to this kind of work, they have faced the greatest Army in the
      1340
      world, the greatest Army the world has ever seen, the best equipped and the best trained, and they have beaten them, beaten them, beaten them! Battle after battle, day after day, week after week! From the strongest enternchments ever devised by human skill they have driven them out by valour, by valour which is incredible when you read the story of it.
      There is something which gives you hope, which flls you with pride in the nation to which they belong. It is a fact, and it is a fact full of significance for us— and for the foe. It is part of his reckoning as well. He has seen that Army grow and proved under his very eyes. A great French general said to me, "Your Army is a new Army. It must learn, not merely generals, not merely officers, but the men must learn not merely what to do, but how and when to do it. They are becoming veterans, and therefore, basing our confidence upon these facts, I am as convinced as I ever was of ultimate victory if the nation proves as steady, as valorous, as ready to sacrifice and as ready to learn and to endure as that great Army of our sons in France. That is all I shall say at the present moment about the military situation.
      I should like now to say a word or two about the Government it self, and, in doing so, I am anxious to avoid all issues that excite irritation or controversy or disunion. This is not a time for that. But it must not be assumed, if I do so, that I accept as complete the accounts which have been given of the way in which the Government was formed. My attitude. towards the policy of the late Administration, of which I was a member and for all whose deeds I am just as responsible as any one of them, has been given in letters and memoranda, and my reasons for leaving have also been given in a letter. If it were necessary, I should have, on personal grounds, welcomed its publication; but I am convinced that controversies as to the past will not help us as to the future, and therefore, as far as I am concerned, I place them on one side and go on with what I regard as the business of the Government under these trying conditions. I should like to say something, first of all, as to the unusual character and composition of the Government as an executive body.
      The House has realised that there has been a separation between the functions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. That was because we came to the conclusion that it was more than any

      1341
      one man, whatever his energy or physical strength might be, could do to undertake both functions in the middle of a great? war. The task of the Leader of the House is a very anxious and absorbing task, even in war. I have not been able to attend the House very much myself during the last two or three years, but I have been here often enough to realise that the task of the Leader of the House of Commons is not a sinecure even in a war—friends of mine took care that it should not be so. So much for that point. Now there are three characteristics in the present Administration in which it may be said it has departed, perhaps, from precedent. First of all, there is the concentration of the Executive in a very few hands; the second is the choosing of men of administrative and business capacity rather than men of Parliamentary experience, where we were unable to obtain both for the headship of a great Department; and the third is a franker and fuller recognition of the partnership of Labour in the Government of this?country. No Government that has ever been formed to rule this country has had such a share—such a number of men who all their lives have been associated with labour and with the labour organisations of this country. We realised that it is impossible to conduct war without getting the complete and unqualified support of Labour, and we were anxious to obtain their assistance and their counsel for the purpose of the conduct of the War.
      The fact that this is a different kind of organisation to any that preceded it is not a criticism upon its predecessors— not necessarily. They were peace structures. They were organised for a different purpose and a different condition of things. The kind of craft you have for river or canal traffic is not exactly the kind of vessel you construct for the high seas. I have no doubt that the old Cabinets—I am not referring to the last Cabinet—I am referring to the old system of Cabinets, where the heads of every Department were represented inside the Cabinets—I have no doubt that the old Cabinets were better adapted to navigate the Parliamentary river with its shoals and shifting sands, and perhaps for a cruise in home waters. But a -Cabinet of twenty-three is rather top-heavy for a gale. I do not say that this particular craft is best adapted for Pardiamentary navigation, but I am con-
      1342
      vinced it is the best for the War, in which you want quick decision above everything. Look at the last two and a half years. I am not referring to what has happened in this country. When I say these things I would rather the House of Commons looked at the War as a whole, and took the concerns of the Allies as a whole. We are all perfectly certain, and I shall have the assent of my right hon. Friend in this, that the Allies have suffered disaster after disaster through tardiness of decision and action, very largely for reasons I shall give later on. I know in this I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend. It is true that in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom. That was written for Oriental countries in peace times. You cannot run a war with a Sanhedrim. That is the meaning of the Cabinet of five, with one of its members doing sentry duty outside, manning the walls, and defending the Council Chamber against attack while we are trying to do our work inside.
      Some concern has been expressed at the relationship of this small executive to other members. It has been suggested there is danger of lack of co-ordination and common direction. It has been wondered how we can ever meet: one very respectable newspaper suggests there ought to be weekly dinners to discuss matters of common concern. What is the difficulty? Whenever anything concerns a particular Department you follow precedent. This is not the first time you have had heads of Departments outside the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, the practice of putting every head of a Department inside the Cabinet is quite a modern innovation, and the way in which Governments have been in the habit of dealing with that situation is whenever there is anything that concerns a particular Department, the head of that Department, with his officers, attends the executive Committee and you immediately get into contact with each other and discuss those problems which require solution. That is an old practice. I think it is a very effective practice. It is very much better, especially in time of war, than keeping men away from their Departments discussing things which do not directly concern them. But while undoubtedly their counsel may be very valuable, when you have a considerable number of people brought together you

      1343
      are apt to create confusion and thus to delay decision. There is another point of departure and another change, and that is the amalgamation of the old War Committee with the Cabinet. The old War Committee had what the Cabinet had not, it had secretaries to keep a complete record of all decisions, and this no Cabinet has ever had. They were always a question of memory. I do not think my right hon. Friend, or any of his predecessors, ever took a note of the decisions.
      Mr. ASQUITH: Perhaps I may explain. It is desirable there should be no mistake. It is the inflexible unwritten rule of the Cabinet that no member shall take any note or record of the proceedings except the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister does so for the purpose—and it is the only record of the proceedings kept—of sending his letter to the King.
      5.0 P.M.
      The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. That is the real difference between the War Committee and the Cabinet. In the War Committee a full record was taken of every decision and the minutes were sent round to each member for correction. The matters dealt with there were just as confidential—I might even say more confidential—than the vast majority of questions decided in the Cabinet. Henceforth there will be no distinction between your War Committee and your War Cabinet. The secretary will always be there; we propose to strengthen his staff so that we might have more direct means of communication and a more organised means of communication between the Cabinet and various Departments than you have ever had in the past. I come now to the other point, which has caused some misgiving. There seems to be a little concern lest the new organisation should have the effect of lessening Parliamentary control. I wonder why on earth it would do that. Each Minister answers for his Department exactly in the same way as under the old system. Each Minister is accountable for his Department to Parliament, and the Government as a whole are accountable to Parliament. The control of Parliament as a whole must, and always must, be supreme because it represents the nation. There is not the slightest attempt here to derogate in any particular from the complete control
      1344
      of Parliament. I do not think the present methods of Parliamentary control are efficient, but that is not a change which has come about through the new Administration I have always thought that the methods of Parliamentary control, and I speak here as a fairly old Parliamentarian, rather tended to give undue prominence to trivialities—my right hon. Friend and I have talked over this matter many a time—and on the other hand that it rather tended to minimise and ignore realities. Whether you can improve upon that I personally have never had any doubt, but I have always thought—I do not know whether I carry anyone with me on this except my hon. Friend who sits there—that the French system was a more effective one—the system whereby Ministers have to appear before Parliamentary Committees, where questions can be asked them, and where they can give an action which they would not care to give in public. I think that in many respects that system has helped to save France from one or two very serious, blunders. I am not committing the Government to that beyond this, that we are investigating that question. It is just possible we might refer the matter to Parliament to settle for itself, because it is not so much a question for the Government as a question for Parliament itself to decide, subject, of course, to any criticism or suggestion which the Government might wish to make, as to the best and most efficient methods during a period of War of exercising Parliamentary control over the Departments. Now I come to the work of the Government, which the Government is cutting out for itself. I had hoped to be able to tell the House of Commons a good deal more upon three or four very vital matters than I am in a position to do owing to reasons over which I have no control. I have not been able to confer with heads of Departments nor with my Friends in the Cabinet, and therefore two or three questions upon-, which I should have liked to pronounce decisions to-day I am not in a position, unfortunately, to do so. My right hon. Friends yesterday—the Home Secretary, in introducing a Bill, and the Leader of the House subsequently—gave a very detailed account of the probable working of the new Ministries, and therefore I shall have very little to say with regard to these. Take the Ministry of Labour. It has been urged for thirty years by organised labour in this country, and my experience in the Ministry of Munitions has.

      1345
      taught me this, that it was desirable there should be a Department which was not altogether in the position of employer to employed to those who were concerned whenever there was a dispute about labour conditions or wages; but I hope that this Department will not con-line itself merely to the settling of disputes, That is but a small part of the whole industrial problem, which I hope this Ministry will assist in solving. I hope it will become in a real sense a Ministry with the well-being of labour in its charge. In the Munitions Department I had the privilege of setting up something that was known as a Welfare Department, which was an attempt to take advantage of the present malleability of industry, in order to impress upon it move humanitarian conditions, to make labour less squalid and less repellent, and more attractive and more healthy. A number of very able volunteers are organising that Department, and I am glad to be able to say about some of them that they belong to the Society of Friends and have had a rooted objection to war, which is due to the creed they profess—no one has doubted their sincerity—but they have never carried it so far as to say that during a War they should take no part in any national burden; and they are working hard in this Department. Then I am hoping that this Department will take a leading part in assisting in the mobilisation of labour for the purposes of the War, a matter to which I shall refer later on. I think my right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House what we propose to do with regard to shipping. It was never so vital to the life of the nation as it is at the present moment, during the War. It is the jugular vein, which, if severed, would destroy the life of the nation, and the Government felt the time had come for taking over more complete control of all the ships of this country and placing them in practically the same position as are the railways of the country at the present moment; so that during the War shipping will be nationalised in the real sense of the term. The prodigious profits which were made out of freights were contributing in no small measure to the high cost of commodities, and I always found not only that, but that they were making it difficult for us in our task with labour. Whenever I met organised labour under any conditions where I would persuade them Vol.
      1346
      to give up privileges, I always had hurled at me phrases about the undue and extravagant profits of shipping. This is intolerable in war time, when so many are making so great sacrifices for the State. Sir Joseph Maclay, one of the ablest shipowners in the United Kingdom, has undertaken to direct this great enterprise with one sole object—the service of the country. He is now conferring with the Admiralty and the very able Shipping Control Committee over which Lord Curzon presided, and I hope I shall be in a position to inform the House of the plans and projects he recommends should be taken not merely for the more effective nationalisation of the ships which we have already on the register, but the speedy construction of more, so as to make up the wastage which, I fear, is inevitable in any great war, especially when you are dealing with such piratical methods as those which have characterised the maritime policy of the German Empire. With regard to mines, here the Government also feel, as the late Government did, that they are dealing with an essential commodity which is the very life of industry. It is an essential ingredient to our military and industrial efficiency, and we ought to assume more direct control over not merely one coalfield, but over the whole industry. The conditions are being carefully considered and will be stated to the House of Commons, but I am not sure whether we can place our plans before it before we separate. Now I feel I must say something about the food problem. It is undoubtedly serious and will be grave unless not merely the Government but the nation is prepared to grapple with it courageously without loss of time. The main facts are fairly well known. The available harvests of the world have failed. Take Canada and the United States of America. As compared with last year the harvests were hundreds of millions of bushels down, and that means that the surplus available for sale abroad is diminished to an extent which is disastrous. In times of peace we can always make up the deficiency in any particular country by resorting to another. If America failed there was Russia or the Argentine—but the Argentine promises badly—and Australia. Russia is not available; Australia means almost prohibitive transport. When we come to our own harvest, which is not a mean ingredient in the whole, not merely was the

      1347
      harvest a poor one, but, what is still more serious, during the time when the winter wheat ought to have been sown the weather was almost prohibitive, if not altogether, and I do not believe more than three-eights of the usual sowing has taken place. Let us clearly understand what it means. Let us get to the bottom of this. Unless the nation knows what it means you cannot ask them to do their duty. It is true that to a certain extent you can make up by the spring sowing, but as any agriculturist knows that never produces anything comparable to the winter sowing.
      Those are the main features so far as the harvest is concerned. We have always got the submarine menace which, in this respect, is not the most important one to consider. Under these conditions, it was decided by the late Government to appoint a Food Controller, and we have actually appointed him—an able, experienced administrator, especially in these matters, and a man of great determination and force of character. He is assisted by the ablest experts in this House. We always know the quality of a man by opposing him for years, and my hon. Friend (Captain Bathurst) many a time found it to be his duty to make himself very active on Rills which I had the burden of carrying through this House, so that I know something about his qualities. At the head of the Board of Agriculture we have a man who is singularly gifted and who has as thorough a knowledge of the principles and the practices of this question as any man in this or any other country. I felt it important that we should secure the very best brains in the country to bear upon this very difficult and very dangerous problem. The problem is a double one; it is one of distribution and of production. In respect of both, we must call upon the people of this country to make real sacrifices, but it is essential, when we do so, that the sacrifices should be equal. The over-consumption by the affluent must not be allowed to create a shortage for the less well-to-do. I am sure we can depend upon men and women of all conditions—to use an ordinary phrase which I am sure the House will allow me to use because it is thoroughly well understood—I hope we can appeal to men and women of all ranks and conditions to play the game. Any sort of concealment hurts the nation. It hurts it when it is fighting for
      1348
      its life. Therefore, we must appeal to the nation as a whole, men and women—without the help of the whole nation we can accomplish nothing—to assist us to so distribute our resources that there shall be no man, woman or child who will be suffering from hunger because someone else has been getting too much.
      When you come to production, every available square yard must be made to produce food. The labour available for tillage should not be turned to more ornamental purposes until the food necessities of the country have been adequately safeguarded. The best use must be made of land and of labour to increase the food supplies of this country—corn, potatoes, and all kinds of food products. All those who have the opportunity must feel it is their duty to the State to assist in producing and in contributing to the common stock, upon which everybody can draw. If they do this, we shall get food without any privation, without any want, everybody having plenty of the best and healthiest food. By that means and that means alone will the nation be able to* carry through the War to that triumphal issue to which we are all looking forward. It means sacrifice. But what sacrifice? Talk to a man who has returned from the horrors of the Somme, or who has been through the haunting wretchedness of a winter campaign, and you will know something of what those gallant men are enduring for their country. They are-enduring much, they are hazarding all, whilst we are living in comfort and security at home. You cannot have absolute equality of sacrifice. In a-war that is impossible, but you can have equal readiness to sacrifice from all. There are hundreds of thousands who have given their lives, there are millions who have given up comfortable homes and exchanged them for a daily communion with death; multitudes have given up those whom they love best. Let the nation as a whole place its comforts, its luxuries, its indulgencies, its elegances on a national altar consecrated by such sacrifices as these men have made. Let us proclaim during the War a national Lent. The nation will be better and stronger for it, mentally and morally as well as physically. It will strengthen its fibre, it will ennoble its spirit. Without it we shall not get the full benefit of this struggle. Our Armies might drive the enemy out of the battered villages of France, across;

      1349
      the devastated plains of Belgium; they might hurl them across the Rhine in battered disarray, but unless the nation as a whole shoulders part of the burden of victory it will not profit by the triumph, for it is not what a nation gains, it is what a nation gives that makes it great.
      While the nation is making such enormous sacrifices as those I have already pointed out, it is intolerable that any section should be permitted to make exceptional profits out of those sacrifices and by that means actually increase the burdens borne by others. A good deal has already been done by the late Administration to arrest unfair private profiteering out of the War. The Govern-men have come to the conclusion that they cannot ask the nation for more sacrifices without even more drastic steps yet being taken. There are several ways of dealing with this problem. One is the annexation of all war profits; another is the cutting down of prices so as to make excessive profits impossible. The Munitions Act adopted both of those expedients. Eighty per cent. of the profits in controlled firms were annexed. In addition to that, there has been a most searching and minute revision of prices in the controlled firms, and enormous reductions have already been achieved in those firms. The problem is now being carefully examined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, and we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly as to the course the Government intend to adopt. It is quite clear that if the nation must be asked to make further sacrifices in order to win the War, the road should be cleared by action of this kind.
      I now come to an even more difficult subject, one which is equally vital to the success of this country in this great War. I have hitherto talked largely of the mobilisation of the material resources of the nation. I now come to the mobilisation of the labour reserves of the country, which are even more vital to our success than the former. Without this— let us make no mistake—we shall not be able to pull through. It is not the mere haphazard law of supply and demand that will accomplish that which is necessary to save the nation within the time that it is essential it should be accomplished. It is not a question of years. It is a question of months, perhaps of weeks. Unless not merely the material resources of the country but the labour
      1350
      of the country is used to the best advantage, and every man is called upon to render such service to the State as he can best give, victory is beyond our reach. The problem with which we are confronted is a difficult one. Nearly a year ago we decided that in order to maintain our Armies in the field the nation must have complete control over all its military resources in men. But it is impossible to take men into the Army without taking them from civil employment of greater or less utility, and it has been our object—an object that becomes more and more plain as times goes on; it was plain to the late Administration as well as to ourselves—to establish such a system of recruiting as will ensure that no man is taken into the Army who is capable of rendering more useful service in industry. To complete our plan for the organisation of all the national resources, we ought to have power to say that every man who is not taken into the Army, whatever his position or rank, really is employed on work of national importance. For instance, I was constantly appealed to as Secretary of State for War to release men for agricultural work. The Army Council and those in charge were quite prepared to do so, but there was absolutely no guarantee that, if the men were released, they would be used for agricultural purposes—not the least. The moment they were released from the Army they were free to go to munition work or to any other work where they thought they could sell their labour to the best advantage, or where they thought they could live under the most pleasant conditions.
      We could not ensure that these men, if released, would be used for agricultural purposes, and we were constantly confronted with these difficulties. That is one of the problems with which you must deal if the nation is to have the full benefit of such labour reserves as are still left to it. At present it is only the man who is fitted for military service, and has not established a claim for exemption on whom the nation can call. The unfit man and the exempted man are surely under the same moral obligation, but still there is no means of enforcing it. It is with this imperfect organisation of our industrial man-power that we are called upon to confront an enemy who not only exercises to the full his undoubted right over his own population, but has introduced a practice hitherto unknown to

      1351
      civilised warfare of removing the civilian inhabitants of occupied territory to make good the shortage of labour in his own factories. It is necessary that we should make a swift and effective answer to Germany's latest move. As our Armies grow, our needs for munitions grow. There is a large part of our labour for munition purposes which is immobile. There may be a surplus in one factory and a shortage in another. We have no power to transfer men. As the months go by the cost of the war increases. Our purchases in neutral countries become more difficult to finance, yet there may be and there are thousands of men occupied in industries which consume our wealth at home, and do nothing to strengthen our credit abroad. Yet we have no power to transfer them from employment where they are wasting our strength and their own to employments where they could increase it. We have not even the organisation necessary for utilising them as volunteers.
      These are the powers which we must take, and this is the organisation which we must complete. I could dwell upon it by the illustration of agriculture. There is undoubtedly in this country a considerable number of people skilled in tillage of the soil who are not producing food, but we cannot mobilise them. We cannot direct them. I believe that there are scores, if not hundreds of thousands of people of that kind—there is no question here of military age—who, if we could utilise them to the best advantage, could produce great quantities of food in this country, but we cannot do it. Not only that. The difficulty in agriculture is the want of skilled men. You may have two or three skilled men on a particular farm, or the farmers may have no skilled men at all, yet two or three skilled men, if you could treat them as commissioned officers, could look after not merely one farm, but several farms, with the aid of unskilled ment or women working under them.
      Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Willthe right hon. Gentleman let us know what he is going to do about that?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I thought that I had made that fairly clear. I cannot in the course of a speech like this give the whole details of the plans of my right hon. Friends here, with regard to agriculture, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that
      1352
      there are schemes of very great magnitude which have been formulated, and which are in course of being put into operation. They will involve great local organisation throughout the country, and I think that my right hon. Friend will be very satisfied with them when he sees them. The matter was considered by the War Committee of the late Government, and it was unanimously decided by them that the time had come for the adoption of the principle of universal national service. It was one of the first matters taken up by the present Government, and the War Cabinet have unanimously adopted the conclusions come to by the preceding War Cabinet. I believe that the plans which we. have made will secure to every worker all that he has the right to ask for.
      In order to do this it is proposed to appoint at once a Director of National Service, to be in charge of both the military and the civil side of universal national service. The civil and military side of the directory are to be entirely separate, and there, shall be a military and a civil director responsible to the Director of National Service. The Military Director will be responsible for recruiting for the Army, and will hand over to the War Office the recruits obtained. Here I need not elaborate, because it is not proposed to make any change in recruiting for military service. As regards civilian service it is proposed that the Director of. National Service shall proceed by the scheduling of industries and of services according to their essential character during the War. Certain industries are regarded as indispensable and the departments concerned will indent upon the Director of National Service for the labour which they require for those services, and other services will be rationed in such matters as labour, raw material, and power. Labour that is set free from non-essential and rationed industries will be available to set free potential soldiers who are at present exempted from military service and to increase the available supply of labour for essential services. This labour will be invited to enrol at once and be registered as war workers on lines analogous to the existing munitions volunteers, with similar provisions as to rates of pay and separation allowance.
      I have no doubt that when it is realised how essential to the life of the nation it is that the services of every man should be put to the best use we shall secure an adequate supply of these volunteers. We

      1353
      are taking immediate steps to secure by this means the men we want. We shall begin as soon as may be to classify industries and invite the enrolment of volunteers. If it is found impossible to get the numbers we require—and I hope it will be possible—we shall not hesitate to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to release us from pledges given in other circumstances and to obtain the necessary power for rendering our plans fully effective. The nation is fighting for its life, and it is entitled to the best services of all its sons. We have been fortunate in inducing the Lord Mayor of Birmingham (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) to accept the position of Director-General under this scheme. It was with very great difficulty that we induced him to undertake this very onerous duty as the task with which he is identified in Birmingham is a matter of first-class importance to that great city, and it was only the urgent appeals made to him that induced him to undertake this great and onerous task. He will immediately proceed to organise this great new system of enrolment for industrial purposes, and I hope that before Parliament resumes its duties in another few weeks we shall be able to report that we have secured a sufficiently large industrial army in order to mobilise the whole of the labour strength of this country for war purposes.
      I wish it had been possible for me to have said something to-day about Ireland. I had hoped to be able to do so but the circumstances to which I have already referred have made it impossible for me to devote my time and attention to the problems which have arisen in that country. I have had one or two preliminary interviews with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and I have made arrangements for others on certain questions, but unfortunately I have not been able to attend to this and to many other equally insistent matters in the last few days. All I should like to say is this: I wish it were possible to remove the misunderstanding between Britain and Ireland which has for centuries been such a source of misery to the one and of embarrassment and weakness to the other. Apart from the general interest which I have taken in it, I should consider that a war measure of the first importance. I should consider it a great victory for the Allied Forces, something that would give strength to the Armies of the Allies. I am convinced now that it is a misunderstanding, partly racial and partly religious. It
      1354
      is to the interest of both to have this misunderstanding removed, but there seems to have been some evil chance that frustrated every effort made for the achievement of better relations. I wish that that misunderstanding could be removed I tried once. I did not succeed.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Try again!
      The PRIME MINISTER: The fault was not entirely on one side. I felt the whole time that we were moving in an atmosphere of nervous suspicion and distrust, pervasive, universal, of everything and everybody. I wets drenched with suspicion of Irishmen by Englishmen and of Englishmen by Irishmen and, worst and most fatal of all, suspicion by Irishmen of Irishmen. It was a quagmire of distrust which clogged the footsteps and made progress impossible. That is the real enemy of Ireland. If that could be slain, I believe that it would accomplish an act of reconciliation that would make Ireland greater and Britain greater and would make the United Kingdom and the Empire greater than they ever were before. That is why I have always thought and said that the real solution of the Irish problem is largely one of the better atmosphere. I am speaking not merely for myself, but for my colleagues when I say that we shall strive to produce that better feeling.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Let out the prisoners.
      The PRIME MINISTER: We shall strive by every means and by many hazards to produce that atmosphere, and we ask men of all races, and men of all creeds and faith, to help us, not to solve a political question, but to help us to do something that will be a real contribution to the winning of the War. I must also say one word about the Dominions.
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the Navy before he sits down?
      The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the achievements of the Navy speak for themselves. I do not think that anything I can say would be in the least adequate to recognise the enormous and incalculable services that the great Navy of Britain has rendered, not merely to the Empire, but to the whole Allied cause. Not merely would victory have been impossible, but the War could not have been kept on for

      1355
      two and a half years had it not been for the services of the Navy. Now I come to the question of the Dominions. Ministers have repeatedly acknowledged the splendid assistance which the Dominions have given, of their own free will, to the old country in its championship of the cause of humanity. The great ideals of national fair play and justice appeal to the Dominions just as insistently as to us. They have recognised throughout that our fight is not a selfish one, and that it is not merely a European quarrel, but that there are great world issues involved which their children are as concerned in as our children. The new Administration are as full of gratitude as the old for the superb valour which our kinsmen have shown in so many stricken fields, but that is not why I introduce the subject now. I introduce the subject now because I want to say that we feel the time has come when the Dominions ought to be more formally consulted as to the progress and course of the War, as to the steps that ought to be taken to secure victory, and as to the best methods of garnering in the fruits of their efforts as well as of our own. We propose, therefore, at an early date to summon an Imperial Conference, to place the whole position before the Dominions, and to take counsel with them as to what further action they and we can take together in order to achieve an early and complete triumph for the ideals they and we have so superbly fought for.
      As to our relations with the Allies—and this is the last topic I shall refer to—I ventured to say earlier in the year that there were two things we ought to seek as Allies—the first was, unity of aim; and the other, unity of action. The first we have achieved. Never have Allies worked in better harmony or more perfect accord than the Allies in this great struggle. There has been no friction and there has been no misunderstanding. But when I come to the question of unity of action, I still think that there is a good deal left to be desired. I have only got to refer to the incident of Roumania, and each man can spell out for himself what I mean. The enemy have got two advantages—two supreme advantages. One is that they act on internal lines, and the other is that there is one great dominant power that practically directs the forces of all. We have neither of these advantages. We must, therefore, achieve the same end by other means.
      1356
      The advantages we possess are advantages which time improves. No one can say that we have made the best of that time. There has been a tardiness of decision and action. I forget who said about Necker that he was like a clock that was always too slow. There is a little of that in the great Alliance clock—Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Roumania.
      Before we can take full advantage of the enormous resources at the command of the Allies, there must be some means of arriving at quicker and readier decisions, and of carrying them out. I believe that that can be done, and if we quicken our action as well as our decisions it will equalise the conditions more than we have succeeded in doing in the past. There must be more consultation, more real consultation between the men who matter in the direction of affairs. There must be less of the feeling that each country has got its own front to look after. They have carried it so far that almost each Department might have a front of its own. The policy of a common front must be a reality. It is on the other side, Austrian guns are helping German infantry, and German infantry are stiffening Austrian arms. The Turks are helping Germans and Austrians, and Bulgarians mix with all. There is an essential feeling that there is but one front, and I believe we have got to get that more and more, instead of having overwhelming guns on one side, and bare breasts, gallant breasts on the other. It is essential for the Allies, not merely to realise that, but to carry it out in policy and action. I take this opportunity at the beginning of this new Administration of emphasising that point, because I believe it is the one essential for great victory, and for the curtailment of the period before victory arrives.
      6.0 P.M.
      I end with one personal note, for which I hope the House will forgive me. May I say, and I say it in all sincerity, that it is one of the deepest regrets of my life that I should part from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith). Some of his friends know how I strove to avert it. For years I served under the right hon. Gentleman, and I am proud to say so. I never had a kinder or more indulgent chief. If there were any faults of temper, they were entirely mine, and I have no doubt I must have been difficult at times. No man had greater admiration for his brilliant intellectual attainments, and no man was happier to serve under him. For eight

      1357
      years we differed as men of such different temperaments must necessarily differ, but we never had a personal quarrel. In spite of serious differences in policy, and it was with deep, genuine grief that I felt it necessary to tender my resignation to my right hon. Friend. But there are moments when personal and party considerations must sink into absolute insignificance, and if in this War I have given scant heed to the call of party, and so I have, although I have been as strong a party man as any in this House. If I have not done that during this War it is because I realised from the moment the Prussian cannon hurled death at a peaceable and inoffensive little country, that a challenge had been sent to civilisation to decide an issue higher than party, deeper than party, wider than all parties—an issue upon the settlement of which will depend the fate of men in this world for generations, when existing parties will have fallen like dead leaves on the highway. Those issues are the issues that I want to keep in front of the nation, so that we shall not falter or faint in our resolve. There is a time in every prolonged and fierce war, in the passion and rage of the conflict, when men forget the high purpose with which they entered it. This is a struggle for international right, international honour, international good faith—the channel along which peace, honour and good will must flow amongst men. The embankment laboriously built up by generations of men against barbarism have been broken, and had not the might of Britain passed into the breach, Europe would have been inundated with a flood of savagery and unbridled lust of power. The plain sense of fair play amongst nations, the growth of an international conscience, the protection of the weak against the strong by the stronger, the consciousness that justice has a more powerful backing in this world than greed, the knowledge that any outrage upon fair dealing between nations, great or small, will meet with prompt and meritable chastisement—these constitute the causeway along which humanity was progressing slowly to higher things. The triumph of Prussia would sweep it all away and leave mankind to struggle helpless in the morass. That is why, since this War began, I have known but one political aim. For that I have fought with a single eye.
      1358
      That is the rescue of mankind from the most overwhelming catastrophe that has ever yet menaced its well-being.
      Mr. ASQUITH: My first duty—and it is a very agreeable one—is to congratulate my right hon. Friend with all my heart upon his accession to the highest and most responsible place in the service of the Crown. No one knows better—no one knows as well as I do—the extent and the degree of the cares, labours, anxieties, which at a time like this incumbency of that office brings with it. I earnestly hope for him, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the country and the Empire, that he will sustain a full measure of physical strength and energy, and I can assure him he will have, in the prosecution of a task of unexampled magnitude and difficulty, the whole-hearted sympathy of persons of all classes and all parties in this House. My right hon. Friend, at the close of his speech, proclaimed that during this War he had shown scant regard for the claims of party. That is a claim which others may make also. In fact, so far as I know—and I have followed the Parliamentary progress of the War as well as its other aspects since its first day—there has never been a time in our history—there have never been two years in our history—when the voice of party has been so silent, the deflections of the party current have been so rare, and a united nation has presented a more united front. It is eleven years now since I spoke from this side of the House, and if I speak from it to-day it is not because I claim in any sense to be the Leader of what is called an Opposition. Opposition! I believe there is none, and although I have had in the course of the last few weeks most gratifying testimony that I retain the confidence of my old political associates, at whose side, and in later years at whose head, I have fought in all the great domestic controversies of the last thirty years, I do not stand here and speak here as the head of the Liberal party. I have been for the last two and a half years the person mainly responsible for the conduct of this War. I do not care for the moment by whom the Government of the country is conducted, although I am very glad to see a man of such ability as my right hon. Friend in the place which he so worthily occupies—whatever, experience I have gained, whatever it is worth, is at the disposal of the Government.

      1359
      I have said during the time of the War party has ceased to exist. But let me add one qualifying word. It is in abeyance, but in good time it will revive. In my judgment government by coalition is only suited to special emergencies, and for the normal conduct of our affairs the party system, with all its defects and all its drawbacks—and by the party system I mean the clash of organised opinions, definite policies and responsible leadership is the best expedient, imperfect though it be, which has yet been devised for the conduct of democratic government. I say that by way of preliminary. I do not wish to say anything as to the circumstances which have led to my transferring my seat from that bench to this. I am entirely with my right hon. Friend that they belong to a past which it would serve no useful purpose now to retraverse. I would not, indeed, devote a sentence to my own personal position were it not that I have had the honour of being Leader of this House for the best part of nine years, and with that record behind mo I am proud to think that to whatever quarter of the House I turn I see the faces not only of fellow Members but of Friends. They will understand me when I say on the one hand it is to me a relief, and in some ways an unspeakable relief, to be released from a daily burden which has lately been carried under almost insupportable conditions, and, on the other hand, a matter for natural and deep regret that I should be compelled to leave unfinished a task at which I have so long and so strenuously worked. Let that suffice on the personal question.
      But, apart from and beyond any personal consideration, I wish to deal with the suggestion—not, indeed, I agree, put forward in the least by my right hon. Friend—he would be the last to do it—but industriously circulated outside—that in some vaguely defined way the late Government failed or were failing in the resolute and effective prosecution of this War. I am not going for a moment to assume the attitude or to adopt the language of apology. Errors of judgment, defects of method, there may have been and there undoubtedly have been. Not only our gallant Allies, but the enemy himself, if he were for once in a candid mood, would make the same confession. But that there has been slackness or lethargy, infirmity of purpose, above all want of thoroughness and want of whole-heartedness in our
      1360
      concentration upon our common task, not only on my behalf, but on behalf of my late colleagues, as well those who sit upon that bench as those who sit upon this, I emphatically deny. The full story cannot, of course, yet be told. Critics in time of war— I refer not merely to irresponsible slingers of mud, but honest and patriotic lookers-on—critics in time of war have the enormous dialectical advantage that, while they are free to speak and to write—some people think a little too free—the men whom they are attacking are of necessity, by the responsibilities of their position, by their duty to our military and naval advisers, by their obligation to our Allies, to a large extent tongue-tied. It is not a new phenomenon. It is one that has been observed ever since public opinion became vocal and found a daily or weekly articulate organ. It was so in the days of Lord Chatham. It was so in the days of Mr. Pitt. It was so in the time of the Napoleonic struggle, and never more conspicuously than in its most critical phase, when Castlereagh and Wellington were the favoured targets of the darts of the omniscent amateur. Sir, I would only say this: I am quite content, when all the facts come to be disclosed, to leave my Administration, and the part which I myself played in it, to the judgment of history.
      In the meantime, I hope the House will not think it irrelevant if, for just two or three minutes, I ask them to accompany me in a brief general survey. When this War was forced upon us and our Allies, after every conceivable effort had been made by my Noble Friend Lord Grey, who had justly earned for himself in the preceding years the title of the Peacemaker of Europe, after every effort had been made by him to avert it, we had not, as my right hon. Friend has; reminded us, an Army on a Continental scale. It was never any part of our policy to create or maintain such an Army. We had a more than adequate force for Home defence, and we had an Expeditionary Force always ready, if needed, for foreign service, which could be mobilised—as it was—almost at a moment's notice, and which, as the event proved, was. in quality and equipment, both of officers and men, as fine a body of troops as ever took the field. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, and he spoke of the Armies of our country as being a new Army, the call of patriotic duty which rang through the Empire summoned into the field a

      1361
      force twenty or thirty times as great as that with which we originally started and, largely owing, I most gladly acknowledge, to the zeal, fertility, and energy of my right hon. Friend himself, that force was in due time fully supplied with the best munitions, with the result that, as everybody agrees, the troops that we have now fighting in the field are, both as regards the quality of the men and their equipment, second to no Army in any of the theatres of the War. That was no inconsiderable achievement.
      But there were two factors from the first which we have been able to contribute to the common cause which were peculiarly and essentially our own—naval supremacy and financial resource. A wise and far-seeing policy, steadily pursued by all parties for many years in peace, had given us the means of asserting and maintaining the command of the sea, and though we had far less gold in reserve than many of the great Powers—several, at any rate, of the great Powers—yet our commercial and economic position was so sound in its basis, so extended in its scope, so liquid in what I might call its mobility, that we were able to create and develop credits on an unprecedented scale; and the House knows, from the figures that I see were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week in moving the Vote of Credit, the measure in which we have, under wise and skilful management, been able to carry on our shoulders the ever-growing burden of Allied finance. I do not attempt at this moment to appraise the relative importance of these three things, for I am certain than the last two, taken together, have not been less potent or less weighty than the first. Well—the House will forgive me for this retrospect—it very soon became apparent that in all three domains— the military, the naval, and the economic—not only we, but all the Allied Powers, had to confront entirely novel conditions. On land we have seen the culmination of the last refinements of modern science in the mechanism of destruction, with the revival of methods and practices of mediaeval or even earlier times. I say, and I want to call particular attention to this, it took a comparatively short time for our Navy to clear the seas of the cruisers and the armed merchantmen that were preying on our commerce, and the enemy has rarely indulged our sailors in the luxury of a stand-up fight on the
      1362
      open sea. But the novel feature of the War in that respect, of course, has been the mine and the submarine. Even that development would have been far less formidable if it had not been accompanied, as it has been, by systematic violation of all the established conventions and practices of international law. You cannot protect the oceans of the world against the possible torpedoeing of trading ships. It is an impossible task. You cannot do it; I wish you could, but you cannot. And this practice goes on. I am certain—I will say so much for the quality of our foe—it is carried on by men acting, against their will, but under instructions of a superior power which compels them to defy all the rules with regard to capture and prize which have hitherto been held sacred in maritime warfare. Much has been done in the course of the last three months, by vigilance and ceaseless observation, and by devices which I need not describe, to minimise the danger. For months past we have been anxiously engaged in providing armament for our own merchant ships, which is the best, and, in the long run, the most efficient safeguard; but, important as that is, that does not compare with the vital urgency of what has become the primary duty of our Fleet—the maintenance of the blockade. To enable it to perform that duty with ever-increasing efficiency, the number of auxiliary vessels has, during the last two years, been multiplied altogether to enormous dimensions. There are complaints, I know—I have heard it in this House—that, out of tenderness to neutrals, the blockade is not as stringent as it ought to be. Yet there is no part of the War in which the problems to be confronted are more difficult than in this matter of the-blockade. For my part, I rejoice to see that it is still in the most capable hands of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But, great as the difficulties are, the evidence which comes from many different quarters is irresistible and even overwhelming, that it is the steady, ever-tightening pressure exerted by our Navy which is sapping the springs of German vitality and turning the thoughts and hopes of the mass of their people in the direction of peace.
      To turn, just for a moment, to the other head to which I referred, namely, finance. We have again had to deal with unexampled conditions. We have, as my right hon. Friend has reminded us—and it lies at almost the root of all our difficulties in

      1363
      this country—we have as our enemy in the two Central Powers, two countries which are geographically contiguous, and which are on the economic side to a large extent mutually self-supporting, and which, in particular, were fully equipped at the beginning of the War for the fabrication of munitions upon a practically unlimited scale. In this respect I agree with him— as in the sphere both of diplomacy and of strategy, and it all comes to the same thing—in the sphere of finance as well as in that of diplomacy and strategy, he started with, and he has maintained, the initial advantage of waging of war on interior lines. Exactly the reverse has been the case with the Allies. I will not recapitulate familiar facts. It is sufficient to say that, while their power of exporting goods has been, particularly in the case of France, and to some extent of Italy, and, of course, wholly in Belgium, largely curtailed, the gigantic imports of food, munitions and a hundred other necessaries of war, have had to be made through neutral countries, and, for the financing of these transactions, as well as for the transport of the commodities themselves, Great Britain has made herself primarily and mainly responsible. That there has been no breakdown— serious as I agree the prospect is in many respects—that there has been no breakdown in the performance of a task so unprecedented reflects the greatest credit on the Departments, and not only upon them, but I wish to add this, upon the members of the various Committees who have assisted in their work—Committees wholly composed of volunteers, the greatest experts in the different industries and vocations in the country, who have given unstintingly of their time and of their energy to the public, without notoriety, and without reward. I trust and believe that in the reorganisation of some of the Departments, and in the creation of the new offices which my right hon. Friend has adumbrated to-night, and with the general purposes of which I may say at once I am in complete sympathy, full use will continue to be made of this invaluable reservoir of organised voluntary effort. You cannot get on without it. You may co-ordinate, you may prevent overlapping, you may diminish friction, you may bring about concentration and economy, but you cannot dispense with that which has been to us one of the most valuable auxiliaries in the discharge of
      1364
      the great responsibility of carrying on the War. As I have said, the prospect both in regard to finance and in regard to transports is, in my judgment, a very serious one, but it is not so serious as to justify misgiving and, still less, alarm. It will not be solved any more than will any other problems of war as some of our outside critics who are apt to mistake bustle for business and vehemence for strength—I am inclined to think it will not be solved by short cuts and by a series of coups de main.
      Before I pass to the future let me add one word on the military situation. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about Roumania. It has been a bad business, and although it is not possible at this moment, even if it were desirable, to go into the matter, and although it is not possible precisely to apportion the different degrees of responsibility for it—I have no desire to enter into that question—yet I am heartily in agreement with him. As he knows, for we have often discussed the matter together in the late Cabinet, and I do say that is a very good illustration of the desirability, nay, the urgent necessity, of more intimate co-operation between the General Staffs and the politicians of the Allied countries. Of course it is very easy to say, "Why have you not brought that about?" An alliance of this kind, working under these conditions, is without any example in history, and, during the last twelve months at any rate, the constant interchange of communication, of conference between ourselves and the French, has grown into a practice which may now be regarded as one of the normal incidents of our Allied action. I and my right hon. Friend have crossed the Channel together, I do not know how many times, with others of our countrymen, and the greatest good has resulted from that interchange of views. You cannot, unfortunately, in this world get over the limitations imposed by time and space, and the consequent difficulty of bringing together in constant and intimate communication not only the soldiers, but, still more, the representatives of the four Powers, so widely separated geographically and otherwise, as those who constitute this Alliance. Those difficulties are, I will not say insurmountable, but they are very great. If the right hon. Gentleman, with his colleagues, can devise some method by which to bring about more intimate communication, he will have rendered one of the greatest

      1365
      services that it is possible to render to the cause of the Allies. I do wish him all success in that effort.
      The outstanding military feature of the last few months is undoubtedly the operations on the Somme. Those operations were carefully concerted and prepared by the Allied General Staff in advance. So far as our Army is concerned, I believe there is universal agreement that they have been carried out with the most admirable skill, tenacity, and courage by Sir Douglas Haig and the officers associated with him. Their value is to be measured, I need not say, not merely in terms of square miles of French territory which have been recovered from the Germans' occupation; their primary and immediate oject was the relief of Verdun. Verdun had been for months the principal object of German strategy. The Crown Prince had hurled against it the finest troops in his Army. It has sustained, I suppose, the most terrific and prolonged bombardment of any fortress in history. The loss of Verdun would have been the greatest blow to the Allied cause since the beginning of the War. How do we stand to-day? Not only is Verdun not lost, but the work of the enemy during months of costly effort has been wholly undone. To-day we congratulate the gallant General Nivelle on being appointed to the Chief Command in France; we congratulate him and his heroic Army upon the glorious success of their new offensive. The operations on the Somme have done much more than to relieve Verdun. They have prevented the withdrawal of large bodies of troops from the West to the East. They have inflicted enormous casualties upon the enemy—far greater, I believe, than he has inflicted upon us and the French combined. Lastly, and perhaps most significant of all, there is overwhelming evidence in the number of prisoners taken and in the concurrent testimony of all who have firsthand knowledge of this campaign, whether as spectators or as combatants, that while the moral of our troops, always magnificent, has steadily advanced, the moral of the enemy has as steadily declined.
      I wish to say a word with regard to the future. I think what I have said is sufficient to show that the efforts we have made, of naval, military, and economic, have not been ineffectual, and, if further proof were required, it is to be found in the so-called Peace proposals which have been somewhat clumsily projected into
      1366
      space from Berlin in the course of the last week. It is true, as my right hon. Friend has reminded us, that those proposals are wrapped up in the familiar dialect of Prussian arrogance. And how comes it that the nation which, after more than two years of war, professes itself conscious of military superiority and confident of ultimate victory, should begin to whisper, nay, not to whisper, but to shout, so that all the world can hear it, the word Peace? Is it a sudden excess of chivalry? Why and when has the German Chancellor become so acutely sensitive to what he calls the dictates of humanity? No, without being uncharitable, we may well look elsewhere for the origin of this pronouncement. It is born of military and economic necessity. When I moved the last Vote of Credit—I think it was in October—I dealt by anticipation with this topic. I said there was no one among us who did not yearn for peace, but it must be an honourable and not a shame-faced peace; it must be a peace that promised to be durable and not a patched-up and precarious compromise; it must be a peace which achieved the purposes for which we had entered upon the War. Such a peace we would gladly accept; but anything short of it we were bound to repudiate by every obligation of honour, and, above all, by the duty we owe to those, and especially the young, who have given their lives for what they and we believe to be a worthy cause. Since I spoke two months ago, their ranks have been sadly and steadily reinforced.
      I should like to refer, in passing, to one of them, a friend and colleague of my own, Lord Lucas. Apart from the advantages of birth and fortune, he was a man of a singularly winning personality, fine intelligence, and the strongest sense of public duty. He worked hard and inconspicuously in the early days of the Territorial Army. He served for some years at the War Office, and shortly before the War he became a member of the Cabinet. At the time of the Coalition he stood aside without a murmur, and volunteered straightway for the Royal Flying Corps. Now he has met his death in a gallant reconnoitring raid over the German lines. He was not, I think, more than forty, but he had a full life. That is not a singular, it is a typical case. We must not forget, we cannot forget, nor ought we to forget, the countless victims, both among our own people and among the Allies, through the ruthless and organised violation of the

      1367
      humane restrictions by which both on land and sea the necessary horrors of war have hitherto been mitigated. That we must keep in our thoughts, not for vindictive motives, but for security. For myself, I say plainly and emphatically that I see nothing in the Note of the German Government which gives me reason to believe that they are in the mood to give to the Allies what, the last time I spoke, I declared to be essential—reparation and security. If they are in such a mood; if they are prepared to give us reparation for the past and security for the future, let them say so! While I was still at the head of the Government I on several occasions indicated, I believe, in quite unambiguous language, the minimum of the Allies' demands before they put up their swords, as well as the general character of the ultimate international status upon which our hopes and desires are set. I have no longer authority to speak for the Government, or for the nation, but I do not suppose the House or the country are going back upon what I have said in their name and on their behalf. It is not we who stand in the way of peace when we decline, as I hope we shall, to enter blindfold into parleyings which start from nothing and therefore can lead to nothing. Peace we all desire. Peace can only come—peace, I mean, that is worth the name and that satisfies the definition of the word—peace will only come on terms that atonement is made for past wrongs, that the weak and downtrodden are restored, that the faith of treaties is observed, and that the sovereignty of public law is securely enthroned over the nations of the world.
      Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The House has been deeply impressed with the speech to which we have just listened. That, however, is nothing new with the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. This, however, has been an exceptional occasion, and for my part I do not envy the man who in any part of this House listened unmoved to the patriotism and, may I say, the reticence and magnanimity of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It is impossible, in my opinion, for any man of any party in this House to listen to that speech without recalling the past career of the right hon. Gentleman, and all that he has meant in the history of this country for so long—of the great labours and of the great ability which he has devoted to the service, not only of his
      1368
      own party but to the House of Commons as a whole, and to the Empire as a, whole. Certainly it is quite impossible for me as an Irishman to speak on this occasion without recalling with gratitude his devoted labours for so many years to realise those ideals for the future liberty and happiness of my country that we have held in common. Whether or not it be reserved for him in the future to preside over the final fruition of these ideals, history will give him the credit of being their author. Certainly Irishmen will never forget that it was his genius and his labours that made their fruition possible, and, as I believe, certain. The right hon. Gentleman has promised his support to the new Government in the vigorous prosecution of the War. In doing so he has voiced the feeling of every section of every party in this House. He has in effect asked for fair play for the new Administration. That fair play, they, of course, will receive from every section of this House. The right hon. Gentleman disclaimed the position of the Leader of an Opposition in the ordinary sense of the word, and we all understood his meaning. But it will be of enormous value to this country and to this House, and, let me respectfully say, of enormous value to the new Government, if they find, not an organised Opposition in the old sense of the word, but a body of responsible opinion led by a man of the experience of the right hon. Gentleman who, while supporting the Government on main issues, will subject them to reasoned and responsible criticism, instead of leaving them subjected to the irresponsible criticism of irresponsible men.
      Those for whom I speak in this House are as deeply interested in a speedy and victorious ending to this War as any section of Members within its walls. We have, I say, made as great sacrifices. We have as great interests at stake. Our fellow-countrymen in the field have given as devoted and gallant service as the sons of any other part of the Empire. The new Government may rest assured, therefore, that on any policy which we honestly believe is calculated to speedily and victoriously end this War they will receive no opposition from us, but, on the contrary, a ready support. That, however, does not mean that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to count upon a blind, indiscriminate, and unquestioning support from the Irish party. Our attitude from

      1369
      day to day must depend upon the proceedings of the Government. I listened with the deepest anxiety to the references of the right hon. Gentleman to Ireland, and I heard them, I must say, with the deepest disappointment. They were vague. They were indefinite. They showed an utter and complete absence of that quick decision which, we were told, was to be the characteristic of this Government. With one statement of the right hon. Gentleman I completely agreed. The reconciliation of Ireland is a war problem—a war problem of the highest importance, and, I would impress upon him, one also of the highest urgency. Can anyone doubt that? The Press in all parts of this country admits it.
      When the War broke out in 1914 and Ireland, for the first time in her history, was found arrayed on the side of the Empire, the effect all over the world was instantaneous. In Australia, where the Irish form at least one-fourth of the population, enthusiasm among those Irishmen sprang up instantly. It was the same in New Zealand. It was the same in Canada. It was the same in South Africa. The Irishmen in those great Dominions—the sons of Irishmen, and in some cases the grandsons of Irishmen—flocked in thousands to the Standard. I made such inquiries as I could, and I believe I am correct in saying that at the very least one-fourth of all the troops you have got from the Dominions across the seas are men who are either Irishmen, the sons of Irishmen, or of Irish blood. They were told at the commencement of the War— and they believed it!—that Ireland's rights had been conceded, and they flocked eagerly and proudly to the defence of the Empire. The same happened here in Great Britain. In Ireland itself, for the first time in history, the recruiting sergeant became a popular personage. Great popular ovations, which I myself have addressed, and which I have witnessed, cheered the troops on their departure from the various ports where they embarked for the front. In neutral countries the effect was the same. Let any man who knows what he is talking about consider for the moment the effect of this in America, where the great Irish population has always been more extreme in its hostility to this country than has any other section of the Irish race. That population in the main came into line—80 or 90 per cent. of them came into line and supported the Allies. Purely public opinion
      1370
      was thoroughly friendly and upon the side of this country. I ask the House of Commons can anyone really measure the incalculable value which all this was to this country in her emergency, and can anyone count the incalculable injury to the highest interests of this country which has followed from the unfortunate change which has occurred in reference to Ireland? The last time I spoke in this House I dealt at some length with the causes of that change, therefore I will not dwell upon them to-day It is, indeed, a thankless task.
      7.0 P.M.
      The effect already of what has occurred is plain to the whole world. We see it in the absolute disappearance of enthusiasm for the War in Ireland, the strengthening of all anti-British forces in that country, the slump in recruiting, the profound disappointment and resentment in every Dominion across the seas. I say that advisedly, in the presense of the men upon both Front Benches, who know the absolute truth of my statement. The profound resentment in every one of your Dominions is evidenced in a hundred ways. It is evidenced in their Press, in the dwindling recruiting in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere It is evidenced in the defeat of the Referendum proposals the other day in Australia, and it is evidenced in the most alarming way of all, perhaps, by the change in the public opinion of America. It is a thankless task to dwell upon these things, and it is the duty of practical men to recognise the situation and to deal with it. From that point of view I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pain. In the general programme of energy, promptness, quick decision, is the Irish question to be the only one to be allowed to drift? The enemies of the late Government were very fond of denouncing the policy of "Wait and see." Is the policy of "Wait and see" to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this urgent war problem of Ireland? Upon the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government on this question must, of course, depend the attitude of the Irish party towards the Government. What is that attitude to be? There are two kinds of methods of treating this Irish problem. One is by palliatives and the other by a radical cure, but the right hon. Gentleman to-night has not suggested either. It was suggested to me that the Chief Secretary would speak

      1371
      in this Debate, and that he might be in a position to say something definite. But, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, he has not suggested the smallest palliative. He says he would like to see the atmosphere improved. Yes, but what suggestion does he make for the improvement of the atmosphere? He makes no suggestion as to a palliative, and he makes no suggestion whatever as to a radical cure. By a palliative, I mean the mitigating or removal of the immediate sources of irritation and bad feeling in Ireland. What are they? You are, in the face of the world and of the Allies, governing Ireland under a Proclamation of Martial Law. I do not believe that the Chief Secretary, who is listening to me, and who has been most diligent in his inquiries in Ireland, and most industrious in his work, could honestly stand up in this House and declare that the maintenance of the Proclamation of martial law is of the smallest value, but that, on the contrary, it is a source of irritation and danger. Why is is maintained? If the right hon. Gentleman wants an improvement in the atmosphere of Ireland, why not take that stigma off the Irish people? The effect undoubtedly would not only be good in Ireland, but in neutral countries and the Dominions of the Crown.
      Then you are holding in English prisons—it is an extraordinary thing to think of—between 500 and 600 untried prisoners. Let the House understand what that means. Those men are imprisoned under a certain provision or Proclamation under the Defence of the Realm Act which gives power to keep interned men who are proved to be of enemy association. If they are not men of enemy association they are illegally detained. Now I venture to say that, in the majority of those cases, it would be impossible to prove that these young men are of enemy association, and a writ of habeas corpus would lie in the case of each one of these men. You may say they are dangerous men and you do not want to let them loose because they have extreme opinions. Surely that is going back to the old evil English rule in Ireland. These men are dangerous so long as they are where they are. They cease to be dangerous—they become far less dangerous—the moment they are released, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to create a better atmosphere in Ireland and a better feeling, let him instantly release
      1372
      these men. Let him do it to-morrow. Let him do it as a Christmas gift to the Irish people, and let him withdraw the Proclamation of martial law. That does not exhaust the subject of prisoners arising out of the rebellion. There are a number in penal servitude. Sonic of them are young boys, of whom we have heard a good deal at Question Time this afternoon. We ask that they should get better treatment, and I am glad to admit and express my acknowledgments to the late Home Secretary that our claim on that point has been met and that these men are being treated now more like political prisoners than any political prisoners, I believe, that ever were held by this country in consequence of a rising in Ireland. But, even in that case, if the Government would take their courage in their hands and make a general gaol delivery, I am convinced they would be doing more to create an improved atmosphere and a better feeling than anything they could possibly do. The right hon. Gentleman not only has not promised to do this, but he has promised nothing. I make great allowances for the plea he has put forward—
      The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made no allowances. I think he might make some allowance for that. As a matter of fact, he knows I was actually in consultation with the Chief Secretary when I was taken ill, and I have been utterly unable to see the Chief Secretary again until to-day. I kept the door open, for the simple reason that I wanted just two or three days to go into-the matter quite thoroughly. I have had no opportunity, but I must say the hon. and learned Gentleman is making it difficult for me.
      Mr. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman took the words out. of my mouth. I was just going to allude to the fact of his illness, which everyone of us regretted immensely. We know the right hon. Gentleman was considering this. We know he has been considering it not only for the last few days but for a very long time. I discussed it with the right hon. Gentleman before he was Prime Minister, and I know what his opinion was, and I do think that it did not require any adjourned debate with the Chief Secretary to come to a decision on this point at all. I do not see why this question of the release of these prisoners could not have been decided without any delay whatever. He had

      1373
      not had the opportunity before becoming ill, but he has had an opportunity since recovery of discussing this matter.
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. I have not had any opportunity of any sort or kind. I have had only one opportunity before falling ill. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as if I had been Prime Minister for months. I have only been Prime Minister a few days. I was taken ill a couple of days after the Government was farmed, and one of the first things I did was to discuss this matter with the Chief Secretary, and the first opportunity I had of talking to him was to-day. It was with the greatest difficulty I was able to come to the House to-day, as a matter of fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not merely unfair, but, if I may suggest, a little impolitic, at any rate, not to give me a couple of days to discuss this matter further with the Chief Secretary without suggesting that I am simply bringing forward the vaguest suggestions without any sort of meaning.
      Mr. REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman in his speech had said this matter was under consideration, and that he would make a definite statement before the House rises, of course that would be a horse of a different colour. But he never alluded to the question at all, and I put it to him now that it would be to the interests of the whole country that he should come to a speedy determination on this one point, and release those prisoners. That is so far as palliatives are concerned—so far as measures to improve the atmosphere—to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. But there is something far bigger than that. You cannot settle this urgent war problem simply by palliatives, and I confess I was disappointed that I did not hear in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he intended to deal with this question. No one suggested that he would make any definite pronouncement to-day, but if he had told us that he recognised the urgency of this problem, and that the Government intended to deal with it, it would have gone a long way to meet the case. But if it is the intention of the Government—and I hope it is, although he has not said so—to deal with the final reconciliation of Irish opinion by a settlement of the Irish question, there are two or three things I would like to say to him. The first is that time is of the essence of this matter. He is mistaken if he thinks it
      1374
      will be easier for him in a few months than it is now. Promptness is essential. The worst thing that could happen for this. Irish question is that it should be allowed to drift. The next thing I want to put is. that I hope, if the right hon. Gentleman decides to deal with this question, the Government will deal with it boldly on their own responsibility, that they will take the initiative themselves, and put their own proposals forward, and not seek to evade any portion of that responsibility by putting it oh the shoulders of other people. In other words, I do not think there is any use in the right hon. Gentleman thinking that he can settle this question by renewed negotiations. What the Government have got to do is to make up their own mind, to take the initiative themselves, and to act on their own responsibilty. Further, I would like to say that the right hon. Gentleman would certainly have to proceed on different lines, from the lines he was proceeding on the last time he tried to settle this question. I. make no reproach to him—I have never done so—about the last occasion, and I know perfectly well the truth of what he-says as to the atmosphere of suspicion that existed. He was attempting to do an almost impossible task. But if, instead of coming to this section and that section, and to this person and that person, and endeavouring to get them to agree, and thus relieve the Government of responsibility, if he would take his courage in his hands, make up his own mind, and take the full responsibility on the Government, then, I believe, that on other lines—not on the lines he attempted twice before and failed, but on the lines of a united Ireland, I do believe in the near future he would be-able to settle this question.
      There is the one other thing I want to-say—that he must not, in dealing with this-question, mix it up with conditions about, recruiting or Conscription. That question-must be left to a change of heart in Ireland. You cannot bring that about by attempting to make it a condition of doing justice to the people, and, therefore, I would earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman, acting on those lines, would not allow this question to drift, but would endeavour to deal with it speedily. I believe that the time is ripe for such drastic, and decided and bold action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it is within his power to out an end to this pressing war problem. He has-powerful influences at his back on this

      1375
      subject, in the Press of all parties, and in the opinion of leading men of all parties. I may be sanguine in my opinion, but my view is that three-fourths of the House of Commons, or more, would gladly see the right hon. Gentleman take this bold course and settle this question, rapidly and at once, and on his own responsibility. He has the sympathy also of the entire Dominions throughout the Empire. He has the sympathy of all men of good will in the Empire, and all I say to him on the subject is, under those circumstances, in Heaven's name, do not let him miss the tide.
      Mr. WARDLE: I should like to add a word or two to what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has just said with regard to Ireland. I would remind the Prime Minister that with regard to the settlement of Ireland the members of the Labour party have taken a very significant step by passing a resolution asking him and the Government to do all that lies in their power to settle this matter at the earliest possible moment. I cannot associate myself with everything the hon. and learned Member has said, but I associate myself with him in this, that the whole desire of the labouring classes of this country is to see this open sore removed from our party politics and settled, and if that can be accomplished—and the Prime Minister has very persuasive ways—no one will rejoice more than we shall, and the Government and the Empire will be all the better for it. I will not, in any degree, enter into the problem of the old Government or the new. The Labour party was associated with the old Government, and it is also associated with the new Government. The one great burning desire of the working classes of this country is to see this War brought to a successful conclusion, and see their sons, and brothers, and husbands brought back home. I do not think they are war weary, but I believe there is growing in the country a greater horror of war to-day and a greater desire for peace. Before war was something which they read and heard about, but now they have looked it in the face, and so far as the working classes are concerned the desire that this should be a War which should make wars in the future almost impossible has grown into an intense passion.
      With regard to the question of the entry of labour into the new Government I think the Government have certainly
      1376
      been very generous, but I want to put this to the Prime Minister. The question of the mobilisation of the working people of this country and organised labour is an exceedingly difficult problem. Many of my hon. Friends have taken their political life in their hands by entering the present Government, and in certain quarters taunts have been thrown out that they desire office for the emoluments. I hope that is not a general taunt, because I am sure most of my colleagues stand to lose more than they are likely to gain from a monetary point of view by their acceptance of office in the present Government. The question of the mobilisation of the forces of Labour in this country is not an easy task. National service we agree with, but the application of compulsion in this connection is a matter that will require the most careful consideration of the Government. If they will take into their confidence those members of the party who have already joined the Government, and especially if they will try to get the opinion of the country on their side, I do not believe they will find any difficulty in getting the working classes to throw their whole heart into the civil work of the War, as they have thrown it into the Army, of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken so proudly. The new Army in the main is one of the working classes of this country. Of course, I know that it comprises all classes, but in the main it is composed of members of the working classes, and just as they have thrown themselves with enthusiasm into the War, and are still willing to continue to fight, when it comes to the question of mobilising labour that is a problem which must be faced in the same way. It is a problem which is full of very grave difficulty, but that has been increased by the methods adopted in the past with regard to this very problem.
      Had this problem been faced six or twelve months ago it would have been much easier to deal with, but that is no reproach to the late Government. More than six months ago the Prime Minister, when he was Secretary for War, might have had a plan for the mobilisation of labour carried out on the lines which he is now willing to adopt, but which apparently at that moment he was not willing to accept, and had that been done many of the problems and troubles with which we are now faced would not have faced us now. What I allude to is the trade card scheme, which was initiated by a Committee of which I was Chairman in May of the present year.

      1377
      This scheme was put before the Director of Recruiting, and it received his sanction. It was also put before the Minister of Munitions and was held up for some time, but eventually the Director of Recruiting and the Minister of Munitions agreed to the scheme, but nothing came of it. Now, seven months after that the same scheme and the same plans are put forward dignified by the name of the mobilisation of labour, and, had that scheme been accepted by the Secretary for War and the Minister of Munitions of that day, I believe a great deal of the difficulty with which we are now confronted would not have existed. Like two or three previous speakers, I am afraid I am suffering from an affection of the throat, and I cannot continue any longer.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to say a few words about some of the matters mentioned by the Prime Minister. I wish to endorse what he has said about the problem of food production, and I allude to the suggestion as to what the Government are going to do in providing seed in connection with the food problem. Farmers both in England and Ireland have during the autumn been prevented from sowing a very large number of acres on account of the difficulty of procuring seed. I should like to have heard the right hon. Gentleman say something in regard to the question of the provision of seed for agriculture, because I think it is a very serious and grave problem as to where the seed is to come from. The cost will be enormous, and, as regards Ireland, there has been a failure of seed both in connection with potatoes and wheat, and when the right hon. Gentleman is seized with the problem, I should have liked to have heard from him something as to how this food problem is to be dealt with next spring in connection with seed. The spring wheat is not at all equal to the winter wheat, and we have lost that, and it creates a very serious and grave situation. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon it, but he has not suggested a remedy. It is no use breaking up land if we have not the wherewithal to seed it.
      I have never been so much in favour of the seed potato Acts as the means of providing seed, but the time has come when something in the nature of a revival of those measures has become necessary, not merely because of the absence of seed, but
      1378
      because poor people are unable to pay the price for seed at the present time. Some people recommend the immediate stoppage of the export of potatoes, but in this matter I prefer to place my commercial conscience in the hands of experts who understand the problem. If you are going to allow our seed to be exported to such an extent that the poor will be unable to obtain seed for their land owing to the high prices, you will have neglected one of the most important duties of the State. I was glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), for the first time since these prisoners have been put in gaol an appeal to the Government. I think the only grain of comfort that I have had in the downfall of the late Ministry was in the disappearance of the late Home Secretary (Mr Herbert Samuel), whom I now see in his place. I believe he has been pointed out as the one member of the late Government whom the present Prime Minister wished to retain in his office. In my judgment he is the man who is more responsible than any other Minister for the bitterness of feeling that exists in Ireland at the present time. I am delighted to think that he is out of office, and I hope he will never return to it, at any rate as far as anything connected with Ireland goes, because a more cruel and heartless administrator of the Acts he had to deal with never stood at that box. Accordingly I am delighted to think that he has gone. I must, however, own that for the first time in the history of Ireland the right hon. Gentleman had an Irish Member, the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney), agreeing to this incarceration of his countrymen. In all the long years that Ireland has had to complain of ill-treatment at the hands of England, no Irish Nationalist has ever before come to the assistance of the gaolers of the country, as happened on a recent occasion. The late Home Secretary was fortunate enough to be able to boast that for every man he kept in gaol he had the mandate of a leading lieutenant of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. That mandate still remains. The signature, or whatever document may be necessary for the incarceration of these men. bears the impress of a Nationalist Member.
      The Government have this matter to consider from two points of view. They have to consider the possible results of a liberation of these untried men, and they have to consider what the effect would be

      1379
      on public opinion in the two countries. The first thing that I look at is this: Here are 600 men against whom no charge has been made. Three hundred of them, I believe, are as innocent of complicity in the late rebellion as any member of the late Government. Half of them are there upon the miserable suspicion of policemen to whom at one time or another in the course of their activities they have given annoyance. I know personally one of the men to be innocent, and he is being most foully and shamefully treated. While the prisoners at Frongoch have been kept in the way that they have been kept, prisoners in other parts of the country, and notably in Reading, have been treated in the most humane manner. The prison at Reading is a prison from which not a single complaint has come from any Irishman. The prison at Frongoch has been the scene of desolation, of hunger, of hunger strikes, of rats gnawing the unfortunate prisoners, and of terrible bitterness and ill-feeling.
      I will look at this matter, first, from the English point of view. Immersed as you are in a great war, and with the great duties which you have towards Europe, you would be entitled, if these men were a public danger, to keep them locked up. I pledge myself, I pledge my honour as an Irishman, and my opinion that you may safely discharge every one of them without the smallest danger to your Empire in this War. I think the Prime Minister knows me well enough to know that I would not give that pledge in face of this House if I did not think that was true. Accordingly, I say that I believe they may all safely be discharged. I have gone through Ireland from one end of it to the other, and no doubt there is bitterness, but there is no real activity. I believe if you had the general body of Irish police officered the same as the Dublin police, namely, by officers who have risen from the ranks, you would get the same advice from the Royal Irish Constabulary as from the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I venture to say, if you take the opinion of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, that they will tell you to discharge every one of them. I remember the difficult conditions. This is a heritage and a heirloom that has come down to the Government, but I hope they will take Irish opinion as a test, and Irish opinion that is friendly to the Government, because since the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr.
      1380
      Duke) became Chief Secretary I hope I have shown him nothing but friendliness and unrestrained cordiality. Therefore, I am advising him as I would if he were a brother Irishman.
      The case of the prisoners who have been convicted is peculiar in this respect. The Government have given them some measure of consideration in the terrible conditions of penal servitude. But you cannot forget that they were only convicted as the result of a drumhead court-martial. There was no publicity of any kind, except, I think, in two cases. There were thousands of men arrested all over the country and kept in these miserable barracks in Dublin, behind barbed-wire and bayonets, and I say now to the House, as I said last night, that, whether you got penal servitude or whether you were discharged, depended upon the jerk of a policeman's thumb. Numbers of these men in penal servitude are also, I believe, innocent. They have behind them, no doubt, conviction by a military authority. I am not acquainted with any of these men, and I am not going to give any such guarantee as I gave in the case of the untried prisoners, because I have no authority to speak for them, but I think I know my countrymen sufficiently to say that there is nothing in the present state of Ireland to justify these men being detained. They. are at any rate entitled to claim this. Pass an Act entitling them to public trial before an English jury. Give them an appeal to the English Criminal Court of Appeal. It is not a great matter to ask. Let every convicted prisoner have the right to say, "I insist upon having my case retried before the English Court of Appeal." That is not a large demand to be made by men who have been convicted by a drumhead court-martial, and I venture to say that the English people would have an object lesson of some of the methods during the recent rebellion. These men, however— a number of them, at any rate— rose in rebellion. There is proof to some extent against a number of them, and I am not making the same claim in their case as in the other, but I do claim that they are entitled to a public right of appeal such as that I suggest. Above all, I say that I think the Prime Minister is entitled to make the claim that he has made, namely, that we should give him some little time, especially as he has had such a recent illness, and in view of the terrible demands upon him, and I for my

      1381
      part will gladly accord him any reasonable time which he suggests is necessary to make up his mind on these matters.
      With regard to the general Irish question, I never blamed the right hon. Gentleman for the failure of May last. On the contrary, after the many conflicts which we have had I felt reconciled towards him that he should have taken in his hands— he was then Minister of Munitions—this terrible armful of thorns at a time when he might have neglected the matter. Although he failed, it was a bold and courageous act, and since that time I have never had anything but the best feelings towards him for the spirit which he then showed. I therefore pass from the main subject of Home Rule in order that he may have an opportunity of making up his mind on the general question which he claims, but I wish to say one word upon a smaller matter which is not without its bearing upon it, namely, the question of the Irish railways. The Government have done the right thing in taking over the Irish railways It is part of the great national problem, and I hope that they will never again be restored to private hands. It is a matter, in dealing with our country which is susceptible of treatment in a way, so as to contribute to the solution of the problem of government. The English railways have very properly been allowed to remain largely under the command of the English directors and the old managers. That condition should not be allowed to obtain in Ireland. These wranglers have prevented amalgamation in the past. There are two little railways in Cork which had offices in the same building. The secretaries' doors were opposite each other, and each secretary used to go out to the post and put a penny stamp on his letter to the other rather than drop it into the letter box of the door right opposite. That miserable spirit has gone through this whole system of railway communication.
      My suggestion to the Government is this: Roughly speaking, it is a question of £40,000,000. Forty million pounds to-day comes to about two years' of the Irish tax assessment. Our tax assessment in the year which comes in course of payment next March will at least amount to between £22,000,000 and £23,000,000. Therefore, the problem which you have to handle is a problem of dealing with two years of Irish income. I would issue Treasury notes for the £40,000,000 that is necessary to pay off the shareholders.
      1382
      There would be no difficulty about it. With regard to railways such as the Great Southern and Western railways which have not been paying dividends on their ordinary stock, I would have a tribunal which would fix a price for the stock which would do justice between the shareholders and the State. You would thereby create, when this War is over a national nest-egg, a national asset, a national dividend, bearing security which would be in the hands of the State and which would be a solid foundation in connection with the Government of Ireland. I would hope to see following from the new rails laid down in Ireland, engines made in Ireland, the clothing of the men made locally and provided for, and so, flowing out of this centralisation of amalgamation or management of the Irish railways, I would hope to see the growth of a great many industries in the country. Moreover, it is my view that that condition of affairs would lead to some measure at least of popular control. I should say the Government would have a right to nominate a certain number of the members of the Railway Board, and at the same time the popular element should have a right to similar representation.
      One interest which England would have in a national system of railways would be to see that its traffic was not unduly diverted to any of the specialised English lines, the North-Western, the Midland (England), and perhaps the Lancashire and Yorkshire should have representation on the Committee, to see there was no undue diversion of traffic by sea route with the view of unduly benefiting any particular system. Having got that, I believe there would be no such good investment of public money. And what is more, it could be done by a stroke of the pen. The shareholders would be delighted with the interest you would give to them. The extent of it is immaterial, because if you give them a 5 per cent. stock they would get less of it, and a 6 per cent. stock still less, while if they had a 3 per cent. stock they would get more of it, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who dealt with the London Docks question, buying up the docks at a cost of something like £12,000,000, would find a precedent for the action I am suggesting, and the result would be a feeling of satisfaction all over the country that the step had been taken. I rose at the outset with the object of congratulating the Prime Minister on having

      1383
      had the boldness, at the beginning of his career, to insist on the Irish railways being nationalised, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will see that never again shall they be allowed to go back into private hands, but that eventually there shall be nationalisation.
      Le me say how entirely I endorse everything the Prime Minister has said with regard to the conduct of the War. We have the assurance, I think, in every quarter of this House, that there is only one feeling in relation to these Peace proposals. I have no animosity against the Germans. I wish to proclaim, on the contrary, that in a great many respects I have a feeling of admiration for them in literature, arts, and science. Therefore, I do not speak with any feeling of bitterness against the German people. When this War began, I looked at it from what I may call the school-boy test. I asked, who began it? We did not begin this War. Remember what Government we had in office. I saw very member of that Government enter this House as a young man. I knew the pacifist feelings of every member of the Government. I knew that they were not a war Government, and that they hated war. I knew that they were all fond of Europæan peace, and as anxious to promote it as I was myself. I knew the horror which every member of the Government had at the idea of imbrueing his hands in the blood of fellow creatures. Accordingly, I have throughout this War said of England and of the English Ministry that, in my judgment, they were carrying on a righteous and a necessary campaign, and I took upon myself, in my humble way, as much responsibility in connection with the campaign as if I were one of those really responsible in fact for it. I therefore say as an old member of the House of Commons—I suppose I may call myself that—the Government is correct in the attitude it has assumed in its reply to Germany. We study from day to day with the greatest anxiety the hopes of peace. We read carefully what falls from the German Chancellor in regard to the matter. All that has been said, indeed, has been carefully studied by us; but they make the greatest mistake if they suppose that, in a contest like this, the British Government will not continue to have the same measure of support, the same measure of confidence, and the same measure of momentum granted to it by
      1384
      the Members of this House, no matter what changes may take place in the form of the Ministry.
      Lastly, I would like to say one word for gallant France. Nothing has given me more joy and more pleasure than the recent victory of France at Verdun. It was a great achievement. It produced a great uplifting of the national heart. This House does not run to extremes in passing resolution or taking sentimental courses. I myself have no great love for passing resolutions or taking sentimental think it unfitting if this House were to pass a resolution congratulating the French Army upon its achievement at Verdun. I would gladly, at any rate, enter into such a message being sent to France. I believe it represents the unanimous feeling of this country, and I believe, too, I am voicing that feeling when I say that no peace which does not give France back every acre that she enjoyed before the War of 70 should ever be signed by us.
      Major WHELER: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate had it not been for the references made to the camp at Frongoch and the treatment accorded to the Irish prisoners there. I wish to say a few words based on my own actual observations as to the conditions which do exist there, and as to the way in which the prisoners are treated. They are receiving one and a half pounds of bread, half a pound of meat, and eight ounces-of vegetables and other component parts, making up a ration equal to anything that the German prisoners of war get and almost equal to that of the ordinary Infantry soldier in full training, who in fact receives but one-quarter of a pound more-meat. I think the hon. and learned Gentelman who has spoken on this subject should be rather more careful in using the word "hunger" in this connection. These men are not doing any work, and yet they are fed quite as well as the ordinary Infantry soldier who is in full training, with the exception of the small difference in the meat ration. I hope, therefore, we shall not have the word "hunger" used again in reference to this camp.
      I know what I am talking about. I know something of the conditions of these camps. One camp is hutted, and I venture to say the huts are distinctly superior to the average hut of the ordinary English soldier They are, in fact, very good huts. The sanitary conditions are clearly

      1385
      superior, and I should say they are superior to those under which these prisoners ordinarily live. Then something has been said with regard to the rats. There may be a few rats running about, but then there are always rats in camps. The huts have been boarded down to the ground in order to stop draughts, and it is very difficult indeed to dislodge the rats which take refuge underneath. But every step is taken to get rid of them, and in many cases with very great success. These exaggerated statements, therefore, might very well be stopped in the interests of accuracy. The whole of the conditions under which these prisoners are living are far better than those which exist in our camps for prisoners of war; and as regards food, they are getting as good a ration as many soldiers who are undergoing regular training. I wish to emphasise the fact, which is within my own personal knowledge, that these men are well fed. They have a canteen from which they get a certain rebate, and on the occasion of my last periodical visit I found they had been able to augment their food rations by a grant of £30 drawn from that rebate. In addition to that they get many parcels sent them by their friends, and their condition consequently is very satisfactory indeed. I thought perhaps these facts would be useful to the House; they are based upon personal experience, and I hope the word "hunger" will not again be used in reference to the condition of the prisoners at this camp.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sure the House has been very glad to hear what has fallen from the last speaker, but perhaps, as a comparatively new Member of this House, he was not fully aware of what others know, namely, that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) never, or rarely, strays from the realm of fancy into the realm of fact. I do not think it was particularly necessary, therefore, for anyone to intervene merely to contradict the statement made by the hon. and learned Member.
      Mr. HAZLETON: I entirely agree with the statement just made by the late Home Secretary. If the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Major Wheler) knew the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) as well as many Members of this House do, he would be aware that one might as well expect to get blood out of a turnip as accuracy
      1386
      from the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member has come down and pleaded for the nationalisation of Irish railways, but only after that question has been settled with the Government by the Irish party and its Leader, and the sole object of the hon. and learned Member has been to try and make capital out of it. I would only like to say this, that while we hope that the Government and the Prime Minister will permanently nationalise the Irish railways, we have no hope whatever that they or anybody else will be able to do anything towards nationalising the hon. and learned Member, because he never gets up in this House without attempting to sling mud at his own country and his own countrymen.
      8.0 P.M.
      In the course of the short speech he delivered in the House of Commons this evening he made several charges against the Irish party and its Leader as well as against some of its Members. He said it was the first time that the Leader of the Irish party had appealed for the release of the Irish prisoners at Frongoch. Everybody in Ireland and in this House knows that there is not a shadow of foundation for that statement, because for months and months past the Irish party, by resolution, through its Chairman, has been doing all in its power to get the Government to release these prisoners and to give political treatment to those prisoners who were sentenced by court-martial. If I might be allowed to say so, I do not consider there is anything more mean or contemptible than the attacks that have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney). Here is a man who, at the risk of great misunderstanding, was serving on the Advisory Committee. The cases of these Irish prisoners was referred to that Committee, and there were close upon 2,000 of them. The hon. Member for Newry had to make up his mind whether he would remain on that Committee, to help in dealing with those cases, or withdraw, and leave no Irishman on the Committee at all, and so leave these prisoners to be dealt with purely by people from other parts of the United Kingdom. I say that the hon. Member showed a high courage, a high patriotism, and great self-sacrifice in taking the action he did on this Committee, and it does not lie in the mouth of any hon. and learned Gentleman in this House to sneer at and to misrepresent him

      1387
      now. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes sneering charges against the hon. Member for Newry as being the first Irish Nationalist who has ever come forward to help the Government. The hon. Member did not come forward to help the Government, but to ease a very difficult position, and not only the Irish party, and the Nationalists, but Irishmen generally are grateful to him for the part he has played from start to finish in this transaction. When the hon. and learned Gentleman made these sneering allusions, he was, perhaps, thinking of more ancient history, when certain so-called Nationalists in the town of Bantry had dealings with O'Donovan Rossa, which were not very much to their credit. I can only say, in conclusion, that we regard now as little as we have always done the sneering and false attacks of the hon. and learned Member for East Cork.
      Mr. AINSWORTH: I will only detain the House for a moment, but I would just like to refer to something which we all agree is most important, and which was referred to by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—I mean, what is termed the man-power of the country. This has been a problem for the late Government, and will be, and no doubt is, an important problem for the new Government, and for everybody in the country, especially those who may be interested in industry. It is in the interests of the country that every man should be employed in a particular way so that his services may be used to the best advantage. I think it should be clearly borne in mind that the liability of every man to serve his country in the field is only temporarily got rid of by the fact of his being, as it is said, "conditionally exempted" from the Army. I do not think we really understand what we mean by the words "conditional exemption." They must mean that a man is only exempted from service with the Colours on the understanding that his services to the country would be of more value in industrial employment than in the Army. The great point to be understood is that every man who is allowed to take part in an industrial occupation should only be exempted so long as he works the full hours and is employed to the best advantage of the country. No one should ever be exempted at all for industrial work unless it is understood that in all respects
      1388
      he follows out that industrial work according to the fixed hours and arrangements-of the trade to which he belongs. When I saw in the paper the other day that an additional 15 per cent. had been given to the colliers in Wales I thought I should like to have known—although we have had no information on the subject so far—if these colliers were exempted from service with the Colours and were employed in coal pits on the clear understanding that they worked the whole of the usual time. I cannot say how true they were; I believe it is the case in a large number of districts that the colliers and miners work practically the full hours; but there have been accounts in the papers of districts in which they anly work for part of the time. I think it should be clearly understood that if a man is conditionally exempted, in order that he may follow his own industrial calling, it can only be on the understanding that he works the whole time and that the country gets the advantages of his services. This is a problem which closely concerns the country, and if it is going to be actively followed up by the Government, I think it would be highly desirable that, at some time—I cannot ask the Government to do so this evening, if they do not wish to do so, but as soon as possible—a clear statement should be made by them to the effect that, in dealing with the services of men exempted from the Colours for industry, they should be exempted on the clear understanding that full hours should be worked.
      Sir WALTER ESSEX: One felt in listening to the weighty speech of the Prime Minister to-day that we have come to a time of great gravity and serious perils and risks. I was rather disappointed not to find in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks some larger measure of reassurance than that which his words-gave. In such observations as are open, to a layman of simple life and movements, like myself, one gathers impressions, which may be accurate or otherwise, in such opportunities as are offered to him, and they have led me to form—I cannot say a rosy view of things—but they have led me to feel that more might have been said for the encouragement of the people-of this country, and for the encouragement and the heartening of those outside-this country, whose sympathies are towards us in this great struggle, than has been laid before the House to-day in the

      1389
      speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that the reading he gave of the German Peace proposals was quite such as a close observation and reading of them might, in other eyes, and in other judgment, seem' fittest. I am inclined to the opinion that the German people as a whole, and a great number of those who form their thoughts, believe, to the bottom of their hearts, that the words used in the speech of the German Chancellor, and any such communications as, under his authority and by his instructions, have appeared in the Press of the world, are the baldest and barest statement of what are considered and believed by them to be the favourable facts of the German position. There can be little doubt that any sort of peace now concluded would leave the Germans in virtual possession of nearly all that for which they have striven. But at least there is this consolation coming to us. The Government has evidently made up its mind, and the country behind it has made up its mind, that these are no days for discussing peace proposals; but that they are days for emphasising still more, for all whom it may concern, the tremendous importance of the task upon which we are engaged—an importance, not limited merely to the interest of the people of these Islands, but which is bound up with the whole of the well-being of the civilised world. It has long been the failing of the English people; the failure to dress our national shop window successfully; and I cannot help feeling that we have not done sufficient to make it clear to the people of the world how they are as vitally concerned in this struggle as we are, though on them is not laid the burden of the immediate cost. I hope we may pay larger attention to this. The policy of many nations and the policy of the Germans was to endeavour to place themselves in the hearts of neutrals in the most favourable position. We have always gone on, as a people, with our national reserve and pride, in comparative indifference be the opinions of neutrals, trusting that our good motives and good intentions may be justified by subsequent reading of our acts in the light of history. I think we shall have to depart from that custom more and more, and come to appreciate, in times like these, the weight in the scale and the importance of the good opinions of all the peoples of the earth who may not be immediately engaged in the business in hand.
      1390
      More than that on that I need not say, but I particularly want to say a few words on the proposed enrolment of labour of unemployed persons in the country. I do not know, from the references made by the right hon. Gentleman—they have not been amplified so far by any of his colleagues, though they may be later on, before the House rises—whether this is the foreshadowing of a proposal for the enrolment of healthy persons not employed in military matters being between the ages of forty-one and sixty. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have said a little more clearly what was in the mind of the Government, for evidently they have gone a long way towards building their plans in the matter. It will be very necessary, for the peace of the country, that we should have no more bungling, as we had in the previous enrolment for Army purposes. I suppose there will be some sort of authority instituted for discussing the suitability or unsuitability of persons coming under the operation of this levy. What we shall have to learn and settle, and it is a profoundly important problem, is what are the essential industries in the country to which we have to pay attention. There is no man going about in the commerce of the world during the currency of this War but must have felt again and again that large numbers of people were being employed in all directions in industries which not only were non-essential to the War, but were positively, at a time like this, extravagant. They were faced with the difficulty that nobody had attempted to formulate a plan whereby the burdens laid upon them which their businesses carried, namely, burdens of rent and other standing charges, could be assumed in the event of their surrendering the whole of their staffs to some national purpose. There are firms to-day who are facing ruin—some have already faced it—in businesses largely staffed by young men, because the military demands have taken from them the whole of the essential men in those industries. Firms have collapsed and ruin has faced the proprietors as a consequence of the War. We have heard no great uproar about this. People have been too patriotic. When you come along and say here that drapery interests and other interests are nonessential and are not vital and these you intend to close down, or from those you intend to take so many persons that the

      1391
      continuance of those industries shall be rendered impossible, then you ought and must do something to meet the inevitable loss, approaching at times even to ruin, which persons may suffer under this rearrangement of your labour problems and schemes.
      I feel that the absorption of labour in useful occupations needs to be made more and more complete, but I want to point out that the greatest care will have to be exercised in making the selection of those industries and in seeing that the persons so taken are persons who will not in the labour they can contribute to the national interest leave behind them undischarged responsibilities which will greatly outweigh those they can redeem. We want, also, in the matter of labour, to look— and we can then do it with a lighter heart and easier conscience—at the present contents of many of the military camps up and down the country. There are camps to-day to which I can refer where there is hardly a man who is fit to shoulder a gun or take part in a long route march, men who never ought to have been enrolled in the Army, and who, but for the desire to increase the numbers of the Army to a fictitious extent, would never have been there. These men in many cases in their occupation in the industry of the country would have been able to do useful work. They have been turned out by military insistence from those duties. In come cases, to my own knowledge, they have been refused on prior occasions when they have volunteered or been called up and have been turned down because of physical defects. They have been finally taken, although no better in health, and when the testing time has come and drafts have been made up, the whole of the expenditure on keep, training, maintenance, and equipment have gone for nothing. These men have wasted their time it may be in idleness, bringing with it its consequent degenerate-ness, whereas more intelligent oversight might have preserved them for other useful purposes in the War. These are thoughts that occurred to me in connection with this general draft on labour. I hope it will be done thoroughly, but it will have to be done intelligently and wisely. I do not see why you want to have the military concerned at all. I caught an indication that there was going to be a joint body comprising military and civil persons. Keep the military out! You
      1392
      are dealing now with purposes non-military. Even in the matter of munitions you do not need a military judgment as to who shall or shall not be employed upon them. Let this be a civil body. Let it start with the full sympathy of the whole of the occupants of the industries of the country. If it starts upon that basis and in that method, it will command the sympathy of the people and labour will feel that it will be dealt with equitably, honestly, candidly, and without arrogance. The commercial interests involved, the factories, warehouses, and workshops, will feel that they are not being plundered in one particular district, parish or township, whereas in a neighbouring district, parish, or township, owing to a different organisation, there is evidence of efficient care. If these difficulties are avoided, if we learn the lesson that has been taught us by the haphazard methods of the tribunals in the past, if the matter goes along without any injury or permanent loss to the well-being of the nation, the Government may be able to draw to itself an enormous accretion of power in having this organisation for the maintenance of industry and the production of munitions for the Forces of the Crown, and the result can only be a hastening of the approach of the end of the War with the success of the Allies by such a contribution that our strong and powerful country can offer.
      Commander BELLAIRS: During the great and historic speech of the Prime Minister he was interrupted by someone asking him to say a few words about the Navy. I was not one of those who resented the omission, because it afforded evidence that he regarded the Navy as being in a thoroughly healthy state, and a healthy body is unconscious of its own health. There is also a sense in which perfection is the sign of disappearance. If he regarded the Navy as being in a perfect state it would quite account for the fact that he intended to omit reference to it from his speech. The point upon which I am most disposed to congratulate the Government is the dwindling in the number of the Cabinet. I was the first to raise the question on the 6th May, 1915, when I asked a question and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, prevented me from asking supplementary questions on that occasion. I raised it on several other occasions and also by Resolution. In the Resolution I drew attention to the opinion of

      1393
      Sir Robert Peel that the Government of this country would be infinitely better conducted by a Cabinet of nine than by a Cabinet of thirteen or fourteen, and also to Mr. Disraeli's action in reducing the size of the Cabinet in 1874. The Prime Minister quoted the famous saying about there being wisdom in a multitude of counsellors. I imagine that wisdom resides in there being few. I prefer myself the saying of a French philosopher, that the greater number of wise men assembled in a room the less the wisdom that obtained. In 1909 there was a discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence. I then ventured to say that inevitably the members of the Cabinet who were members of that Committee would become an inner Cabinet, and that ultimately for war purposes they would become the Cabinet itself. Both the Prime Minister of the day— the present Leader of the Opposition—and the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, indicated their strong dissent from me by nodding their heads. It is one of the standing grievances of this House that a nod of the head is not reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. SO far as the OFFICIAL REPORT is concerned, when a Minister nods his head there is nothing in it. We have now reduced the Cabinet to five, and things will go with a great deal more smoothness and a great deal more celerity than they ever have done in the past, and not only that, but I believe that our example will have its effect upon our Allies, and that the French and Italians will follow it, and possibly the Russians. The result will be that the bringing together of the different countries for the purposes of consultation will be facilitated to an enormous degree. This is not a recent difficulty. The late Prime Minister was fully conscious of it, and well over a year ago he said, in contrast with the German position:
      "With the Allies, on the other hand, every important step has naturally and necessarily been taken in consultation and in concert between three, and latterly four, different Powers. With the best good will in the world, and the most genuine common purpose, there must be differences of angle and in points of view in an operation of that kind."
      They were fully conscious of the difficulties then, and the great pity is that when the suggestion was first mooted by me nineteen months ago, before the Coalition Government was formed, we did not adopt it and form a small Cabinet then of young and physically fit men who could go across to Paris and meet the Ministers
      1394
      from Italy there as well, and come to quick decisions. In that way I think the conduct of the War would have been enormously facilitated.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of an annual Salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to any Minister, and to any Under-Secretary to a Secretary of State while he performs the duties. of Minister of Blockade, appointed under any Act of the present Session for establishing certain new Ministries, and for the appointment of additional Secretaries or Under-Secretaries in certain Government Departments, and of other Salaries, Remuneration, and expenses which may become payable in pursuance of such Act."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does that Resolution earmark the salary attaching to a particular office, or is it going to be done by a Bill?
The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): That is done by the Bill itself.
Question put, and agreed to.

NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Ministry of Labour.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. HEALY: Is it not rather hard in a thin House to proceed with a Bill of this kind? I do not want to offer needless opposition, but it seems to me rather hard, after the day we have had, to proceed with a Bill of this kind in the absence of most Members.
Sir G. CAVE: I hope the Members will come in. It is important that we should get the Committee stage to-day. Those who are not able to be here will be able to put their Amendments down for the Report stage to-morrow.
Mr. HEALY: I shall not offer any further opposition.
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for West Bradford to this and certain other Clauses go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr. JOWETT: It is the Ministries and Secretaries Bill. Does not the word "Ministry" cover the proposal? It is not a "Ministers," but a "Ministries" Bill, and it comes, I contend, within the scope of the word "Ministries."
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not. The hon. Member brings forward a well-known proposal to establish a series of Parliamentary Committees. That is a proposal which may be very good, but I do not think it can be attached to a Bill of this kind.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Powers and Duties of Food Controller.)
It shall be the duty of the Food Controller to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such manner as he thinks best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best for encouraging the production of food, and for those purposes he shall have such powers or duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may, by Order in Council, transfer to him, or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently with, or in consultation with, the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. LUNDON: For the last ten days announcements have appeared in the Press, and it has been taken for granted that Thursday is to be a meatless day in Great Britain and in Ireland. Friday in Ireland is a meatless day as far as the Catholic community is concerned, and that applies to the Catholic community of the civilised world. In order to avoid anything in the nature of a suggestion as to hostility to the Catholic community, it would be advisable for the Food Controller to fix Friday as the meatless day for Great Britain and Ireland, or otherwise to make whatever fixture he likes for Great Britain, but to allow Friday to be our meatless day. The Prime Minister asked us to have a national Lent. Irish Catholics and Catholics throughout the world have always had a national Lent. It is not alone that Friday is a meatless day in the eyes of the Catholic community throughout the world, but there are several other periods of the year, in Lent and in Advent, when on two or three other days of the week meat cannot be used. Our Irish Catholic soldiers are fighting your battles in Franca and elsewhere, and when they come back suffering from wounds and lying in hospitals, are you going to ask them to have two meatless days, Thursday and Friday, in succession? Are you going to ask the working people in the munition factories who are of the Catholic faith that they should submit to meatless days on Thursday and Friday, while the man who works side by side with him is to have but one? The Catholics in this country and Ireland ought to have one meatless day and that day ought to be Friday, otherwise let us hate two meatless days, and let the same regulations apply to the people of this country and of Ireland. Whatever the people of this country are willing to accept as a sacrifice in order to prosecute the War, we in Ireland are prepared to make similar sacrifices, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make that representation to the Food Controller. Several of the Catholic bishops of England have written to members of our party to ask that their views on this matter should be brought to Lord Devon-port's attention, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey to him our view that instead of Thursday Friday should be the day fixed.
Mr. P. MEEHAN: I would like to support the proposal brought forward by my hon. Friend, who has pointed out that in Ireland, where the great majority of the

1397
people are Catholic, we have already one meatless day, according to the laws and regulations of the Church. If, when the Food Controller fixes a meatless day, or two meatless days, as the case may be, one of those days is not a Friday, it will mean that Catholics, not only in Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom, will have two meatless days. If two meatless days are fixed and neither of those days happens to be a Friday, it will mean that Catholics will have three meatless days. That is not a position in which this House would like the majority of the Irish people to be put, and I would strongly support the appeal of my hon. Friend that if there is to be one meatless day it should be a Friday, and if there are to be two meatless days, one of those days should be a Friday. My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is another period of the year in Ireland, the Lenten season, during, which we have a second meatless day, and sometimes three. Therefore it may happen, under these new Regulations—I do not say it will happen—that in Ireland we would have, during the Lenten season, four meatless days. I think it will be universally conceded that that would not be reasonable or fair.
The CHAIRMAN: I have permitted the two hon. Members to make their observations, but I would point out that this is more an administrative matter than a legislative matter. It is not for legislation to say which is to be the meatless day. However, the hon. Members are entitled to put their queries to the Government and to receive an answer.
Sir G. CAVE: I am willing to give an answer. The hon. Members have raised a very interesting point. They desire that if there are to be meatless days in Ireland, one of those days shall be a Friday. I can quite understand that to Catholics, both in this country and in Ireland, that is a point of interest, and I will very willingly undertake to convey an expression of the hon. Members' views to the Food Controller.
Mr. NUGENT: I should like to point out that this matter affects Irish Catholics in Great Britain as much as it affects them in Ireland. I represent an exclusively Catholic society, which has many members in this country as well as in Ireland, and during the last few days I have received many resolutions in regard to this matter, which is causing very great concern. I trust the right hon. Gentleman
1398
will convey our views to the proper authorities, and that if such an order is to be imposed the enforcement of it will be carried out with the least possible friction, I think that if you are going to have only-one meatless day it should be Friday, and that if there are to be two meatless days-one of those days should be a Friday. It is no use attempting to force this down the throats of the people in this country who-are Catholics, because they will resent it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 6.—(Powers and Duties of Shipping Controller.)
It shall be the duty of the Shipping Controller to control and regulate any shipping available for the needs of the country in such manner as to make the best use-thereof, having regard to the circumstances of the time, and to take such steps. as he thinks best for providing and maintaining an efficient supply of shipping, and for those purposes he shall have such powers or duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to him, or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and regulations may be made under that Act accordingly.
Mr. PETO: I beg to move, after the-word "him" ["transfer to him"], to insert the words "and particularly all the-powers and duties of the Board of Trade-in relation to shipping and the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act,. 1894."
Unless these words are added, I doubt whether the appointment of a Controller of Shipping will be really likely to simplify the procedure that we have had so far and to get over the difficulties in regard to our getting a definite and concrete policy in respect to shipping. If the words I now propose were added to the Bill it would mean that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade would be transferred to the Controller of Shipping and, presumably, all the staff at the Board of Trade

1399
who deal with these shipping questions now. At the present time, as we were told by the Home Secretary yesterday, there are two Departments concerned with -shipping, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and also three Committees. If we are still to have these two Departments, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, concerned with merchant shipping, and concerned very intimately with the conduct of merchant shipping, and if we are to have a Controller of Shipping and the present powers in regard to shipping are to be left with the Board of Trade, I fail to see how that arrangement is going to work for simplification and for the expediting of decisions on questions as to the provision of fresh tonnage or making the best use of the present tonnage. What are the questions dealt with in the very voluminous Act to which I have referred? I will not trouble the House with even the headlines, but towards the end of the three hundred or four hundred Sections we find such heads as "load line" and "carriage of timber and grain." These questions, which are presumably going to be administered by the Board of Trade, go to the very root of the most economic use of tonnage. It may be necessary during the War—I know it was in contemplation before the War—to alter the regulations in regard to the load line. If it is desirable to have the very strong regulations which exist at present in regard to the carriage of deck cargoes of timber we must remember that those are part of the ordinary peace procedure. There is no one in this House in the last few years who has worked harder to get these provisions stiffened up and to prevent their evasion by the discharge of deck loads of timber at foreign ports when our merchant ships have crossed the Atlantic with deck loads of timber which would be contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act if they were coming to our ports. If, as a war measure, that may be necessary, I would point out that the ordinary sea risks are nothing compared to the risks of submarines. Therefore, I would like to know, first of all, what is contemplated in setting up a -Controller of Shipping. Is it intended merely to have another authority added o those which exist, or are we going to have a real simplification, and a real authority set up with complete power to deal with all these questions of shipping? In the Amendments I have on the Paper I pro-
1400
pose to insert certain words, and to omit, other words. It may save time if I mention now the omission of the words—
"or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently, with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned."
If those words are left in, the powers of the Board of, Trade are not transferred to the Shipping Controller, and the appointment of the Shipping Controller will run the great risk of adding to the complication of things. More people will have to be consulted before any decision is arrived at, and before that simplification is effected which I had hoped was the object of this Bill.
Sir G. CAVE: Having heard my hon. Friend, I am not quite certain whether he desires to extend or reduce the power of the Shipping Controller under this Bill. The effect of his Amendment is enormously to extend them. The tendency of his argument is greatly to reduce them. I am not sure which he really desires.
Mr. PETO: My Amendment was to transfer to the Shipping Controller while he is in control of our shipping, and in these war conditions, the whole of the powers of the Board of Trade, and instead of authorising him to do things in consultation with other Departments I should like to see him given the powers to settle matters once for all and to overrule the other Departments.
Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid that it would not be possible to take that course. The Merchant Shipping Acts are very long, elaborate Acts which confer upon the Board of Trade powers which are of great use in time of peace to enforce Regulations regarding shipping. The purpose of this Bill is that in time of war the Shipping Controller shall have new powers altogether, powers which the Board of Trade has not got, to maintain and increase the supply of shipping for war purposes. If there is any difficulty—I dc not think that there will be—owing to the existence of the two authorities side by side, that, I hope, will be met by the powers, to which my hon. Friend refers, of the two authorities to get into consultation together. There will not be either under the Clause proposed or under the earlier Clause the least shadow of difference or conflict between the two authorities. I happen to know that the authorities who are, under those Clauses, to exercise powers, in conjunction with other authorities, in one

1401
case the Food Controller and in the other the Shipping Controller, have already met those authorities and that the two parties are quite prepared to act together. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. PETO: I would like to know whether the Shipping Controller is going to be in this House or not. I gather from reading carefully what was said by the Leader of the House in yesterday's Debate that he was going to be in the House. I understood from other references that he was not. I have no doubt that the Government have, carefully considered the giving to the Shipping Controller of these powers. It is rather a large order, from the point of view of the merchant service, to place a shipowner, and a shipowner of a particular kind of ship only, in charge of the whole of this business, particularly if he will not be in this House, so that no question can be addressed to him either in the interests of the men or of the officers. I am afraid that it will not add to the confidence of the officers, for whom I can speak perhaps more than for the men, but I do not think it fair either to the officers or to the men that vast powers, which may involve a great deal to them in the conditions of their employment, should be exercised by a shipowner, only owning a particular class of ship, who is not in this House. I should like to know whether I am right in understanding the Leader of the House—I think in column 1156 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT—to reply to an hon. Member that the Shipping Controller was coming into the House, and he goes on to say that he did not want to attend there very much. I should like to know whether I am right or not?
Sir G. CAVE: I have not the reference, but certainly my recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the House that the Shipping Controller did not desire to be a Member of the House. He said that his desire was to attend to his duties elsewhere, and that he would be represented in this House by a Parliamentary Secretary. That is what I understood him to say.
Question put, and agreed to
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Suspension of Limit on number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State.)
(1) During the continuance of the present War and a period of six months, thereafter, any provisions of Section four of the Government of India Act, 1858, or the House of Commons (Vacation of Seats) Act, 1864, or of any other enactment imposing a limit on the number of Under-Secretaries to the Secretaries of State, or on the number of Secretaries of any Government Department who may sit and vote in the House of Commons, shall not have effect.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may be appointed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, and to the Board of Trade; and it shall also be lawful for His-Majesty to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to any special authority or board constituted in connection with the supply of aircraft for the present War.
(3) Any Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under this Section shall hold office-only during the continuance of the present War and a period of six months thereafter, and there shall be paid to any secretary so appointed such remuneration as may be fixed by the Treasury.
(4) The office of a Secretary appointed under this Section shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament
Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to omit the words, "Notwithstanding anything in any Act, additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may be appointed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, and to the Board of Trade; and."
The object of this Amendment is to elicit from the Government a statement of their intention and policy in regard to the appointment of these additional Under-Secretaries for Foreign Affairs, for War, and the Board of Trade When the Second Beading was under discussion yesterday there was a considerable desire on the part of the House to understand fully the necessity for the additional appointments. The proposal to appoint additional Under-Secretaries to these three Departments is the more mysterious on account of the course adopted of taking away from the powers of two of these Departments. No explanation has ever been given to the House or

1403
to the Committee as to the necessity of appointing an additional Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office at this juncture. So far as the Secretary of Stats for War is concerned it is within the recollection of the House that under the proposed Ministry of Labour and in connection with the already existing Ministry of Munitions certain very important duties are being taken away from the War Office, and it is very hard, in these circumstances, to see why an additional Under-Secretary should be required in the War Office. In the case of the Board of Trade the mystery is still deeper because it is proposed to establish a Ministry of Labour, and very important duties indeed, some of them of a particularly arduous character, are deliberately withdrawn from the charge and responsibility of the Boad of Trade, and it is of great importance, before we pass words of this kind, to inform the Committee fully of the purpose which the Government have in view in moving for powers to appoint additional Under-Secretaries in these three Departments. It is for the purpose of eliciting clearly a full statement of the Government's intention in this direction that I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: I am very glad my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment, because it enables me to make a statement which I have promised to make. I want to make it perfectly clear that we do desire under previous Clauses to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries to the three new Ministries. Then comes this Subsection. Now, the intention of the draftsman—whether he carried it out or not is a matter of opinion—was that we should be enabled to appoint an additional Under-Secretary to each of these three Ministries—the word, of course, is put in the plural because there are three altogether. That seems to be misunderstood, and so I propose to make it clear that only one additional Under-Secretary can be appointed, under this Bill, to each of these three Ministries—the Foreign Office, the War Office, and the Board of Trade. As regards those three cases, I want to state perfectly frankly that we do definitely desire powers from the House to appoint at once an additional Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As the Committee knows, the work of the Minister of Blockade is carried on at the Foreign Office. It will be seen that that is
1404
a necessary arrangement, because the Minister of Blockade is dealing every day with goods and ships belonging to neutral subjects, and, of course, in connection with that business questions are constantly arising which require or bring about diplomatic intervention, and it is very desirable that the Foreign Office should be in a position to deal with the whole matter. Besides that, the Contraband Committee make constant use of our own diplomatic representatives abroad, and that work can most conveniently be done through the Foreign Office. Therefore the Government, and everybody connected with the work, hold the view that it is right to combine the work of the Blockade Minister with the work of the Foreign Office, and, if that is so, of course it involves a great deal of the time of the present Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and it is only right and proper that we should accede to the desire of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be given a second Under-Secretary, who will assist him or the Minister of Blockade. I think I have made out a very strong case for the appointment of that Under-Secretary. With regard to the other two, I admit at once that the case is different. The two Ministers concerned have asked for power to appoint a second Under-Secretary, but they have not said that they desire to use that power at once. The work of the War Office. of course, is growing very fast and the Minister for War asks for this power. I do not understand that it is intended to make an immediate appointment under the Act for the purpose of the War Office, and the same thing applies to the Board of Trade. I doubt very much whether an appointment will be made for some little time to come, and, therefore, I put it frankly to the Committee that the power we ask for may or may not be used.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. McKENNA: I think my right hon. Friend has made out a complete case so far as an additional Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office is concerned, and we should not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the Bill in its present form as far as that office goes. With regard to the War Office, also, I think that the power to appoint an additional Under-Secretary is a reasonable power, notwithstanding that there are already in the House two Under-Secretaries for the War Office. Therefore, in that respect also,

1405
should not offer any criticism; but with regard to the Board of Trade I really think we ought to press my right hon. Friend not to take this power. The Board of Trade has hitherto been carried on by two representatives in this House. We shall still have two representatives in the House, but the new Board of Trade will not have one-third of the work. The Board of Trade has hitherto been conducted with efficiency, and in those circumstances I appeal to my right hon. Friends not to take this power to appoint an additional Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. With regard to the new offices, of course we gladly agree to the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary for each office, and I would call my right hon. Friend's attention to the language of Clause 10, which implies that two additional Under-Secretaries in respect of each of these offices may sit in this House and a number may sit in the other House. Therefore, when the time comes I should, if he agrees with my argument, propose an Amendment to Clause 10 which would limit the power of appointment of Under-Secretaries with regard to the new Ministries to one Under-Secretary sitting in either House. I trust that is an arrangement which he will be able to accept.
Mr. ANDERSON: I hope the proposal with regard to the appointment of an Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade will really be dropped, because by this Bill a great deal of the work hitherto done by the Board of Trade is going to be taken from the Board of Trade and transferred to the Ministry of Labour. Therefore, it is a most unusual time for the Board of Trade to ask for the appointment of a new Under-Secretary. Furthermore, the appointment of a Food Controller is going to take away from the Board of Trade a very large part of the work which has hitherto devolved upon that Department. The Department has also had to deal with the great question of shipping, and it is now to be relieved of it, as well as of the question of food control, and all of this work is going to be taken from the Board of Trade. In view of those circumstances I think absolutely no case can be made out for this appointment, and I am sure the Government will be well advised not to press the matter further. We do not want to appoint more officials than are necessary at a time like this, and therefore, while the House will be quite glad to give this power in the case of the Foreign
1406
Office, where a case for it has been made out, I hope the matter will not be pressed by the Government in regard to the Board of Trade.
Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I am prepared to leave out the words "and the Board of Trade "from the Clause.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I want to supplement what was said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna), and to express the hope that the Government will not appoint a third representative of the War Office in this House. But if the Government take power, and it was shown that the occasion had arisen for such an appointment, it might be that we could not refuse to accede to it. At the same time, I think it is the general feeling of the House that as there are already two Under-Secretaries to the War Office in this House, it is not desirable to add a third. Otherwise, there might soon be fifty Members of this House entitled to sit upon the Treasury Bench—I mean that they would have the constitutional right to do so, but I am afraid there would be a lack of physical accommodation. I think the House regards with some disquietude the multiplication of Government posts, particularly in days such as these, unless clear and definite cause can be made out to show that such appointments are necessary.
Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word Act" "not withstanding anything in any Act"], insert the word an."
After the word Under" "Parliamentary Under-Secretaries"], leave out the word Secretaries," and insert instead thereof the word "Secretary."
Leave out the words "Board of Trade."
After the word "War" ["Secretary of State for War"], insert the word"respectively."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Officers, Remuneration, and Expenses.)
(1) Any Minister appointed under this Act may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may determine.
(2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to any Minister appointed under this Act, and also to any Under-Secretary to a Secretary of State while he performs the duties of Minister of Blockade, an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, officers and servants of each of the Ministries established under this Act, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
(3) The expenses of each of the Ministries established under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Minister"["any Minister appointed"], to insert the words "with the approval of the Treasury."
I move this Amendment simply for the purpose of preserving some control over what might become in the course of time an indefinite multiplication of officials. It is one of the misfortunes of the conditions under which this House works that we have diminished the power of financial control to something less than we would under normal conditions regard as reasonable, and the role of the watchdog of the public purse has, by the involution of things, become the Treasury Departments, and I certainly think that at a time when we are introducing, and rightly introducing as I believe, outside experts for the practical conduct of the real business of the Departments of the State, it is very important that we should not give away our traditions by allowing unlicensed and unlimited powers to the heads of Departments to appoint excessive staffs. It is solely to guard against that possible danger that I submit this Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: The Clause of the Bill is in the common form, and these officers cannot be remunerated without the consent of the Treasury. I suppose it would be possible to appoint a secretary with, no salary at all; if so, we do not want to prevent that.
Mr. SHERWELL: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the check is not really so complete as he has indicated? If the Committee observe the drafting of the Clause they will see that the payment of these officers is made man-
1408
datory, and the Treasury has no real power over the number of officials. It is possible that a sum might be granted for the maintenance of these Secretaries, and the effect might be that a number of officials appointed by the head of the Department might receive smaller salaries than they would otherwise be paid.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Ability of Minister and Secretaries to Sit in Parliament.)
(1) The office of a Minister appointed under this Act, or of Secretary in a Ministry established under this Act, shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament, but not more than two Secretaries in each Ministry shall sit as members of that House at the same time.
(2) The office of a Minister appointed under this Act shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H. of the Re-presentation of the People Act, 1867, and Schedule H. of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Schedule E. of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.
(3) A Minister appointed under this Act shall take oath of allegiance and official oath, and shall be deemed to be included in the First Part of the Schedule to the-Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "than"["more than two Secretaries"], to leave out the words "two Secretaries," and insert instead thereof the words "one Secretary"
I rather understood from the speech of my right hon. Friend that he was favourable to the Amendment. In the formation of these new offices there should be some limitation upon the number of paid secretaries. You might have one paid secretary in each of these offices, and two-or three or more paid Secretaries in another place. I think when we are spending money as fast as we are now we ought to have some regard to economy. I am quite sure that the Government do not

1409
intend to do these things, but it gives a bad appearance if the House, without inquiry, really gives in a certain form unlimited power to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries, either in the House or in the other House. I think the Amendment I have suggested to my right hon. Friend is appropriate, in order to give the limitation which is asked.
Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment represents exactly what we propose to do, but my difficulty in putting these words into the Clause is that they are rather inconsistent with Clause 7, Sub-section (1), which removes or suspends the limit on the number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. My own view is that it would be more consistent to omit altogether these two lines, "but not more than two Secretaries in each Ministry shall sit as Members of this House at the same time. "If my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to-day, I will consider the matter before to-morrow, and either omit those lines or make some other Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: I readily agree to that, and on the Report stage I will raise the matter again, or my right hon. Friend can put down proper words to limit the number of paid Parliamentary Secretaries to one each in either House.
Sir G. CAVE: I will consider it, and see how it can be dealt with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of Air Board.)
For the purpose of organising and maintaining the supply of aircraft in the national interest in connection with the present War, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to establish an Air Board, consisting of a President appointed by His Majesty, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct. The President of the Board shall act with the advice of the other members of the Board.
For the purp6ses of this Act the President of the Air Board shall be deemed
1410
to be a Minister appointed under this Act and the Air Board a Ministry established under this Act.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The effect of this Clause will be to establish an Air Board. As hon. Members know, the Air Board has practically existed for some months. It was formed by the late Government, and represents the War Office, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions and several other Departments. The Board has, of course, a President who has considerable power, being a Cabinet Minister, but the Board up to now has had no statutory existence. We are desirous of regularising the present position.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: We are very ready to assent to this new Clause. There is a very great deal of interest in the Air Board. Its composition and its functions are all of vital importance in the conduct of the War, and of a successful military and naval Air Service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that the new Air Board, which the new Government proposes, will be, in effect, the same as the old Air Board—at least, I understood him so to say
Sir G. CAVE: I presume so.
Mr. SAMUEL: The House will be interested to learn that. Indeed, I think that it is revealing no secret to say that one of the last acts of the late Government was to settle the constitution of the Air Board, and I understand that the new Government is continuing the Air Board on the same lines. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can satisfy the curiosity which, I am sure, will be felt by many Members of the House at the words of the Home Secretary that Lord Curzon will not continue to be President of the Air Board. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in a position to tell the House and the country who the head of this important body is to be I am sure the information will be generally welcomed.
Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that Lord Curzon would not hereafter be head of the Air Board. I was only desirous of

1411
guarding myself against the inference that he would certainly continue as head. I am afraid I cannot go beyond that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers and Duties of Air Board.)
The Air Board shall in relation to aircraft have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to the Board, or authorise the Board to exercise or perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned.
Clause brought up; read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

VOLUNTEER BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir R. ADKINS: The agreement referred to in Clause 1, which may be entered into, may not be always the best of terms for all parts of the country. I should like to know if there is any power of variation to meet the special circumstances of the case?
Mr. AINSWORTH: May I inquire whether ample powers are being taken to pay all the staffs
Mr. HOGGE: May I take the opportunity of asking my hon. Friend what are the Government proposals in regard to men who join the Volunteer Forces so far as any disability is concerned which arises as a result of their services in the force? I understand that my hon. Friend, in conjunction with the authorities at the War Office, has considered this subject, and that they have come to some decision. I think one would be quite fair in saying that, naturally, we should not expect the same kind of pension or that those men should not drop in to the same category as men who are on active service at the front. It is also at the same time?
1412
apparent that if you utilise the Volunteer Forces of this country, that, in view of the fact that these men are giving their services gratuitously, the least the State can do is to make some provision for them. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to indicate that this aspect of the question has not been forgotten.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask a question of the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill, and it is with regard to the Grant. I do not see in the Bill itself any Grant of 40s. per volunteer. Do I understand that the Grant is to cover all the expenses in addition to the cost of clothing the volunteers, because if that is the case I am afraid that a very large number of the corps will be deficient in their expenses; and I should like to ask also whether, in the case where volunteer corps are already equipped so far as clothing is concerned, the 40s. will be given to them? I should like to call attention to the position of the officers, because to my knowledge in a very large number of towns you have at the present time many men with moderate means who are officers, and they have undertaken very large financial liabilities. For instance, they have undertaken to rent drill sheds where the men drill every night. They are not able to utilise the former drill sheds belonging to the Territorials, and in many cases they have undertaken to engage other drill sheds or other halls for the purpose of drilling their men. They have undertaken all these liabilities, and they can ill afford it, because, as I have said, they are men of moderate means. Before the Territorial Forces Act was brought into operation, we all know that the officers of the old volunteers had to undertake the whole of the expenses of drill sheds, rifle butts, and all these equipments, but when the Territorial Forces Act came into operation a Grant was made to the officers. I should like to ask whether the Government have taken this matter into their consideration, because I am afraid, unless they have done so, many of these men will be very, very hard hit, as a number of them, to my knowledge, have come forward to train these men, and have made most efficient volunteers of them, although they are men with moderate incomes. They are daily engaged in their occupations, and they feel that if a Grant is to be made to the volunteers, some Grant ought to be made to them to relieve them of these financial burdens. I should like to ask

1413
the Under-Secretary whether the War Office had taken those facts into consideration when they came to the conclusion that 40s. for each volunteer was sufficient to cover the expenses which those corps are now undertaking? I should like to have some reply on that point, because I know it is giving some concern to these officers who have undertaken for the past eighteen months to drill and to train the men under their charge.
Sir G. AGNEW: I only rise, as member of the Volunteer Force, to express my thanks to the Government for having brought forward this Bill, and for having generally undertaken to recognise the Volunteer Force as a force of men who might, under certain emergencies, be very useful to the country. Although I quite sympathise with what my hon. Friend has just suggested, I must confess, in the district in which I live, I have always said to the men, "You are volunteering for the work of guarding railways, and so on, and you must go to the people in the neighbourhood and get them to give you money to support your corps." My volunteers are in a purely agricultural district, and there are no wealthy men around us, and we have had great difficulty in supplying ourselves with the necessary uniforms, rifles, and so on; still, by dint of hard work, we have done it. Therefore I, for one, feel that we must not press the Government too much in this respect, and, so far as my district is concerned, we are very grateful indeed to get the promised Grant of £2 a head, because it must not be forgotten that when the officers of the Territorial Force were consulted I understood they said that 30s. a head would be quite sufficient, and as much as they expected.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Not the officers.
Sir G. AGNEW: At any rate, members of the Territorial Forces Association said they would be satisfied with 30s., and, so far as my experience goes, they are very grateful to have the £2. I would, therefore, say that we ought to be satisfied with what the Government is doing, and, so far as the people in my district are concerned, they are satisfied. Now in my Constituency, which is an urban district, I know they went round with the hat, and got money from the people residing in the district without very much difficulty. It is quite true that was in the first two years of the War, when the enthusiasm was
1414
great, but I still think they will get it when it is recognised what work the volunteers have done up to now, what they are perfectly capable of doing, and what they are told by Field-Marshal Lord French they are able to do. I think, therefore, we who are members of the force ought to be very grateful for what the Government has done, and I rise to thank them for what has been promised.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I really think the speech which has just been delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford (Sir G. Agnew) answers all the points raised on the Third Reading. I am grateful to him for his speech. I come to more particular points. With regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), I can assure him we have paid attention to that particular point, and we do pledge ourselves, if the exigencies arise, to vary the agreement in accordance with the nature of the moment. With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel), who has also taken a particular interest in this movement, I am not in a position to give him a definite reply at the present moment, but I will consult my Noble Friend the Secretary of State with regard to it, and I will see what can be done. As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth), I thought I dealt with that in my speech on Second Reading. We propose to pay all the Regular officers we use in connection with the Volunteer movement the full pay of their rank with their accompanying emoluments, and I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I. do not think any other point was raised except by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) also raised the same point. May I point out that we have recognised an arrangement in conformity with the spirit of the old Volunteer Act of 1863 under which, when volunteers are called out for actual military service, they receive the same financial benefits as those enjoyed by other full-time troops with whom they may be serving. Instructions on this point have been issued, and I will read the Instruction which has been actually issued covering this point:
"If and when the Volunteer Force or any part of it is called out for actual military service in accordance

1415
with para. 7 of the Regulations for the Volunteer Force, officers and volunteers so called out will be entitled to the following financial benefits:—

(a) Pay and Allowances.—All ranks will receive pay and allowances at the rates issuable to officers and soldiers of corresponding ranks of the Territorial Force.

(b) Separation Allowance.—The wives or dependants of N.C.O's. and men will receive Separation Allowance as issuable in respect of corresponding ranks of the Territorial Force.

(c) Non-effective Benefits—In the event of an officer or volunteer being killed or injured or contracting disease as a result of his employment when so called out, he or his dependants will be entitled to the same financial benefits by way of gratuity, pension, etc., as would be issuable under the same conditions in the case of an officer or soldier of corresponding rank of the Territorial Force."

I hope this Instruction covers everything that is necessary, and I ask the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.
Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Har-borough): I would like to say a few words in support of this important measure. I regret I was not able to be present on the Second Reading, but I wish to say on behalf of the Volunteer Force, with which I am associated, that on the whole the general feeling is that this measure meets the general demands and ideals of the force throughout the country. For two years the force has been able to exist in spite of great discouragement, and in spite of the fact that no financial assistance was given to it, and even recognition was denied. I am aware that the Act of 1863 was applied to the force early in the year which gave the force full recognition and status, and they became part of the armed forces of the Crown. This new Bill will enable the Government to give substantial assistance to the volunteers. It is true that the national assistance is not on a large scale, but when we remember that for two years it was impossible almost for this force to exist, and that it was only supported by voluntary means, I think hon. Members will agree that this is a substantial scheme, and this Bill will go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the force.
I should very much like to plead with the Government to use this Bill on as broad lines as possible. There is an impression amongst volunteers, and I am sure it is a wrong impression, that the authorities only tolerate them, and do not require their services. I know the new Prime Minister and the present Secretary for War have always shown sympathy for this force. The Government do want the services of these volunteers, and far from not wanting them, they desire to increase their numbers and their use in every pos-
1416
sible direction. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a feeling abroad that they are only tolerated, and for that reason the numbers are not increasiag as fast as otherwise would be the case. It is true that there has been an addition in some directions, but not in the ordinary volunteers. A great number of men have been sent by the tribunals to be trained in order to get physically fit before they are called up for the Regular Army, but the ordinary man catered for by the scheme over military age has not been coming forward in very great numbers. I think that is largely due to the fact that for the first eighteen months of the War everything was done to discourage the force. Commissions were denied to them, most stringent regulations were imposed, and they were even prohibited from using the ordinary military titles. That gave an impression, which it is hard to remove, that the force is only tolerated. But now everything has been changed. Officers have been gazetted and full recognition has been given. Lord French is going about the country rallying the force and speaking words of approval, and now we have this Bill enabling volunteers by signing an agreement to earn a substantial contribution towards the cost of their equipment and organisation. What is, perhaps, more important than that is that the Government is going to allow paid adjutants and paid instructors, and, when available, Service rifles. I think it would be of very great assistance to the movement if the Secretary for War or the Prime Minister made an appeal to every able-bodied man who is not otherwise engaged, and who is eligible for the force, to join up and take advantage of this scheme.
My experience is that to make the force effective for any practical purposes you want a large force. The volunteers being a spare-time force are not concentrated in one particular spot, but they are scattered about in every town and village of the country, and it is necessary in order to make their training efficient to have a large force. This is very important if they are to be used in a practical way. The idea of some of us is that before very long practically the Home defence of the country can be left to the Volunteers. That is to say they can discharge for the Regular Armies the same service as the specil constables do for the police. They can take every kind of patrol work and guard duty both on the coast and on the

1417
lines of communication. But to make that practical it is necessary to have very large numbers—I should say at least 1,000,000 men. The men of the Volunteer Force are drawn together in their spare time, and the rest of their time they are engaged earning money and helping on the industries of the country. The Prime Minister spoke of the mobilisation of the nation and the necessity of using every man to the fullest advantage in order to economise labour. I suggest that in this little Bill, which is one of the first of the new Government, one can see a practical form of mobilisation. The War Office is calling up day by day a very large number of B 3 and C 1 men for Home service, and they are only available for Home service. They are withdrawn from their employment, and the industries of the country suffer accordingly. But instead of calling up this large number of men for Home service, the greater part of that service could be handed over to the volunteers. Many of these Home service soldiers under this arrangement could be returned to industry and employed in agriculture, and in this way help the trade of the country; but, of course, to make this practicable it has been proved by experience that a very large number of volunteers are required. Men working and earning their living in industry can give six or perhaps twelve hours a week, but not more, and, if the guard is to be maintained throughout the twenty-four hours, and for seven days in the week, you must have a very large number, so that you shall not call too much upon the spare time of men already kept busily engaged in their industry and in their trade. Of course, the advantage of volunteers is two-fold. On the one hand, if volunteers undertake duties you save the wages of soldiers and their maintenance, and, of course, you save separation allowances, because the volunteers do not ask for payment. They only ask for out-of-pocket expenses, and those are already provided for under Regulations passed by the War Office. Now that this Bill is becoming an Act of Parliament, I put forward this practicable suggestion. The volunteers have great hopes in the Under-Secretary. I hope he will prove to be a sympathetic administrator. I understand he represents the Volunteer Force on the Army Council, and that the volunteers will come under his special care.
1418
We have great hopes that, with this new blood at the War Office, the force will receive sympathetic administration. If it is to be of real practical use in relieving Regular soldiers for the front, I would ask him to appeal to the Noble Lord who presides over the War Office to issue a public appeal, not only saying that the present Volunteer Force is appreciated and required, but asking the whole nation to do their best to join up and increase the numbers. It cannot be made too clear that this new Bill is not intended to drive out of the force men who cannot give the small number of hours required by the Regulations that are to be shortly issued. There are a large number of men both willing and keen to belong to the volunteers and to do. their bit who are unable owing to their occupation to tie themselves down to a definite agreement. A word of encouragement ought to be sent to them, and it ought to be made clear that every man, even although he cannot earn the grant and undertake to do a definite number of hours' drill, is wanted to join the Volunteers, so that he can become efficient and belong to-an organised and recognised military force and be able to take his part should the enemy ever land on these shores in driving him into the sea. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that men who are to be provided with uniform and equipment and who are to be trained, should give in return a definite amount of drill. I understand from a statement made by the Field-Marshal that owing to the increased efficiency the scheme will bring about in the Volunteers more regular battalions will be spared for the Front, Volunteer battalions taking their place. It is clear to me, as it must be to every Member of the House, if these battalions are to be sent to the Front that the Field-Marshal must feel certain that Volunteer battalions are trained sufficiently to take their place and to carry out any military movements that may be entrusted to them. I congratulate the Under-Secretary and the Government that this, one of their first measures, should be of such a practical kind, and should give such general satisfaction to this Force, which has so loyally, in spite of many discouragements, stuck to its duties for two years.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,

WAYS AND MEANS.

  WAR LOAN.
  "That the Treasury may borrow in such manner as they think fit, on the security of the Consolidated Fund, any sums required for raising the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds, and that there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund—

  (a) any sums which may be required to be so charged in the exercise in connection with any money to be so borrowed of any powers which were given by the War Loan Act, 1914, or the War Loan Act, 1915, or any other enactment in connection with money borrowed under the War Loan Acts, 1914 and 1915, or any other enactment; and

  (b) any sums which may be required for expenses of the redemption of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed or of money borrowed under the War Loan Acts, 1914 and 1915, or any other enactment; and

  (c) any sums which may be required for the remuneration of the Banks of England and Ireland in connection with the management of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed or of money borrowed under Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  Mr. D. MASON: May I assume that the Bill will provide for the refunding of the floating debt? I assume that one of the objects of the next loan will be in some way to get rid of part of the floating debt which now amounts to a very large sum. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that in addition to our floating debt, there is a large amount of paper as well as the advances to our Allies, and I think he will appreciate
  1420
  the supreme advantages of getting rid of some part of this enormous floating debt. He cannot, at this stage, of course, say what form the loan will take, and the Resolutions give power to the Treasury to issue a loan in such manner as they think fit. I should like to offer a few remarks on the extreme advantage of perpetual stock, because, if the loan in future years goes to a premium, there is then the option of conversion, as was done with regard to Consols in the past, and, if it goes to a discount owing to the prevailing rates of capital being high, the Treasury has the great advantage of being able to repurchase its debt at a large discount,. I should just like the right hon. Gentleman to give me an assurance with regard to that matter and to congratulate him on the action of the Government.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): My hon. Friend is, of course, right in assuming that the terms of the loan will be such as will enable the floating debt to be converted into terminable annuities. Obviously that is an object to be desired by any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since I am saying a few words on this Resolution, I may make it quite plain what was my meaning yesterday. I then stated that although I took power to raise this loan, it must not be understood that there was no intention to do it while the House was not sitting. I wish there should be no misunderstanding on the point. I have not yet had time to look fully into the matter, but shall do so as soon as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLY.
    SUGAR.
    SUGAR.
    RAILWAY TRANSIT DELAY.
    RAILWAY TRANSIT DELAY.
    MUNSTER WAREHOUSE, TRALEE.
    MUNSTER WAREHOUSE, TRALEE.
    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS. (IRELAND).
    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS. (IRELAND).
    NAVAL COMMANDERS.
    NAVAL COMMANDERS.
    CARGO-CARRYING STEAMERS (TORPEDO ATTACKS).
    CARGO-CARRYING STEAMERS (TORPEDO ATTACKS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  REJECTED MEN.
  REJECTED MEN.
  SOLDIER UNDER AGE.
  SOLDIER UNDER AGE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  FIELD SERVICE CAP.
  FIELD SERVICE CAP.
  TRANSFERS (ARMY COUNCIL INSTRUCTION).
  TRANSFERS (ARMY COUNCIL INSTRUCTION).
  "STRENGTH OF BRITAIN"MOVEMENT (ADVERTISEMENT).
  "STRENGTH OF BRITAIN"MOVEMENT (ADVERTISEMENT).
  PEACE MEETING (POLICE ACTION).
  PEACE MEETING (POLICE ACTION).
  RAILWAY TRAVELLING RESTRICTIONS (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
  RAILWAY TRAVELLING RESTRICTIONS (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
  DUBLIN SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
  DUBLIN SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
  IRISH LABOURERS (DEPENDANTS).
  IRISH LABOURERS (DEPENDANTS).
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  PRISON WARDERS (SCOTLAND).
  PRISON WARDERS (SCOTLAND).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  UNTRIED PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH CAMP.
  UNTRIED PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH CAMP.
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Post Office Learners (Wages).
  Post Office Learners (Wages).
  Mail Service (Bantry).
  Mail Service (Bantry).