Sitting of 23 February 1916

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

NEW WRITS.
For the County of Cumberland (Cocker-mouth Division), in the room of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Baronet (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Gulland.]
For Borough of Chester, in the room of Robert Armstrong Yerburgh, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd February; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 27.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MEDITERRANEAN (ALLIED NAVAL COMMANDS).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Italian navy is co-operating under the command of the naval commander-in-chief of the Allies in the Mediterranean; and whether he can safely communicate to the House any statement concerning recent naval work accomplished by our gallant Italian Allies?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): It would be inadvisable to state in detail the organisation of the allied naval commands in the Mediterranean; but the general command is in the hands of the French Commander-in-Chief—at present Admiral d'Artige du Fournet; the command of the Adriatic and its approaches is in the hands of the Italian Commander-in-Chief—His Royal Highness the Duke of the Abruzzi; and other local commands are assigned to British officers.
    664
    The best general indication of the work performed by the allied fleets in the Mediterranean is the successful transport of large military forces to Salonika, Valona, and Egypt; the successful evacuation of the allied expedition from the Dardanelles; and last, but not least, the transportation of the Serbian army from Albania—a result chiefly due to the ability and energy displayed by the Italian fleet. Beyond this, I have no statement to make at the present time.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty still retains the services of the person or persons who have devised the offensive/ defensive methods which have been effectively employed against the so-called enemy submarine blockade; and whether he can now, with due regard to naval interests, disclose further facts as to the results of the means taken to overcome the enemy submarine menace?
    Mr. BALFOUR: As far as I am aware, all the officers who have contributed to schemes of anti-submarine warfare are still in the service of the Admiralty. As regards the second part of the question, nothing, I think, can be usefully said.

    ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
    Mr HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the allegations made against certain officers of the Royal Naval Air Service, referred to in my question of the 21st September last, have now been investigated and with what result?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I feel sure my hon. Friend will realise that the Admiralty cannot undertake to make public the findings of Courts of Inquiry, which are confidential. Nevertheless, I think the House should know—without departing from established rule, which must, of course, generally be respected—that after perusing the report of the Court of Inquiry, the Board consider that the charges made against an officer of the Royal Naval Air Service, and referred to by my hon. Friend in his question of 21st September last, were unfounded.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that answer mean that I made any charge?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, not at all. My hon. Friend drew my attention to certain charges which had been made and I said inquiries would be made. This reply gives the result of those inquiries.
    HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty wheher the six Rolls-Royce touring cars and their chassis, fitted with lorry body, which are being sold by the Director of Navy Contracts, are old cars or new cars; how long they have been in use; and whether they are being sold without reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Six Rolls-Royce cars and one Rolls-Royce chassis, fitted with lorry body, have recently been sold by the Admiralty. These cars were purchased at various dates since the commencement of the War, and are now being disposed of in the interests of economy. The question of reserve is not applicable as the cars were sold by tender after advertisement, and the Admiralty was at liberty to decline all tenders if prices offered were not satisfactory. This contingency did not arise in the present instance, as prices obtained were quite satisfactory.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the officials of the Admiralty now get about?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of the question. The cars in question were being used by the Air Department.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to consider this to be the forerunner of other economies in the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of John Doughty, who, after serving for seven and a half years in the Navy, during which time his character was uniformly rated officially as very good and he was awarded a first-class good conduct badge, was invalided out of the Service on the 21st July, 1905, in consequence of injuries received while in the performance of duty, by which he sustained compound fracture of the nose and wrist, and a resulting
    666
    attack of double pneumonia, rheumatic fever, and inflammation of the heart, by which he has been permanently disabled from making a livelihood; whether a temporary pension of 1s. per day for two years and of 6d. per day for the following three years was awarded to John Doughty, and a naval gratuity of £7 was then offered him as final compensation but was not accepted; and whether, having regard to the nature of the case, he will treat it as a special case in which, by the exercise of the Admiralty's discretion under the Regulations, a pension may be awarded in lieu of a gratuity, or, in the alternative, if he will award to John Doughty a Greenwich Hospital Pension, Class IV.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Doughty was invalided from the Service in July, 1905, after five years' man's service, on account of an injury to his wrist received on duty. He had also received injury to his nose and suffered from rheumatic fever and pneumonia. A pension, varying from 1s. 0½d. to 6½d. a day, according to the medical reports as to his physical condition, was awarded to him until 30th September, 1911. He was then reported to be "materially" able to contribute to his support and to be actually employed as an insurance collector. A gratuity of £7 in final compensation—making a total of £88 granted for the injury—was accordingly awarded. The necessary papers were issued, but nothing was heard from Doughty, although payment would have been made at any time if so desired, without prejudice to reconsideration of the case. The Regulations do not contemplate the award of permanent pensions to men of short service unless the injuries are of a serious character. In all cases of men who have been injured in the naval service the Admiralty feel in duty bound to give sympathetic and careful consideration to any representations made at any time. Although, in accordance with the medical reports at the time, a man may have been correctly awarded final compensation and his case apparently closed, should his physical condition subsequently deteriorate, owing to a recrudescence of the effects of his injury, the Admiralty is always ready to review the case and, if the facts justify such action, to award further compensation. Steps are being taken to have Doughty medically surveyed, and, if his condition warrants such a course, his pension will be revived at the appropriate rate.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if naval observers reported the approach of enemy seaplanes to Walmer and Lowestoft on Sunday morning last; and if any naval seaplanes were sent up to attack them?
    Mr. BALFOUR: In both the attacks the enemy seaplanes approached at a very great height, and were not observed either by look-outs or patrols until they dived just before their bombs were dropped. In each case naval fighter aeroplanes and seaplanes from the nearest naval air stations proceeded immediately in chase, but were unable to sight or get into touch with the enemy machines.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Are there any naval observers in the neighbourhood?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I imagine there were, but if the hon. Baronet wants any further information I shall be very glad if he will put down a question. Of course they were in the neighbourhood, but the exact distance I cannot say.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Is there any professional patrol, or is it only an amateur patrol on that part of the coast for this special purpose of watching for enemy aircraft?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not sure that I quite appreciate the distinction between amateur and professional patrols, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down any further questions on the subject I shall be glad to answer them.
    Major HUNT: Is one of the chief reasons why our aeroplanes could not get up in time the fact that the mess is two miles away from the aerodrome?
    HON. MEMBERS: No; it is 200 yards.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any military aeroplanes were sent up against the German seaplanes which threw bombs at Walmer and Lowestoft on Sunday, the 20th instant; and if he will state at what time the authorities received warning of the enemy's approach, and at what time the defending aeroplanes went up?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No military aeroplanes were sent up against the German seaplanes which dropped the bombs at Lowestoft. As regards Walmer, the nearest station of the Royal Flying Corps
    668
    received information at 11.35 a.m. that hostile aircraft had made an attack, and the first aeroplane from this station ascended at 11.45 a.m.
    Mr. FELLasked if definite orders have now been given to all the forces in the Eastern counties to fire with their rifles at Zeppelin airships whenever they come within range; and if they are now supplied with ball cartridge for this purpose?
    Mr. TENNANT: I stated, in reply to the hon. Member on the 9th June last, that the orders were that all Zeppelins were to be fired at if and when they offered a target. That reply still holds good, and I have nothing to add to it except that ball cartridge is available for the purpose in the hands of the troops.
    Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman really made inquiry on this subject, for I have most explicit information that not only are there no orders to fire, but that the troops have orders actually not to fire on Zeppelins, however close they may be?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will be so good as to give me the source of that information.
    Major HUNT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the troops would be quite safe in firing at an airship—would they be quite sure that it did not belong to Britain?
    HON. MEMBERS: We have got none!
    An HON. MEMBER: We have one!
    Mr. TENNANT: Quite certain if it belonged to an enemy—oh, yes!
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the occasion of the last Zeppelin raid a bright light was shown in a top window of two different houses and that in both cases the police tried, but were unable, to get into the house, and declared that they had no lawful authority to break in; and, in view of this, will he take steps to strengthen the Defence of the Realm Act so as to give the police power to force an entrance into houses in such cases?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The police are already empowered by No. 11 of the Defence of the Realm

    669
    Regulations to "enter any premises" or "to do any other act necessary" in order to deal with lights which contravene the Order, and they have been instructed to this effect. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me exact particulars of the incidents he refers to, I will have inquiries made.
    Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the police know that they have the power to break into houses in these cases?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They have been informed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether any compensation is provided out of the public funds for special constables who may be killed or injured by enemy aircraft while on duty?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The question is one for police authorities, who are empowered by an Order of the Home Secretary under the Special Constables Act, 1914, to grant pensions or allowances in such cases at rates similar to those prescribed for police constables.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of a railwayman who was injured whilst engaged on his engine at Hartlepool during the bombardment of that town, for which the North Eastern Railway Company denied liability and are upheld by the judgment of the Court of Appeal as pronounced on the 25th November last; whether he is aware that this decision has caused railwaymen to inquire whether they would be justified in the event of danger in leaving their posts and seeking safety; and, having regard to these circumstances, whether the Government will accept responsibility for loss of life or injury to railwaymen whilst on duty caused by hostile aircraft or bombardment?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that in the case to which my hon. Friend refers it was decided that the railway company were not liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as the accident did not arise out of the man's employment. This decision would not, however, appear to place the railwaymen in a different position from other classes of workers, and I do not think that it would be practicable for the Government to consider their case, specially in relation to the question of compensation for injury or loss of life
    670
    caused by air raids. I am not aware of any inquiries on the part of railwaymen such as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the verdict of a Staffordshire jury of wilful murder against the German Emperor and his son in connection with recent Zeppelin raids and to an attempt of the coroner to prevent the jury giving such a verdict; and whether he will issue an official instruction to coroners that juries are not to be restrained from registering a lawful judgment by a technical plea that it is impossible for effect to be given to their decision?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no authority to issue instructions of this kind to coroners.

    SS. "HELIOPOLIS."
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the steamship "Heliopolis" has ever been used for its intended or any other purpose since it was purchased by the Admiralty; and whether this steamer has now been disposed of?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already, in previous answers to my hon. Friend, explained very fully the circumstances in connection with this ship. As I have explained, she was purchased for the purpose of being converted into a hospital ship, and was allocated to Pembroke Dockyard. When War broke out it was necessary to take the men off her, precedence being given to urgent war work. She has not been used for any service since she was purchased, and the vessel is advertised for sale by public auction at the Baltic Exchange, on Wednesday, 1st March.
    Mr. KING: May this be taken as an example of foresight or of economy, or of neither?

    CO-OPERATION OF ALLIES.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, have been taken to give effect to the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 10th January, that the Government should enter into immediate consultation with the Governments of the

    671
    Dominions in order with their aid to bring the whole economic strength of the Empire into co-operation with our Allies in a policy directed against the enemy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have nothing to add at present to the answer given in reply to a similar question addressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford on the 20th of January.

    GERMAN COLONIAL POSSESSIONS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the extent of the Colonial Possessions of the German Empire at the time of the outbreak of War; and the extent of such territories now in the occupation of the Allies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The extent of the Colonial Possessions of the German Empire before the War was between 1,100,000 and 1,150,000 square miles. The amount of territory in the hands of the Allies is slightly over 730,000 square miles. The area of German East Africa accounts for the remainder.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      BRITISH CIVILIAN SUBJECTS.
      Mr GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many British civilian subjects have been tried by military tribunals in the United Kingdom since the War began; how many are now awaiting trial by such tribunals; in how many of the cases has the charge been high treason; the names of the persons so charged; and what time and assistance they have been or will be allowed for defence?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is thirty-four. I am informed that there are none now awaiting trial. In no case has the charge been that of high treason. Ample time is allowed for preparation of defence in each case, and prisoners are invariably defended either by solicitors or by counsel.

      CASES IN IRELAND.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the practice of the competent military autho-
      672
      rity in Ireland in treating the use of Irish as an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, if he will say by whom a bilingual recruiting leaflet is now being issued through the post; whether its purpose is to bring a number of innocent people within the criminal law; if not, where and by whom it may be read without that risk; and what rules or instructions have been issued on the subject?
      Mr. TENNANT: The practice alleged in the first part of the hon. Member's question does not exist, and the last part does not, therefore, arise. A bilingual recruiting leaflet has been issued by the Department of Recruiting and will, it is hoped, be studied by all persons receiving it. How it could have the effect suggested by the hon. Gentleman it is difficult to see. The only risk which its readers would run would be that they might thereby be induced to undertake a national and patriotic duty.
      Mr. GINNELL: Would they not run the same risk as Mr. Chavasse, that of being imprisoned, stripped, abused, and fined?
      Mr. TENNANT: I should like to know the crime for which these particular punishments were awarded before I can agree with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the crime was that of speaking Irish—nothing else was alleged?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: How many recruits have been obtained in this part of Ireland?
      Mr. TENNANT: Quite a considerable number—I cannot say exactly.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RECRUITING (BALLINADEE, COUNTY CORK).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the recruiting officers who recently visited Ballinadee, county Cork, did not deliver their intended speeches; the number of recruits they secured there, and when they will visit that place again?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am informed as regards the first part of the question that no recruiting officers have recently visited Ballindee. The remainder of the question does not accordingly arise.

      PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether a soldier who has purchased his discharge, but who would have been serving now had he not done so, will be obliged to attest under the Military Service Act; and, if so, will his purchase money be refunded?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter that half of the purchase money will be refunded.
      Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say only part of it?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, half.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Aubrey Ross, of 12, Bridge Street, Leominster, attended on 10th December, 1915, at the drill hall there and declared his conscientious objection against combatant service; that he is a member of a sect known as the Brethren; that he expressed a wish to join a branch of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and that he was told that if he would not accept the oath for general service his papers would be torn up; and whether he intends to take any action which will admit of a Derby recruit who attested to assist in preserving a voluntary Army being used in a branch of the Ser vice in consonance with his religious conviction?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the circumstances stated by my hon. Friend. A man who becomes voluntarily attested under the group system was and is entitled to express a preference for any particular branch of the Service. A note of his wishes is to be entered in the Army Register against his name, and as far as possible his preference is respected. It is not, of course, always possible to draft a man to the particular branch of the Service selected by him if, when he is called up, there are no vacancies in that branch. But, as far as possible, the religious convictions of any man who has voluntarily attested are respected in selecting the arm of the Service in which he is to serve. I would point out that a soldier joining the Royal Army Medical Corps would have to accept general service. Assuming the facts to be as stated, it seems to me to be a case where the man should be transferred to a non-combatant branch of the Service.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the tribunals have power to put back to later groups any clerk or person who in their opinion is urgently necessary for the carrying on of the business in which that clerk or person is now engaged, provided that such clerk or person is unfit for foreign service but fit for some sedentary occupation in the Army or at the War Office which occupation could be equally well filled by another man?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the affirmative, but the tribunal must be definitely of opinion that it is expedient in the national interests that the individual should continue to be engaged in his civil employment.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the tribunal considered that it was not in the national interest, but in the interest of business, that would be sufficient to meet the case?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I do not think it would.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether men who have attested under Lord Derby's scheme, or since the introduction of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill, can now claim to be exempted from combatant duties before the local tribunals?
      Mr. TENNANT: Primâ facie a man who has voluntarily attested cannot claim that he had a conscientious objection to combatant service. But if he wishes to obtain exemption from such service on conscientious grounds he should apply to the War Office, who will deal with each case on its merits.

      RECRUITING SERGEANTS (GLASGOW AND WEST OF SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at several recruiting offices in Glasgow and the West of Scotland men who had already offered themselves for enlistment since 14th August, 1915, and been rejected, and who were in possession of documentary evidence to that effect, were on their again entering these recruiting offices, either to procure their khaki armlets or in response to a summons to again appear, forcibly deprived of their signed forms, which were in some instances destroyed in their presence; and, if so, will he say whether he proposes to take

      675
      any measures to find out the names of the medical men and recruiting sergeants who thus acted while serving as agents for his Department and to punish them by depriving them of their military rank?
      Mr. TENNANT: The circumstances of the particular case stated by my hon. Friend have not been brought to my notice, but I am having inquiries made into the statements made in the question.
      Mr. WATT: If it is found that these officers were guilty of the alleged charge, will the right hon. Gentleman administer his severest rebuke?
      Mr. TENNANT: Well, Sir, I must really wait and see what the report is on the subject.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an Army Order has been issued to commanding officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps instructing them not to appoint men attested under the Derby scheme to advertised positions in the sanitary section of the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether he is aware that men with special qualifications and experience as sanitary inspectors are passed over because of their having attested under the Derby scheme, and a preference given in making appointments to such positions to unattested men?
      Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of any order in the sense mentioned having been issued. If my hon. Friend is aware of any specific case in which an attested man has been passed over and will furnish me with particulars, I shall be glad to have it fully investigated.

      ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many men in the Army Pay Department are fit for combatant service; and if it is intended to transfer all such men to other units for active service and replace them by men who are incapacitated for the fighting Services?
      Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are women and also able-bodied men of military age now employed in the Army Pay Office; and whether there are many wounded and disabled soldiers capable of
      676
      doing this clerical work; and, if so, could the able-bodied men be taken into the Army and the women employed in munitions works, so that the disabled soldiers could find employment?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): There are a certain number of able-bodied men of military age employed in Army Pay Offices, though I cannot give the exact number. There are also large numbers of women. If the hon. Members have followed the history of the expansion of these offices and the public anxiety as to the discharge of their duties to the wives and dependants of soldiers they will appreciate the impossibility of dispensing, otherwise than gradually, with the better-trained portion of the staff. Subject to this, everything is done to spare able-bodied men from pay offices. I have no reason to think that disabled soldiers qualified for the work of these offices are finding any difficulty in securing employment.
      Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Western Railway War Relief Committee represents a thousand men, that a quarter of the men have gone to the War; is he also aware that a considerable number of women and able-bodied men are employed there, and that naturally the Committee and the men are very anxious about the matter, as at the present time things are very unsatisfactory?
      Mr. FORSTER: Well, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will believe me when I assure him that we are doing all we can, and so long as I have anything to do with the War Office it will continue to be done, in regard to our soldiers.

      SOLDIERS (RETURN TO PRIVATE LIFE).
      Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked how many non-commissioned officers and how many private soldiers called up from the Reserve to the Colours since the commencement of the War have been discharged and gone back to private life; and if any and what bounties have been offered to them to induce them to remain with the Colours?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am unable to give the numbers of those who came from the Reserve and have taken their discharge. By Army Order issued on the 20th instant a bounty of £15 will in future be paid to men who re-engage for the period of the

      677
      War after completing thirteen years' service. The inducement, generally highly valued by Regular soldiers, of serving on for pension had already been offered.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of married men who have applied to continue their service if it is possible, and to be counted on the strength after the War is over?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think any distinction is made between unmarried and married men.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Oh, yes, it is.

      RESTRAINT ON IRISHMEN.
      Mr GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether it is with his sanction that Irishmen who have come to Great Britain for munitions work and the erection of structures in connection therewith are now refused permission to return and informed that they come under the Military Service Act; and, if not, whether he will have this restraint removed as not warranted by that Act?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of any such practice. No action of the kind is being taken under the authority of the Home Office.
      Mr. GINNELL: If cases are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he have the restraint removed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to see the cases first.

      GOVERNMENT CLERKS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a return of the number of clerks of military age still employed in Government offices, and of the number of those so employed who have enlisted and received the usual kit allowance but are still retained in their clerical work?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am compelled to refuse all such returns, in view of the heavy labour which they involve, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington on the 14th October last.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the feeling which exists in the country, is it not desirable to issue an order to Government offices that they should do their utmost to let the men go?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It has been done.

      DERBY ATTESTATION SCHEME.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to issue instructions bringing the Derby attestation scheme into line with the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, in regard to exemptions?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Instructions have already been issued assimilating, so far as is appropriate, the provisions relating to voluntarily attested men to those relating to men who come under the Military Service Act.

      EXEMPTION BADGES.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether representations have been made by the military authorities to the Minister of Munitions and heads of other Government Departments as to the number of single eligible men whom they have provided with badges of exemption but who are engaged in work which could be undertaken by men above military age or by women; and whether, in view of the necessity for every fit and eligible man being with the Colours, he proposes to intervene in the matter?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure whether the hon. Member refers to the issue of war service badges or to the issue of certificates of exemption by Government Departments under Section 2 (2) of the Military Service Act.
      As regards the former, the Ministry of Munitions is now the sole authority responsible for the issue of badges. Every care is taken to prevent the issue of badges to men who cannot properly be regarded as indispensable, and the arrangements between the Department and the War Office provide for appeal by the military authorities in any case in which it appears that a man has been improperly badged or that it is no longer necessary to retain him in civil employment.
      As regards the latter, the certificates can only be issued after consultation between the Government Department concerned and the Army Council.

      HOME SERVICE.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that opposition to the Military Service Act is being justified in the country on the ground that a Member of this House was asked

      679
      to organise such opposition by a member of the Cabinet, as the hands of the Prime Minister himself had been forced; and whether he will give a complete denial to such a statement?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The statement mentioned in the first part of this question is without foundation.

      APPEALS TO TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the central tribunal states that it is against their practice to allow appellants to appear before them either personally or by counsel in regard to cases that come before them; whether local tribunals and appeal tribunals are compelled (Clause 8 of R. 36, and Clause 18 of Section 2, Part I., and Clause 1 of Section 2, Part II, of R. 48) to hear solicitors, counsel, or any person appointed by the applicant; whether, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General gave assurances when the Military Service Act, 1916, was under discussion that such assistance should be at the disposal of the applicant in all the tribunals before which his case came, why no rules complying with these promises and governing the procedure of the central tribunal have been made; and will he at once carry out the pledges made, and so secure the proper presentment of their case before the central tribunal by numbers of men who are not skilled in setting forth facts and arguments before a judicial tribunal?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Central Appeal Tribunal have hitherto been dealing only with claims and applications under the instructions previously issued to local tribunals. It was not deemed necessary to hear parties, though opportunity is given to make written representations, and this is freely exercised. It will be considered whether any change in procedure is desirable in view of the regulations and new instructions which have been issued. It must be remembered that, under these regulations and instructions, a case will have already been heard twice—by the local tribunal and by the appeal tribunal—before it comes before the central tribunal.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of us had Amendments on the Paper during
      680
      the passing of the Military Service Act, and that we withdrew them on receiving the assurance that this right would be granted absolutely under the instructions?
      Mr. LONG: No, no; the hon. Member is mistaken. There is really no controversy between us as to the procedure. In regard to this point, I have examined carefully the whole of the Debate—I am sorry to say to my personal regret—that we had on this subject, and in regard to the tribunals. I am only waiting in order to see how the proceedings are conducted. At first sight what is asked would appear undesirable, but if necessary I shall take steps to have it done.
      Mr. RENDALL: Did not the Attorney-General especially state to the House that probably there would be points of legal importance on which counsel ought to be heard?
      Mr. LONG: Certainly.
      Mr. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how it is proposed to deal with the case of a man under the Military Service Act, 1916, who has appealed to one tribunal on the point of domestic conditions, namely, to the tribunal of the district where he lives, and to a second tribunal on the point of commercial conditions, namely, to the tribunal of the district in which his work or business is situated; is each of these tribunals to hear only half his case, or is some arrangement to be made so that all the points may be stated to one Court; and, if the latter, will he say what the arrangement is?
      Mr. TENNANT: It would obviously lead to confusion if applications in respect of the same man were made to more than one local tribunal at the same time. If an employé finds that his employer wishes to make an application in respect of him on grounds connected with his employment, while the employés desires to put forward personal grounds for exemption, he should arrange with his employer. If the personal grounds are subsidiary—that is to say, if the main grounds of the application relate to the employment of the man—the application should be sent to the tribunal for the area in which the place of employment is situated. On the other hand, where the question of the man's employment is the less important, and

      681
      where the man relies mainly on some personal, domestic, or financial question, the application should be sent to the tribunal for the area where the man resides.
      Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the initiation is to be taken by the man who is admitted to be a soldier?
      Mr. TENNANT: Where it is a question of a man desiring to escape from fighting on domestic grounds he will do that for himself in his own home; further, if it is a question of his employment where he Works, and he considers that the more important, that will be put forward by him.
      Sir NORVAL HELME: Assuming that the claim of the employer is negatived, will the applicant have the right to make his appeal on domestic grounds within the area where he resides?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, of course he cannot have two shots.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is not a question of two shots. It may be the employer wants to get the man off or it may be that the man himself desires to get off.
      Mr. TENNANT: What I have said is that the man will try first what he considers the most important. I am sure no one wishes to multiply cases before the local tribunals.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Why should not the man have the right to put forth both grounds?
      Mr. TENNANT: Both points can be put forward, but it is that which is considered the more important to be put forward first.
      Mr. WATT: The man can himself choose which to put forward first?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

      CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENTS.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the list of certified employments under the terms of the Military Service Act is at present being amended and largely curtailed by a Committee sitting at the War Office; and whether he will issue a recommendation to the local tribunals that they should at present not give exemption to any applicant in a certified employment for more than one month?
      Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of a Committee stated to be sitting at the War Office amending and largely curtailing the list of certified occupations. A
      682
      War Office representative sits upon the Committee which deals with reserved occupations, and, as stated in the official paper dealing with certified employments, this list is subject to revision and cannot be regarded as final.
      Major NEWMAN: Is the list of reserved employments being curtailed or is it not at present?
      Mr. TENNANT: I do not like to answer that without notice. I imagine it is, but I do not know.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Royal Army Medical Corps officer at Margate who, because his landlady in her own private house switched off the electric lights at a certain hour, called in an Armyguard and placed the woman under military arrest; whether he is aware that a judge and jury awarded the woman £250 damages; and whether the War Office propose to take any further action concerning this officer?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have seen a newspaper report of this case. An official report from the military authorities is being obtained.

    GERMAN CASUALTIES (ESTIMATES).
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the official German estimates of German casualties are regarded by eminent military critics in this and other countries as wholly unacceptable, he will consider the desirability of accompanying any further statement on this matter that he may submit to the House with a reasoned analysis of the German official estimates?
    Mr. TENNANT: To make public the reasoned conclusions reached from the consideration of the German official estimates would, no doubt, gratify legitimate curiosity in this country, but it would also, in a very undesirable way, gratify the curiosity of the German military authorities. As the curiosity of our own fellow citizens can only be gratified by gratifying that of the German military authorities, I submit that the proper course is to gratify neither curiosity. I trust my hon. Friend will agree with me in this conclusion.

    MILITARY UNIFORMS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HODGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his Department is responsible for the giving out of contracts for military uniforms; if so, whether he is aware that at the beginning of the War flat rates were adopted both for material and made-up garments; that on these flat rates piece prices for the workers were fixed; and that subsequently the flat rates were abolished and the contracts thrown open to competition, with the result that cheaper rates were secured and the workers have suffered reductions in the piece prices amounting to from 30 to 40 per cent.; and whether, in view of the fact that in the manufacture of munitions of war the piece prices of the workers have not to be cut, he will take steps to apply this provision to the manufacture of military uniforms and restore to the workers the prices they previously earned?
    Mr. FORSTER: My Department is responsible for the placing of contracts for military uniforms. The material for these uniforms is still issued to contractors at fixed rates. The fixing of flat rates for the made-up garments was adopted as an emergency measure in the early part of the War, but when the initial difficulties of supply had been overcome, it was decided to revert to the normal system of competitive tendering. Contracts placed on the flat-rate basis did not require the payment of any specified piece-rates to the workers, but contained the usual stipulation that the wages paid should comply with the requirements of the Fair-Wages Resolution of this House. Contracts placed under the present system also contain this stipulation, and if the hon. Member is aware of any case in which it is not being observed I should be glad to receive particulars with a view to inquiries being made.

    COCOA IMPORTS (CUSTOMS DUTY).
    Mr. PETOasked the actual or approximate revenue derived from the Customs Duty collected on the cocoa and sugar contents of cocoa preparations imported and retained for Home consumption during the year 1915; and how much of this was derived from imports of cocoa preparations from Switzerland?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The net amount of duty received on cocoa and
    684
    sugar contained in cocoa preparations imported and delivered for home consumption in the year 1915 was £117,963. The records do not disclose the portion of the duty that was levied on imports from Switzerland.

    GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCIAL HOUSES.
    Mr. BOOTHasked what amount of obligation the Government took on behalf of the financial houses in the City of London in August, 1914; and what proportion was connected with the financing of German trade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As stated in the House of Commons on the 27th November, 1914, the amount of bills of exchange discounted by the Bank of England under Government guarantee at the outbreak of war was £120,000,000. I have no data for estimating what proportion of the obligations in respect of which assistance was given had arisen out of trading transactions with Germany.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the Treasury calculate—it must be quite easy to make a calculation—and find out what amount was devoted to financing German trade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should like to give my hon. Friend all the information I can, but if he considers the matter, he will see that the 'Chancellor of the Exchequer made some observations on the probable amount in his last speech in the House. There were £120,000,000 of the bills at the commencement of the War. There are now only £31,000,000. It would be a very laborious business to go back to all the out-of-date, obsolete, and paid-off bills to find out which were concerned with trading transactions with Germany.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that the Treasury decline to inform the House of the huge amount of finance bills arising from German trade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will kindly confer with me, in order that I can see how I can get the information, I shall be very happy to do anything I can for him.

    LAND SETTLEMENTS (REPORT OF VERNEY COMMISSION).
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of

    685
    Agriculture whether, in view of the urgency of the substantive proposals made in Part I. of Sir Harry Verney's Commission Report on Land Settlements, an early opportunity will be afforded the House of considering the matter, as the proposals made might call for immediate action?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I am unable at the moment to say anything more than that the Report is receiving very careful consideration. The right hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that no time will be lost after a, decision has been taken in the matter in bringing before the House any proposals which require legislative sanction. The matter could also, no doubt, be raised at any of the ordinary opportunities should any hon. Member desire to do so.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: I hope this Report will not be delayed until No. 2 is presented.
    Mr. ACLAND: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that that is not being done. We are pressing forward very rapidly. The Report is of very great importance and extreme urgency, and it would be a great pity if we came to wrong conclusions about the action to be taken.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the Commission is likely to complete its labours and when Part II. will be ready? It would be a great convenience if we could have a discussion on the matter as a whole.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I cannot. I have heard nothing from the Committee as to how they are going on. We take the view that the Report they have presented is so urgent that we ought to get on with it as soon as we can.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Report recommends an expenditure of over £334,000 for the purpose of placing 300 exsoldiers and sailors upon the land?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, and it is because of that that it requires very careful consideration before anything is done.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed to
    686
    consider the settlement and employment on the land in England and Wales of discharged sailors and soldiers; and will he explain how it happens that the recommendations suggesting an immediate purchase of land for three pioneer colonies, extending in all to 5,000 acres, should be followed by schemes for three pioneer colonies covering 6,000 acres?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am informed that the Committee considered that the three pioneer colonies might be one of 1,000 acres for fruit and market garden holdings and two of 2,000 acres for dairy or mixed holdings, making 5,000 acres in all as the minimum. The estimates of cost of the three colonies in paragraphs 96, 97, and 98 of the Report were based on a fruit and market garden colony of 1,000 acres and two dairy and mixed farm colonies of 2,500 acres. The latter area was taken from an actual case of an estate of that size, and the Committee considered that while 2,000 acres might be sufficient it would be better to have 2,500 acres. But the differences are not really at all material to the main recommendations of the Report.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that if the Committee recommend that these three pioneer colonies should consist of 5,000 acres, it is perfectly absurd to give estimates of pioneer colonies consisting of 6,000 acres?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not think that if the report is read carefully and intelligently that difficulty arises.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing everything to see that in the meantime the men get employment from farmers at a decent rate of wage?
    Mr. ACLAND: The difficulty is to find any discharged soldiers who want employment on land at all.

    MR. SHEEHY SKEFFINGTON (CABLEGRAMS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether any cablegrams sent by Mr. Sheehy Skeffington, of Dublin, to any foreign country have been stopped; and, if so, whether the money paid on them has been or will be refunded?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): In the absence of particulars, no trace can be found of the telegrams referred to by the hon. Member.

    IRISH LANGUAGE (USE ON TELEPHONE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General, seeing that French and Welsh are freely spoken on the telephone here why the use of Irish on the telephone is not allowed in Ireland while numerous operators there understand the language?
    Mr. PEASE: During war time foreign enemy languages are not permitted on the telephone, and operators have instructions that such communications shall not be allowed. Welsh, Gaelic and Irish are permitted, but some operators have difficulty in recognising these languages. I shall be glad if the hon. Member can give me instances where the use of Irish has been stopped, and I will do my best to see that it shall not occur again.

    SUB-POSTMASTER'S REMUNERATION (WAR LOAN WORK).
    Sir J. D REESasked what scale of remuneration has been sanctioned for sub-postmasters in respect of their War Loan work; and whether it works out to less than 1½d. per transaction without regard to the amounts involved?
    Mr. PEASE: The scale of remuneration sanctioned is £6 per 1,000 applications for War Loan stock of £5 or a multiple thereof; £1 10s. per 1,000 Scrip vouchers or certificates either issued or received back in Exchange for stock. The remuneration for receiving direct applications for stock of £5 or a multiple thereof works out at rather less than 1½d. per transaction, which is about the average amount paid for receiving a Savings Bank deposit. I propose shortly to receive a deputation from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, who desire to make representations to me on this matter.

    COMPULSORY CONTINUATION CLASSES.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the possibility of providing some form of compulsory continuation classes for the number of young girls now employed as temporary messengers in the
    688
    Post Office, in view of the success which has attended the institution of such classes for boy telegraph messengers?
    Mr. PEASE: I regret that it is impracticable to make special arrangements, on the lines of those adopted for boy messengers, for the education of the girl messengers employed in the Post Office as a temporary war measure. In London the names and addresses of these girls are being supplied to the London County Council for the information of the children's care committees, and I propose to suggest to the council that those committees should encourage the girls to attend continuation classes.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Standing Committee on Boy Labour appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor will take this matter into their consideration?
    Mr. PEASE: The whole matter has been carefully looked into, but there are difficulties in connection with sending these girls to classes in the present time, when the streets are darkened, and it is obviously very undesirable that they should be travelling about London after their day's work is over.

    ACCOMMODATION FOR NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any further facilities are being offered to the War Office by the Lunacy Commission for the accommodation and treatment of nerve-shaken soldiers; and whether the building of any new asylum or other lunatic institution is now either in progress or contemplation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am informed that no further facilities are being offered through the Board of Control for the accommodation and treatment of nerve-shaken soldiers, as no further accommodation can be spared. At the request of the War Office, the completion of the new Hampshire Asylum at Park Prewett is being expedited with a view to its being equipped and staffed by the military authorities as a temporary war hospital.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the Lunacy Board of Control has at present any super vision over the Maundsley County Asylum

    689
    at Denmark Hill; and whether the asylum authorities are responsible for the treatment of nerve-shaken soldiers who, being still under the Army Act, are within the precincts of any lunatic institution?
    Mr. BRACE: The Board of Control do not exercise supervision over any military hospitals. Visits that they have for many years paid to a special section of Netley Hospital and more recently to temporarily-adapted hospitals for nerve-shaken soldiers—within which category Maundsley Hospital fall—have been made at the request of the military authorities. The responsibility for the treatment of the soldiers in question rests entirely with the military authorities, and not with any asylum authorities.

    SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTION) ACT.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have taken, or intend to take, power to prohibit the sale of British tonnage to any foreign Powers, whether allied or neutral?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Act, he will see that we already have power to prevent ships being transferred to any foreign flag.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of Government has been called to the fact that certain owners of the highest class cargo liners, whose vessels have been employed in the British Transatlantic trade, have recently sold them for transfer to an Allied Power at extravagant prices, thus avoiding risk of requisition by Government and enabling them to secure in capitalised form the present freight rates; and whether he has taken any steps to prevent this further depletion of British mercantile marine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman makes further inquiries I think he will find that the vessels he has in mind are not being transferred from the British register, and are liable to requisition.
    Mr. PETO: They will not be transferred ultimately to a foreign register?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They could not be transferred from the British register to a foreign register without the consent of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman authorise their being chartered to a foreign power?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that foreign Power is an Ally of ours, certainly.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, instead of moving a Resolution recommending that no Member of Parliament should receive salary in the coming financial year both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of His Majesty's Forces, he will move a Resolution that in the coming financial year no Member of Parliament should receive any salary at all?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from his constituents objecting to payment of salaries to Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, none.
    Colonel YATE: Would the right hon. Gentleman submit a referendum to his constituents on the subject?
    Sir F. BANBURY: When will the Resolution be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not until the new financial year.

    BRITISH-BORN SUBJECTS (TRIAL).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister why, in the case of seventeen British-born subjects, the right of trial has been withheld and the consideration of their cases handed over to a nominated advisory committee; why these men have been deprived of their liberty without any charge being made against them; and whether he will take immediate steps by legislation or otherwise to restore to His Majesty's subjects this safeguard against arbitrary acts of the Executive?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answers I have already

    691
    given on this subject. As I have said, I believe the legality of the Regulations under which these proceedings were taken is now the subject of appeal.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is not the advisory committee mentioned in the question nominated by the Government and removable by the Government, and is that a proper tribunal to advise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are two judges of the High Court upon it.
    Mr ASHLEY: Are they not removable by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that.

    RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is now in a position to state what restrictions he proposes to place upon the importation of all kinds of fruit, and when it will take effect; and (2) whether the restrictions on the import of fruit will include all bananas or whether it will apply to other bananas than those from the Canary Islands?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on the subject except that any restrictions which may be imposed will not apply to fruit coming from the Dominions or from British Colonies or Dependencies.
    Mr. WATT: Is not the banana a rare and refreshing fruit?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any statement about the prohibition of foreign films?
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received a representation to the effect that, in view of the desirability of limiting unnecessary imports, the importation of foreign oysters and other shell fish, except for the purpose of planting for cultivation, should be prohibited; and if he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The advisability of further restrictions upon imports is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Major NEWMANasked whether it is intended that the importation of printed matter of all sorts shall be curtailed by regulation or by imposition of duty; and, if not, whether the Government have considered the disadvantage at which native printers are being placed owing to the curtailment and consequent rise in price of the import of the raw material of their industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN:I understand that the question whether certain and, if so, what descriptions of printed matter should be regarded as covered by the proposed limitation of the imports of manufactures of paper is engaging the attention of the Commission, and I am awaiting a communication from them on the subject.

    PAPER COMMISSION.
    Major NEWMANasked what salary or remuneration, if any, will be received by the secretary to the Licensing Commission on paper and paper-making materials?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The secretary to the Paper Commission will be remunerated at the rate customary for Royal Commissions, namely, £400 per annum.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that small or jobbing printers are at present left entirely without a representative on the newly appointed Licensing Commission; and whether, as they number nearly 9,000 firms in the United Kingdom, they can be granted a representative?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that any increase in the membership of the Commission would serve any useful purpose. It is, as I have stated more than once in this House, intended to be expert in character rather than representative.
    Mr. RAFFAN: As the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the printers are more hard hit than any other class in the community, will he keep his mind open to any representations that may be addressed to him on the subject?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If I find from experience that the interests of printers are being ignored or interfered with very largely by the Commission, of course it would be necessary to reconsider it. I would like to add that every interest tells me that it is affected most hardly by the restrictions.
    Major NEWMAN: These small printers are very anxious to have representation on the Commission.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite understand that. So is a large number of other interests. But the Commission would work badly if it were too unwieldy.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are not the manufacturers of paper bags very anxious to have representation?
    Mr. RAFFAN: Are the interests of paper bag makers at all comparable with the interests of the printing trade?

    LACE AND EMBROIDERY (IMPORTS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked what action the Government proposes to take to stop the continued importation into the United Kingdom from Switzerland of laces and embroideries which have been manufactured in Austria and finished in Switzer land; whether the Government considers as conclusive a certificate to the effect that no part of the process of manufacture has been carried out in an enemy country when such certificate is granted by an officer who has not the time or opportunity for finding out the real source of the goods declared; and whether such certificate has to be produced as a condition of the admission of the goods concerned to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Lace and embroidery may be imported from Switzerland only if accompanied by a British Consular certificate of origin. Such certificates are issued only if the proportion of value due to enemy labour and material does not exceed 25 per cent. of the value of the finished article. The Consular officer responsible for the certificate is an expert in the trade in whose judgment and competence His Majesty's Government have full confidence.

    COTTON EXPORTS (SWITZERLAND).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the prohibition of the exportation from Switzerland of cotton yarns and other forms of cotton applies to cotton thread and cotton materials sent over the frontier to the Austrian Vorarlberg, and subsequently reimported as manufactured
    694
    goods; and whether immediate inquiry will be made by His Majesty's Government, if it is not in a position now to reply, in view of the importance of the matter to British manufacturers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: All cotton going to Switzerland is required to be consigned to the Société Suisse de Surveillance Economique, and under the regulations of the Société no such cotton or goods made therefrom can be sent to the Vorarlberg for manufacture and subsequent reimportation.

    MAGNETO MANUFACTURE.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade on commercial intelligence, as indicated by paragraph 54 of their Report, for the purpose of securing the development of the manufacture of magnetos in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade are in communication on the subject with the other Departments concerned, and I am unable to make any statement at present.
    Mr. PERKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing the evidence which was given before that Sub-Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know whether the evidence has ever been set up in type, but I doubt very much whether any good purpose would be served by using both paper and the printer's time in publishing it.

    HOPS (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the cubic measurement of space occupied by 1 ton of hops is equal to that occupied, respectively, by 5 tons of maize, 5 2/5 tons of wheat, 5 tons of flour, 4½ tons of feeding-cake linseed, 4⅔ tons of cotton cake, 5½ tons of oil cake, 6 tons of guano, 7½ tons of nitrate of soda, and 5¼ tons of refined sugar; and whether, in view of the cost and difficulty of obtaining sufficient quantities of these foodstuffs and fertilisers and the national importance of limiting, so far as possible, the available tonnage to the carrying of

    695
    goods of necessity rather than of luxury, he will prohibit the importation of foreign hops, which employ an amount of tonnage out of all proportion to the utility of the cargo?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In considering the advisability of restricting the importation of goods, in order to secure more shipping tonnage for the carriage of necessities, the relation of bulk to weight is of course a consideration to be taken into account, and the comparative estimate given by the hon. and learned Gentleman will be borne in mind.

    GERMAN MERCHANT SHIPS (INTERNED).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken by the Italian Government to employ the German merchant ships interned in Italian ports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting the misapprehension which exists with regard to the German ships interned in Italian ports. By the courtesy of the Italian Ambassador, I have been furnished with detailed lists giving the names of over thirty German ships which were interned and are now requisitioned by the Italian Government. The list shows the manner in which those ships are being employed.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this requisition was made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; it came some little time ago.

    MUNITIONS.

      SOLDIERS BROUGHT FROM FRONT.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether a soldier brought back from the Army to do munitions work has any choice as to the establishment in which he shall work or as to the wage standards and other conditions under which he shall work; and whether a refusal to work would render him liable to court-martial; and (2) whether he is aware that in the case of a workman named John Shaughnessy, employed by Messrs. G. and J. Weir, Cathcart, who applied to the Glasgow munitions tribunal for a leaving certificate, the application was opposed
      696
      by the firm on the ground that the applicant was a private in the 19th Highland Light Infantry and was returned to them for munitions work by the Ministry of Munitions, that as the workman was still a soldier his case did not come within the scope of the Munitions of War Act, and that on the strength of this argument the chairman adjourned the proceedings in order that he might receive instructions from the Ministry of Munitions; whether the Ministry of Munitions has sent any clear instructions to Glasgow as to the status of a soldier employed as a workman in a controlled establishment; and, if so, what is the nature of such instructions?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): Every soldier before he is released from the Army for munitions work signs an undertaking stating that he is prepared to undertake work on the production of munitions of war in such establishments as may be named by the Minister, and for so long as required by the Minister, in accordance with certain conditions. The first condition is that the workman, as soon as he ceases to be employed on the production of munitions of war in an establishment named by the Minister, shall return to military service and shall report himself forthwith to his unit for military duty. The conditions further provide that he should receive wages at the rate of the district to which he is transferred or his Army pay and allowances, whichever is the greater, together with separation allowance if unavoidably separated from his family or dependants. A soldier refusing to work is returned to his unit. It will be seen that the provisions as to leaving certificates have no bearing upon the case of such workmen, and this has been explained to all the tribunals.
      Colonel YATE: Will this apply to all soldiers at present serving in the National Reserve companies?
      Dr. ADDISON: It will apply to all soldiers transferred to munitions work.

      ARMOUR-PLATE.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he will state the number of firms engaged in the manufacture of armour-plate now under the control of his Department?
      Dr. ADDISON: I think I may safely say that all firms engaged in the production

      697
      of armour-plate are now controlled establishments, but I do not think it desirable to state the number of such firms.

      DISTILLERIES (ACQUISITION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can state what action he is taking with regard to Scottish grain distilleries; whether he is taking over the distilleries for the period of the War; whether he can state if there are sufficient stocks of whisky to maintain the three-year-old standard after the War; and whether adequate arrangements are being made to maintain the supply of yeast?
      Dr. ADDISON: Negotiations on this subject are in progress. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement about it shortly.
      Mr. HOGGE: As the right hon. Gentleman has been hoping to make his statement for some days, can the hon. Gentleman now say when the statement is to be made?
      Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman could not fix a date. There has been no delay. Every possible occasion of delay is being avoided. As my hon. Friend knows very well, it is a very difficult and complicated matter, and the negotiations being conducted are going on very well, and my right hon. Friend will make his statemet as soon as he possibly can.

      GLYCERINE.
      Major HUNTasked the Minister of Munitions whether glycerine has been commandeered by the Government; what price per ton the Government pays British manufacturers for glycerine; and what price per ton the Government pays Americans for glycerine bought from that country?
      Dr. ADDISON: All glycerine produced in this country is requisitioned for national purposes. A statement as to the prices paid would not be in the public interest. No glycerine is being bought from America by the Ministry of Munitions.
      Major HUNT: Is there any glycerine brought from any country besides that?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am not prepared to give any further details; we have made a very good bargain.
      Mr. MOONEY: Have the prices paid in this country and in America, as already stated in this House, been mentioned by a firm of soap manufacturers?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not know whether it has been stated or not.

      CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
      Mr. ILLINGWORTHasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that considerable misapprehension exists among workmen and employers through out the country as to the application of Circulars L 2 and L 3; and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to issue a direction making these circulars binding upon the owners of munition factories?
      Dr. ADDISON: I hope to make an Order during the present week dealing with the application of these circulars to controlled establishments.

      DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. E. H. Bentall, Limited, of Maldon, have discharged three of their workmen for having joined a trades union; is he aware that this is a controlled firm; will he say whether any controlled firm has the power to make non-unionism a condition of service in face of undertakings given by the principal trades unions to submit differences and disputes to arbitration before taking offensive action against employers of labour; and whether he is aware that, if such action is indulged in by employers, reprisals are certain on the part of the workmen concerned?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to this matter, and he is in communication upon it both with the firm and with the union concerned. Should such action have been taken as is described in the question, my right hon. Friend will regard it as most reprehensible.

      WAGE QUESTIONS, SHEFFIELD.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that an agreement on certain wage questions was reached as far back as 12th November, 1915, between Messrs. J. Crowley and Company, Limited, Sheffield, and the Sheffield Ironfounders' Society, and that, despite repeated appeals on the part of

      699
      the men, the Ministry of Munitions has neither sanctioned nor refused to sanction this agreement; and whether, in view of the irritation caused among the workmen by this long delay, the Ministry of Munitions will now take steps to announce its decision?
      Dr. ADDISON: The details of the agreement referred to in the question were first submitted to the Ministry of Munitions on 17th December. In view of the probable effect of the agreement upon wages in similar establishments elsewhere, the Ministry were not at that stage prepared to sanction it without further inquiry and particularly without reference to the result of an application then pending for a 6s. advance of wages made by the Sheffield Ironfounders' Society for the skilled moulders generally. The Ministry have now made full inquiries into the matter, and, as a result of these inquiries and of the adverse decision which has now been arrived at by the Committee of Production upon the application of the Ironfounders' Society in respect of their members, they are not prepared to sanction the advance. The application can, of course, if desired by the men, be referred to arbitration.

    EMIGRATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary when the decision was arrived at, and by whom, that instead of exterminating the Irish people they would be prevented leaving Ireland, even when they have business and promise to return; what law, if any, authorises this; whether he can name any Irish representative body which approves of it; and what is the explanation of such a refusal in the case of Patrick Burns, which has been brought under his notice?
    Mr. BIRRELL: By an Order in Council of 30th November last amending the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Acts it was provided that no passenger should embark at any port in the United Kingdom without a valid passport or a permit, which in the case of British subjects resident in Ireland might be given by the Lord Lieutenant. In the interests of the country such documents are not issued to males capable of doing useful work except in special circumstances, which were not shown to exist in the case mentioned by the hon. Member.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education at whose suggestion a British Industries Fair is being held at the Victoria and Albert Museum; whether the museum authorities approved of the proposal; whether the wisdom of introducing under present conditions so much inflammable material into a building containing national collections of inestimable value was considered; and whether the Metropolitan Fire Brigade have been consulted on the subject and every possible step taken to meet the increased risk of fire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The British Industries Fair is being held at the Victoria and Albert Museum at the suggestion of the Board of Trade and with the cordial approval of the President of the Board of Education, who is responsible for the administration of the museum. Most careful consideration was given to the question of the risk of fire. As far as possible the temporary erections of the fair which have been introduced into the museum have been built of asbestos and the other parts have been rendered non-inflammable, and in every other possible direction precautions have been taken to guard against fire. The arrangements for the holding of the fair have been carried out by the Board of Trade in close consultation with the director of the museum, the Office of Works, and the London County Council Fire Brigade, who conducted their last examination of the arrangements so recently as the morning of Monday, the 21st instant.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Have any of the collections of great national value been removed to a place of greater security?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am afraid I would require notice of that.

    BLOCKADE OPERATIONS.
      APPOINTMENT OF LORD R. CECIL.

        PRIME MINISTER'S TRIBUTE TO COMMITTEES.
        Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make

        701
        with regard to the appointment of a Cabinet Minister to be responsible for questions of War, Trade, and Blockade?
        The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the increasing complexity of questions connected with the stoppage of goods from and to enemy countries, it has been decided that there shall be one Minister to co-ordinate the work of the various Committees and Departments now dealing with such questions.
        As this Minister will be responsible to Parliament for the work done by the War Trade Department and the various Committees which deal with special aspects of this subject, it is considered desirable that he should have Cabinet rank. I have asked my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would be willing to undertake these duties, and I am glad to say he has agreed to do so.
        I wish to take this opportunity of paying a well-merited tribute to the members of the various Committees who have so generously and unsparingly devoted their time and talents to this onerous work, and I feel confident that His Majesty's Government, and my Noble Friend in particular, may rely on a continuance of their patriotic help in dealing with the difficult and delicate questions which are, as the War progresses, of even more frequent occurrence than in the past. I trust that it may be possible to arrange that my Noble Friend, in assuming his new responsibilities, should have the expert advice and assistance of a naval officer of flag rank.
        Mr. LYNCH: What title will he have?
        The PRIME MINISTER: Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

        Undeveloped Land Duty.
        Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the ascertained area of land in England and Wales subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty; and what is the capital value of such land?
        Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the information on this subject contained in pages 145 and
        702
        146 of the 57th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which contains the latest complete information.

        Midwives (Scotland) Act.
        Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Board, under the Midwives (Scotland) Act, has yet been set up; and, if so, whether it has power to spend money with the right to tax municipalities and other local authorities for any deficit between its income and its expenditure?
        The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the question I would refer him to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Judging from the experience of the working of the English Act, there appears no likelihood of any immediate or substantial claim upon local authorities.

        Dublin University (Languages).
        Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the extent to which the teaching and study of German, French, and Irish, respectively, have been subsidised during the last ten years out of the annual revenue of £61,500 derived by Dublin University and Trinity College from public sources, as distinguished from private endowments and other private income?
        The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am not able to supply the hon. Member with information concerning the extent to which the teaching of Irish, French, or German is subsidised in Trinity College, over which I have no control, nor do I recognise the sources of public revenue mentioned by the hon. Member as accruing to the University.
        Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked Trinity College to supply this information?
        Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. They say the information is given by reference to their Calendar.

        Land Purchase (Ireland).
        Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that ten years have elapsed since the negotiations for the purchase of the Winn estate at Glenbeigh were concluded; and whether, in view of the fact that each of the tenants has been paying annually for his proportion of the sporting rights then acquired

        703
        by the Congested Districts Board, he will state the cause of the delay in giving the tenants the benefit of the sporting rights so acquired?
        Mr. BIRRELL: The Winn estate was purchased by the Congested Districts Board in July, 1907. All the holdings on the estate have not yet been sold to the tenants, and the sporting rights cannot therefore yet be conveyed to the Committee to be nominated by the tenants. The resale of the remaining holdings on the estate will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
        Mr. BOLAND: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that when the sale is completed the sporting rights will be vested in the tenants?
        Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly, or to a committee nominated by them.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Captain James Stuart Rankin, for the Borough of Liverpool (East Toxteth Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Bill we are now asked to read a second time authorises a further expenditure of over £400,000,000 on the War, making a total of Votes of Credit of over £2,000,000,000. I do not propose this afternoon to deal with the grave financial problems involved in these colossal figures. There will be other and early opportunities for doing that. But I think when the House of Commons is asked to vote such an enormous sum as this we are justified in asking whether there be no alternative to this continual expenditure, and whether it be not possible by some other means to bring this War to an end on terms and conditions which will realise the objects for which we are fighting. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking in this House three months ago, in reply to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan), said it was absurd to say that any Member of the Government would not jump at a chance of bringing this War to an end, provided that it could be brought to an end on such terms as would realise our object. He said that everybody is anxious to bring the War to an end on conditions consistent with our national honour and security. That precisely explains my position this afternoon, and it is the justification for the proposal which we are putting forward. We make this proposal with a deep sense of the seriousness and importance of the action we are taking. I am well aware that I speak to an audience which, in one respect, is out of sympathy with the proposal I make, but I am confident that the House of Commons will extend to me that courtesy and consideration to which all views honestly and reasonably stated are entitled, when they are put forward with an earnest hope of doing something to bring this awful tragedy to an end. There are no differences of opinion as to our desire to accomplish that end. The horror at the appalling loss of life, the suffering, and the ruin involved is universal, and only a deep conviction of the
  714
  justice of the national cause encourages the nation to continue the War. Whatever differences there may be as to the causes and the origins of the War, I do not think this is the time for debating and emphasising those differences. The time for that will come, and then, when the question can be looked at free from passion, and in an atmosphere unclouded 'by the smoke of battle, blame and responsibility will be justly apportioned. It is enough for us at the moment to realise the awful facts of the situation, and to contribute what each may be able to bring this War to a speedy end—to a satisfactory and an honourable conclusion.
  In no former war has the nation given such practical and overwhelming testimony of its belief in the righteousness and justice of our national cause. It is an unanswerable proof of the determination of the nation to continue this War to a successful conclusion that, as the First Lord of the Admiralty recently said, more than 6,000,000 men should have voluntarily enlisted for a cause which is, indeed, nearest to our dearest and most permanent interests, but which does not involve invasion, or even serious danger of invasion, of our hearths and homes. We who are supposed to take an unorthodox view of the origins of this War frankly recognise these facts, and we are at one with the rest of our fellow countrymen in earnestly desiring that the noble aims for which these men have offered their lives, and for which the country has made, and appears to be willing to continue to make, unparalleled sacrifices, shall be securely established. There can be no doubt either of the wholly disinterested motives which have prompted the people of this country to support the War. The people of this country never wanted war. The people of no country ever want war until their fears, or passions, or moral indignation have been aroused. Putting aside the wild and foolish ravings of a few thoughtless or selfish individuals, I think it would be true to say that this country desires no other conclusion of this War than one that will give us reparation for the wrong that has been done, and, as far as human judgment can secure it, guarantees and conditions against its repetition. The only difference between those of us who are putting forward this proposal for negotiation and those who are opposed to it, is that while all are equally anxious to see a speedy and successful

  715
  termination to the War, we believe that that is more possible now than by a prolongation of the War in the hope that a decisive military victory will enable us to dictate terms to a vanquished foe.
  4.0 P.M.
  We are constantly warned of the danger of a premature and inconclusive peace. Such a warning is quite unnecessary, and as a criticism of our suggestion it is quite undeserved. It can never be premature to end an awful tragedy like this, provided the end will give us what we can reasonably hope to obtain by a prolongation of the War. As I said, if it be a criticism of our suggestion, it is altogether undeserved. I do not suppose there is one man in the country who desires such a termination of the War, if by an inconclusive peace is meant such a condition of things as will leave all the material for a repetition of this War, create new injustices and new irritation, leave reasonable national aspirations unsatisfied, leave militarism unsubdued, leave small nations a prey to the menace of greater Powers, leave a condition of things in Europe which will make the maintenance of large armaments still necessary. If this be what is meant by an inconclusive peace, I doubt if there be one man in the country who would not say that a prolongation of the War, with all its horrors and ruin, would not be preferable to such a conclusion as that, provided we have reasonable ground for hoping that the prolongation of the War would enable such a conclusion to be reached as will establish a just and lasting peace. I am sure those who condemn all peace negotiations now do so because they believe the time is not opportune. I think I am only doing them justice when I say that if they could be convinced that peace could be concluded now on such conditions as would give us guarantees and conditions against a repetition of this War, they, equally with us, would welcome such a termination of hostilities. I am making these proposals because we believe there is abundant evidence that such a thing may be done now, and that the longer the War continues the greater will be the difficulties in the end of arranging conditions of a just settlement, and because we so earnestly feel that no opportunity ought to be lost and no effort spared to prevent the unnecessary sacrifice of one human life.
  In proceeding to give reasons and arguments in support of this proposal I shall
  716
  have to tread on highly controversial and somewhat delicate ground, but I shall endeavour to be as little provocative as possible and as discreet as is consistent with honest feeling and frankness. The prolongation of the War can only be justified by the reasonable expectation that, by its continuance, we shall we placed in a position to dictate such terms to the enemy as will secure the future of European peace. I know there have been some wars in the past in which the fortunes of battle seemed to go against that side which eventually emerged more or less successfully. The fact that after eighteen months of war the military situation is so unsatisfactory to the Allies is no evidence in itself that a decisive military victory may not yet come to the Allied Forces. But in a matter like this, where so much is at stake, where millions of lives are in peril, and where the fate of Europe is involved, we must be honest with ourselves, and it is criminal to encourage self-deception. I am sure there are few men who, taking an intelligent and dispassionate view of the military situation and of the new experiences which this War has brought, would say that there is any reasonable ground for the hope that a decisive and crushing military victory can come to either of the contending parties. For fifteen months in the main theatre of war these two great armies have been facing each other in practically the same position. Here and there, at a cost far greater in life and treasure than has been involved in decisive military victories in other wars, a few yards have been won and lost, but these two great armies face each other practically in the same position, and, as Lord Courtney put it, unconquered and unconquerable. This great War differs from all former wars. New methods and new factors have been introduced, and these vitiate all comparisons with the experience of former wars for the purpose of coming to a conclusion, or, at any rate, justifying the hope that the military deadlock may be removed. Of course, if we had an unlimited supply of men and an overwhelming superiority of munitions it might be possible to break the deadlock, but even then it could only be done at an appalling sacrifice of human life, quite regardless of the devastation we should necessarily have to inflict upon the towns and villages of France and Belgium.
  But the prophet is entitled to have his prophecies respected when they are fully

  717
  justified the first opportunity they have of fulfilment. I was lately reading De Bloch's book, "The Future of War," and the prophecies that he there made seventeen years ago have been so completely justified by the experiences of this War that they give one an almost uncanny feeling. May I read two or three sentences? He says:
  "In the future war, whatever the combinations may be, one side will stand primarily on the defensive; and if after the repulse of the enemy's attacks, it, in its turn, resorts to attack for the purpose of finally overthrowing him, such operations can only be carried on for a short distance, as the newly attacking army will meet with similar insuperable obstacles. The contending armies will often—in all probability―exchange their parts. Taken by themselves, the improvements in the magazine rifle and in artillery are sufficiently serious to justify grave doubt whether or not we have reached a stage when the mechanism of slaughter has been so perfected as to render a decisive battle practically impossible.… When we say that war is impossible, we mean that it is impossible for the modern State to carry on war, under modern conditions, with any prospect of being able to carry on that war to a conclusion by defeating its adversary by force of arms on the battlefield. No decisive war is possible. War has become impossible, except at the price of suicide. The men at the front will very speedily be brought to a deadlock.… At first there will be increased slaughter—increased slaughter on so terrible a scale as to render it impossible to get troops to push the battle to a decisive issue. They will try to do so, thinking that they are fighting under the old conditions, and they will learn such a lesson that they will abandon the attempt for ever. Then … the war, instead of being a hand-to-hand contest, in which the combatants measure their physical and moral superiority, will become a kind of stalemate, … both armies will be maintained in opposition to each other … but never being able to deliver a final and decisive attack."
  This is the military situation after eighteen months, and it offers no hope whatever. If at the end of another year we find this deadlock still maintained, after having added 1,000,000 more casualties to the present appalling number and £2,000,000,000 more to the National Debt, is the attitude of the Government and of the nation still to be one of refusing to face obvious facts and of refusing to try to find every other means of bringing this War to an end on such conditions as will ensure a just and lasting peace? We put that question to the Government, and we ask for an answer.
  I need not labour the argument of the military position at any length, for I am quite sure there are few men who believe—I doubt if there is any member of the Government who in his heart believes—that it is possible by force of arms for the Allies to achieve a crushing and overwhelming victory, much less for the Central Powers to accomplish such a purpose. We hear much more now about victory by economic exhaustion of the Central Powers. Every scrap of more or less reliable newspaper talk is seized upon in
  718
  order to encourage the hope of a speedy termination of the War by the economic collapse of the enemy, but by the time the enemy collapses from economic exhaustion every other combatant will be practically in the same position. I suppose there is no doubt that if the War goes on long enough the enemy will come to the end of his material and financial resources, but every other belligerent will be in the same position. Our Allies are kept in the field now only by the financial and material help that we are able to give them. At the recent Labour Congress at Bristol one of the ablest French delegates, in the most moving speech to which I ever listened, spoke in tones of anguish and horror of those politicians who callously talk about the War going on for two or three years longer. He said:
  "We cannot stand it. France has 800,000 dead, 1,400,000 wounded, and 300,000 prisoners, and they have the immensity of sorrows and tears that these figures leave. There is a danger sometimes of English statesmen speaking too lightly of the War lasting two or even three years because it is accepted by the great enemy of England and France."
  War by attrition will be long and costly and it will leave everyone of the belligerent nations financially and commercially ruined, and it will be the very worst form of inconclusive peace, for it will engender chronic hate and revenge, and they will be united in a common determination to re-establish in their national position the liberal and democratic forces and the military party in the German nation.
  If we are determined to go on fighting until we have accomplished that undefined, and to me incomprehensible, something which is indicated by the crushing of Germany, it is well that we should count the cost and that we should have a reasonable expectation that that is possible, and, above all, we should be convinced that that is the best method for re-establishing the international relations of the European Powers. But I do not believe, for reasons which I have already given, that a military victory of a decisive character is possible, and a war of attrition would wear out the patience and the endurance of the people in the Allied countries, and it would be, as I indicated in other words just now, the very worst basis for the establishment of a just and lasting settlement.
  Even if we grant the possibility of a military victory, or the possibility of subduing the enemy by economic exhaustion, will that really help us to attain

  719
  the objects for which we are at war? Will the crushing of Germany, either by superior military force, or any other way, promote those good relations between the various countries in Europe which are essential if we are to have no repetition of this War? If we achieve victory, shall we be able to carry out the programme which some of our ultra-patriots desire? If we divide the German Fleet and appropriate all the German shipping; if we dismember the German Empire by force; and if, as we are advised to do by one very patriotic and influential journal in this country, we insert in the terms of settlement a clause enabling us at any time, just to suit our own purpose, to annul or to alter any clause in a treaty, is that going to help us to realise the noble ideal set forth by the Prime Minister in his Dublin speech of a real European partnership based upon the recognition of equal rights, established and enforced by the common will? I call that sheer madness, and the worst enemies of our own country within our own gates are those people who are offering the most preposterous terms to Germany. Such a speech as that delivered by Lord Rosebery, in which he said that the War must be continued until Germany was utterly ruined; such a speech as that delivered by the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said after the War we must see that Germany does not raise her head again; and such writings as those which are constantly appearing in certain reviews, are doing more than all else to prolong this War, and they are costing this country thousands of lives and millions of money. They are preventing those among the German people who are in favour of peace, who have no sympathy with Prussian militarism—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many are there?"]—I will tell the hon. Member in a few minutes—from exerting a still wider influence in favour of peace. And they are also confirming that idea, which is so sedulously fostered by the Prussian military caste, that this War has been forced upon Germany by Great Britain through jealousy of her great commercial prosperity.
  Now, the settlement of this War will depend upon the frame of mind and spirit in which the cessation of hostilities finds the various nations. No victory in the field can establish the conditions of a permanent peace unless there be the will-
  720
  ingness, and the disposition, to accept that superior right which recognises that the real interest of a nation lies in respecting and safeguarding the interests of all. The ruthless subjugation of Germany would be the very worst preparation for a just and lasting peace in Europe. It may be said that there is no such intention if the Allies succeed in achieving a decisive military victory. If that be so, then there is no justification for the policy of fighting to the last man and the last shilling. The coercion of Germany will require the military organisation of Europe. What has kept the Allies united in this trouble is the menace of a powerful and unconquered Germany, but when Germany has been crushed and ruined then that cohesion will fall apart. Germany will cherish designs for the restoration of her national position, and she will find new Allies, and another great war will be only a matter of time.
  The outstanding lesson of this War is that militarism stands discredited. It is now proved to be a futile method of serving aggressive designs. No great modern nation can conquer or be conquered, and that fact has a most vital relation to the condition of peace. If it now be the fact that military power is futile for the purpose of aggrandizement and aggression, then these conditions and the future relations of Europe must be governed by that fact, and an inconclusive ending of this War, in the sense that all the belligerent Powers realise the futility of military power, would be the surest guarantee against a repetition of war. Now, I frankly confess that, unless nations have learnt that lesson, I see no hope whatever for the future of European peace; but it is because I do most earnestly believe that the nations, and especially that nation which had most need to learn such a lesson, are being driven to accept that fact, that I think the time is ripe for making a movement in that direction. This War differs, too, in another very important respect, and that is in the influence which democracy can now exercise in the settlement of national and international affairs. It is no reply to that claim to say that international democracy failed to prevent the outbreak of this War. Up to a certain point the growing power of democracy weakens its influence with the governing classes, because it fortifies their position, and they dig themselves more securely

  721
  into their entrenchments. For forty years the German Social Democrats have been fighting Prussian militarism, and I think, when the real facts are known, it will be found that in no country in Europe, with the exception of Hungary and Italy, where the Socialists have stood unitedly against the War, has the spirit of internationality been kept alive so much as in the German Social Democratic Party. They, like the working classes of all the belligerent nations, were swept away at the outbreak of war by the fear of national invasion, or they were driven into the Army under conscript laws. They then rapidly recovered themselves, and neither in Great Britain nor in France is there such a widespread demand for peace as in the German Social Democratic movement, and the surest foundation for establishing the future peace of Europe is to induce the co-operation of the great German democracy. For forty years they have realised that Prussian militarism is the deadliest enemy of their own class and of their own country.
  The desire for peace in Germany is not confined to the Social Democrats. It is almost universal among the people. But even if it were confined to them, their number is so great that they would be a very important asset. This desire for peace in Germany is not prompted by any sense of defeat. It is due for one reason to the conviction that the invulnerability of Germany against outside attack has been proved by the experiences of this War. German Socialists supported the War only so long as they believed it to be a War of defence, but, as the War has progressed, and has shown that Germany is invulnerable against outside attack, the demand for peace amongst the German Social Democrats has grown. It will be within the recollection of the House that near the end of last year the German Socialists, as a united party, raised an interpellation in the German Reichstag. It is quite true that there are in the German Socialist Party in the Reichstag different degrees of thought and feeling on this matter, but the official spokesman of the party on that occasion belonging to the more moderate section of the party voiced in the most emphatic, and, if I may say, in the most eloquent manner, the unanimous desire of the German Socialists for an early conclusion of the War, and the speech of the German Chancellor on that occasion, when one remembers in what guarded language he
  722
  had to speak, gave, I thought, considerable encouragement for approaches to be made from other quarters. He said:
  "We have to safeguard our economic development. I believe there is nobody in the German Fatherland who does not strive for this end. As regards the means to attain it, we must reserve complete freedom for our decisions. We do not threaten small nations. We do not wage the War, which has been forced upon us, in order to subjugate foreign peoples, but for the protection of our life and freedom. For the German Government this War has remained what it was from the beginning, namely, a defensive War. The War can only be terminated with a peace which, according to human judgment, offers no security against its repetition. Upon this we are all agreed. This is our strength, and will continue to be so."
  Herr Scheidermann, the spokesman of the German Socialist Party, speaking, as I said, in the name of the whole party, made this utterance:
  "Is there a single man in this country who would not rejoice if we could put an end to this terrible War? Not only the workers, but the tradespeople, the small farmers are longing for a peace assuring the safety of our economic development, and our political independence. And do not the mothers, wives and children of our enemy soldiers long as keenly for the end of this fury as is the case with us? If the Press in the belligerent countries could discuss the objects of the War and the desire for peace, in all countries the desire for peace would come out on top."
  He went on to say:
  "The Chancellor knows that the German people went into this War united and in closed ranks to defend hearth and home. But he must also know that the German people do not desire war for a day longer than is necessary to secure that aim. For our country and its independence the people have staked everything, but for the private interests of capitalists the people would not sacrifice the life of a single soldier. It is not the lust of conquest that constrains us."
  I do not want to trouble the House with quotations, but I have here a large number from German Socialist leaders and organs of various opinions in Germany, all of which have a most vital bearing upon this most vital of all matters. Herr Landsberg, another Socialist deputy, also spoke on the occasion to which I have referred, and he said:
  "The Chancellor has expressed his readiness for the conclusion of an honourable peace, and I have not heard in his speech of any unfair conditions which he expects from the adversary. This is for me the decisive point. What is exactly understood by safeguards will be settled when once the pourparlers have begun. The chief thing is that they should begin, and no statesman of any enemy country can now reject the possibility of peace discussion with the comment that they will be considered as a sign of weakness on his part."
  The "Voerwärts," the leading Socialist newspaper, commenting upon the debate, said:
  "The whole proceedings show to all who will listen that there is no single voice in the German Parliament which desires to carry on the War for the sake of war. It has been shown once more that, apart from a few madmen and profiteers,' as a capitalist journalist recently called them,

  723
  every one in the German Empire wants peace.… It is a great and enduring service that the interpellation of the Social Democrats has done in showing that the German nation, and also the German Government, are ready to enter into peace negotiations—of course, not so long as Briand, Asquith and Sazanoff, deaf to all the warnings of reality, set up as the aim of the War the curtailing, disruption, even destruction of Germany and her Allies."
  A neutral journal, the "Handelsblad," a very important Dutch paper, commenting upon this debate, said:—
  "That the Chancellor's speech had indeed in view the opening of peace negotiations is shown by the mention, for the first time, of 'guarantees' with regard to Belgium, from which we may conclude that he would be prepared for the evacuation of Belgium and Northern France."
  The most important journal of the Liberals, the "Frankfurter Zeitung," when commenting upon the debate, said:—
  "Any candid reader of the Chancellor's speech must recognise that, to put the matter in a nutshell, he is prepared in principle to sit round a table and negotiate with the enemy. But after he had let this be known, as he could do in the consciousness of the strength of ourselves and our Allies, the next step must come from others."
  And, further, the "Journal de Geneve" says this:—
  "It is very injudicious to reject any discussion about the future peace with a shrug of the shoulders, because, on the one hand, Germany will be strengthened in the belief that the Quadruple Entente desires to smash its enemies completely, a belief which would only goad it on to the uttermost resistance, and, on the other hand, the neutrals will become hostile because they believe that Germany desires a just peace, whereas the Quadruple Entente constantly indulges in fancies about extermination."
  As showing the growth of opinion in the German Social Democratic party on this question within recent months, may I mention the fact that in the case of the first vote of credit, on 4th August last year, fourteen members at the party meeting were for the party opposing the credit; in the case of the second credit there were seventeen, in the third case twenty-three, in the fourth as many as thirty-six, and on the last occasion the number reached forty-three. In the Reichstag, however, owing to party discipline, twenty-three did not vote, but the remaining twenty braved the anger of the Socialist majority and voted against the vote of credit. It is significant that the action of these men has been confirmed by their constituents, and Scheidermann, who belonged to the moderate section, has joined the Advanced party in obedience to a mandate from his own constituency. The comment of the "Vorwärts" upon this matter is very important. It says:—
  "In the voting of the new loan the Socialists were divided, sixty-six voted for, twenty against,
  724
  and twenty-two abstained. Among the twenty voting against were Liebknecht, Haase, and Bernstein. The majority justified their action on the ground that all their professions of readiness for peace, and their repudiation of annexations, had elicited from the Governments of the Entente nothing but renewed declarations of their intention to destroy German militarism. That being so, they unhesitatingly rallied to their Government."
  I think when we find a united socialist party in the Reichstag voting against war credits it is a clear declaration to the Entente Powers that they are willing to consider proposals for bringing this War to an end. I wish to give one further quotation, because there has been a certain exhibition of feeling on the Benches opposite. It is an extract from a leading militarist organ in Germany dealing with what it calls the Runciman programme.
  Major NEWMAN: What is its name?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I shall not be able to trust myself with its correct pronunciation, but it is the "Deutsche Tageszeitung":—
  "In an article entitled 'Runciman's programme,' the paper quotes the debate in the House of Commons which followed the Resolution that all resources of the British Empire and of its Allies must be used against Germany, in the course of which Runciman said that Germany is already beaten economically, and that 'we must take care that after the victorious ending of the War Germany does not lift her head and begin an economic campaign.' On this Reventlow comments: 'We welcome these pronouncements of the British Minister of Commerce with special satisfaction, because they give the official confirmation as to what the British Government thinks of the state of things after the War. We have never doubted, from the beginning of the War, that Great Britain intends to destroy permanently the economic expansion of Germany. Great Britain has never fought any war from other motives or for other aims. The British statesmen since 1903 organised the great European coalition against Germany in order to get rid of her as a rival in the domain of industry and commerce."
  May I mention here that the speeches which were delivered in the Reichstag on the occasion to which I have referred have been issued in the form of a pamphlet, and they are on sale at every stall in Germany, where every encouragement appears to be given by the authorities for the dissemination of this Socialist demand for peace. Then there is Victor Adler, the well-known Austrian Socialist, who, speaking at a conference last month of the Parliamentary group of the German group of the Social Democrats in Austria held at Vienna, said:—
  "It is obvious to everyone that the work of defence is assured and that the War continues for the sole reason that discussions of peace are not attempted. The group has considered it its duty to point out forcibly to the Government again and again that the mass of the working people, on whom the sacrifices of the War weigh most heavily, desire peace more earnestly every day.… Since

  725
  we Austrians cannot speak for ourselves our German comrades have expressed in our name in the German Reichstag, by the mouth of citizen Scheidermann, our wish for peace and we thank him."
  I submit that the facts I have adduced prove that there is reasonable ground for believing that the present is a favourable opportunity for holding out the hand of negotiation. I am sure that such an effort coming from this Government, speaking with all the authority that this Government could do, would be heartily welcomed, and it would find a hearty welcome from the sorely stricken people of other countries, and would be regarded by German Socialists as an encouragement to them to increase their efforts to secure such a peace as I am quite sure all parties might regard as an honourable and satisfactory end to this War. I am fully aware of the difficulty, but I was especially gratified by the tone and the terms of a reply to a question which I addressed to the Prime Minister last December, in which he said:
  "The Allied Governments would be willing to consider any serious proposals for peace which might come from belligerent countries."
  The Prime Minister only needs to go one step further. He can give encouragement to offers for peace and he can translate into more definite and precise language his Guildhall speech. There are many channels open to the Government through which negotiations may be opened up, and we have a right to demand that the Government shall say in much more definite and precise language the terms upon which they would be willing to consider peace. If this were a matter in which the personal reputations of statesmen were alone concerned, it would not matter so much, but every day we must remember that thousands of lives are being lost, thousands of homes are being made desolate, and millions of treasure are being wasted. It may be said that if we showed a disposition to discuss terms of peace it might be taken as a sign of weakness and weariness of the War on our part. But that did not deter the German democrats from making precisely a similar demand upon their Government. Our Government went a long way before the outbreak of war to avert hostilities, and it is no less important now that we should try and obtain peace than it was then to avert war. No nation is in such a strong position as we are to take that step. No enemy soldiers occupy our land, and our Fleet maintains our national safety inviolate. Therefore we can afford to disregard all charges of weakness. I would like here to repeat the eloquent words in which the Socialist
  726
  spokesman in the Reichstag made his appeal. He said:
  "The whole world will side with him who stretches out his hand for peace, and woe to those who refuse it! Their own people will call them to account, and cursed will they live in history who have refused the hand of peace in order to continue this awful War to the bleeding to death of Europe. I close with the wish that the immortal glory of having made the first decisive step towards the ending of this terrible War will fall upon our country."
  I would that immortal glory would fall to our country. By such an act would the greatness of this nation be shown, and it would, I fervently believe, be the greatest step ever taken to promote international good will by which, and by which alone, the conditions of a lasting peace can be obtained.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: My hon. Friend who has just sat down and I put down an Amendment to the Address in the first instance asking the Government for a statement of the terms on which they would be ready to negotiate, but we were glad when it was suggested to us to take a course which did not imply putting down a hostile Motion. We have no desire in any way to assume that there need be any difference of opininon upon a question like this. It ought, at any rate, to be discussed in this Parliament without any sense that the nation need be divided upon it. The principal fact in the situation to-day seems to me to be that, on the one hand, the British Prime Minister has said that the Allied Governments are ready to discuss, proposals of a serious character for a general peace. He made that statement recently to my hon. Friend who has just sat down. Both the Prime Minister of England and the German Chancellor have let it be understood that they are ready to consider proposals put forward by their enemies, but neither will, or have yet, put forward propositions themselves. The German Chancellor has said in the speech which has already been referred to:
  "If I am to speak of our peace conditions, I must, first see the peace conditions of our enemies."
  That is to say, that as things stand now the suffering peoples and the wearied armies have no means of knowing how far or how near their Governments may be to one another, what differences could be settled now, and what differences still remain between the Governments so divided that this War must necessarily continue. Both Governments wish for peace, both Governments say that they would consider proposals if put forward by the other Government, both Governments appear to have proposals ready in

  727
  answer to any proposals put forward by their enemies, but neither Government will take the first step to make any proposals. So great a part does the question of precedence play in the dance of death. I want to consider for a moment or two whether there are any vital reasons to be urged against stating the general terms on which our country would be willing to make peace. I have often talked of this in private, and there are two reasons which I find are commonly given. One is that it would be a sign of weariness and an admission of defeat on our part, and an encouragement to the enemy. I know that view is commonly held among many people in the country. I dare say it would be so taken by a few German newspapers; but if Germans chose to think that a clear statement of what we needed for a settlement was proof that our resources were exhausted and our will sapped, after all that would be merely an unfortunate delusion on their part. The main facts of the European situation, the main military facts, would remain absolutely the same. What is, for instance, the principal certainty of this War for us? It is the overwhelming victory of the British Navy. That will not be changed by any statement of the terms or by any belief by any Germans that there is a weakening on our part. The fact is that if this War is to go on to another spring and summer, then whatever the contest may be and whatever the massacre may be, it will not be affected by the Government having tried to state how they would end the War if they only could.
  Really, there is no reason why our terms, if put forward, should not rather be an assertion of confidence. Why should we not say to the enemy, "These are our terms. If you refuse them, well, continue the fight, knowing that we are invincible, and knowing that we will continue until you accept something which approaches our requirements of justice and security." We should be no worse off. The commonest objection which I find raised to stating terms is that which my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made to the few words I said last November in this House. "What is the good?" he said. "We know that the Germans do not want peace except on terms that are impossible for us. They would not turn out of Belgium or of Northern France, or do anything that we require." For my
  728
  part I do not believe in that kind of telepathic understanding of our enemies. I do not wish to make any dogmatic assertion, but it does appear to me that there are good reasons—some of which have been given by my hon. Friend—to suppose that the Germans might now or very soon consider a peace which was reasonable from our point of view. May I quote, first of all, an authority which I think will be felt to be unimpeachable with regard to German opinion, namely, the great Russian Conservative paper "Novoe Vremya"?
  Mr. FLETCHER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is reading his speech, and I believe that is contrary to our Rules.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is reading his speech.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am naturally compelled to read a quotation. The "Novoe Kemya" said in December:—
  "A perusal of the German papers which reach us convinces us more and more that Germany wishes for peace, and that this wish is not limited to the social democrats. It is the result of fatigue induced by the War; but it would be a mistake to conclude that this desire is a sign of such weakness as would necessitate the conclusion of peace. What is most striking is the increasing number of those ready to make peace 'without annexations.' "
  There are two very marked currents of opinion in Germany. There is one of which this House is well aware, but there is another of which it does not seem to be so well aware. There is the militarist party in Germany. That is well recognised here. They frankly and openly want to keep the conquests which Germany has made in Belgium and in Northern France They openly say so, and have never made any concealment of their desire or of their intention, and naturally in war time in Germany even more than here militarist views are the most loudly asserted. It is much more difficult for the voice of reason to be heard, even though the voice of reason may eventually prevail. There is a stricter censorship in Germany than there is here. That censorship even prevents the legal discussion of terms of peace, but in spite of all that there is an outspoken opinion against annexation and conquest in Germany, and I really think that my hon. Friend, in spite of some objections made by the House, has not exaggerated the importance of the Debate which took place in the Reichstag a little time ago. After all, just compare the situation here. In Germany the representatives of a party which include 4,000,000 of the German working men, not only the

  729
  minority which has opposed the War, but the great majority who are in favour of the War, through a spokesman who is in favour of the War have demanded terms of peace from the German Government. That was an important fact, but I wish to call the attention of the House to something which was even more important. The German Chancellor refused to state the terms, as I hope our Government will not refuse, and I want the House to observe the principal reason for his refusal. I do not for an instant say that he genuinely believed the opinion which he put forward. I do not care about that. It may have been merely the excuse of a politician, but the fact remains that he found the excuse available to his hand, and well did he use it. He said that it was useless to talk of peace in face of the official announcement of the Allied Powers to dismember and destroy Germany. I should like to read a few of the words which he actually said:
  "The attitude of hostile Governments is completely decisive. Mr. Asquith in the Guildhall announced that the objects of the War were the same as at the outbreak of the War, namely, the freedom of small nations, especially Belgium, and the destruction of Prussian militarism.
  From the first day we knew that behind the phrase the protection of small States' was bidden the desire to finish for ever the great States whose development had been observed for so long with envy and distrust. This is what is called destruction of Prussian militarism."
  That is his interpretation. Again, at a later stage of his speech, he says of England:
  "The assertion that Germany must be crushed must be maintained; their eyes are so fixed upon this aim that they cannot disabuse their minds of it, and therefore hundreds of thousands more men must be driven to slaughter."
  Again he says:
  "The war of destruction is still waged against us."
  For my part, I do not believe that the true interpretation of the Prime Minister's words, "crushing German domination," is the dismembering of Germany, or the finishing of a great State of whom we are jealous, or the taking of German provinces, but I do venture to suggest that allowing that interpretation to be accepted without definite repudiation might be a mistake on the part of our Government. I want to carry that a little further and to show the kind of thing which is going on as a result of what is said in this country. In the earlier stages of the War it was an avowed principle of the British Government that any territorial alterations in Europe which the War might effect ought to be based on the voice of
  730
  the population. That is a principle which is very intelligible, and I am sure is supported by almost all British men, or it ought to be. At any rate, it ought to be intelligible. It was put most clearly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), speaking on 11th September, he then being a Cabinet Minister. He said:
  "The first of our principles which we should keep before us is the principle of nationality—that is to say, not the conquest or subjugation of any great community, or of any strong race of men, but the setting free of those races which have been subjugated and conquered. And if doubt arises about disputed areas of country we should try and settle their ultimate destination in the reconstruction of Europe which must follow from this War with a fair regard to the wishes and feelings of the people who live in them."
  That was the policy of the Government. I rather want to know whether it is the policy of the Government now. It was a lofty, noble and statesmanlike utterance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. He wants no new Alsace-Lorraine after this War—no new sores which will create wars for the next generation. That is true statesmanship. A few weeks ago Mr. Masterman, who is no longer in this House and no longer in the Cabinet, but who is, I believe, in a position of Government responsibility, wrote a letter to the "Daily Chronicle," which was printed in that newspaper with great flourishes. It was so pontifical in its nature that no reply of any sort was allowed to be made to it, and it was in no way noticed, by way of repudiation, by the Government. But in that article one of the principal features was the suggestion that Germany up to the Rhine ought to be made French; that the Rhine was the natural defensive boundary of France, and the natural Western boundary of Germany. That is entirely incompatible with the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. What is the result? This article by Mr. Masterman is being quoted by every paper in Germany, in order to show what the real intention of the Allied Governments is—that is to take German provinces and to disrupt the German Empire. It is most unfortunate if this misconception is to be allowed to continue, unless indeed, which I do not believe, the Government have changed their policy.
  I agree that Germany can only obtain peace when she clearly abandons her policy of annexation and aggression, and when her conquest of Belgium is renounced. But equally we have no chance of peace as long as Germany is convinced

  731
  that we are out on a policy of conquest and aggression. That can be easily made good by clear statements, and necessarily continued statements, by the British Government. Surely in every country the situation is much the same in this respect. In every country there is absolute unity in self-defence; the greater the danger, the more unsparing the sacrifices the people will be ready to make, and the greater determination to resist will be shown; the more the enemy threatens destruction, the more unbroken will be the national ranks. But in every country—and perhaps most in Germany, I agree—there is deep divergence as to the ultimate hope of the way in which this War should be settled. There is, chiefly in Germany, a party which expects and hopes in the end to secure a triumph by force of arms alone, by dictating to the enemy and by crippling him politically and economically. Such a party exists in all countries. There is also everywhere, in Germany as well as elsewhere, a large body of moderate opinion which is only seeking security, which repudiates conquest as being just as fatal to themselves as to the conquered, and which knows perfectly well that the crushing of countries with a population of 50,000,000 or 100,000,000 is not policy, but national insanity. I cannot help feeling that it is possible there might be a more rapid growth of reasonable opinion in Europe, even among our enemies, who are already weary of the War, if a different emphasis could be laid in official utterances in this country. The Prime Minister has said things other than those he said at the Guildhall at the beginning of the War. He made a remarkable speech at Dublin on the 25th September, a passage of which I should like to quote again. He said:—
  "The idea of public right means, or ought to mean, perhaps, by a slow and gradual process, the substitution for force, for the clash of competing ambitions, of a real European partnership based on the recognition of equal rights and established and enforced by a common will. A year ago that would have sounded like a Utopian idea. It is probably one that may not or will not be realised either to-day or to-morrow. If and when this War is decided in favour of the Allies, it will at once come within the range, and before long within the grasp, of European statesmanship."
  My only regret is that that statement has not been repeated. It is not that I fear the Prime Minister has forgotten it; far from it. But one statement does not make a, policy: it only creates a hope in the minds of those who may read it. What
  732
  I suggest is that it would be, perhaps, more hopeful if the ideas which are conveyed in those sentences were put into some kind of concrete proposal and held up to Europe, in lieu of the rather vague declarations about the crushing of Germany. When we talk about crushing German militarism, or declare that the military domination of Prussia must be wholly and finally destroyed, I am sure I do not quarrel with the idea, I only ask hon. Members what conceivable test you can have in order to ascertain when your end has been attained. What we desire is a change of spirit in Germany. Have you any very definite barometer of the soul of the people? I do not say you cannot apply any test at all. I say you must in the end apply some practical test, and I suggest that that can only be approximately done by concrete demands which can be stated now and agreement with which would, in our opinion, imply the failure of German militarism and German ambitions.
  I notice that newspapers in the United States of America, which are most favourable to the Allies, take the view—from their less impassioned outlook—that while it is now clear that Germany cannot be crushed, yet German militarism is already beaten. I want to suggest to the House that the best practical test as to whether German militarism is defeated will be, at some stage, whether or not their militarists have to sacrifice the advantages upon which they have staked their reputations. One test which is most crucial is whether Germany would evacuate Belgium and Northern France. We know it is the avowed policy of German militarists to keep Belgium and Northern France. To renounce them would in itself be proof of a humiliating defeat of the German militarist party. I do not know what the intentions of the German Government are; but what I do know is that time after time, during the last eighteen months, proposals have been heard of in all the neutral countries, which suggest that the German Government is ready to give up Belgium. It may be untrue, but there is very seldom smoke where there is no fire. At any rate, let us state our full terms and find out if that be the case. We do not know if Germany is ready to take, as a basis for peace, the territorial settlement of Europe according to the wishes of the populations. If they are, it would be a negation of German militarism. Therefore, I repeat, let us state our full terms, and find out. We do

  733
  not know if Germany would consent to a policy of European co-operation such as that outlined by the Prime Minister. If she did it would be an acknowledgment of a new ideal other than the force beginning to predominate in Germany. I say again, let us state our full terms and find out. Even if you make peace in Berlin itself, you cannot compel the abandonment of militarism any more than Germany could enforce the permanent disarmament of France in 1870.
  It is a pertinent question how far militarism can survive in Germany if the terms of peace leave it no acquisition of territory and no injustices to avenge. I am sorry to keep the House so long. I recognise that I am speaking opinions which are unpopular with many hon. Gentleman. But it is my conviction there will be hard times for militarism everywhere after this War. Even if the War were stopped to-morrow on the Continent there is hardly a family in which there has not been a death, there is hardly a village in which there is not a band of cripples, there is no place in all the broad plains of Europe which has not felt, if not absolute ruin, at least the pinch of want. Even here, we ourselves have been told by the Prime Minister, who is not a man to overstate his case, that what had happened will for us be a serious strain of the resources of the country for a generation to come. How much worse already is it going to be for the resources of Germany, and of other Continental nations? When one hears men lightly, or despairingly asserting that the War must continue its course, because, unless it does, German aggression will be able to begin again in the next generation, I am inclined to ask where are the sinews of war to come from in a new generation for supporting any aggressive policy of armaments, or any new policy of conquest? Modern armaments exist on huge loans, on unbounded national credit. But national credit is going to be crippled for generations, at any rate, on the Continent. It may well be that Germany may be able at this moment—if it is a matter of national existence—to go on fighting for years in one ditch after another, as they are driven back. That may be possible, but I am bound to say I think that no nation will be able, when peace comes, to build up armaments again on bankruptcy. It would therefore be well if attempts were made to find if peace cannot be obtained now, and for this reason I earnestly adjure my fellow Members to consider whether we ought not
  734
  to take the only possible steps to ascertain whether victory has not already been won, not indeed a complete victory over Germany, but a victory over that particular spirit in Germany of which we have proclaimed ourselves the opponents.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am very glad that the House of Commons has listened with patience and with respect to the two speeches which have been delivered. My hon. Friend who has just sat down told us that he knew he was giving utterance to unpalatable and unpopular sentiments. I should not like it to go forth to the world that the two hon. Gentlemen, to whom we have listened with well-deserved consideration, are the spokesmen of any substantial body of opinion in this country. I doubt very much whether either of them speaks for his own constituents. I am perfectly certain that they do not speak for the democracy of Great Britain. I draw a distinction between the two speeches. I have derived, I am sorry to say, very little light or instruction from the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but the speech of the hon. Member who opened the Debate not only contained many passages of eloquence and feeling, but deserved, and will I hope receive from me, respectful consideration and attention. The hon. Gentleman at the outset of his speech made a very welcome admission. I know he spoke not only with fervour, but with perfect sincerity. He said that in this country we were at one, first of all, in acknowledging the disinterested motives with which we here entered into and are carrying on the War, and next—this is more important—that we were at one, and should remain at one, in demanding that the conditions of peace should be such that our ends should be permanently and honourably attained.
  I am very glad to take note of those statements on the part of my hon. Friend, and to put upon record, not only for the benefit of this country, but of countries outside, that there is absolute unity in the whole of this Kingdom in regard to those two supreme and cardinal points. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) then went on to make statements, or to occupy two positions which seemed to me rather difficult to reconcile one with another. In the first place, he said in one part of his speech that you cannot win this War by military means—that you have reached a condition of stale-

  735
  mate, and that military success in any decisive sense is impossible. That is a matter of opinion, and time will show whether or not the hon. Member is correct in his view of the situation, which is not mine. Then he went on to say, even if you did, by the successful conduct of your arms, obtain a decisive victory, the victory so attained—I understand him to mean by force—would only lead to inconclusive peace. Therefore, we cannot apparently either way, whether we are stalemated, or whether we checkmate the enemy, win the game. That is a very unsatisfactory and, to my mind, a somewhat illogical presentation of the possibilities of the case.
  The real gist of my hon. Friend's speech, the point, at any rate to my mind, much the most interesting in it, was his contention, which he supported by a number of citations from speeches and newspapers, that there is in Germany a genuine desire for peace. What is the evidence which my hon. Friend adduces in support of that contention? In the first place, he referred to a Debate in the Reichstag—I am not taking it in the same order as he did—which recently took place, and to the speech of the German Chancellor, who appears to have said that he was quite willing to welcome approaches from other quarters. Everybody is very ready to welcome approaches from other quarters. The German Chancellor did not indicate that he is prepared himself to initiate them, and as he appears to have supplemented his statement by telling his fellow Deputies—I think he can hardly have intended his statement to be circulated outside Germany—that Germany had shown herself not the enemy of small nations—Germany which has annihilated and devastated Belgium, Germany which has done her best to annihilate and devastate Serbia—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Montenegro"]—and Montenegro and Poland—I say such a statement in such a context can only be described as one of colossal and shameless audacity. I should be more disposed to attach importance to the supposed, to the imaginary inclinations of the German Chancellor in the direction of peace, if they were put forward in language and sustained by arguments which were not so transparently hypocritical and futile.
  What is my hon. Friend's other evidence of the supposed desire of Germany for peace? It is the action in the Reichstag and outside of the Social Democratic
  736
  Party. It is quite true that some members of that party have very courageously from the beginning of the War maintained a most unpopular position in the face of great obloquy, and to us they are men who are entitled to respect and sympathy. But to what does it all come? When it comes to a decisive vote, according to the figures given by my hon. Friend—they are new to me—out of a party which numbers 117—
  Mr. SNOWDEN: A hundred and ten.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not very important. Out of a party which numbers 110, only 20 could be persuaded to vote against the War Credit. That does not look very formidable evidence of a practical desire, even of the Social Democratic party in Germany, to come to conditions of peace. But I am not going to labour these points. I want to come for a moment—and I will not detain the House for more than a moment—to what is at the root of the whole matter. The hon. Member who has just sat down said:—
  "Why do you not state your full terms of peace?"
  He referred to a speech which I made in Dublin, I think very early in the War, and quoted from it a passage to which I entirely adhere in every respect. He seemed to think that when I, speaking as the head of the Government, at a most critical moment in the War, make a statement of that kind, that unless I go on repeating it time after time, it ought not to be treated as if it were a serious statement, or as if it represented the settled opinion of the Government and of the country. It is just as much my opinion and their opinion to-day as it was when it was first uttered. That again is by the way. The hon. Member said:—
  "Why do you not state your full terms of peace?"
  I stated in clear, direct, explicit, and emphatic language what are the terms upon which we in this country are prepared to make peace, and I will repeat them to-day. At the very beginning of the War, on the 9th November, 1914, I used this language—it is very familiar to this House, it is familiar to our Allies, it is familiar to our enemies, it is known by nobody better than by the German Chancellor, who chose to pervert and misrepresent it—I used this language and I repeat it to-day:—
  "We shall never sheath the sword, which we have not lightly drawn, until Belguim—"

  737
  and I will add Serbia—
  "recovers in full measure all, and more than all, which she has sacrificed, until France is adequately secured against the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia—
  this is the language I used—
  "is wholly and finally destroyed."
  I ask my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I ask the German Chancellor, what is there wanting in clearness or directness in this language? How can I make it more full? How can I make it more intelligible? How can I or anyone do more to convince him, and to convince all our enemies, that not until a peace based upon these foundations is within sight and attainable, not until then shall we or any of our gallant Allies abate by one jot our prosecution of this War?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The Prime Minister has just repeated phrases which he used at an earlier period of the War. I, for one, wish to express my deep disappointment that, considering the circumstances of this great world tragedy, he has not found it possible to make some advance in the directions proposed by my two hon. Friends who have initiated this Debate. The Prime Minister says that his own words are perfectly clear. I entirely agree that in so far as he lays down, as the condition of peace, the evacuation of Belgium, and reparation to that country, the evacuation of Serbia—and, of course, Northern France—and that respect to the smaller nationalities which is due to them, the whole country is in entire agreement with him, and he is perfectly right in saying that his words are clear and categorical. But it is the phrase at the end that is repeatedly used, namely, "until the military domination of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed." That is not clear, Mr. Speaker, and is capable of very many different interpretations. It is because of the numerous interpretations to which that phrase has been put that hundreds and thousands of lives continue to be sacrificed on the battlefields of Europe. The Prime Minister said that my two hon. Friends who started this Debate did not represent any substantial body of opinion in this country. Whilst I fully admit that I was surprised, at the same time I must say I was gratified, at the manner in which their speeches were received by this House, because I know there are but few in agreement with us. At the same time, in the country, I believe, there is a far larger body of opinion
  738
  with us, than we are conscious of, because there is a large body of silent opinion that does not dare to express itself.
  As the War continues it feeds upon itself. It is gaining momentum, and fresh excuses appear for its continuance. The original objects are being lost sight of, and monarchs and ministers responsible for the Government of the nations are mere puppets before the inexorable pressure of events. Violence begets violence, and all true sense of perspective and proportion is lost sight of. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn very rightly pointed out that as it exists now war is merely a matter of prolonged and mutual extermination between the forces in the field. Advance in one part is counterbalanced by withdrawal in another. While the military experts are experimenting as to what new devices they can find for the destruction of human life, daily more and more men and valuable lives are being sacrificed. In these conditions I do think—and the Prime Minister himself is always asking us to use a better sense of perspective—if the magnitude of this catastrophe could be grasped, surely it would not be wrong for us to strain every nerve to see whether there cannot be found some way to bring this catastrophe to an end? You can very easily drift into a war, as we know; but I should like the Government to realise that they cannot drift out of a war. That requires great determination, great foresight, great courage, and a characteristic which it is difficult to assume in war time—that is an imperviousness to the clamour of extremists. I am not asking for peace at any price. In the Amendment I put down to the Address, I made it clear that the terms in the first part of what the Prime Minister has repeated here this afternoon are terms which are necessary and essential for any peace. At the same time I do not belong to a party which is a war-at-any-price party. There is no doubt that to-day there is a large body of opinion in this country which, if they knew that we could get the evacuation of Belgium, and reparation to that country, the evacuation of France, and of Serbia, and an independent Poland—could get these things from Germany to-morrow—would say, "No, we must go on with the war," because they are deluded into the belief that a military triumph means the only object that this country should have in view.
  We have been accused very often of helping the enemy. We have done no

  739
  such thing. What has helped to influence opinion in Germany are the views of the extremists in this country. They have been so often quoted in Germany that they have prevented moderate opinion from expressing itself. It comes to this, that there are two sets of opinion: Those who desire a lasting settlement and those who desire to punish Germany. So long as the Prime Minister repeats that phrase in his declaration he must be taken as belonging to the second group. It is not the supremacy of Great Britain that I believe any of us desire. It is the peace of the world. This can be achieved by securing the principles laid down in the first part of the Prime Minister's statement. If we go on with the view of dictating peace, then I think we shall lose sight of the very objects we want to achieve. Advocates of the destruction of Germany, advocates of the dismemberment of Germany, are agents for the prolongation of this War. We are asked time after time, "What about German militarism?" I maintain that the policy of aggressive German militarism is annexation; is the keeping of Belgium, very likely the keeping of Northern France, and very likely the keeping of other parts of Europe. If by our terms of peace we defeat that and we prevent annexation of any invaded territory, then I say we have defeated the policy of German militarism. As for the spirit of militarism, let nobody be misled into, supposing that one country can by force of arms crush the spirit of militarism in another country. You can do no such thing. The people themselves alone can do it. I do not think we were wrong in bringing this matter before the House. I do not think the Prime Minister regrets that we should have taken this step.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no!
  Mr. PONSONBY: A hundred and twenty years ago Mr. Grey, who afterwards became Earl Grey and Prime Minister—and from whom, may I be permitted to say, I am proud to be descended—in the middle of the war pleaded in this House for negotiations. In 1795 he asked that a humble Address should be presented to His Majesty for communicating directly to the executive Government of the French Republic His Majesty's readiness to meet any disposition to negotiate on the part of that Government, with the earnest desire to give it the fullest and
  740
  speediest effect. He was supported by Charles James Fox, and a small band of thirty Members went into the Lobby in favour of the proposal. Speaking actually in this month of 120 years ago, in the House of Commons, Earl Grey said:—
  "I wish that we may no longer be deluded by general denunciation and vague expressions. I say that if Ministers are sincere in their desire for peace, direct proposals ought to come from this country. They may, perhaps, say that this would be prostrating Great Britain at the feet of France. No, Sir, it never can be humiliating for the greatest nation to come forward with the offer of peace."
  May I be allowed to re-echo those words? I believe they are true, and historians are in agreement that if the views of Grey had been listened to in 1796, we should have had far better terms than we got in 1800. In my opinion war, considering what it entails in these days, should not continue unless we know, not from rumours, not from diplomatic gossip, not from Press reports, but clearly and categorically from those responsible for the Government of Germany—that Germany refuses to accept our proposals. In that case the determination1 of this country would be strengthened enormously, and the War would continue until our proposals were acceptable.
  There are three possibilities in the situation. The first one is that our relative position in the future may not be so strong. That, I think it is admitted, we may dismiss as outside the bounds of probability. Anyhow, it would mean we should not get such good terms, and at a very much larger sacrifice. The second possibility is that as time goes on our position will remain practically, and to all intents and purposes, the same; because remember we are not fighting in France and in Belgium alone: we are fighting at Salonika, at Aden, in Mesopotamia, in East Africa—indeed, we are fighting all over the globe. This policy, which I do not think it the time to criticise, is a policy which makes victory in the full sense of the word ten times more difficult. If, in a year's time, it is still practically a deadlock between the two forces, the terms will be the same as to-day, with twice or threefold the sacrifice. There is the third possibility, that our position may improve. That is the one upon which clearly the Prime Minister bases his hopes. Very well, if our position improves, we may be able to impose crushing terms upon Germany. Elated by a conspicuous victory, a nation practically is forced to go beyond the limits of what is just. I

  741
  do not believe terms dictated by victories have ever meant anything more than sowing the seeds of fresh war. It is certain, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that any dictated terms of that sort would leave a humiliated Germany, wounded, and resolved to seek revenge when the moment came. That is not the way to carry out those admirable principles and aspirations which the Prime Minister expressed in his Dublin speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that, according to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, there was no possibility of winning. I do not myself believe that any nation is going to win by this War. All will lose. Wise statesmanship that can look beyond and above the turmoil of battle might win for Europe some real guarantee of security for the future. I think it is time to find out, but the Prime Minister thinks not. I think that before we throw more and more men and more and more money into this abyss of destruction it is right that the House of Commons should consider whether we should announce far more definitely than we have done the objects we desire to achieve and the terms we are prepared to enter into, in order that we may not be any longer accused of standing in the way of peace, and in order that the constantly repeated rumours that are circulated in Germany in regard to our aggressive intentions may be once and for all disposed of. The Government has an obligation to the nation, and the nation has an obligation not only to itself, but to Europe and to humanity. We must not take too narrow or shortsighted a view of the position. We must extend our horizon broader, beyond our own national needs. It is the duty of a nation to consider the community of nations, and not merely to stipulate for material advantages for itself and its friends. Just in so far as Germany or any other nation refuses to see the truth of that great principle, so Germany or any other nation is bound to fail. The settlement we look for is one in which the interests of the people will be the prime and predominant consideration, and not the ambitions of Governments. This War has been brought about by secret diplomacy, and diplomatic failure must be stopped, if possible, by the united determination of democracy. I am confident that there is a great and a growing desire in all countries that this fruitless combat should cease. I did trust that when my hon. Friends were speaking the Government would take heed. If they ignore the
  742
  sane opinion in this country and abroad that is in favour of a settlement without further bloodshed; if they disregard the increasingly heavy burden that is crushing great populations in Europe down to ruin; if they persist in continuing the War month after month and year after year, with the elusive object of military triumph, then I say most assuredly they are laying the foundations of another conflict; a violent and ungovernable conflict, not between one nation and another nation, but between the peoples of nations and their rulers.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I am sure that everyone in this House welcomed the fine and patriotic speech which the Prime Minister delivered, and that he expressed not only the opinions of the vast majority of the Members of this House, but also interpreted the opinion of every class in the country. If hon. Members who have spoken and have put forward these peace proposals would go up and down the country as some of us have done, they would find that they were not interpreting in any way the opinions of any class in this country, and least of all the working class. If they would help on the War by attending to recruiting and by doing what nearly everybody else is doing, namely, putting forward their best effort and making sacrifices in order to bring this War to a conclusion, they would be doing far better service to their country than by making what I may call sentimental and almost pernicious speeches in this House. They seem to live in a world of their own. They live in a world of make-believe. They will not face facts. They consider that speeches will end the War; that pious expressions by German Socialists will end the War. The only thing that will end this War is by one side or the other having an overwhelming victory.
  Let them look back at the last hundred years in the history of Europe. This War was not started by the murdering of an Archduke. It was not started during the last two years. This War came about by the economic development of the Powers of Central Europe. It came about at the instigation of, and had been thought out almost a century ago by, the leaders of military opinion in Germany, or rather in Prussia. The preparations for this War were begun one hundred years ago. The Prussians who occupied France in 1814 were worthy forerunners of the Germans who occupy France at the present time. They perpetrated almost equal atrocities

  743
  against the inhabitants, for while the Prussian has always been a man of great individual bravery and of great method, he is without any of the finer feelings and without any bowels of mercy whatever. From the very moment that Napoleon was struck down, Prussia aimed at becoming the dominant military power of Europe, and we see that the first step was taken in 1863, when that unprovoked attack was made upon Denmark. That was the first step in the military domination of Europe. Almost immediately afterwards—at any rate within three years—an equally unprovoked attack was made upon Austria, and ever since that time Austria has been in reality, if not in name, the obedient satellite of Prussia, and obliged to carry out any behests which she received from her. Then we know that in 1870 war was forced upon France. France was crushed to the ground, and on the ruins of the Empire of Napoleon III. the great German Empire was founded, with Prussia dominating the Empire of United Germany. Then the great first step of the thinking men of Germany was carried out. Germany, which meant Prussia, and still means Prussia, became the dominant military power in Europe. Therefore, to say that this War was started only two years ago, and that it could be stopped by any negotiations until one side or the other is beaten to the ground, is futile and is not facing fact. They may be unpleasant facts, but they are facts.
  Germany in 1870 became the dominant military power of Europe, and then a further field of ambition opened before her. She aspired, as we see now more clearly, and as some people saw then, to be a world-wide power, and she started to build up her economic system so that she might not only be able to maintain the strongest army in Europe, bat also to become one of the great manufacturing nations of Europe, and thereby be able to pay for this colossal army and for the expansion of her armaments. Later she awoke to the fact that world-wide dominion could not be got only by military power, but that she must have a strong navy as well. So she started twenty years ago to build up her Navy, and what was it that caused her to redouble her efforts? It is in the recollection of the House that it was during the Boer War, when our Fleet had command
  744
  of the sea, and when Germany wished to appear in favour of the Boers, that it came home to her that she could do nothing and was absolutely helpless until she had got a fleet which could speak on equal terms with ours. Thereupon she started building an overwhelmingly strong fleet, and she aspired in a very few years to be able to meet us on equal terms. Is it to be marvelled at? Germany is a great nation. She has a superabundant population. She saw, and she still sees, that we have the carrying trade of the world, that we have the best part of the world under our dominion, and that our exports are large and increasingly large. She desired, and she still desires, to take them from us. Therefore, when hon. Members come here and say to us, "Let us make terms of peace," I say to them, "How can you propose terms of peace when the enemy desired, and still desires, and still thinks that he is going to get, what you have got, and what you mean to hold?" The only terms of peace that could be agreed upon by this country include, of course, what the Prime Minister said, that we should keep what we have got. It is not a question of taking away from Germany what she had before the War, but it is a question of placing ourselves and our children in the position that we shall not be called upon over again in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children, to go through this awful experience that we are going through now. If a poisonous snake attacks you, you knock it on the head with a stick; you do not get it by the neck and put it outside to do more damage. In the same way I am sure that this nation is absolutely determined, in spite of what has been said by hon. Members who have supported this Motion, to fight this matter to the end, whatever it costs; and I am quite sure that the vast majority of Members of this House entirely agree with the declaration of the Prime Minister.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALSH: I listened with considerable interest to the speeches that have been delivered by the two hon. Gentlemen sitting on these benches (Mr. Snowden and Mr. Trevelyan), and I hoped that there would be something definitely constructive to be derived from their speeches. I have failed to find a single point upon which one can build a decent hope, either now or for the future There was a good deal in the speech

  745
  of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), of quotations from what had taken place in the Reichstag. These quotations, it seems to me, do not help us in the least, because at the best they only represent about one-fifth of the organised Socialist party. [HON. MEMBEBS: "More."] I say about one-fifth, and even if they had come to us ungarbled—and that is very seldom the case in translations from a foreign language into our own—they would not have helped us even then. It is very doubtful whether they are correct quotations, but even if they are, they are absolutely useless. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the German nation, as a nation is intent upon doing its very best to place that nation above all others in the comity of nations, and so long as they are infected with that idea, how is it possible for us to make overtures for peace? I am not one who has ever doubted the right of a man in this House to speak his own mind, apart from the views of his constituency or of any other constituency, but when people do put forward statements as though they were really speaking in a representative capacity, it is advisable now and again to test how far their claims are justified. It is only a couple of weeks since the greatest Labour Conference that has ever been held assembled at Bristol, and with an enormous majority, a majority of well over 1,000,000 of the votes represented, stated their entire concurrence with the Government in the rightfulness of the motives with which they went to war, and their complete agreement with and support of the Government in carrying the War to a successful conclusion. That after all is, I take it, a fairer and more adequate representation of the opinion of the people of this country, than the opinions expressed either by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) or the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan).
  There cannot be the slightest doubt that we were standing for moral right, for the moral obligations into which we had entered with a very small nation, a nation with which for a couple of hundred years at the very least we had always been friendly, a nation that in itself was incapable of definite resistance against the gigantic military power of Germany, and that our people felt that we were now fighting the battle of moral right, and I have never known either in history or in ray own life time a case in which the nation
  746
  was so resolutely united. Have the facts changed at all? I cannot imagine what spell or incentive it is which animates Members to make speeches such as those to which we have listened this afternoon. Belgium is still suffering a greater amount of misery than probably any nation in the history of the world. Her population is starved, her people are working in the mines and in the factories, practically in a state of slavery. That is the position of Belgium to day. Serbia is even hardly a geographical expression at this moment. Who is it that has committed all this? Have we committed any of it? Is there a single obligation into which we have entered that we have not faithfully carried out? Against whom were we the aggressors? And if, as everybody must admit, we have undertaken no act of aggression, surely it is they who have committed the offence and must first make overtures for peace.
  I was greatly interested to hear the hon. Member for Blackburn speak of the disinterested motives with which England went into the War, but I remember also hearing speeches and reading reports of speeches stating that Sir Edward Grey had deliberately worked for war. I do not care to press these points too much, but they do not seem to me to be easily reconcilable. How a nation can go into a war with disinterested motives, while at the same time the Foreign Secretary deliberately worked to bring the War about, I cannot understand. One of the hon. Members who recently sat down departed somewhat from the line which the hon. Member for Blackburn took. He said that the War had been brought about by secret diplomacy. I cannot reconcile secret diplomacy with disinterested motives. Sir, there is too much readiness on the part of many Members to talk about secret diplomacy, when they do not know the facts of the case. It is the easiest phrase imaginable to use. I believe that no diplomacy, secret or open, would have saved this nation or would have saved Belgium or France from the growing, the inordinate ambition of Germany. Indeed, it is well that the hon. Member who spoke last should remind us of the history of Germany. Going back some fifty years, we have the case of Schleswig-Holstein, and then there was that of Austria, and afterwards Alsace-Lorraine. The whole history of the last fifty years is a continuous and ineradicable proof of the desires of Germany. How can you to-day make overtures in view of what has happened?

  747
  If overtures for peace are to be made it means, I take it, a properly constituted Peace Court, consisting of the representatives of the Powers coming together and considering the matter. But before you can have your case properly considered in Court, you must come into Court with clean hands. Could Germany do so? Is there a single Convention to which she signed her hand that she has not shamelessly broken? The Hague Convention of 1899, the later one of 1907—there is not a single clause in those Conventions that she has not broken in the face of God and man. The use of Zeppelins against an inoffensive civil population, men, women, and children; the employment of submarines against passenger boats—every horror conceivable has been perpetrated by this Power, and it is to her that we are asked to make overtures. Hon. Members who advocate this course do not represent the views of their constituencies. Though many of these Gentlemen are always talking about the necessity of democratic control they do not represent the considered opinion of one man in a thousand in this country. To talk of the desirability of peace is the easiest thing in the world. War, even at its best, is little short of murder, but there are times when nations are driven through sheer necessity to this most horrible of all arbitraments. This is a case in point. What could we do as honourable men except save Belgium if we could? What could we do as an honourable nation except stand by France in her extremity? Is there a single man here who says otherwise? Why even the hon. Member for Blackburn said to-day that the conditions which we set out to establish should be permanently and honourably secured—that is to say the cession back to France of Alsace and Lorraine, the evacuation of Belgium, and other matters that need not be specially gone into—that until that was done the War could not end, and that on those points there was unbroken national unity.
  I fail to find the least indication in the actions of these Gentlemen of a desire to promote that national unity, because from the very beginning they have been opposed to the War, which they say was entered upon from disinterested motives, and the objects of which should not be allowed to stand over until they have been permanently and honourably secured. It is impossible to reconcile their speeches in this House with their action outside the
  748
  House, because they have never done a hand's-turn to help to secure those objects which they say ought to be honourably secured, or to help to win that War which they say has been entered upon from disinterested motives. Then we are told that we can ensure peace, because it is certain that no such War as this can be entered upon in future. The hon. Member for Elland said, with a facility of prophecy for which I give him infinite credit, that national bankruptcy will prevent this kind of War from happening again. Will it? Has national bankruptcy ever prevented nations from going to war? The hon. Member certainly comes from a family which has given very good men to the State, and which has given a very distinguished historian; but if he reads the history of his distinguished relative it will show him that no nation has even been prevented from going to war, and from fighting successfully, by a state of bankruptcy. For the last fifty years we have been talking of Turkey as the "Sick Man" of Europe. It never had any credit, yet somehow, in the most mysterious way, her soldiers have made the most effective fighting men during the last half-century, and long before it, and whether they have been fighting on the one side or the other, like the fuzzy-wuzzy in the Soudan, they have never been prevented from fighting by their country being in a chronic state of bankruptcy. Prussia was humiliated in 1790, and, I suppose, there was not in the whole country as much as would pay a decent shot in a village alehouse, and yet within fifteen years she had reorganised her armies and had put in the field along side of ourselves the most formidable fighting machine that had ever been erected.
  It is clear that the idea that nations being bankrupt will prevent wars is so much hot air. There is nothing in it. You cannot very well bankrupt a nation. It is unnecessary to go into the ethics of a case like this, but so long as you have the meadows, the metals, and the land, the nation will not become bankrupt—so long as there are willing hands and active brains and all the commodities of nature to which those hands and brains can be applied. So that cock will not fight at all. The point which we have a right to press upon the attention of the nation is this, that we started to uphold the sanctity of moral obligations entered into between nations. They have been ruthlessly invaded and broken. We wanted to urge upon Europe the necessity of recognizing

  749
  that when these great obligations had been entered into they should be honoured, and that they should be more honoured, if that could be done, where the interests of small struggling nationalities are concerned even than in the case of the more powerful nations. We have not yet been able to convince Germany that she ought to do this, and until she does recognise her moral obligations, and that we have shown her her mistake, it is clearly premature to begin talking about overtures for peace. You cannot make overtures for peace while the tiger has its fangs in your vitals. That is the case with Germany, so far as Russian Poland, Belgium, Serbia, and a large part of Northern France are concerned. I believe to-day that, notwithstanding the terrible strain upon our people, notwithstanding the heartbreak and the anguish that have entered into tens of thousands of homes, our nation is absolutely agreed, with the exception of a few insignificant people who do not count, that when we are doing the highest thing and engaged in the noblest act of which a nation can be capable, we ought not to sheathe the sword, as the Prime Minister has said, until we have carried this laudable object to a successful conclusion.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member who has just sat down, in what I think was very temperate language, referred to the position as it now exists, but I do not propose to go over that ground, which was so ably gone over by the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Elland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs drew attention to the phrase of the Prime Minister, a phrase which the right hon Gentleman emphasised to-day, in what, in my judgment, was a most unfortunate utterance, in reference to the removal of the domination of Prussian militarism. We all, no doubt, would like to see the removal of Prussian militarism from Germany, but if the German people are prepared to submit to Prussian domination, how can we prevent it? We must face the facts. We are level-headed men, and surely we are able to take a view of the position as it exists to-day. We know that we are dealing with a population in these Central Empires of something like 100,000,000; yet the Prime Minister comes down to the House and talks about the removal of the domination of Prussian militarism. Nothing can be more ludicrous, unless you are prepared to occupy and govern Ger-
  750
  many from the time of the War. It is an insult to our intelligence to entertain us with an airy and nebulous phrase about the destruction of the dominance of Prussian militarism. If the Prime Minister can show us how this domination is to be removed, I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, would welcome it, as would also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and other hon. Members; we would be delighted if the Prime Minister could show us how to remove the domination of Prussian militarism in Germany.
  The very able speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn and of my hon. Friend the Member for Elland unquestionably gave us food for thought. They showed us that the achievement of a great victory by either of the belligerents would not remove Prussian militarism. Let us face that criticism. Suppose, for example, we achieve through a 17-inch gun a great victory over Germany or Prussia, would not the Germans or Prussians naturally say, "Of course the reason of our defeat was that the other belligerents had a better gun than ours, and what we have got to do is to get to work again." We cannot remove the Central Powers with their hundred millions of people off the face of the earth, and they will bide their time until they get a military instrument which they think will successfully compete with ours. It is a delusion, the greatest delusion, I submit, which is embodied in the unfortunate phrase used by the Prime Minister. To take the most charitable view of the case, I cannot see how he is to adhere to it. If he can show us how it is to be carried out, then I for one, and many others would be very glad to hear it. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) made a very temperate speech, though, of course, in opposition to my hon. Friends below me. He said that what we had set out for was to "keep what w©; have." I think that is a proposition which we would all support. The hon. Member also went on to say that Germany had been making preparations for this War for a hundred years, and he gave us some facts and references to other wars of Germany, seeking to show that this menace had been preparing for us, and had been growing up, over a long period of years. I happened to be looking up some foreign correspondence, White Books and Yellow Books published with regard to this War, more or less in preparation for this Debate, and I came upon some remarkable French evidence in

  751
  a communication from the French military attaché (Lieut.-Colonel Serrett) at the French Embassy in Berlin to his confrère (M. Etienne), Minister of War in Paris, in regard to the state of Europe just previous to this War. It is dated 15th March, 1913. It is a most remarkable communication, and I will read one extract which I think the House will agree is important and interesting, coming as it does from a Frenchman who could not be regarded as prejudiced in favour of Germany. He was writing to his Chief in Paris, and of course it was his duty to state to him what was the condition of things in Germany at the period when he wrote.
  Before reading the extract, I should just like to briefly refer to some of the diplomatic facts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs referred, and the hon. Gentleman who is well versed in these diplomatic facts will correct me if I do not give an exact résumé of what took place. The House will recollect what led up to this great tragedy. It is necessary to go back a little, and I think that if we refer to two or three of the international factors of the situation they might possibly lead us to a better understanding of the German mind. After all, if we are to have an honourable settlement and a durable peace we must try to put ourselves in the other's place, and thus try to find out what is exactly the mind of Germany. Reference has been made to a desire of domination on the part of Germany. I quite agree that very probably Germany, like ourselves, is composed of a great number of parties. There is a party in Germany which undoubtedly desires that Germany should have world-power; there is, also, no doubt a party which has been coerced into war from the fear that there was an intention on the part of other Powers to crush Germany; and there is, also, a strong military party whose members, of course, like all soldiers, are desirous of going on active service, with the chance of achieving distinction. When you get a population of that character, when you have circumstances of this nature, and when you bring all those factors into one channel, as a rule you are very apt to have war. The particular factors to which I desire to draw the attention of the House, and which I think had an effect upon the German mind, are these: I go no further back than the South African War, when the famous Kruger telegram
  752
  was sent, and there was possibly an attempt to play upon German feeling when Great Britain was getting those South African colonies. Then there was the case of Tripoli, in which Italy was engaged. England took no part against her action. The House will recollect that we called attention again and again to The Hague Convention, and protested against the wanton act. No notice was taken of our protest in any shape or form. There was a great Foreign Office Debate in this House, in which a good many Members took part. I asked the Foreign Secretary if the reason for his action in not protesting against what was admitted, I think, by a great many newspapers and many Members of this House, to be a wanton act on the part of Italy, was the detaching of Italy from the Triple Alliance, possibly having in view that a European War might take place. He did not answer me. To proceed to Morocco. What was the action taken there? It is with reference to that I shall make the quotation to which I referred. The House will recollect what took place. There was a treaty between all the Powers and the parties—Germany, Russia, France, and ourselves among the others. What took place? We are very proud of our devotion to conventions and treaties. We resent and condemn, and rightly condemn, the violation of the sanctity of Belgium, and the "scrap of paper" which was torn up; but we ourselves were parties with France to tearing up the Treaty of Algeciras, which provided for the good government and treatment of Morocco. There was actually a provision in the Treaty of Algeciras, that where any dispute arose with regard to Morocco it should be referred to the Tribunal of the Powers. That was entirely ignored. Then afterwards the War broke out. This was the communication from the French Attaché in Berlin to his Chief in Paris, and the despatch is in the French Yellow Book, No. 1:—
  "May I recall, in order the better to show the genesis of this military programme, what was written by my predecessor, Colonel Pelle, a year ago, when the law of 1912 made its appearance: 'We discover every day how deep and how lasting are the sentiments of wounded pride and rancour against us, provoked by the events of last year.'"
  He was referring to the humiliations inflicted on Germany in speeches made by Ministers in this country, which led practically to the Ultimatum delivered to Germany that she must withdraw her gunboat from Agadir. The report continued:—
  "The treaty of 4th November, 1911, is a profound disappointment. The resentment felt in every part of Germany is the same. All Germans, even the

  753
  Socialists, resent our having taken their share in Morocco. It appeared one or two years ago as if the Germans had set out to conquer the world. They deemed themselves so strong that no one would dare enter the lists against them. Boundless possibilities were opened up for German industry, German trade, German expansion. Naturally those ideas and those ambitions have not disappeared to-day. Germans still require outlets for their commerce; and they still desire economic and Colonial expansion. This they consider as their right, as they are growing every day and the future belongs to them. They look upon us, with our 40,000,000 inhabitants, as a second-rate nation. In the course of 1911 this second-rate nation held its own against them."
  They held their own, because we supported them in the violation of the treaty, in the tearing up of a scrap of paper. The letter concluded:
  "The Emperor and the Government yielded, public opinion has neither forgiven them nor us. Public opinion does not intend that such a thing shall occur again."
  From that moment Germany prepared for war. We are being continually told that there was evidence that Germany was preparing for war. That is quite true. I do not deny it. All the facts go to show that Germany was preparing for war. I do not suggest for a moment that Germany was justified in the aggressive action it took in the violation of Belgium and many of the other acts which were committed. I do not stand up here to defend Germany in any sense of the word.
  Captain PIRIE: What is the purpose of your speech?
  Mr. MASON: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. Possibly I cannot do perhaps the same justice as the hon. Member, but I am endeavouring to show, while I do not for a moment palliate or excuse the action of Germany, I ask the House as a fair Assembly, and even the hon. Member as a fair-minded man, after the statement of these facts, and they are facts—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—I ask him if he can state, knowing these facts, that "we did not incur responsibility in perhaps helping to provoke this great tragedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "We were accessories before the fact! "] I am not going to call ourselves names. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are!"] The hon. Member can form his own conclusion. I am endeavouring to the best of my humble ability to put these facts as they are before the House.
  Major NEWMAN: Are you speaking for your constituents?
  Mr. MASON: I am glad the hon. Member makes that interruption, because it was so ably answered by the hon. Member who spoke before me. He said a very
  754
  straightforward thing: that we are not here as it were altogether to speak the views of our constituents. Surely we are here as Members of Parliament. I quite agree we have a responsibility to our constituents, and when the time comes I hope I will be able to face that responsibility. I am sure that this House would resent, and very properly, if we did not give our views such as they are. They cannot necessarily be in accordance with the views of every Member. We are Members of this great deliberative Assembly, and, as the hon. Member pointed out, surely it ought to be our primary duty, and I am endeavouring to try to carry that out, to express our views. Whether I represent the views of my Constituents I am unable to say, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I long for the period when we may meet our constituents. I, for one, was quite against extension of the life of Parliament. I thought it was a most unjustifiable act, and I supported the extension of eight months rather than twelve. As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to give them any satisfaction, and to try to put these views before my Constituents, and to ask for a renewal of their confidence. I am quite unable to say whether they will do so or not. I do hope some further consideration will be given to this very proper suggestion of my hon. Friend. I, for one, have never wavered in my support of this cause. I regard it as a just cause.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: What cause—our cause, or Germany's?
  Mr. MASON: The cause we are engaged in, our cause. I clearly said that over and over again in this House, and I have never wavered in the belief that we are engaged in a just cause. I do suggest that for motives of reason, from higher motives, that after all we have a higher responsibility. I am sure that we do recognise our responsibility, and that our words do carry weight in the country, and that the country looks to this House for statesmanship and for guidance, and that every single Member of this House owes a responsibility to the House for every single word he utters, and owes a responsibility to a higher power than this House to himself as a man and to God. I say that we are bound as men to offer our opinions—what we sincerely believe to be our just and true opinions. We are supposed to offer them to the Government. It is not our responsibility if the Government refuse to listen to them. We owe

  755
  that responsibility to this great Assembly, to ourselves, and to God. On those lines I ventured to address this Assembly.
  Mr. FINNEY: I hope I may have the indulgence of the House while I try to indicate what is the attitude, as I believe it, of the people who were good enough to ask me to represent them here with respect to the great War that all of us must deplore. None of us can listen to the facts as put before us in this House, and from what we can gather through the public Press, but must feel in the depths of our nature that we would sacrifice anything, ourselves even, in order to bring this War to an honourable conclusion. That should mean, as I interpret it, victory for the arms of Great Britain and her Allies. There was a time when some of us may have wavered as to what our attitude should be, but I do not think that any of us have wavered since the fatal early day in August, 1914, when the Germans invaded territory that was not theirs, and violated the rights of other people in spite of international agreements and honourable engagements. As the history of the War has proceeded, I think all of us must have felt that the Germans have played not a fair game at all, but have made it their business to use any means and every means to dominate and subjugate the other nations round about, and, in addition to subjugating the smallér nations, dominate the world. As I interpret the feelings of the people who sent me here, we believe that they have violated all the principles that are fundamental to civilisation and to peace; for in our judgment there can be no peace whilst there is any power anywhere that wishes to violate the rights of other people. That being the case, it seems to me that all this talk about offering terms of peace is out of place. If there were any sign of any tangible offers, any overtures made at all by the Germans themselves, then I could understand it, but up to now, as far as I am informed, there has been no suggestion from that side, at any rate, that the time had come to negotiate terms of peace. I was wondering while some hon. Members were speaking who had authorised them to talk, in this way. It is evident, I think, that their constituents have not authorised them, and I am not certain that Germany has authorised them. In whose name, then, are they speaking when they try to persuade the Government to make up its
  756
  mind to offer terms of peace at this stage? I think that is a fair proposition. I think it is something they ought to face, and tell us where they are getting the information from that has led them to the conclusion that Germany is ready for an offer of terms of peace from this side.
  The reason I am here is that I have been sent. I never asked to come, but .for some reason or another, good, bad or indifferent, the people of the constituency in which I was born made up their minds that the time had come when I should be asked to come here. In my address I told them that, although I was a party man, I was prepared to sink all party politics at this juncture in the history of this country, and to unite with all parties in arranging and pursuing and prosecuting this War to a successful conclusion. On the strength of that address, I believe, the people of that constituency consented to my coming here to represent them. As far as I know, we are practically solid in that constituency in favour of supporting the Government in this great business, and we hope that they will pursue it. All of us have suffered, and all of us are prepared to suffer. I believe that we are all actuated by the same spirit, purpose, and determination. When the question of sacrifice comes in, I think all of us have done what we could to show that we were willing to sacrifice, and when it is a question of every one doing his share, I hope the House will see that each one is called upon according to his ability and resources, and that fair arrangements will be made so that all of us may, according to our resources, face the situation together. To that extent I believe we shall still be prepared to support the Government in the great work they have in hand. As to the question to whom are we responsible, I have thought that matter out fairly fully myself. It seems to me, if I have been trained properly, if I have had sufficient information, that no man can be on the wrong side as long as he is doing his best to protect the weak and the helpless against the oppressor and the aggressor, and the violator of other people's rights. Whether it must be faced in time or in eternity, it seems to me that any man who acts along that line may face anything, as long as he is standing up for what is just and right and what is fair to other people—the great religion that this country supports fundamentally and always calls upon the

  757
  strong to help the weak and protect the helpless. Germany has shown in this instance, I am afraid many times, that she has forgotten those principles and is prepared to violate them. She has oppressed the weak, invaded territory that was not hers, and violated the purity of innocent women and children. As long as that sort of thing happens, it seems to me that we can do no other than use all the power we have to drive back the aggressor and regain the country for the people to whom it belongs.
  Mr. GRIFFITH REES: As one who made his maiden speech only a few weeks ago, may I venture on behalf of my fellow Members to express the gratitude of the House to the hon. Member who has preceded me (Mr. Finney). His speech went straight to the heart, and I am sure we shall all welcome his utterances in this House. What I have to say can be said in a couple of minutes. In the first place, this talk about peace tends to hearten the enemy and to prolong the War. Secondly, hon. Gentlemen complain that they are misunderstood in this House. How much more would this House be misunderstood by those Allies who have stood by us throughout this War? That is a tremendous danger, and I hope nothing will be done to cause any friction, unrest, or difficulty between our Allies and ourselves. Lastly, we have fighting for us soldiers and sailors. Nothing ought to be done to dishearten them, or to let them think that whilst they are fighting whole-heartedly for "us, we are only half-hearted here. Let us go forward steadfastly to the end, believing confidently in the righteousness of our cause.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: My views sympathise very much with those of some previous speakers—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan), and others. I know they are unpopular views. I know well enough that they are the views of a minority. I was disappointed and surprised that the Prime Minister began his speech with a sneer at minorities. Probably he has not had as much experience of minorities as I have had. He posed as shouting with the loudest and the biggest crowd. Has he forgotten what Emmerson said—I think it was Emmerson—that God and one are a majority? His speech easily brought cheers. Cheers are cheap enough for language like that in this country at pre-
  758
  sent, such are the revengeful, angry, and warlike feelings of the mass of our people. His speech easily brought cheers, but it will disappoint a very large minority—spread all over the country—a minority which includes distinguished members in another place not far from here, and, as he knows well enough, many of those who have been his ardent supporters in the past. It will disappoint thoughtful men all over the country. It needs far more courage to put forward views such as were put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn and others than it does to use the "never sheath the sword" and the "last drop of blood" language which we heard from the Front Bench. For myself I have never believed in the arbitrament of war for the settlement of national quarrels. It is a stupid and unsatisfactory way of settling such disputes. It settles only who is the stronger and not who is in the right. Even now—and this is really the whole object of those who have brought on this Debate—in my judgment it will be better to listen to the sweet voice of reason. We should the sooner arrive at a conclusion, and we should arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion, if the belligerents came together and tried to settle their differences over the council table rather than on the battlefield. The Prime Minister seems to doubt that there was any evidence of a desire for peace amongst our principal enemy, the German nation. I never take up a paper but I read of the desire of the people of Germany, even of the statesmen of Germany, and of the Press of Germany for some approaches in regard to peace. I read a day or two ago that whereas "dearness of food" and "hunger" were the cries of the people of the great cities of Germany, now it is "peace, peace, peace" that is in everyone's mouth. I read that there is a conference sitting at Stockholm making efforts to bring about some agreement, and that there is a permanent committee sitting at Berne with the same object. I read—I do not know what it means—that Prince von Buelow is managing a peace section at Lucerne.
  Peace is in every German newspaper every day, and in speeches in the Reichstag as well. Only a few days ago the "Berliner Tageblatt" stated that an extraordinarily large number of petitions have been sent to the Reichstag and the Prussian Diet in favour of peace and also of a change in the military operations to hasten the end of the War. I am trying

  759
  to bring the evidence asked for by the Prime Minister showing that there is a demand and a desire for peace in Germany. I believe that Germany would listen now more readily than ever, because she knows perfectly well that our military superiority is increasing. The Germans know well enough that they could save more now than they will be able to save later. We began this War for Belgium, and quite lately we have made a solemn renewal of our pledge. I am very glad that we have. I entirely agree, of course. But I cannot doubt for a moment that peace could be had with Germany on the lines of restoring Belgian independence, and probably of giving Belgium an indemnity besides. It is not only Germany that we find eager for peace. A distinguished statesman who very often adorns the Treasury Bench spoke a day or two ago at a public meeting in London, and I read:
  "Mr. Bonar Law went on to say that he did not suppose there was a man or woman in that room who did not hate war and hate what it meant, and who did not long that the prayer which was put forward at the opening of the proceedings might be fulfilled that we might have peace."
  Very well; who wills the end must will the means. The belief of those of us who are supporting this proposal is that the means of negotiation and discussion of our differences would be more likely to bring the end than a continuance of bloodshed and carnage in the trenches.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is rather a dangerous thing to talk peace in this country. A little while ago merely to mention the word was to invite a brick-bat. Although no one will listen, some of us are not afraid to say what we think about it. Our national perils are too great for any of us to take the responsibility of weakening the Government. I know perfectly well that the fortunes of my country are committed to the band of men who are in the Government, and I am in no mood to lay a feather of extra weight upon their backs. I tremble sometimes when I think of the great responsibilities they have undertaken. We want all the genius of statesmanship that the British nation contains, wherever it may be found. We need all the skill and resource, knowledge and initiative which our military and naval Services can command. They are on their trial. The nation has done its part. It has found the most magnificent fighting material, facing death with sublime heroism. Failure, if any, is not due to them. They have the
  760
  right to claim political leadership and military command which shall lead them to victory. If we must go on fighting, let us fight well and fight to victory. Whatever our views about war, and it is well known that mine differ from many here, the nation is involved in a life and death struggle, millions of our countrymen now suffering death, wounds, sickness, bereavement, poverty, untold hardships bravely borne, and our strongest feelings should be to join hands to help one another to pull together and to unite our strength to pull through. But I do not believe that by the arbitrament of war we shall come to the end so quickly or so satisfactorily as we should if we held counsel together. I hope it will be believed by all my colleagues that I love my country as much as any of them notwithstanding these views. I mourn to see her, in her eagerness to sacrifice to the god of war, raising to herself a mountain of sorrow and suffering and bereavement. I have never worshipped in the temples of that deity. I have always warned my fellow countrymen that their offerings of guns and ships which they would in their blindness lay upon his altar would some day minister to their own destruction and so we see it to-day. If you tell me that honour pledges us to go into this War, I answer that it is a calumny on the spirit of justice to say that honour can only be defended by bloodshed and mutual slaughter. It is so defended in every other relation of life except that of nation and nation, and the priceless lesson which the nations of Europe must learn from this War is how to defend their honour without destroying one another.
  Major MURRAY: I think that, had this country not engaged in the War with our Allies and had the Germans now been in Great Britain, my hon. Friend would have held very different views about war and the accompaniments of war. The hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) did well to draw attention to, and to emphasise, the overwhelming majority by which the recent Labour Congress expressed its confidence in the Government and called for a vigorous prosecution of the War. I am very glad to hear that, but the hon. Member's observations will not be reported in the German Press. The speeches which will be reported in the German Press are those delivered by the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), by the hon. Member who seconded his Amendment, and others who have

  761
  spoken. My hon. Friend (Mr. Ponsonby) said he and his Friends had been accused of helping the enemy by the speeches which they had delivered outside this House. He said the accusation was unjust and unfounded—those were not the words he used, but that was the effect of his remarks—and that it was the speeches of Jingoes, by whom I presume he meant those who held opposite views, which helped the enemy. If speeches are made in this House and outside which encourage the enemy, that is the same as helping the enemy. It has been my privilege to live for many months within 100 yards or so of the enemy, and I know, and those of my comrades who are out there now, know full well what encouragement to the enemy can mean. We know very well that we may have spent weeks, if not months, in gaining superiority in what we call out there "No-man's land." We gain absolute superiority over the enemy and then there is circulated throughout the German trenches something which puts heart into them. It is probably untrue, but very often we have all our work over again. I say, without hesitation, that speeches such as have been delivered to-night will do a great deal when they are circulated, as they will be, through the German trenches to encourage the enemy and to help to prolong this War. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mason), who does not know whether he represents his constituents or not, talked at large of the provocative speeches made by a Minister or Ministers in this country in 1911. He talked of the violation of treaties by this country and so forth and so on. There is nothing more calculated to help the enemy than speeches of that description. The hon. Member and his Friends live and wander through realms of idealism and refuse to face solid bedrock facts. What are those facts? Amy treaty concluded with Germany at the present moment would not be worth the paper it was written on. My hon. Friend asked that we should put forward our proposals for peace. The Prime Minister made a full and adequate reply to that suggestion. But further than that, we know full well that at the present there exists in Germany a Government which, in the words of the Imperial Chancellor, refuses to recognise any law but the- law of necessity—the Government which, as the Imperial Chancellor himself said in the Reichstag in 1914 proclaimed that the interests of Germany must override all the laws of
  762
  equity and of nations. My hon. Friend I believe is a man of business. Would he do business with a man who has broken his word as Germany as a nation has broken its word? Of course he would not.
  Mr. D. MASON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appeals to me. I reply by asking him how then does he expect them to do business with us?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not carry on a discussion by way of interruption.
  Major MURRAY: I will come to that in a very few words. Bearing upon it was the question which my hon. Friend asked in his speech. He said, How is the dominance of Prussian militarism in Germany to be removed? My answer is that when, owing to certain factors which we hope will be achieved, the armed defence of Germany has been broken down, it is then likely that the German people will throw over their own false gods which inspirit the Prussian militarism which for so long has dominated the German race. In that and in that alone I see the salvation of the peace of Europe in future years. It would be an absurdity for the Government of this country and the Governments of the Allies at present to treat with the ruling classes of Germany as they now exist. They have not in any sense renounced a single one of the original plans with which they set out in this War. What are those plans? They proposed in the first instance to dominate Europe and the Near East, and to seize from Great Britain command of the seas. Will the hon. Gentlemen who have made speeches to-night tell us that the German Government has renounced any of those intentions, if they can achieve them? If they have not, what is the use of this Government or the Allied Governments going to Germany and proposing terms of peace? The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) said that a favourable opportunity for holding out the hand of negotiation was now at hand, and a satisfactory and successful peace would be more possible now than it would be at some future date. I think there is no possible doubt whatsoever that a peace formulated now would be an inconclusive peace and would stereotype the evil of militarism which is-so detested, not only' by hon. Gentlemen who profess their ideals in this. House to-night, but by all of us, and more particularly by those who have to bear the heat and burden of the

  763
  day fighting in France and elsewhere. It will be time enough to talk of peace when victory has been achieved. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that in his opinion no final victory could ever be achieved, that there would be a stalemate, and that no crushing military defeat of Germany was possible. I do not know on what foundations he based that opinion. I would differ from him. The Prime Minister said he would differ from him. I look forward to the day, and I hope to take a part in the final defeat of German arms by the Allied Armies on the Western and Eastern fronts, and until that defeat takes place there is no hope of what we desire to see come about, and that is the overthrow by the German people of their own false gods. A peace secured by bargaining with Germany at the present moment would be no peace at all. When victory is brought about by the internal break-up of Germany and by the overthrow of the German armies on the Western and Eastern fronts, then, and then only, can we rest assured that the spirit of Prussian militarism, which has so long dominated the German race, will never again rear its head and be a menace to European peace and to civilisation.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. Member for Salford, who is an old and respected Member of this House, commenced his speech by accusing the Prime Minister of sneering at minorities. I speak in the recollection of the House when I say that in that great and lofty speech of the Prime Minister there was no sneer from beginning to end. The Prime Minister speaks for this country, and does not merely address this House, but addresses the nations of the world, and he was bound to point out to the nations of the world that the two hon. Members who spoke at the inception of this Debate represent a very insignificant minority of the people of this country. The hon. Member for Salford spoke of those who represent, I think, the Union of Democratic Control, or the Stop-the-War Committee, as addressing this House with the sweet voice of reason. I venture to say that the sweet voice of reason comes perilously near the whisper of treason; for anything that is done to hearten the enemy by speech or deed in this War comes perilously near treason. I was delighted to hear the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackpool and several others, including that of the hon. Member for West Ham, going back to history to
  764
  guide us in this Debate. There is a quotation, which I think I can remember, of a great French historian, who said that a people who can remember and act upon its past history is safe in the greatest crisis of its fate; and I think that, if we go back to our past history, and if we also remember the past history of Germany, we are very unlikely to attempt to make an inconclusive peace with that nation.
  The only argument which impressed me in the slightest degree in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn was when he referred to the, more or less, correct forecasts of the historian Bloch, but when he spoke of those forecasts as likely to be verified all along the line, I venture to say that some of M. Bloch's forecasts have already been falsified, and, so far from agreeing with his theory of stalemate—and I noticed the Prime Minister did not agree with him either—I think there are reasons for believing that the time will come when the consciousness of impending defeat will be felt by the people of Germany. Several hon. Members who have spoken on the other side have already referred to the strong desire for peace in Germany. That desire for peace has not been brought about by any talk about peace in this country, but by the belief amongst them that Germany may be worsted in the struggle. Neutrals who have come back tell us that nothing has disheartened the Germans more than the fact that this country has gone in for compulsion. That was in the papers early this morning. An hon. Member who spoke in this Debate quite rightly pointed out that no nation has been deterred from war by finance, and no nation has ended a war simply because of finance. That is perfectly true, but the combination of finance and victory may easily end a war. What I mean is that a top-heavy situation has undoubtedly been produced in Germany through bad financial handling, and through the operation of our blockade, and that where that top-heavy situation has been created, a victory on one of the fronts might produce a serious situation in Germany. There have already been riots.
  I would take, as a more or less parallel case, the war with America in 1812–14, where bad financial arrangements produced an undoubtedly top-heavy situation. We were then blockading the United States. It was cut off from trade on the Canadian frontier too, but that had no effect, and the heart of the United States

  765
  was not reached by military power in any sense of the word. Then occurred what was undoubtedly a spectacular victory—that is to say, a mere raid which burnt Washington City. It was of no military significance whatever, yet the impression made on the United States people was such that every bank in the United States suspended its specie payments, and thereupon three of the States began intriguing against the Central Power. Victories are won in this War, as seen in the case of the Russians working in Armenia, and victories may be won on the Western front, the Northern front and other fronts, and I believe if we win a spectacular victory that that, associated with the bad financial position in Germany, may produce results which can hardly be conjectured at the present moment. Beyond that argument in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn I could not find anything of a practical character in the arguments addressed to this House by hon. Members who are in favour of stopping the War and concluding a premature peace. It is a kind of frogs' chorus of croakings which are not calculated to hearten this country, but only the enemy. I remember someone once described a great many of the books published nowadays as suited for libraries on desolate islands. I would describe these speeches, as they are not addressed to practical considerations, or to any people in this country, or the countries of our Allies, as speeches suited to desolate islands. We are bound to look into the records of hon. Members who make them. It is not a mere sneer when we say they do not represent their constituents, and on a question like this, when the whole country is with us in this War, they should not misrepresent their constituents in this House. I believe nearly every single one of these hon. Members has been identified with agitation to prevent the proper armaments for this country. In so far as they have succeeded in that they have probably helped to bring on this War, because the Germans are a calculating nation and they calculate what they have to meet, make their forecasts, and if they imagine that we are not going to war, or if they imagine the armaments which may be ranged against them can be beaten down, then they go to war. That is the Prussian method.
  If we were to adopt the arguments urged upon us by that small minority of the House we would undoubtedly have to betray our Allies in this War, and that is a
  766
  consideration to which I for one could not possibly agree. We are pledged to our Allies not to make a separate peace. They are equally pledged to us. That is the main strength of our position in this War. If we show any cowardice in this War, if we show the slightest falling off in resolution to back up the Prime Minister in his declaration, in so far will we hearten the enemy and probably prolong this unfortunate struggle. I was delighted to observe in the Prime Minister's vigorous speech a sanguine note, showing that he has confidence in the results of this War. Having once been a sailor and trained all my boyhood as a sailor, I naturally love superstitions. I am not superstitious—I wish I were—but I remember one I am particularly fond of, and that was of the old Greek sailors, who, in the midst of a storm, if they saw the Twin stars Castor and Pollux in a gleam of blue sky, knew their ship would come home safely to port. I regard the Prime Minister as the pilot of the ship of State, and I like to think of him, after hearing that magnificent speech, as one who has seen the Twin stars in the sky, and will be able to bring the ship of State safely home.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Member who has just sat down dwelt in his concluding remarks with the Prime Minister's statement, and mentioned the fact that he had been a sailor. Well, the Prime Minister's statement called to my mind an article containing the views expressed by a gentleman who was once a member of this House, and devoted himself very much to nautical matters—Mr. T. G. Bowles. The article first appeared in the "Candid Review," of a recent issue, and the position in which we find ourselves is very well set out in this article, from which I should like to read an extract to the House. He says:
  "As in going to war, so in coming to peace. It is a mistake to suppose that old men are prudent—on the contrary, they are always rash; for they have not time to wait. These vain old men have committed their silly old selves to statements and requirements of their own of the terms of peace they will propose. They, forsooth! They launch the egregious Mr. Masterman to tell a listening world what they will impose and require—when their power of requiring or imposing anything is broken—when they are surrounded with defeated adventures, lost gambles, decimated Allies, and ruined nations. Will they have the courage and manliness now to face the wreck they have made; will they seek to salve it; or will they prolong the conflict for no other purpose than to save their wrinkled old faces? It has been the young men who have fought the War. It is for the young

  767
  men to make the peace. That is their business. The War has been the work of the old. The peace will be the heritage of the young."
  He concludes by saying:—
  "We pile up our own withered leaves against the portals of the year; and the last message of our Winter is that there shall be no Spring."
  I believe that is largely the position in every belligerent country to-day. For the statesmen who have made this War, the old men who have sent the young men to die, fear to come forward and manfully face the situation. We are told that we should not make suggestions for peace because it may be taken as evidence of our weakness. However, I do not think that we ought to take up an attitude which makes suggestions of peace from either side absolutely impossible. The hon. Member opposite said that the Prime Minister did not taunt the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) that he did not represent the majority of his constituents; but although the Prime Minister's words did not say that, I think the manner of his statement did convey that impression. I think those of us who are told that we do not represent the majority of our constituents on this question might very much more represent their views if we were free to express our opinions in our own constituencies, and if we had more democratic conditions than are permitted under the Defence of the Realm Act. If we were able to show to our constituency the whole history of our entrance into this War perhaps they, would take a different view. The hon. Member who has just spoken recalled what happened on the 3rd of August with regard to myself. He is the agent for the Miners' Association and there are some 3,000 members of that association in my Constituency, and I think I got all their votes at my election. When I was coming down to the House to listen to the great speech of the Foreign Secretary before the commencement of this War I was handed a telegram asking me to do all I could in order to secure the neutrality of this country. Then came the invasion of Belgium. I was asked to go down to the hon. Member's constituency and state that we went to war because of the invasion of Belgium by Germany, although we knew that the day before this country placed the British Navy at the disposal of France. We know now that we went into this War in support of the policy of maintaining the balance of power and the invasion of Belgium was only incidental; con-
  768
  sequently, I refused to go on to that platform unless I could state the whole truth in regard to a matter in which men were being asked to give their lives. The day will come when the whole truth can be told, and then I do not fear myself that I shall be able to justify my position. On the question we are discussing depends the lives of tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of the young men of this country. It is that alone which is in my mind. If you can show that the Government can secure victory at a great sacrifice of life, I can understand people saying that we will not listen to peace proposals, but when they do not show any evidence that such a victory as they demand can be gained—not merely driving the Germans out of Belgium, but that we can force unconditional surrender on Germany—if they cannot show that, what lathe good of demanding terms that cannot be exacted until that is gained? It has been said that it is virtually treasonable on our part to say anything in this House that might be construed into an encouragement to the enemy. That charge is brought up on every occasion when the Government is criticised. When hon. Members opposite criticise our defenceless position with regard to aerial attacks, is not that an encouragement to the enemy? That argument can be pressed too far, and there is full justification for any hon. Member criticising when he thinks that what he is doing is for the benefit of his country. We have heard that a state of stalemate at present exists. I would not like to make a statement myself on that point, because I might be charged with being treasonable, so I will read to the House a statement on this subject made by the "Daily Mail" on the first day of this year, as a sort of New Year's message to the nation. It is as follows:—
  "The wildest imagination never foresaw such a military situation as obtains on this opening day of 1916. Across all Western Europe run two vast systems of parallel fortifications, like two Chinese walls, guarded by artillery of frightful potency, machine guns by the ten thousand, and barbed wire for hundreds of miles. Neither side has so far been able to break a way through these defences, despite the most furious assaults, unlimited heroism, and fearful expenditure of human life. There is for the time being an impasse owing to the enormous strength of modern armies and the prodigious development of the defence. Neither can move. And this situation is reproducing itself at the Eastern front and about Salonika. Thus the Allies have entirely lost, and the Germans have partially lost, on land that mobility which is requisite to win decisive victories. Napoleon himself, when condemned by conditions to deliver a frontal attack on a strong and brave enemy, could show only the drawn battle of Borodino. Is there no

  769
  way in which the problem can be solved by the Allies? There are two ways. The first is by the pressure which the supreme sea power of the Allies can exercise on Germany."
  That is a statement which conveys my view of the military situation. There does exist this deadlock at the moment. It may be said that we have piled up our reserves, that we have a far greater superiority over our enemies, that we can order the great advance, and that we have our millions ready to supply wastage. When that is done, what have we accomplished? We are to drive the Germans out of Belgium, and I presume, to use the words of the Minister of Munitions, we are to blow the Germans out of Belgium with high explosives. But what is happening to Belgium meanwhile? Are we going to blow Belgium to pieces, farm by farm, village by village, and town by town, because, I suppose, Belgium will be defended? We are told that we are fighting for Belgium. Surely, in the interests of Belgium, if we can negotiate Germany out of Belgium that would be the better policy. I do not know whether the desires of Belgium citizens have been considered. I do not think the Belgians who are in Belgium to-day desire that their small country should be made the cockpit between the Central Powers and England and France.
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Germany is stealing the food that is being sent to the Belgians.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am concerned for the moment with the interests of Belgium, and I hold that it is her interests to negotiate, if possible, Germany out of Belgium. If Germany will say that she is willing to come out of Belgium and compensate that country, that is better for Belgium than to fight in the way which has been suggested. The Government ought to give us some assurance when they are asking for a huge sum of money like this, that by its expenditure, and the continuance of this policy, victory is likely to he achieved. I read with great interest and the best of my discernment the various figures which appear in reference to the number of men Germany can bring into the field, wastage, and so on. I hear that the only way we can win this War is by killing Germans [HON. MEMBEKS: "Hear, hear."] That is a point to which I wish to address myself. I have heard statements made to the effect that during the last eighteen months we have succeeded in killing about half a million Germans—I am taking the figures of those actually Killed. During this period of eighteen
  770
  months it is estimated that the number of men who reach military age in Germany will be something like the number of men Ave have killed. At the same time we have to remember that Turkey and Bulgaria have come in, and have added to the numbers of the Central Powers. During the time that we have been killing this half million Germans we have spent something like £2,000,000,000 on the process, and consequently it has cost us at least £10,000 to kill a German—I think it probably costs £20,000 to kill a German, but I am putting it at the low figure of £10,000 per head. I presume that our share of the killing of Germans to compel unconditional surrender will entail upon us the killing of another half a million Germans, which would bring the cost of the War to us for that specific purpose to about £5,000,000,000. I notice this morning that the "Morning Post" says that if the War continues for another year the cost to this country will be £4,000,000,000, which is something like my estimate of £5,000,000,000, and this figure will probably be reached before we have killed enough Germans to secure unconditional surrender. Take the "Morning Post" figures, and suppose we force unconditional surrender upon Germany within a year, though I cannot find any military man who says that there is a possibility of forcing that surrender within a year, then at the minimum the cost of this War to us would be £4,000,000,000. Raising that money at 5 per cent., and it may be even 6 per cent., that is £200,000,000 or £240,000,000, and with pensions and allowances—the pension list will be enormous by then—it must mean an additional expenditure of £300,000,000 per annum. If we add our former pre-war expenditure of £200,000,000, it means that we shall have to raise a revenue of £500,000,000 in future years, or £100 for every family in the country.
  Having reached that expenditure, that being the condition of the country, and that being the burden imposed upon it, I want to know how we are going to find the money in the future to maintain the naval supremacy of this country, especially at a time when we feel it is going to be contested by a very much more powerful nation in this respect than Germany. America are going to spend £100,000,000 additional on their navy. How are we going with this gigantic expenditure through this policy, even if successful, to leave Great Britain, and that is my only

  771
  concern, in a position relatively more powerful to Germany than she is to-day? It may be done, but we have no figures and no facts whatever to show the process by which it is to be achieved. Probably we can go on and raise the money and get through somehow, because in the last resort we can repudiate. We might at any rate solve that problem, but that is not my chief concern. My concern is whether the result will be such as will justify the enormous expenditure of men. When we hear hon. Members, and civilian Members, often barristers, talk as they did when the Compulsion Bill was before the House, and before then, of making good a wastage of upwards of 2,000,000 men in a year, I think we have a right to demand evidence that what we desire to attain in this War can only be attained by that ghastly human sacrifice. It horrifies me, the easy and glib way in which I hear hon. Members who are doing nothing in the fighting themselves, and who perhaps have seen very little of it, talk of bringing up these millions to be sacrificed and at the same time say, "We must not even so much as discuss whether what we desire to achieve can be got by other means and without this sacrifice." That is my difficulty. We have no evidence that our objects can only be achieved except by this sacrifice of blood and of treasure.
  I am also in doubt whether the objects we first had in mind, or whether the objects which the Prime Minister stated at the Guildhall, are still the sole objects that we have in view in this War. We now know that we went to the Dardanelles in the first place at the request of the Russian Government. We see from statements in the Russian Press, and from a statement made in the Greek Chamber, that our excursion into the East has largely been a commitment to aid her in the conquest of Constantinople. No doubt hon. Members have read that remarkable article by Dr. E. J. Dillon in this month's "Contemporary." He says that the commitment was made last April by the Foreign Secretary, and that the result of this commitment to Russia has been the alienation of Bulgaria and of Greece, and has kept Roumania neutral. I cannot see that that excursion into the East comes anywhere within the objects of the War as set out by the Prime Minister. Fortunately; perhaps, for hon. Members I have not got a paper
  772
  which I thought I had with me, but in the "Manchester Guardian" of the 17th inst. there is a remarkable article by Dr. Evans as regards the secret negotiations and commitments in connection with the intervention of Italy in the War. He makes the statement, which he says is known in the Foreign Offices of Europe, but of which we have no information, that Italy's terms for coming in were that Dalmatia should be surrendered to her, areas inhabited by a purely Slav population, and he goes on to make the charge in his article that this is an absolute departure from the principles laid down by the Prime Minister. This is the handing over of a Slav population to the over lordship of a race of a different nationality. When one views these facts, one has certainly cause for concern as to whether the objects which this country had in view are not being departed from, and are not being enlarged to the loss of human life and treasure of this country.
  The statement of the Prime Minister was perhaps a statement necessitated by his situation. Each head of a Government has to say, "We are going to certain victory; we are not abating one jot of our plans, and we will not listen to the very suggestion of peace." Each has to say it for fear that to say anything else might be interpreted as a weakening for going back upon a common pledge. But, regarding the whole situation, I cannot see how the Resolution proposed or the views expressed by hon. Members can in any way be regarded as a sign that this country is treasonable, or as suggesting that this country is weakening in any high resolve. I think it is evidence of strength, and not of weakness. This country is in a strong position through the domination of the Navy, and through the solidarity of its people, but I do not think that solidarity will continue to exist if the people are denied the full facts, the true reasons, the specific reasons, and the objects for their great sacrifices. These great sacrifices are only beginning now. We have had to introduce compulsion to bring forward hundreds of thousands of men. We are having to force people to go and fight to-day. They, at least, have a right to claim that the specific objects of their sacrifice should be given, and perhaps more so the men in the trenches to-day. I cannot see how that desire of ours, for that is all there is in my mind—the desire that the Government shall not

  773
  take a hard position and say, "We will not listen to any suggestion of terms of peace, and we will make no proposal until the Central Powers come to us humbled in the dust, submissive and say, 'We surrender unconditionally.' "
  Mr. BOOTH: That is what we want.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I know that is what my hon. Friend wants, and he may get it, but I can tell him that before he does get it it is quite likely that he may have to go.
  Mr. BOOTH: I shall be ready to go.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: But what benefit will it be to the people of this country if it means that to win this War you have to kill off all the youths, and there are Only the old and middle-aged left? Such a victory could only be gained by dragging in the last million men or the last hundred thousand men to hoist the flag of victory over an international graveyard. That is the only way an unconditional surrender can be forced upon a great nation in arms, and I think for the sake of our own people the door for another method should not be entirely closed.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. STANTON: I have listened with a considerable amount of pain and anxiety to this Debate, and on several occasions I have really felt like going out for a breath of fresh air, but I must remember that I must try and be as tolerant as possible to hon. Members whose views are entirely different, thank God Almighty, from my own. I do not want to blame everyone, or to paint them all alike and declare that they are all equally bad. There are gradations of badness, but it is really too bad that men should be privileged to get up in this House and put such a case, and should at week-ends go down in the country and put something sixteen times worse, using their wicked powers to instil into the minds of the workers of the country their teachings which they have only passively and temperately submitted here to-day. We have heard sufficient, however, to realise that our country's greatness has been brought about, and has been built up by some sterner stuff than that of which some speakers here to-night are made. I do think, as one who has taken a somewhat prominent share in the work of
  774
  addressing meetings in almost every part of the country, and who is in touch with the pulse of the working-classes as much as any other Labour man, I am justified in saying that 95 per cent, of the workers are loyal British and are with, the Government I have also been to the front. I have seen Tommy and shaken hands with him, and I have told them how we at home have tried to help. The men have told me in return that they are not afraid to go into the trenches and do their part. It is a great pity, I think, that the people of England should have to read such utterances as have been permitted here this evening. I, for one, feel I cannot allow this occasion to pass without entering nay most earnest protest. Such people as have spoken should not be tolerated here. They simply are asking that we should stand down, that we should submit ourselves with ropes round our necks and allow the Kaiser to treat us in the gentle way in which he no doubt would. I, for one, am not going to do that sort of thing, and I am surprised that any man, however much he may love peace—and in times of peace I myself have advocated international brotherhood—should be allowed to preach this doctrine. We are at war, we are up against the stern realities of warfare. We are in the middle of this fight. We have to stand up for our national reputation. We have to remember our duty to our Allies, and to those little nations, Belgium and Serbia.
  We must not forget also our own Colonies. Australia, New Zealand, Canada—our Colonies from all the corners of the earth have come forward to stand by their old mother. The cubs are all with us. Are we going to climb down? Are we going to discourage our Colonies? If I were an Australian or a Canadian, I would break away disgustedly if I heard much of such views as have been expressed here this evening, and if I did not know that they are the views of nothing more than a mere handful of men. It is up to the Members of this House to stand up for the rights of our Colonies. It is due to our Flag and our reputation that we should put an end to these speeches. It is bad enough for these men to spend their week-ends in creating difficulty and trouble for their country, in poisoning people's minds against enlisting, in refusing to help the Government with the voluntary system, and then at the same

  775
  time holding up their hands in holy horror and declaring against compulsion.
  There is only one duty for us, and that is to beat Germany by exercising a power greater than her own. Lately we have been able to get thousands and hundreds of thousands of our comrades to join those who are fighting for their country, and a month or two hence we shall be in a still better position to carry on the War. Our fighting spirit is developing. The bulldog is not always the first to fight, but when he begins he holds on, and is not likely to let go. It has been painful to hear the croakings and bleatings of these frightened lambs, who have been permitted to spend their week-ends in traducing their fellow countrymen and in belittling and besmirching the national Flag. But I hope one result of this Debate will be that less notice than ever will, in the future, be taken of them in the country wherever they may happen to go. I was disgusted to read in the papers the questions put the other day in regard to the Zeppelin raid. Surely the questions could have been asked in some other way in which they would not have constituted a direct incitement and encouragement to the Germans to send over more Zeppelins. Surely some better method could have been adopted than this croaking and crying that we were not ready, thereby advertising the fact to the enemy. I say, hang it, that such a thing should have happened. I want it to be known that we are not in any way downhearted. Our men are all right. These people ought to be muzzled, or something of that kind. They may think they are in earnest in what they are doing, but let me tell them this is not an opportune time to do it. We are in the middle of a great fight, and in their speeches they are simply breathing treachery. In this House of Commons there should be no room for men who are doing anything of that kind. I enter my protest against their proceedings, and I will fight them wherever I find them.
  Major HUNT: I think hon. Members who have advocated the making of peace proposals to Germany have quite forgotten that it is no use making treaties with Germany, because Germany treats treaties as scraps of paper. It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen should have forgotten that fact. We can only deal with Germany by defeating her sufficiently to make it impassible for her to attack us again for at least another twenty or thirty years. The hon. Member for Blackburn
  776
  (Mr. Snowden), who began the Debate, argued that it was not possible to say the end of the War was in sight unless there was a collapse of the enemy, and he added that if there were such a collapse we ourselves should be in much the same position. I do not think that that is true. I do not think that we should collapse, because we have at our backs the power of the Navy, and however long the War may last we shall be able to get supplies. The hon. Gentleman argued that if Germany were crushed it would not necessarily entail real peace. Again, I think, he was wrong, because I hold that it is only by crushing Germany we can hope to get a real peace. The hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan) told us there would be hard times for militarism after the War was over. He pointed out that there was hardly a family some member of which was not dead or injured. But the hon. Member has quite forgotten that if we had prepared for war as we were strongly recommended to do by Lord Roberts, instead of having this enormous number of young men killed we should have had no war, because, had we been prepared, Germany would never have begun it.
  The Prime Minister made a very strong speech as far as words go, but unfortunately his policy during this War has consisted a great deal too much of words and not enough of deeds. What we want from him is decided action, and that is exactly what up to the present has been lacking. I wish to refer to the way in which the Government whilst spending an enormous amount of money has wasted our resources and above all have refused to use the powers we really possess. At the beginning of the War, although the Declaration of London had been rejected by Parliament, the then Government tried to run the War on the lines of that Declaration. Again, although the Germans had broken every known law the Government still tried to wage the War with kid gloves on. Unfortunately, the Coalition Government are following on the same lines. The last Government consisted chiefly of men who looked after themselves in peace and after neutral nations in war. This Government is still ruled by the head of that Government—by a lawyer whose acknowledged policy is to "wait and see." The Prime Minister is a man who can never make up his mind about anything connected with the War until it is too late. The present Government is no better than

  777
  its predecessor. It is subject to no opposition or criticism to speak of, because most of the Opposition leaders sit on that bench, and have really become nothing but humble servants of the Prime Minister. They refuse to resign as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) did, and instead they prefer to hang on and to be the subservient satellites of the head of the Government rather than being loyal to their people and their country. Had the Back Benches on both sides chosen to oppose their leaders, they could have turned the Government out. But now the Government have muzzled the House of Commons and the Cabinet has muzzled the Press. The people are angry, but they are helpless unless a sufficient number of patriotic Members in this House can be found to turn the Government out.
  We are ruled by lawyers, and the Cabinet of twenty-two have plainly shown that they are quite incapable of waging war. They preach economy to poor people, but they allow the Government lawyers to draw huge salaries, and they are showing a very unreasonable fear of offending neutrals by allowing an enormous quantity of war material and food to go through neutral countries to Germany. What is the opinion of the United States about this matter? A well known Senator speaking on the doctrines of Continuous Voyage and Strict Blockade recently asked in the Senate whether, when the Germans murdered women and children on the high seas the Allies were not absolutely justified in using the same means as had been used by the Northern States of America, or whether the Americans expected the Allies to stand still like a lot of whipped curs while they were engaged in a war for life and liberty, merely in order to obey the dictates of a Congress which has an Army of 90,000 men and a fourth-rate Navy.
  I am certain, from direct information I have had from Holland, that enormous quantities of goods are going from Holland into Germany, and that the Dutchmen as well as the Germans in Holland laugh at the absurdity of our sham blockade. At the same time they are really nervous that the blockade may be made effective. I am afraid we shall never have an effective blockade under the present Government. The political lawyers who rule us insist on civil authority in war. All history shows that that is absolutely fatal to the successful prosecution of a big war. Thus it is
  778
  that they not only cripple the Navy but they sent mad-cap expeditions all over the world, let the "Goeben" escape, and so brought Turkey into the War against us. On the heads of the political lawyers now ruling this country lies the death and mutilation of tens of thousands of our gallant men, both humble soldiers and skilled officers, all of them far more worthy of their country than the political tricksters learned in the law. These lawyer politicians refused to prepare for the War when they knew it was coming, no doubt on the principle of "wait and see." They only wage war to keep themselves in office, and, as if hypnotised by an unseen hand, they refused to enforce the necessary measures even when the War was being waged. They also did their best to keep the people in ignorance of the extreme dangers of the situation. They have been tried for eighteen months and found hopelessly wanting. For the sake of our women and children, and of civilisation itself, every patriotic Member of this House ought to do his best to get this Government turned out in order to give the people a chance of electing men who are not afraid to wage a strenuous war, and men who will give our gallant soldiers and sailors and those of our Allies a fair chance of winning this War, the greatest and most tremendous War that has ever been known in history.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

SELECT COMMITTEES APPOINTED.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Public Accounts do consist of fifteen members.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Arnold, Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. Brady, Sir Hildred Carlile, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Hazleton, Sir Charles Henry, Mr. Higham, Colonel Jessel, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Macmastèr, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Newdegate, and Sir Robert Williams:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—[Mr. Rea.]

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Official Report of Debates, and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public service generally.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Mr. Doris, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Grant, Mr. Butler Lloyd, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Partington, Mr. Walter Roch, and Sir George Toulmin:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Rea.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the kitchen and refreshment rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House:
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Rupert Gwynne, Colonel Henderson, Sir Ivor Herbert, Mr. Howard, Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Lonsdale, Mr. Macmaster, Mr. Mooney, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Captain William Redmond, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Tyson Wilson:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Rea.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all
  780
  Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Sir William Bull, Mr. Burt, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Hackett, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Paget, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr. Reddy, and Mr. Turton:
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Rea.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.
    VOLUNTARILY ATTESTED MEN.
    VOLUNTARILY ATTESTED MEN.
    SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    IRISH FARM LABOURERS.
    IRISH FARM LABOURERS.
    RESERVED TRADES.
    RESERVED TRADES.
  LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  ARMY DISCHARGES DURING WAR (TOTALLY BLIND).
  ARMY DISCHARGES DURING WAR (TOTALLY BLIND).
  TUBERCULOSIS (SOLDIERS INVALIDED).
  TUBERCULOSIS (SOLDIERS INVALIDED).
  MESSING CASH ALLOWANCE.
  MESSING CASH ALLOWANCE.
  NAVAL LABOUR COMPANIES.
  NAVAL LABOUR COMPANIES.
  Peat and Paper Pulp.
  Peat and Paper Pulp.
  Beleek Pottery.
  Beleek Pottery.
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Elementary Schools (Teachers' Reports).
  Elementary Schools (Teachers' Reports).
  Board of Education (Temporary Employés).
  Board of Education (Temporary Employés).
  Local Authorities (Investments in Government Securities).
  Local Authorities (Investments in Government Securities).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  National Insurance (Ireland).
  National Insurance (Ireland).

Preamble
The Lord Brabourne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his nephew.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Aberdare and Aberaman Gas. [H.L.]

Canada Company. [H.L.]

Colchester Gas. [H.L.]

Ferndale Gas. [H.L.]

Hornsey Gas. [H.L.]

Imperial Continental Gas Association. [H.L.]

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas. [H.L.]

South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways. [H.L.]

Van Diemen's Land Company. [H.L.]

Yeadon Water. [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed.
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 7th of March next.

BLOCKADE POLICY.
Debate on the Motion of the Lord Sydenham "That this House considers that, in conformity with the principles of International Law and with the legitimate rights of neutrals, more effective use could be made of the Allied Fleets in preventing supplies, directly conducing to the prolongation of the war, from reaching enemy countries," resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, after the speeches delivered last night there is no necessity to go into any question of figures or to examine closely into the legal aspect of the case, and I have no intention whatever of doing so. Nor shall I avail myself of the invitation by the noble Marquess who spoke last night to suggest
130
some alternative scheme to His Majesty's Government. It would, I think, be presumptuous of a humble independent member of your Lordships' House to create schemes and policies. Besides that, I entirely approve of the policy of His Majesty's Government. What troubles me is that I do not think that the most efficacious steps have been taken to carry out that policy. It was just about a year ago that the Prime Minister, speaking after the threat of Germany to sink our mercantile marine at sight, made a memorable speech and enunciated the policy of His Majesty's Government. He said—
"Her [Germany's] opponents are therefore driven to frame retaliatory measures in order to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany."
To stop imports into enemy ports, especially of commodities requisite for war, is a perfectly legitimate process and in accordance with International Law and with common humanity, and I think it was a pity, as it were, to justify a perfectly legitimate action by founding it on the necessity of retaliation against action on the part of Germany which was not legitimate, nor in accordance with International Law, nor in accordance with common humanity. However, that is a small matter.
I think the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister was perfectly admirable. It indicated the determination of His Majesty's Government to use our most potent weapon, our Sea Power, to do everything possible to stop the introduction of goods of all kinds into Germany. A few days afterwards the Order in Council of March 11 was issued, placing before the country in the most authoritative way possible the policy which the Prime Minister had shortly before stated to Parliament. What did the Order in Council say? The most important declarations in it are in the Preamble and in the third paragraph. The Preamble states that—
"His Majesty has decided to take further steps for preventing commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany."
And Paragraph 3 lays down that—
"Every merchant vessel on her way to a port other than a German port, carrying goods with an enemy destination or which are enemy property, may be required to discharge such goods in a British or Allied port."

131
His Majesty's declaration in the Preamble is absolutely comprehensive. It makes no mention of actual contraband or conditional contraband. The doctrine of continuous voyage is obviously implied. It is all-embracing and as comprehensive as any statement could possibly be; and Paragraph 3 that I have mentioned is to my mind equally satisfactory, for I attach no importance to the use of the word "may" instead of "must." The word "may" is frequently used in Acts of Parliament and other documents, obviously implying "must," except in very extraordinary cases. In the case of a blockade or anything in the nature of a blockade it is obvious that commanders of ships must have some discretionary power, and I think the word "may" was quite naturally and properly used. At any rate, it cannot invalidate the whole meaning and tenor of the clause.
The policy seems to me absolutely sound. What troubles me, as I have said, is that I cannot see that the most effective means have been taken to render the policy operative. Whether it should have been carried out by a real blockade or not is a matter which I do not wish to discuss now. The policy has been, I believe, absolutely successful as regards exports from Germany, but it certainly has not been equally successful as regards imports. Leakage is admitted. It was admitted some time ago by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not think that "leakage" is quite the proper term to use, for leakage obviously implies that the main stream—of, in this case, commodities—has been stopped, and that only merely insignificant quantities dribble through. But I do not think it can or will be denied that as regards some commodities—for instance ores, that were mentioned by Lord Devonport last night—the main stream remains almost intact. There is scarcely any diminution at all, and it is absurd to talk of mere leakage in a case of that kind. The noble Marquess last night gave the House some very interesting and instructive figures indicating the monthly diminution of imports that could go to Germany. Nobody could rejoice more than I do to know that the pressure that we are able to bring to bear, such as it is, has had that good effect. I do not want to examine into the figures, but it must be obvious to your Lordships that a great many causes quite independent
132
of any pressure that we can exercise—the dates, for instance, on which various commodities were made contraband, the difference in freights, the ordinary circumstances that affect seaborne commerce at different times of the year, the difference between summer and winter—all these and other matters must have had some effect on the changes and fluctuations in the monthly rate of imports besides the pressure that we are bringing to bear. But I rejoice to find that the pressure already exercised is having effect. I think the figures which the noble Marquess mentioned prove it, but I do not think they prove that our Sea Power is being exercised in the most effective way to bring about the object of the Order in Council, which is to stop the importation of commodities of every kind into Germany.
I do not think the White Paper issued last month throws much light upon the subject—the statement, I mean, of the measures adopted to intercept the seaborne commerce of Germany. It tells us about the Contraband Committee obtaining information as to the destination of commodities. That is a very good thing. It gives us hints that perhaps some system of "rationing" neutral nations may be possible. That, I think, would be an exceedingly good thing. I am not sure that if it could be done effectively it would not go far to settle the whole case; but the very cautious words used in the White Paper—"may possibly," "perhaps may be done," and so on—rather lead me to suppose that in this case we shall have to "wait and see."
A good deal of information is given in the White Paper as to the Agreements and arrangements that have been made with trusts and syndicates in neutral countries. I confess I do not very much like those arrangements. They are of a very curious character. They are all triangular, and in most cases I should think they ought to be described, if there is such a word, as "multiangular." As I understand it, somebody here—I do not know who—makes an Agreement with a syndicate in a neutral country. The syndicate, of course, is the consignee, and the syndicate makes an agreement with some private trader or company who receives the goods, and the private trader or company makes other agreements with other traders, and so on

133
ad infinitum. Who signs the Agreements for us? The Government cannot sign them. The Government cannot make Agreements of this kind with private foreign syndicates, companies, or traders. I should like to know who does sign the Agreements on our part. Foreign countries have no hand or part in the matter, and without any kind of arrangement between our Government and foreign Governments I cannot see that we have any guarantee whatever that these Agreements are honestly carried out. If they are honestly carried out by the consignee, as I dare say they are, what possible guarantee can we have that the terms of the Agreements are enforced on the traders who distribute the goods? They seem to me in that respect to be an exceedingly unsatisfactory kind of arrangement, and they do not appear to me to be fair upon neutrals. No one neutral country can know what are the terms of the Agreement made with other neutral countries, and it is almost certain that a suspicion, at any rate, of favouritism may be felt. One neutral may think that other neutrals have been better treated, and, that is likely to cause friction that might Otherwise be avoided.
The White Paper enlarges a good deal upon the many difficulties that obviously exist in carrying out the policy enunciated in the Order in Council. All those difficulties, however, must have been perfectly well known a year ago and long before I that. But I do not think His Majesty's Ministers, either individually or collectively, have been accused of being inclined to undue haste in coming to decisions. Certainly the Prime Minister is very cautious, and has never indicated any tendency to hasty and ill-considered action. It surely must be the case that before advising His Majesty to issue the Order in Council the Prime Minister Must have considered, reconsidered, and considered over and over again, every difficulty and circumstance that could possibly arise. The policy enunciated in the Order in Council cannot be said to be carried out. And why? The speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other day gave me the impression that Sir Edward Grey did not think that it was possible to carry out the Order in Council. He says—
"You have no right to say that the British Prize Court is to be the neck of the bottle through which all your trade is to pass."
134
If that is the case, have we any right or any justification, at any rate, in saying in an Order in Council that the import of all commodities into Germany shall be stopped? They cannot both be right. If the Order in Council is right, then the Secretary of State is wrong. If the Secretary of State is right, then the Order in Council is wrong to the extent that it is not capable of being carried into effect and ought never to have been issued.
I am confident that at the time the Order in Council was issued the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government had not the slightest doubt of their ability fully to carry out its intentions with the means that they had in hand, and I am almost driven to the conclusion that since that time something—I know not what—must have happened. The policy itself is not bad. The whole country was at its back. I believe it was approved of by all our Allies. It certainly caused a great deal of resentment and perturbation amongst our enemies. If the policy is not in fault, is the executive in fault? The Fleet is the executive—the only real means by which the policy can be carried out. Is there anything wrong with the Fleet? I find it very hard to believe that from the point of view of the Navy any difficulty would be found in carrying out the intentions of the Order in Council to the fullest extent. If we had the opinion of the Admiralty on the subject, it would be very interesting and valuable.
If there is nothing the matter with the Fleet, I fall back on this somewhat mysterious Contraband Committee—a Committee about which very few people outside the sphere of influence of Cabinet Ministers know anything. I do not think the general public have any idea of its composition. I am not sure that they even know that it exists. Does it receive instructions, and from whom? Does it give instructions to the Admiral commanding the main Home Fleet? Does it give instructions to the Prize Court? Does it act as a sort of grand jury and return a good bill or no bill to the Prize Court? And if that is the case, it would be interesting to know what percentage of ships have been freed by the Committee without any reference to the Prize Court at all. Everybody more or less understands a Prize Court. The neutral countries understand it perfectly. They know what its functions are and what its composition is. But the neutral countries

135
cannot know anything about this Contraband Committee or what its functions are; and I am bound to say I think that conducting something in the nature of a blockade by means of a Committee which is in no way responsible to Parliament is very likely to cause unnecessary confusion and difficulty in the minds of neutrals.
I confess I do not much like this system of administration by Committees. I have no doubt that Committees are exceedingly useful. If we were conducting the war under a military dictatorship—which perhaps would be a very good thing—Committees would be indispensable, numbers of them; but then the military dictator would be personally responsible, and if things went wrong a single individual could be summarily removed. But we are conducting the war subject to the ordinary usual constitutional usage and practice. Ministers are responsible to Parliament. These innumerable Committees are not responsible, and I am sure there is an uneasy feeling—without any foundation probably, but still worth considering—in the country that these multitudinous Committees, however useful they may be, may be made to act as a sort of bomb-proof entrenchment in which Ministers can find refuge. I rejoiced to hear last night that the Contraband Committee—and, as I understood, practically the whole system of blockade—is to be presided over by a Cabinet Minister. That is altogether right in itself. Moreover it seems to me to indicate that the Government are gradually conforming themselves to the necessities of the war. We have had for some time a Minister of Munitions, we have now a Minister of Blockade, and I hope it will not be long before we have a Minister connected with the Air Service.
I regretted last night to hear the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) say that he looked upon Lord Sydenham's Resolution as a direct vote of censure. I cannot myself see it in that light. The noble Marquess was very moderate in his admirable speech. He claimed no perfection for the proceedings of the Government; he admitted that mistakes had been and might be made, and he invited suggestions, observing that the Government would most gladly consider and act upon any suggestions if they thought them worth while acting upon. Well, what does the Resolution say? Practically speaking, it suggests that more effective use could be made
136
of the Allied Fleets in carrying out the intentions of the Order in Council of March 11. What is the object of His Majesty's Government tying their hands by practically meeting that with a flat denial, which seems to suggest that no more effective use could possibly be made of His Majesty's Fleet? Personally I think the Fleet could be more effectively used. On land our troops have fought magnificently. That, of course, is not marvellous. They always have behaved and always will behave magnificently. But the creation of great and fully equipped Armies is to me a matter almost miraculous. We have done wonderful things of late. Still, when all is said and done, the sea is our national element. The Fleet is the mainstay of our existence. It is the most potent weapon we can use for the assistance of our Allies, and it certainly is a dominant factor in the war, a factor that has made all these Oversea Expeditions possible. I rejoice to know that by other means some effect—I dare say a considerable effect—has been made upon the importation of goods necessary for war into Germany, but I still think that if more effective use were made of our Fleet we should attain our object more rapidly. I believe that plain, distinct instructions given to the Fleet, and a reasonably free hand in carrying them out, would be more efficacious than anything which can be done by private agreements or arrangements with syndicates of traders in neutral countries.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, in the few observations that I ask leave to address to your Lordships this afternoon I shall confine myself entirely to the fundamental question in this debate—namely, whether our action at the present time is or is not on the whole successful in preventing goods from reaching the enemy. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships will forgive me if I do not comment at any length on what he has said. But perhaps I may be permitted to make two observations on his speech. The noble Earl suggested that there were too many Committees. It is quite possible that he may be correct. But he used that as au argument for saying that there was no need for the Contraband Committee. I think that if the noble Earl had any conception of the work done by the Contraband Committee he would soon be convinced that either a Committee to do the work or a single person who could give the whole of

137
his time to it is absolutely essential in order that the cases should be decided with despatch. I have only one other observation on the noble Earl's speech. I regretted to hear his dislike of the Agreements which have been made by His Majesty's Government. I do not propose to argue that question this afternoon, but I can honestly assure him that, having had to sit on a sub-committee recently in which that was one of the subjects for consideration, the unanimous feeling of that sub-committee, composed as to one part of a very distinguished representative of the Admiralty, was that Agreements were the best way of carrying out what is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government.
Statistics are wearisome things, and I am not in the least surprised that there is a certain feeling of bewilderment in the country about the question that your Lordships are discussing in this debate. Newspaper agitations have been raised and alarmist figures have been published. Official and unofficial replies have been made to those figures, but the public has no figures of its own by which it can judge, and therefore I do not wonder, when it hears an extravagant statement on one side replied to by another statement which it may consider equally extravagant on the other, that there is a certain confusion in the public mind. I am going to try to present the case as fairly as I can, but I frankly admit that it needs an angel from Heaven to treat figures quite fairly. Certainly I have never met any mortal capable of doing so. There is a story of a well-known Civil Servant of a bygone age, a great authority on statistics, who, whenever he was asked for figures, said: "What do you want to prove?" And in accordance, I suppose, with the case that had to be proved the figures were provided. I shall not be sorry if His Majesty's Government think fit to publish some of the figures that have been collected by my Department [the War Trade Department] or by other Departments of His Majesty's Government. But I can see the difficulties. Of course, there would be a crop of Parliamentary Questions. But I think the publication of such figures as have been collected, with suitable explanatory notes, would make it impossible to have such agitations as sprang up in the columns of the Daily Mail and the Morning Post before this same question was debated in another place. Such agitations do harm. They irritate neutrals a good deal, and
138
there is a feeling amongst some of the neutrals that whilst they used to be able to trust the British people they are afraid, after such agitations as those to which I refer, that in these modern days we are very little better than the Germans.
As an instance of how mistaken some of are raised, I should like to refer to one particular case. The information I am going to give has come into my hands unsought and unexpectedly. It refers to a statement made in the columns of the Daily Mail on January 12 this year by a correspondent who was dealing with the case of Denmark. The specific statement which he made was this—
"On Saturday, December 18, for instance, 1,100 cases [of tea] went by the s.s. 'Eos' from England to Aarhus. It was transhipped to the s.s. 'Aarhur' and sent to Copenhagen, where most of it went into German railway trucks and on to Germany by rail."
It never occurred to me to investigate a case of that kind, and I had not the ready means of getting at the facts. But the tea merchants who were responsible for the sending of these 1,100 cases were rather concerned at the story and they ascertained what really happened. My Department has also asked the Customs about the matter. The Customs state that the total quantity of tea shipped by this vessel was 114,431 lbs. The firm of which I speak, which has transmitted this information to me, say that they shipped 1,117 packages of tea, the net weight as invoiced being 113,792 lbs. It went by the s.s. "Eos" from Grimsby to Aarhus, and the ship left in the early part of December. After the statement in the Daily Mail they made inquiries with regard to this tea, and they ascertained that only a portion could have been transhipped into the s.s. "Aarhur," because delivery of about 600 of the packages was taken by the consignees at Aarhus, and the packages were disposed of in Aarhus; and 351 other packages were forwarded by rail from Aarhus to Copenhagen, and presumably were therefore not available for the free port. They ascertained that 170 of these packages actually passed through the Custom House at Copenhagen for home consumption, and they were informed that others also passed through this Custom House. A balance of 155 packages alone could have been transhipped, and with regard to these the tea merchants hold a declaration from Danish merchants, whom they believe to be entirely reliable, to the

139
effect that none of these packages went to Germany. So apparently that is another mare's nest exposed.
These agitations of which I speak are supported by figures, and many of the figures are very mistaken. The writers have mixed general and special imports, which, of course, require very careful discrimination, and they have taken no account of the inevitable changes of market due to the war. They select figures which suit their case and ignore others which tell against it. Here and there they hit on a weak spot, as they did in the case of cocoa. When these exaggerated statements are made on one side, they are apt to be replied to by an ex parte statement on the other; and the reply issued by my Department in the Press on the day that this question was debated in the House of Commons—a very able reply, not prepared by myself but by a statistician in my Department, Mr. Harwood—was not meant for publication when it was written, but merely as a comment on the errors and discrepancies in the particular newspaper articles which were dealt with. After a controversy of that kind I am aware that when a one-sided attack is met by an ex parte reply, people are apt to believe of His Majesty's Government that they have been too easy, too sentimental—I have seen that word used—not severe enough, and careless if a certain amount of commodities do go through to the enemy.
What I desire to do is to tell your Lordships the real facts of the work behind the scenes in regard to these matters. At the present time I am really a Civil Servant who happens to have the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, and I speak from the point of view of the men who are doing this work. In our own Office we are doing all the time what you are urging us to do. Day by day we watch these figures. Any large surplus immediately receives our attention. But the arguments we use there are not the arguments we use when we are attacked for allowing too many goods to go to neutrals. The arguments, at any rate, that I have to use in the War Trade Department are generally arguments to some British trader who complains that his trade is being ruined by our severity, or to some friendly neutral who complains of the harshness of our treatment. I agree that within limits we ought to be as careful as we can be of the feelings of neutrals. We have altered our policy in regard to wool a good
140
deal at times, owing to the view taken by the War Office of military requirements, and I am told that a good many people in the United States are apt to say very unkind things about us, and to allege that we are keeping back wool because we want to take away a trade which they might just as well have. All that is nonsense. Within the limits of what we can do we do try to be as kind as possible to neutrals, except when there is a danger of goods going through to the enemy. I can honestly assure your Lordships that in the course of our watching the statistics of these commodities we have met with practically no surprises of any kind. Although we are constantly learning more, I do not remember a single case in which a trader or a man of science has brought to our notice any facts about the course of trade of a suspicious character of which we were unaware. Lord Sydenham mentioned last night the case of soap going from Holland, loaded, I forget whether with oil or with glycerine.
LORD SYDENHAM: Oil.
LORD EMMOTT: There were two stories —one glycerine and one oil. Those stories came to us long before they were spoken of in the newspapers, and every case of that kind we had investigated as quickly as possible. One of these soap stories was rather interesting to me. Somebody came from Holland with samples of the soap, and the first thing we did, of course, was to have it analysed. The soap proved utterly harmless, and did not contain the ingredients it was supposed to contain. I mention that to show that we do follow these cases up as soon as possible, and where there is abuse we take steps to have the matter dealt with immediately. Therefore we often find ourselves accused of feeding the enemy when the matter complained of has been already dealt with—that was the case with regard to cocoa, for instance—or when we have been cudgelling our brains to find the best remedy we can; and I confidently appeal to your Lordships, who have had greater experience of affairs than some of the hot-headed outside critics, to make allowance for our difficulties and look at the matter fairly. After all, the character of the British nation for fairness is an asset worth keeping. We do not intend to imitate the brutal behaviour of Germany, still less the horrible murders of which they have been guilty. It is our duty and our interest not to antagonise

141
neutrals unnecessarily, and there was no part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne last night—a most able and convincing speech, if I may venture to say so—which pleased me more than that in which he spoke so firmly as regards our attitude to friendly neutrals.
I am not going to discuss principles today. As far as my Departmental work is concerned, policy is decided for me and I do my best to carry it out. But I do think there is good reason for supposing that we are obtaining a much greater measure of success than our critics imagine, and to this question I now turn. Long ago we had figures made out of normal consumption by the countries in which we are specially interested. Those figures were based upon the returns of foreign trade of the countries themselves for the years 1911–13, It is quite clear that figures like that are not an absolute guide; they cannot be treated as more than a rough approximation, and in the course of the experience that we have gained we have found a good many cases in which they wanted correction. A right hon. friend of mine in the House of Commons, who has taken a keen interest in the question of copper from the very beginning of the war, told me recently that he found that the imports into Norway and Sweden were understated in the figures on which we have been working—the normal imports. I have found the same in regard to other commodities. Therefore these figures of normals which we use have to be treated with a certain amount of latitude if we have reason to suppose they do not represent the facts of the case. Such cases do arise owing to differences of foreign classification. Again, we are sending now a great quantity of raw material abroad for a further process of manufacture and then to be returned to us. That applies to crude glycerine, to spelter, to whale oil, and to quite a large number of other commodities—to the cocoa we are sending to Holland, for instance, and some oils and fats we are sending to that country for the margarine that is returned to us. Another upsetting factor that comes in is the amount of food we have been sending to Holland for the use of the Belgian Relief Commission. And with regard to the import into Holland of 8,000 tons of meat in the month of November to which my noble friend Lord Sydenham referred, I may tell him that 7,000 tons of that was for the Belgian Relief
142
Commission, and that the quantities sent since that time into Holland, as the noble Marquess said last night, are very trifling.
Then, again, the period of 1911–13, for which our normal figures are taken, was a period of rising trade. In the ordinary course of things the trade would be bigger to-day than it was in the average year 1912. Take one thing. Our consumption of margarine has risen at least 50 per cent. in the last two or three years. The same factor has occurred in Norway and in Denmark, and something similar at any rate in Holland. Again, to take another point. The first result of the war, instead of being an impetus to trade, brought about a great stoppage in trade. There was a great financial collapse, and the imports and exports of all countries became very much less immediately. The result was that in regard to some of these countries adjacent to Germany, some of the countries in Scandinavia and also Holland, there was a very much less import in August to December, 1914, than the normal. For instance, I take wheat. In 1913 92,000 tons of wheat went into Sweden in the months of August to December; in 1914, only 29,000 tons. Of rye 53,000 tons went in in 1913, and only 8,000 in 1914. Therefore in 1915 there was a certain shortage for which these countries have a right to claim that some allowance should be made. There is another factor that up to the present time has not been mentioned in public, although it is quite well known. There was a deficiency in the Swedish harvest in 1914, and apparently from figures I have recently seen there is a considerable deficiency in the Norwegian harvest for 1915. All I say is that these factors must be allowed for, and it is difficult to allow for all these factors if one is going to publish figures. I mention that as one of the difficulties in the question. If these figures are going to be published and used, they must be used with a certain amount of discretion.
There is in regard to this matter one other consideration of very great importance. In some of these groups the commodities are practically interchangeable. I mean that for wheat rye can be used to some extent, and also rye is used, for instance, both for purposes of fodder for cattle and for the food of man. Therefore in order to obtain a really correct view of these

143
statistics it is essential to take a group in some cases, and I believe it is much the fairest way to take, as the noble Marquess did last night, the group of wheat and grain and fodder, including oilcake, all together; and if one does that one finds that the surplus imported into the four countries of Scandinavia and Holland in 1915 was only 40,000 tons, which is less than one per cent. of their normal and only about half of one per cent. of the normal import of Germany before the war. There is not much to feel great anxiety about in those figures.
The question of meat is a more difficult one. The real point about meat is not the amount that Germany ordinarily imports. That is a very small figure. It is only 56,000 tons. The real point about meat is that all these countries surrounding Germany supply Germany with the meat they themselves produce, and that is a very difficult thing to stop; in fact, I do not think it can be stopped. That is the real trouble about meat rather than the amount of imports. At any rate I am glad to say, whilst I cannot give any further particulars, that arrangements have already been made of a satisfactory nature with some countries and other arrangements are in progress which will make the meat position a much less anxious one. As to lard—and lard is infinitely more important than meat—the normal imports into Germany are nearly twice those of meat. Earlier in the year far too much went to Denmark, but that position has been greatly improved.
With regard to metals, which are enormously important in this matter, the dangerous metals have for the most part been carefully restricted from the beginning of the war. I think I am correct in saying that in regard to copper nothing over the normal has been sent into all the countries taken together, although into Norway and Sweden something over the normal has gone owing to, their large demands for electrical purposes. By the by, anybody who has read the report of last night's debate in this House will have seen that the figures quoted in The Times professedly in regard to copper were really in regard to cotton, as the noble Marquess quite clearly stated. Any leakage there is in regard to these dangerous metals is, of course, in regard to copper and aluminium, which
144
are raised in the countries themselves. There is no sign of any leakage with regard to imported copper, aluminium, or lead, and with regard to aluminium, tin, and lead the quantities that have gone into the countries are below the normal in the last quarter. The case of iron ore is a difficult one. It is not my affair to reply to it, but I should like to ask one or two questions. I want to know of whom the complaint is made in regard to iron ore. Is it that the Foreign Office stops the Admiralty from holding up the iron ore?
LORD DEVONPORT: My complaint is against the Government.
LORD EMMOTT: It must be either against the Foreign Office for holding the hands of the Admiralty, or against the Admiralty for not holding it up. I have no reason to suppose that the Foreign Office is holding the hands of the Admiralty in the smallest degree in regard to this particular matter. Therefore it must be—I do not know; I am only arguing from the plain facts of the case—it must be that the Admiralty do not think it is worth while to run the risk of intercepting it. That is a matter which I might recommend my noble friend to speak to the Admiralty about. As to mineral oils, any surplus there has been is absolutely infinitesimal—half of one per cent. No attack has been made with regard to rubber; therefore no defence is required in that respect. With regard to wool, hemp, and jute, there was no surplus during the last part of 1915. As to cotton, everybody knows that far too much went in earlier in the year. I remember speaking in the month of July about that matter in your Lordships' House, when I tentatively put forward the view that the large imports had already stopped. That view has since been amply confirmed, and since April no surplus of cotton that need cause anybody any anxiety has gone into these four countries. With regard to rice much less than the normal has gone, taking the four countries together. Hides and skins—I am afraid this sounds somewhat like a catalogue, but I have very nearly done—hides and skins are again a most important commodity. There is this question always to be faced. These countries are large producers of hides and skins, and some of them are on the balance exporters of these articles. But I am told by those who understand the

145
trade that their cattle produce light hides and skins, and they have to import heavy hides and skins for a good deal of their own work. However, I do not think there is any need to be alarmed about the position of hides and skins; in the last quarter of 1915 the amount sent into these four countries was considerably less than the proportion for the whole year.
Now I come to oils and fats and oleaginous seeds, and those are a group that must be taken together. You can make glycerine from any of those oils although it varies a little in the amount, and from animal fat as well for that matter. And these seeds vary greatly, of course, in their oil-bearing capacity. For instance, copra gives 60 per cent., whereas soya beans give only 10 per cent. Therefore it makes a great difference what the actual import is, and we estimate them according to their oil-bearing capacity which is the best way to take them. It is a long story, but far too much went in earlier in the year; and I must honestly say that His Majesty's Government was mistaken in waiting so long before linseed oil was prohibited. I say so quite frankly, because at that time I was a member of His Majesty's Government and so I am blaming myself as much as my former colleagues. But since that time the whole position has been altered, and for the last quarter of 1915 the amount that went into these four countries above the normal—the normal being, as I say, the average for the years 1911–13—was an amount not sufficient, if the whole of it had gone on to Germany (and I am quite sure it did not), to give them one week of their ordinary import.
But there is satisfactory proof of what really is the state of things from other sources. I have here a table selected from the Dutch official returns which shows in regard to oils and seeds the amount exported from Holland into Germany in the three months of June, November, and December. In June the amount was very heavy indeed, because we had already arranged for a stoppage of these exports from Holland and everybody was hurrying up to get as much as they could at the last moment. Of linseed oil, in June 18,964 tons went into Germany from Holland; in November none went, and in December none went. Take copra—12,022 tons went in in June, and none in November and December. Then I take one other item, tallow and stearin; 2,435 tons went in in
146
June, 351 tons in November, and 242 tons in December. Tallow and stearin, of course, they can make from the produce of their own cattle. Taking the figures dealing with oil and oil substances altogether and turning them into oil values, the facts are these. In June about 40,000 tons went in; in November and December, the two months taken together, 925 tons, of which I should think much more than half was the home produce of Holland and not imported goods at all. Those are published facts in the Dutch returns, which I think are quite honest returns.
Here is an extract from the Soapniakers' Journal in Germany dealing with the prices of oils and fats in that country. It says—
"Whereas at the end of December, 1914, the prices of the most important articles ranged round about 100 marks per 100 kilos—"
One hundred marks per 100 kilos at par would be £50 a ton—
"(oils and fats for soft soaps costing under, those for hard soaps over 100 marks) the present prices move on the undreamt-of level of 350–450 marks. Naturally these prices did not reach such a height at one bound; they are the product of successive increases with a leading tendency upwards, though once, in April, linseed oil and its substitutes registered a strong downward curve."
And here follows one sentence to which I beg the attention of the noble Earl opposite—
"A very powerful factor in the upward movement of prices were the Oversea Trusts forced by England on the neutrals."
I do not know whether I must say a word about cocoa. The cocoa position is very much better, but it is not normal yet. It is no use hiding obvious facts. But what does amuse me is that in regard to this particular commodity my Department is attacked. In connection with nearly every other commodity, it is the Contraband Committee and the Foreign Office; but in regard to this particular commodity my Department is attacked for the amount that we have allowed to go. To some extent I do not wonder at it, because the amount shown by our own Customs returns as having been exported to these countries adjacent to Germany in the autumn of last year was very large. Cocoa was prohibited, I think, about July 31. I knew exactly how many licences had been given since that time, and they did not correspond with the Customs figures. Therefore I had the matter examined, and I found that the Customs figures are often so belated that

147
the figures for October contain consignments that left this country in June, July, and August, and even previous months. For, I think it was, five months I obtained the figures for Sweden, and there was shown in the Customs returns an export from this country of over 2,000 tons. The amount we had actually licensed in that period and the only amount that could have gone from this country was 80 tons. Therefore, I do not wonder that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter.
But there has been an increase due to two things. One is the change in the entrepot trade owing to the closure of Hamburg, and the other is that we are sending manufacturers in Holland a large amount of cocoa under a binding agreement that they shall return it to us, and I need hardly say that they are carrying out their word. With regard to cocoa, the real difficulty is not what we send; we can regulate that. The difficulty has been in the past what goes direct from other countries. Of course, there are two sides to many of these questions. Cocoa is a very valuable food, and on the general policy of His Majesty's Government to stop food cocoa should be stopped. At the same time I have been told of a circular which was issued by a very important Chamber of Commerce in Germany to the cocoa trade begging them not to import cocoa into Germany because it was a very dear sort of foodstuff and used up sugar, which was much better kept for jam. There are other commodities some of which are not prohibited at all which are going in large quantities to these countries. Coffee was restricted later than cocoa, and large quantities are still going direct from overseas and a certain quantity from this country. But the only important increase in the last quarter of commodities going to these countries was in tea and fruit. Some of that tea certainly goes on to Russia, how much I am not sure; but neither tea nor fruit nor tobacco, of which a good deal has gone, is prohibited in this country. I have no doubt fruit must be prohibited now, and I do not know whether some of the other commodities may have to be.
I beg your Lordships to note this point. I have listened carefully to the complaints that have been made, and I think the only specific complaints —except as regards matters which are questions of past history —the only specific complaints of recent months are in regard to cocoa and meat, as to which I have spoken. Those commo-
148
dities are important, I admit, but the matter is a small one compared to the whole range of trade with which I have dealt. And in regard to the situation as a whole I must say that it is my deliberate opinion, after carefully studying this question, that no serious leakage of articles of real military value over which we have any control is reaching these countries adjacent to Germany at the present time.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to ask one or two questions of the Government before the noble Marquess replies. And may I say, first, that the speech to which we have just listened, full as it was of detailed information on some of these matters which have been exercising the minds of the public, constitutes a considerable justification for such debates as this. The noble Lord has shown the immense complexity of the subject, and the large number of pitfalls into which even the most intelligent lookers-on and critics may easily fall. There is a change which I note in this debate from previous debates. I think the critics and speakers were rather charged on a previous occasion with being buccaneers, with plunging rather too violently into the subject. This time we have been treated differently by the Government; we have been treated as if we were a set of peaceful traders. The difference is due probably to the entrance into our debates of the noble and gallant Admiral on my left, who certainly does not look like a buccaneer and I do not think would be accused of being one.
May I congratulate the Government on one thing, and that is with regard to the Committee dealing with this matter. It has been amply established, I think, that some such Committee is essential in order to deal with the large quantity of goods and ships that are stopped before they are allowed to go on to neutral countries. It is absolutely necessary that you should have such a Committee provided with information not only as to origin but as to destination, as to the character and nature of the consignees, and so on, in order that they may be able to judge in these very difficult circumstances as to whether the goods should be allowed to proceed or not. I would like also to congratulate the Government on the fact that they have at last appointed a Minister to control and co-ordinate the Committees which have been dealing with the blockade,

149
because I think it is quite clear that there has been in the past a good deal of difficulty and disturbance caused to neutrals—a point we should all avoid—simply because there have been so many changes in the directions given to the Committees and not sufficient combination among the Committees themselves; and these different orders do not seem to have come front one Public Department but from many. I hope all that lack of co-ordination will be swept aside by the new changes, and as a consequence the position of neutrals made as easy as possible.
There is another point in which this debate has been of value. We have had very clear declarations on important points from the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) and also from the Lord Chancellor. If I Wray say so, I regret there was not a larger attendance here yesterday evening when the Lord Chancellor made his speech upon these questions of International Law. We have now, absolutely established by a Government statement, the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage to sea transport and to land transport as well. As the Lord Chancellor stated, that is a further application of the principle, so that we might more fairly, I think, apply the term "continuous transport" for "continuous voyage" to those doctrines. A further point stated by the noble Marquess was also a very valuable one. He indicated that the Government were perfectly ready to add any necessary subjects to the list of contraband. The list of contraband has been from time to time largely increased during the course of the war, and though, as was stated by the Lord Chancellor, even in the case of contraband you have to prove destination, yet as the penalty for contraband when the destination is proved is very much more severe this acts as a greater deterrent than otherwise to the course of trade.
I must apologise for making another reference to the Declaration of London, but my noble and gallant friend raised that point and did not receive an answer. We were told by members of the Government in this House that the Declaration of London was no longer valid, but the representative of the Foreign Office in another place stated, in reply to a question as to whether belligerents could transfer merchantmen to neutrals, that this could not be done because it was contrary to
150
the Declaration of London. It may be, of course, that that particular Article was dealt with only as expressing the previously existing law, but I think it is rather unfortunate, if the Declaration of London as a Declaration is dead, that it should be referred to and quoted as settling the law on some of these subjects.
I do not think that the question has been strongly pressed in the course of this debate as to whether there should be an alteration of Government policy as regards withdrawing—shall I call it?—the reprisal Order in Council of March and substituting for it what is known as a definite blockade. I think the main argument for it was that there was a good deal of feeling in favour of the establishment of a regular blockade in the United States, the greatest neutral with which we have to do. But one, of course, recognises the great difficulties at this time of making such a change as that. I understand that in the first case the blockade was not instituted because of the "juridical niceties" in which we should be involved. I think it is a choice of evils, because your Lordships will, I think, agree that we have fallen into another set of "juridical niceties" owing to the complexities of this Order in Council of March 11. Whether you act under an Order in Council or under what is called a blockade, or whether you call Orders in Council a blockade, as has been sometimes done by the Government, you have, of course, the same difficulty, that of sifting the trade which is going to the neutral from that which is going through to the enemy. And if I may quote a passage from the speech of Lord Robert Cecil in the other House, I think he puts extremely well the difficulty with which we are met. He said—
"These various fibres of trade are intertwined, and how enormously difficult it is when you have to define and absolutely separate one from the other and to make perfectly certain that you are really cutting away all the trade you want to cut away, and that you should not mistake for neutral trade something which is enemy trade all the time."
I cannot help thinking that if those difficulties had been a little more present to the mind of the Government in March when this system was established we should not have had these rather too emphatic statements made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government that all trade going into or coming out of Germany was to be stopped.

151
Then I want to deal for a moment with how this can be done, or what standard is to be taken for comparing the trade that ought to go to the neutrals with the trade that went on a previous occasion. We have bad a great deal of criticism from the Government on that point. Different newspapers have produced figures, and those figures have been submitted, very properly, to a searching examination and criticism by the Government; in fact, they have proved that everyone else's figures are wrong. But I do not think they have produced the figures or the standard to which they want to attain. They have deprecated comparison between existing figures or figures for the last year and figures before the war, and it is a little difficult for us to understand what standard the Government think ought to be applied. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when dealing with this subject said that there were many differences as regards the figures which had to be taken into account. He said that new trade had sprung up, that owing to Hamburg being closed Rotterdam had become a place of entrepôt, and therefore it was very difficult to get a standard of comparison. Is it not possible for the Government to state what the proper and correct standard ought to be, in order that we may be able to know whether these neutrals are exceeding the amounts they ought to receive or whether they are not?
I should like to know what is the position of the "rationing" policy at the present time, whether it has been adopted or whether it has not. In the White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Dunraven alluded it does not say that this policy has been adopted, but the rather curious phrase is used that this policy has been advocated. If a definite policy could be laid down—given all these difficulties and differences that ought to be allowed for—for measuring the amount of goods that ought fairly to go into these neutral countries, the Prize Court would have something to go upon, and when a case went into the Prize Court you were enabled to say that the neutral country to which the goods are supposed to be going has had for the year its admitted ration, then surely it is not too much to ask that the onus should be thrown upon the defendant to show that the goods were really intended for the neutral country and not intended to go through to an enemy destination.
152
I quite understand the enormous difficulty that has arisen in the Prize Court of proving enemy destination where it is so easy with modern manipulations to conceal the true consignee or true destination, and no doubt very great care has been taken in bringing before the Prize Courts cases where there is reasonable proof. I think, if I may say so, that the Lord Chancellor almost proved too much in his statement. The charge has been—I do not associate myself with it for a moment—that goods were not brought before the Prize Court which ought to have been brought before it, where there was some sort of presumption or some evidence that they were going through to the enemy. The Lord Chancellor stated that in almost every case where goods had been brought before the Prize Court they had been condemned. If doubtful cases had been brought before the Prize Court you could not have such a record, and such a result might suggest that cases where there was a certain amount of suspicion had not been brought before the Prize Court.
I do not want to say much about the Agreements, because I understand that my noble friend on my right (Lord Faringdon) is going to deal with that matter fully. But if a system of absolute rationing were established there would be far less demand for Agreements; they would only come in then in order to ensure that the ration when it went into the neutral country was not sent on, through the lure of high prices, into the enemy country. It was stated—and the point has not been met by the noble Lord opposite—that it was all very well to set up Agreements with these merchants in the neutral countries that when goods were consigned to them we should assume that they would not go on to the enemy country, but there had been evidence that a great many goods had been consigned to other bodies of merchants. If that is so, the Agreement for the purpose of checking the passing through of goods into the enemy country very largelyf fails. May I ask this. What is the claim, what is the fair claim, that neutrals may ask of us? The noble Marquess put the matter very forcibly when he said that we must fry and place ourselves in the position of neutrals and must ask them to put themselves in our position. He did not, however, tell us what standard he thought was the right standard for the neutrals to adopt.

153
But when he was comparing the figures of goods that had gone into the neutral countries with what went in two years ago, say, he appeared to assume that the neutrals might do as much trade as they had done in previous years. I am not very clear upon that point, because he suggested in another portion of his speech that as the entrepôt business of Hamburg had passed to Copenhagen and Rotterdam those neutrals might do more business than before the war.
I think we have a very good record in this respect. In the American Civil War we did not claim to be put in as good a position as we were in before the war. On the contrary, we suffered very heavily as neutrals during that war, and we did not complain. So that if you are to say that neutrals should be put in the same position as regards trade as they were in before the war you are really putting them—and I do not combat it—in a better position than we placed ourselves when we were neutrals. But I think it is too much to ask that neutrals should be put in a far better position as regards trade than they were in before the war. I should like to ask this question also. One must agree with a great deal that has been said about not making neutrals hostile to us, but surely it is not very good policy to make it advantageous to neutrals that the war should continue as long as possible. Yet that would be the result of allowing them to trade more than they did before the war. We know that most of the neutrals want us to win. Therefore I do not think we should diminish their desire that we should win by placing them in too good a position.
I think the general upshot of the discussion is this, that though the figures are happily progressively improving, as stated by the noble Marquess, yet at the same time the Government spokesmen themselves cannot pretend that a great deal of trade is not still going through into Germany which ought not to go through. I think the inference to be drawn is that we must not raise our hopes too high on the present blockade. The public hopes have been raised very high, and I think exaggeratedly, as regards the starving of Germany. That, of course, is an absolute impossibility. The amount of food produced in that country is so great that it only means that the Germans have to do with, say, four-fifths of the food they had before in order to be able to last
154
out the war. I have been to a University in Germany—Gottingen and not Bonn, if I may say so—and I have been there a good deal since, and I have never yet met a German man or woman who did not overeat, and I cannot help thinking that if they are restricted to four-fifths of their ration they will be very much improved in health instead of injured. Therefore I am afraid we have to admit that the Prime Minister's claim was too high, and that we cannot, anyhow under present circumstances owing to physical difficulties perhaps, do as much damage to Germany in this respect as we should have liked. The inference one must draw from this is that we cannot rely so much on our blockade but that we have to rely on military operations and the defeat of the Germans on land.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I did not propose to intervene in this debate but for the fact that I have somewhat recently visited Scandinavia and Holland and have had the opportunity of looking carefully and dispassionately into some of the points brought forward by the noble Lords who have preceded me. In considering the matter raised by the Resolution now under discussion it should be remembered that it was not until March last that the Order in Council established a blockade. Until then a very large quantity of various articles had been freely admitted into Norway, Denmark, and Holland, and thence passed no doubt to Germany through various intermediaries. Some of those intermediaries were natives of the neutral countries, but a very large number were Germans who for the time being had taken up their residence in those countries. Anybody visiting Copenhagen will find a large number of Germans there carrying on a most active trade, men of very keen business experience who have devised many schemes for getting things across the frontier. When those schemes have eventually been bowled over these Germans have been quick to adopt other methods, and it will be at all times difficult to circumvent all their capable schemes. When the tightening-up process proceeded after March last it was some little time before the full effect was felt. An examination of the returns proves, as the noble Marquess said yesterday, that it was not until the later months of 1915 that the full effect of our control of the seas began to be felt.

155
I am convinced that at the present time little contraband is passing, and that neutral countries are doing their best to observe their obligations. In this connection I would draw particular attention to what Denmark is doing to-day. Denmark could sell her agricultural products, or many of them, at much higher prices than she is doing, were it not for her anxiety to keep up her connection with one of her oldest friends. You will find that last year, notwithstanding the fact that there was a slight reduction in the quantity of butter she sent to this country, that the quantity she sent here came to upwards of £10,000,000 sterling. The whole of that butter could have been sold in Germany at a much higher price than it fetched here, and this is an evidence of Denmark's desire not only to remain upon good terms with us, but to keep up that business connection which has been in existence for so many years and which she feels, should it be severed, might and probably would be difficult to regain. I only mention that as an instance of the loyalty which these neutral countries are, many of them, displaying towards Great Britain. But though I am convinced that little contraband is passing and that these neutral countries are doing their best to observe their obligations, make what regulations you please—and your control of the sea may be ever so perfect—you will not altogether prevent smuggling taking place. The difference in prices one side and the other of frontiers not always easily protected will render possible some illegitimate trade. On one side of what I may call an imaginary line an article is selling to-day at 40 or 50 ore and on the other the same thing is producing two kroner. It follows that where these enormous profits are to be realised you will never prevent a certain amount of contraband trading going on.
When attention is drawn to the larger quantities of various articles that pass to Copenhagen and some other Scandinavian ports, it should be borne in mind that in the past Scandinavia was very largely supplied with a considerable number of necessities of life through Germany. Anybody who knows anything about the North German Lloyd Line or the Hamburg-Amerika Line knows how keenly they went into every market of the world to collect as large a quantity of articles of every description. All these were brought to
156
Hamburg and Bremen, and from those ports were distributed to Scandinavia and to other countries. During the debate reference has been made several times to the fact that at the present time a larger amount of certain things is going to Copenhagen, to Christiania, and to Stockholm. To some extent these larger quantities that are going to those centres are to take the place of things that were formerly received through Hamburg and Bremen. Therefore if the figures show that the quantities have increased to the three places that I have named it is not unnatural, because they are getting things direct instead of through the German channels of the past.
The noble Viscount beside me (Lord Peel) referred to the fact that I would probably deal with the "rationing" agreements that have been made with various countries. Well, I can say, having spent some little time looking into these arrangements, that so far as Holland is concerned the Netherlands Oversea Trust is a very remarkable monument of organising power. It was only in last July, I think, that the Agreement was settled in the form in which it is now being carried out. The premises in which the Netherlands Oversea Trust was then carrying on its operations were small and the number of employees insignificant. When I was there last month I found six different establishments, between 600 and 700 clerks, and a card system of a more perfect character than I think I have ever seen before, although the card system is one with which I am familiar; and altogether the arrangements were such as did thorough credit to the men at the head of the organisation. I am certain that those men are the very highest class—honourable men, anxious to carry out the Agreement, and the arrangement that has been made is undoubtedly greatly to the interest of this country. You have rationed these countries, and by rationing you have done this. You have said, "Whatever you were found to consume in the average of the years 1911–1913, that amount we are going to allow to pass to you." In the case of Holland everything, or practically everything, is consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust, and nothing can go into any port of Holland without the permission of that Trust. This administration is in honest hands, and the ability that is displayed struck me as quite remarkable. Certain members of ate Trust devote the

157
whole of their time to its affairs, and although, like every other organisation, it may now and again break down, so far as I can learn the number of cases in which there has been anything in the nature of a breakdown is very limited, and prompt steps have always been taken to rectify matters and to prevent a recurrence of anything of the kind.
In Denmark an arrangement of a somewhat similar character to that in operation in Holland has been made with the Merchants' Guild of Copenhagen and with the Manufacturers' Association of Denmark. These are younger creations, but they are working upon sound lines guided by all the experience that has been gained in connection with the Netherlands Oversea Trust, and they promise to give satisfactory results. The great difficulty there, again, has been to fix quantities, and discussion in connection with the fixing of those quantities has taken up a considerable amount of time, but I believe satisfactory figures have now been agreed. The two Danish organisations, which, as in the case of Holland, are under thoroughly responsible and honest men, are at work; and I notice already that in two or three cases merchants who have given guarantees that goods passing from the control of the trust to the individual should not be sent abroad and who have violated that undertaking have had imposed upon them a fine which amounts to twice the value of the goods in the highest European market. That is a very substantial fine, and I understand it is fixed at this figure in all cases, so that the chances of making any profit on the transaction seem extremely remote.
There is another matter that I think we must not forget in connection with the arrangements that have been made. The Governments of some of the neutral countries have been very willing to make arrangements that are tending to our advantage. I take the case of the Dutch Government. I believe that now everything is on the prohibited export list. When I was there there were two or three articles that we had been pressing for—the Government had been pressing for—and I am glad to see that since then those articles have been placed on the list. With the exception of one small item—waste copper, and that is under the control of the Dutch Government—everything is now on the prohibited list. Therefore the
158
chances of any oil or oil products passing to the enemy are not only remote but practically impossible, except in the way of contraband. There is one exception, perhaps, that I should make in that connection. Of course, your Lordships understand that articles of home production, articles produced in Holland,. are dealt with as freely as Holland desires, and therefore do pass into Germany. But the exception I was going to make was this, that in the case of Dutch colonial products, the products of Java, they pass into Holland or into other countries without cooling under the control of the Netherlands Oversea Trust, so far as coffee, cinchona, and tobacco are concerned. All other Dutch colonial products are consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust. As I say, there is no fear that oil or fats will cross the Dutch frontier. Similarly the Danish Government have forbidden the export of a very large number of articles, and that list is being constantly added to.
I think that all these facts are evidence of co-operation between the naval authorities and the Foreign Office. There is a disposition to think that there have been divergent views, and that this divergence has led to a considerable quantity of articles passing to the enemy, articles of the nature of oils and fats, that we desire above all things to keep from them. Having, as I say, spent some little time in examining upon the spot what is being done, I have come to the conclusion that far from there being this divergence of opinion between the Navy and the Foreign Office it is the fact of the two working together that has brought about the comparatively satisfactory state of things that exists to-day. Attention has been drawn through the Press and in your Lordships' House to the fact that a certain amount of iron ore is passing through Rotterdam to Germany, and I notice that some of the papers, with a view of making the quantity appear to the uninitiated to be very large, have quoted it not in tons, but in grammes. It is not the custom when we deal with an article that is worth a very few shillings per ton to reduce it to either lbs. or ounces, and the object with which the quotation has been given in grammes is obvious. The actual tonnage of ore that found its way to Rotterdam through territorial waters in 1915 was 817,348 tons. Nearly the whole of that was Swedish ore; a very small portion of

159
it came from Norway. The importations of iron ore to Rotterdam in 1913 were 8,622,258 tons. So that something less than 10 per cent. of the normal passed last year.
I was going to touch upon a question with which Lord Emmott has already dealt, the question of the import of meat into Holland. Under the arrangement with the Netherlands Oversea Trust, meat is barred altogether; but there were a few small consignments that either were on the high seas or had been arranged for before the signature to the Netherlands Oversea Trust Agreement in July last. With the exception of those small consignments, I think I am right in saying that no meat at all has passed through Dutch ports except such as was sent by the Belgian Relief Fund.
I am far from wishing to convey the impression that no contraband is passing, and that there is no room for improvement. One suggestion has been made in the course of this debate with which I am in entire accord—namely, the desirability of strengthening our Consular representation at strategic points. An enormous amount of additional work has been thrown upon our Legations and Consulates, and it should be possible to render them some assistance. I was surprised to find that at the various Legations that I visited it was not a case of working twelve hours a day, but from a fairly early hour in the morning until midnight. The larger part of the staff in those Legations were at it very hard indeed; very few spare hours did they allow themselves out of eighteen. The views of belligerents and of neutrals upon many points must be divergent, and every day, indeed almost every hour, questions are sure to arise that need very delicate handling. I think His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated upon the way in which they have dealt with many difficulties; and although criticism will, no doubt, do them no harm, I believe they deserve our encouraging support.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think that if anything were needed to justify the raising of this question by my noble friend, the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord, a new member of this House, would certainly justify it. I hope that the information he has given will find its way throughout the length and breadth of the country, so that those
160
who really have no information on the subject and have been ignorant of the action of these important bodies which control the trade in neutral countries may be made aware of the facts.
I have listened to the debate with great interest, and I agree with the statement which was made by the noble Earl opposite that this Resolution is in no way a vote of censure on the Government. I have read it carefully, and it is more in the nature of suggestion than of censure. I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government, through the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne), should state that they consider the Resolution as a vote of censure. The only reason I can give is that Governments are very sensitive to criticism. When you have a Coalition Government I presume Ministers think that there should be no criticism whatever of any action which that Government may take. Personally I do not believe in Coalition Governments. To my mind the action of the Government has not been strengthened by the accession of Unionist members. There is an additional responsibility put upon Unionist members in connection with this Government. Having taken away practically the recognised Opposition and the chance of an alternative Government, I think the duty rests upon them most strongly to put some sort of firmness and backbone into the Government which it previously, in my judgment, sadly lacked.
This Resolution is simply intended to stiffen or to strengthen the action of His Majesty's Government. There is a strong feeling throughout the country, particularly as certain statements have been made in the newspapers which are said to be fact, that His Majesty's Government are not allowing the Navy to take the strong and effective action that it ought to do, and I am bound to say that this anxiety up to the present time seems to me to have been fully justified. The figures which have been put before us have been most interesting. I listened to my noble friend below me (Lord Emmott) with great pleasure, for I know his work on the Committee of which he is chairman and I know no one who is gifted with a more impartial mind, who is more anxious to do what is right and give his very best services. I am satisfied that if he had the power to deal with these matters himself, instead of having to submit them possibly to another

161
Department, things would go on very much better. The Government are to blame to a large extent for the feeling of dissatisfaction which exists in the country with their action. They have not given the information which they ought to have given, and when I listened to Lord Emmott I felt that the whole blame rested upon them for not supplying statistics which were reliable and which would have enabled the country to form a proper judgment upon the matter. The late Government was always very slack and indecisive and did not come up to what I thought was tie form of a War Government, and I am afraid that was the general opinion throughout the country. It was a very natural inference to draw from the figures which appeared in the Press, that the Government were not really doing their duty so far as the Navy was concerned.
Again, we all knew that the Government had passed the Declaration of London but it was thrown out by the House of Lords. In that Declaration, as those who took part in the discussion know, certain things are laid down which in the judgment of people who are well able to judge are really being carried out at the present time. Therefore there was a strong feeling throughout the country that the Government or the Foreign Office were acting as if the Declaration of London had been passed by Parliament. Surely that was a very important matter. When the Order in Council was passed on March 11, 1915, it was distinctly declared that we should stop all commodities from either reaching or leaving Germany. Naturally the country expected that this could be carried out, but from what has been stated to-night it will be quite realised that it is not possible to prevent all commodities reaching or leaving Germany. I do not believe it is possible. Even the smuggling Which goes on on the frontiers owing to the difference in prices which was mentioned by Lord Faringdon, that must of itself be the means of taking a large quantity of commodities into Germany. The inducement in the way of large profits to men who want to make money is so great that naturally they run risks in order to make those profits.
How has this Order been carried out? As I learned from the admirable speech of the noble Marquess last night, it has been carried out to the best of their ability; it has been carried out so far as the
162
Government believe it possible to do so. But in the opinion of men who are connected with the Navy, like my noble and gallant friend opposite, the Navy might do something more than it is doing even within International Law. I am not a lawyer. I am not a great stickler for International Law. When we are fighting a great war upon the winning of which the whole existence not only of our country but of many others depends—and the freedom of nations is dependent, too—well naturally I should rather strain even International Law a little for the purpose of winning the war. Lawyers will never win the war. We insist depend upon our Fleet and upon our soldiers, as was said by the noble and gallant Admiral. Instead of crippling our Navy the Government ought to give themselves the benefit of the doubt in connection with International Law and insist upon stopping goods either going into or coming out of Germany wherever they can do so. What would be the action of the German Government, supposing they had the power of stopping grain coming into this country by neutral ships? Do you think they would hesitate for a moment to stop those ships or have a care about the starvation of the people of these islands? They would not have the slightest hesitation in stopping all our supplies and starving us if they could do so. The object of their submarine warfare is entirely to effect that, and when we have an enemy doing that we should not hesitate in carrying out the ordinary action of every belligerent in time of war. When the German Army got to Paris in 1870 they did not for a moment hesitate to stop food going in, whatever might be the condition of the poor unfortunate people there. You cannot carry on war without some sort of suffering. Innocents always suffer in time of war—not that I should recommend or approve such inhuman action as is carried on by the German Government in connection with their submarine warfare and their bombing of innocent people. God forbid that this Government should ever follow Germany in her terrible methods of carrying on war. But you must in carrying on a war cause a certain amount of injury and harm to innocent people.
I am afraid the German people are unanimous against this country. I had the misfortune to be detained in Germany for five weeks after war broke out. I

163
never saw such enthusiasm anywhere in connection with a war; every man, woman, and child was in favour of it. They believed they were going to get a great victory within a short time, and that they were going to get a great deal of money from this country in the shape of indemnity. They expected to have such prosperity afterwards as they had never seen in the history of their country, and they were all keenly in favour of this war. But the disappointment in Germany now must be overwhelming, because they realise that they are not going to be successful.
With regard to what was stated by Lord Faringdon as to agents in neutral countries, I know as a fact that in many of these neutral countries there are large numbers of the enemy who have gone there to carry on trade in order to give supplies to their Government and their people. Therefore when we are considering this question we must not think that we are dealing only with neutrals, but that we are dealing with many German citizens who have established themselves in Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden so as to give supplies to their own country. We ought to investigate these matters even more thoroughly than has been done. It is the duty of the Government to do it.
The Government in this debate have shown that there are a great many supplies going into the enemy's country which can be stopped, and they ought to set themselves about a more serious consideration of this matter and allow the Navy to adopt means to put a stop to it. Take one fact alone, which shows clearly that there is a great deal of imports going into Germany. Look at the fall in the value of the mark. Why has that fallen? In my judgment it is because the German Government has to pay for its imports of various goods. That is itself a clear fact showing that there is a large importation into Germany, and it is the duty of our Government to take this matter up much more seriously and insist upon action being taken which would prevent anything going to Germany which could properly be stopped. Figures are not a complete answer to this question. I hope that His Majesty's Government will look upon this discussion as in the nature of an attempt to stimulate them rather than as a vote of censure. We are all anxious to see this war brought to a satisfactory conclusion. How long it will go on, no one can state;
164
but that a stoppage of the supplies that we can stop going to Germany would shorten it I have not the least doubt; and it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to use every effort in order to bring this about. I hope that this Resolution will have the effect of stimulating this important and very large Cabinet, which has now assumed the position of a War Cabinet, to do even more than it is doing, because without some greater effort I am sure the country will not be satisfied.
LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I will not stand between the House and the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) for more than a few minutes. I think that this most useful debate has revealed how much we owe to my noble friend Lord Sydenham. It has certainly enlightened the country, an enlightenment of which the country stood sorely in need, and it has shown an entire agreement on two points between the Government and their critics. Those two points are that there is considerable leakage into Germany, and that the duration of the war to a great extent depends on the stringency of the blockade. I think the Government and their critics are agreed also that it would be most desirable to stop the leakage and increase the stringency if it were possible to do so, but where the critics and the Government differ is as to the possibility of doing this. The critics asked, Why is not more done than has been done? I think most of them are convinced, after having heard the speech of the noble Marquess yesterday and of the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) to-day that much more has been done than the country had any idea of. I think those two speeches will be read with great satisfaction and a great sense of relief in the country at large. The critics have been rather hard on the Government on this point and attacked them very vigorously, but I think they have admitted on reflection that the Government, after all, are every bit as anxious to win the war as is the most bitter critic among them, and are not likely to neglect any means to achieve that end if they think it is in their power to adopt them without antagonising the neutrals.
The whole crux of the matter in regard to this question seems to lie in the attitude of the Government towards the neutrals. Many of the critics have contended that the Government have not done what they

165
ought to have done because, according to them, they are flabby and nerveless and weak and inept for war, that their minds are trained in the arts of peace and not in the arts of war; and they also contend that, however able the Cabinet may be individually, its large size makes it impossible that it should display the qualities of union, aim of purpose, rapidity of decision, strength of prevision, and strength of purpose that are necessary to win the war. I do not propose to discuss that point. Every one will have his own opinion on that matter. But with regard to the attitude of the neutrals I think the Government are too much dominated by the legal mind. They have the provisions of International Law ever before them, and the niceties and technicalities of law have often confused them in their action. They must remember that the country does not care very much about the niceties of law. It does not care very much whether the action is strictly legal or not, but whether it is effective for the object for which it is undertaken.
The people of this country will not be satisfied that the Government are blockading Germany to the extent we ought to do, as long as they believe and as long as it is admitted that large quantities of goods are going into Germany which might be kept out. They see plainly that, though it is quite impossible to starve out Germany—as I think everybody must agree—yet by a very stringent blockade it might be possible to reduce her to such a state of indigence and distress that she would be compelled to sue for peace at an earlier date than she otherwise would. In his most admirable speech yesterday the noble Marquess said he quite recognised that, and he even went so far as to say that if any of the critics would indicate to the Government means by which the blockade could be screwed up to the utmost—without antagonising neutrals; that was at the back of his mind—the Government would be ready to consider all such suggestions. I think it is a mistake on the part of the Government to be too tender towards neutrals. After all, the belligerents have their rights as well as neutrals. We have to search out and destroy the enemy wherever we can, of course as far as possible in accordance with International Law. But we are fighting an enemy who has torn International Law to pieces, and his action may compel us to do things we should not
166
do otherwise; because, after all, we have to win this war. That is the main point; and, as Lord Joicey said, there is no question about it that were we in the position of Germany and Germany in our position she would do much more to bring economic pressure upon us than we have done to bring it upon her. Therefore I think it is quite understood that it is possible to do more than we have done.
And we have to consider not only the attitude of neutrals but the attitude of our Allies. I was in Paris only last week, and I saw several influential people there. They are one and all under the impression that England is too lenient in this matter of the blockade, that she allows Germany to have things that might well be kept out without inflicting undue hardship on neutrals. In fact, one French critic went so far as to say, regarding on the one side the heroism and magnificent fighting qualities of our soldiers and sailors and on the other what he called our weakness, procrastination, and irresolution on other points, that England had muscles of iron but brains of wool. Very few will agree with that, but I mention it to show the impression which the leniency of the Government makes upon our Allies. After all, why should we be so lenient to these neutrals? We are fighting not only our battles but their battles, and they know it. We are fighting for their independence. Supposing Germany won this war, they would be drawn into her orbit; they would become satellites of that great Central Power; they would be forced to form part of it whether they liked it or not. What are they doing on their side? In a great many cases they are enriching themselves at our expense. It is not only the people whom the noble Marquess referred to yesterday as unscrupulous who are enriching themselves in neutral countries. Riches are flowing in upon them in the legitimate way of business. So far from most of the neutral countries having suffered on account of this war, I believe they have thriven. They are becoming accustomed to look upon this as a time when they can make great profits, and, like all pampered people, they cry out if they see any prospect of their profits being limited.
Nobody wishes to force neutral countries into war against us. But there is no chance of that, I think. Whatever action we took, they certainly would not adopt a hostile attitude to us. The analogy of

167
history bears out this view. If you study the history of the Napoleonic Wars you will see that it was the pressure of our blockade that was the means of withdrawing many countries from association with Napoleon and France; it was because they suffered so severely under our blockade that they broke away from France, that the coalition against Napoleon was formed which terminated in the battles of Leipsic and Dresden and practically decided the freedom of the Continent and emancipation from his rule. It was our blockade that brought this about perhaps more than any other thing, in the whole course of the war, and it was because the neutrals suffered so much in this matter that they joined the coalition against Napoleon. That was the result of applying severity to neutrals. As the noble Viscount pointed out, if you treat the neutrals with too much forbearance and enable them to make fortunes out of the state of war they will not be disposed to take any steps towards its ending, whereas if you put pressure on them and make them feel the shadow of the war, like other people, it would be all to the good. And there is no reason why we should not. This war has caused so much suffering all over the world that I do not see why these nations, for whom we are fighting and for whose interests we are making great sacrifices, should not he affected.
During this debate we have had an illustration of two types of mind in approaching this war. In the remarks of the noble and gallant Admiral, on whose first speech in this House we all congratulate him sincerely, we had an example of the fighting mind, and we have had in the speeches of Lord Loreburn and the Lord Chancellor admirable expositions of the legal mind. But I think the country will agree that it is not the legal mind but the fighting mind we must follow if we wish to win this war. The Government announce that they have appointed a Minister of Blockade. His name has been published in the newspapers. He is a gentleman of great ability, but he belongs to the legal profession. I think the country would be much more satisfied if they saw the Ministry of Blockade put in the hands of a fighting man like my noble and gallant friend opposite or Lord Fisher, rather than in the hands of a lawyer, who, however eminent he may be, by reason of the habit of the trained legal mind may look at
168
questions from a legal rather than from a fighting point of view. Lord Loreburn said he spoke in the interests of England. We all do. But the interests of England are but two—to win the war, and to win it as quickly as possible.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, at this hour I think your Lordships will forgive me if I do not do more than touch on some of the main landmarks in the large field of debate which has been covered on the Motion of my noble friend on the Cross Benches. My noble friend behind me (Lord Lansdowne) stated that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the terms of the Motion must be regarded as involving a vote of censure on the Government, and in spite of what has fallen from more than one noble Lord on the subject protesting against that construction by my noble friend I am obliged to maintain the same opinion. The Motion points to a distinct dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in utilising the Fleet; and, even if it stood alone, we should not be able to regard it as anything but involving a vote of censure upon us. But it does not stand alone. It is closely connected with a noisy and in some cases very venomous agitation which is being carried on outside. It is closely connected, in fact, with some manifestations of that agitation. There was a meeting in the City of London the other day at which my noble friend behind me (Lord Devonport) was present, and I rather think that my noble and gallant friend opposite wrote a letter which was read at the meeting. That meeting engaged in not merely censure, but downright abuse of the Government in most unsparing terms; and it is impossible altogether to divorce a Motion couched in the moderate terms used by my noble friend (Lord Sydenham) from these manifestations. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will think it right not to press his Motion on this occasion, finding that my noble friends and I, and His Majesty's Government, take the view of it which I have just described.
Without, of course, laying claim to complete success in depriving Germany of a number of commodities we may, I think, lay claim to a considerable and growing measure of success in that direction; and we also most definitely make this claim,

169
that the operations of the Fleet have not been hampered or interfered with by His Majesty's Government in carrying out that policy. Something was said in the course of the debate as to the work done by the Fleet in this war—the respective parts played by the Army and by the Fleet. In my view it is hardly possible to overrate or to overstate the value of the services performed by the Fleet during this war, not merely in clearing the ocean, but in the intensely laborious and what must be often exceedingly dreary work of waiting until the time comes, which we all hope will come, when the Fleet in a great action will have the opportunity of showing how it can defeat and crush our enemy.
So far as the imports into Germany are concerned, so much has been said and has been enforced by figures by more than one of my noble friends that I do not desire at this hour to dwell upon that side of the subject. But I might just quote, not figures, but facts from an outside source—a French official source—confirming in general terms what has been said by my noble friends. Taking the two half-years—the first half of 1915 and the second half of 1915—and comparing the two, it is pointed out that in the item of animal fats, taking the excess over the normal amount that went into the three Scandinavian countries and Holland as all going into Germany—which, of course, is an almost more than fair way of calculating from the point of view of the critic—on that basis less than half the amount of animal fats could have gone into Germany in the second half of the year as compared with the first half. Lard, taken separately, about two-fifths; oil seeds, less than a half; vegetable oils, one-third; and cotton, one-eighteenth. That shows that progress is being made in the rigorous application of what in general terms is described as the "blockade." But we do not deny that there is cause for ceaseless and untiring vigilance and for most continuous care and supervision.
I see that my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn has not been in the House this afternoon, but I desire to animadvert upon one or two points that were raised by him, as he holds a position of great authority in your Lordships' House. It is evident that Lord Loreburn considers that our attempt to blockade is useless and futile. I have no doubt that, were he
170
asked, he would agree that if a blockade could be instituted which would be successful in starving Germany into making an immediate peace it would be the most humane form of pressure that we could put upon that country. But when Lord Loreburn speaks doubtfully of blockade it is impossible not to remember that he was one of the principal protagonists in your Lordships' House of the opinion that immunity ought to be conferred upon private property at sea; and if that had ever been done it is obvious that it would, if not immediately and explicitly, soon and implicitly, put a complete stop to commercial blockade altogether. That being so, it is evident that my noble friend's view cannot be taken as an unbiased one on a matter of this kind. Even supposing it to be impossible to starve Germany entirely, even from that point of view a mere ignoring of what goes into Germany would be a gross mistake. It is quite evident that if certain commodities were allowed to enter Germany freely there would be vastly extended opportunities of smuggling contraband in conjunction with other cargoes. As a matter of fact, although the complete starving out of Germany regarded it as a besieged area may be remote, there is increasing evidence of serious pressure being put not only upon Germany but also upon Austria-Hungary. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the accounts that appeared in some foreign papers of riots that took place in Berlin on January 12. They were evidently of a very serious character; they were food riots, and they had to be put down with a very considerable loss of life even speaking in the terms that we do now of loss of life when we are so sadly used to seeing large figures of casualties. As Lord Loreburn is not in the House I pass over on this occasion what I should have alluded to had he been here—namely, the point that he raised about the relief of Poland. He may possibly recur to that question again, and if he does I shall be able to say something on the subject.
I pass to a quite different question raised by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport) and mentioned by some other noble Lords—namely, the question of the import of iron ore to Rotterdam from Sweden, and also, as my noble friend opposite (Lord Faringdon) pointed out, to a small extent from Norway. That iron ore is practically all what is known as

171
magnetic iron ore from Sweden, which in Germany I believe is used not so much for the production of steel as for the making of pig iron and ordinary articles of iron manufacture. There was a contest of opinion between the noble Lord behind me and my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire with regard to some figures which my noble friend gave on a former occasion. I will not pursue that difference of opinion now, because it is not in itself important. The precise amount which has passed into Rotterdam since March 11 is less important than if Lord Devonport was able to substantiate in our opinion all the allegations which he made. I venture to assure the noble Lord that he altogether underrates the naval difficulty of stopping these cargoes on their way. He will understand that I am not going in this House to tell him why, but he should appreciate the fact that merely looking at the map and studying the conformation of the coasts of the three countries is not in itself a complete guide to all the facts of the case. Apart from those physical difficulties, as one may call them, there are some other difficulties connected with the whole question—complications which I am also unable to describe to the House. But since I am certain that my noble friend would desire to have information, I can only say that if he and the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sydenham) would do me the honour to come at some time to my office I would place them in possession of such facts as I can properly communicate to those who are not actually concerned with the Government, and communicate, of course, as the noble Lords will understand in confidence. I have been told of a story of a gentleman who not very long ago was intending to make a strong attack on His Majesty's Government on some kindred matter, although not on this matter, and he received from a member of the Government who knew all the facts a similar offer to that which I have just made to my noble friends, but he begged the member of the Government not to give him the information—which was of a confidential character —on the ground that it would spoil the speech he was going to make in attacking His Majesty's Government. I will not accuse my noble friends of any desire of that kind. Therefore I can assure them that my offer remains open if and when they are willing to take advantage of it.
As to the question of the Prize Courts and their practice, in my view the account
172
which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave last night was a complete and final statement of the practice and purpose of the Prize Courts in this country in this war. It was the most complete and certainly not the least authoritative that has been given in the course of this present discussion. I only regret that all the noble Lords who are interested in this subject were not in the House when my noble and learned friend made his speech, because it did not, I am sorry to say, receive due justice in the newspaper reports, being delivered at a somewhat late hour; and it is quite evident from one or two of the speeches made by noble Lords this evening—by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, for one—that they had neither heard nor read the speech—
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Read, yes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Because the noble Earl asked a number of questions which were quite explicitly answered in anticipation by my noble and learned friend last night. There are, however, one or two points connected with this matter on which I should like to say a word. A large number of ships, as it is known, is stopped by the naval patrols and then allowed to proceed; and that is one of the main grounds of complaint, as being supposed apparently to involve some kind of slight on the Navy. But it cannot be, I think, understood by those who make those complaints that in a large number of cases those ships proceed on their way, having given an undertaking to return their cargoes or such parts of their cargoes as we desire to see returned, either for our own use or to be kept here owing to some suspicion connected with them; and that as a matter of fact the goods in practically all cases—I will not say in all cases—are so returned. Then where it is proper and necessary Prize Court proceedings are instituted, so that the complete work of the Navy in respect of those cargoes, and if need be of the ships, is actually carried out, although they have been for a time allowed to proceed on their way. I cannot help thinking that some of the complaints from private sources of which we have all heard —the astonishment, possibly, of a young officer who has helped to bring a ship in and has then seen her proceed—may be due to such cases as those which I have mentioned. I must point out again that

173
if all ships of every kind were brought in and immediately prize-courted, the congestion both of the ports and of the Prize Courts would be such as I think nobody would desire to contemplate. I must also point out again that to prize-court ship after ship and lose your case is in itself a very serious disadvantage. It is a material disadvantage, because it may involve you in very large charges for demurrage and possibly also charges for actual damage; and it is also a moral disadvantage because it clearly, even if it does not weaken the reputation of the Court, is bound to weaken the reputation of the administration if it is perpetually failing in cases which it undertakes. I must therefore ask my noble and gallant friend opposite whether he really considers it would be useful or practical to hand the whole of this intensely complicated work over to the Navy alone. As he very truly remarked, it is the business of the Navy to fight; and it is a business which we know it carries out magnificently. But besides fighting there are a number of highly intellectual men in the Navy, and so far as their capacity is concerned I have no doubt that a large number of them would be thoroughly competent to carry out this work. But those who do take part in it I would engage to say do not dislike, but positively welcome, the assistance in carrying it out of men of tried legal and diplomatic experience.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: And if the whole matter were left to be done by themselves and themselves alone, or by themselves and some of their brother officers, they would not prefer the change.
I pass next to the topic of the rights of neutrals, upon which my noble friend who has just sat down (Lord Grimthorpe) expressed himself with considerable vigour. He spoke with much contempt for the niceties of the law when questions of the rights of neutrals have to be considered, and he uttered the admirable and, I am glad to say, oft-repeated sentiment that we have to win this war. But I must remind him that it was contempt for the niceties of the law which sent the Germans through Belgium. The proceedings of Germany in Belgium—the blood-stained path that she pursued there—has sometimes caused people to forget that her
174
going there at all, even if she had gone with the utmost gentleness through Belgium, was a monstrous breach of public law. And when people talk lightly of the rights of neutrals and of International Law, I would implore them to remember that when our success in the war comes—as it will unquestionably come—it ought to come to us and must come to us with absolutely clean hands in all respects. Therefore it does not do, I venture to think, to speak slightingly of the just claims of neutrals, even though the expressions are accompanied by a general sentiment of desire to treat them as well as we can without injuring ourselves.
As regards these particular countries—the three Scandinavian countries and Holland—I must remind the House of this. Those countries, all of them in fact, have a great historical past. Their prowess by land and by sea—sometimes employed, as they occasionally were, in defeating us—and their distinction in the arts of peace make them as proud of their history as we can be of our own, and it is not likely that people with a past of that sort would agree to be treated in the way in which the inhabitants of one of the islands in the South Seas—the Solomon Islanders, or some such people—may be treated if they committed an outrage on a European trader and destroyed his goods. These nations are entitled to be treated, and have a right to expect to be treated, on equal and even terms with ourselves and in strict accordance with International Law. In our turn we have the right—a right we exercise—to point out to them, what has truly been said to-night, that they cannot expect that a gigantic war of this kind can be carried on without putting them to inconvenience, in some cases to loss—although there are of course cases, as the noble Lord behind me pointed out, in which individuals make large fortunes—and to all the disabilities which must accompany the break-up of the great system of international tra. We have to put it to them, and we do put it quite clearly to them, that we expect their assistance; and also in certain cases we cannot refrain, and do not refrain, from putting such pressure on them as we can in order to carry out our intention of keeping at any rate the most important goods out of Germany. It must also not be forgotten that although the neutrals may need much from us, yet in many cases we need imports from them.

175
Some instances have been mentioned. My noble friend opposite, Lord Faringdon—whose intervention in the debate gave us much pleasure—mentioned the case of the import of Danish butter to this country. There must be a certain degree of give and take in these matters, although we are steadfastly determined not to surrender any of our just rights.
The most important part of this debate, to us at any rate, has been the concrete suggestions which were made by various noble Lords in the course of it. I listened with great pleasure to the maiden speech in this House of my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford, and I confess that I looked with some anxiety at more than one daily paper this morning to see whether my noble friend was described as having made a "breezy speech," and I am sorry to say that in more than one newspaper I found that this epithet—which I feel must have become almost loathsome to him from its frequent repetition—[Lord BERESFORD: Hear, hear]—was used to describe his eloquence. But in addition to anything which was in that vein, my noble friend also made certain definite suggestions, some were made by my noble friend on the Cross Benches who introduced the Motion, and some others have been made by other noble Lords. In the first place we are glad to know that the step that has been taken in concentrating the general supervision of this Committee work upon one Minister—upon my noble friend Lord Robert Cecil—is a course which meets with the general approval of the House, only slightly marred by the regret which fell from the noble Lord who spoke last that my noble friend (Lord Robert Cecil) belongs to the legal profession. I cannot help remarking that one among many of his high qualifications for this particular work is that he is, besides being many other things, a highly distinguished lawyer. I was glad to observe that it has been admitted by some speakers that in this mass of facts and figures with which we have to deal it is practically necessary to work to some extent through Committees. It would have been very difficult, I think, to entrust to individuals, however competent and however hardworking, the sole management of these different Departments, as they have indeed become; and as it happens to have been for many months my lot to see something of the work done by most of these Committees I cannot avoid expressing my
176
sense of the great public debt which we owe to the gentlemen who have served upon them, including not only the most distinguished Civil Servants—many of whom, hard working at ordinary times, have become almost doubly hardworking now—but also Members of Parliament and others, eminent barristers, and professional men of different types, who have freely given to the Public Service a kind of hard work which it is really impossible to overestimate and for which it is impossible to be too grateful. Therefore when Committees are hardly spoken of—and, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack observed last night, no one ever becomes sentimental about a Committee—it becomes a duty to pay that tribute to them.
One of the concrete suggestions made was the abolition of the distinction between conditional and absolute contraband, which both my noble friends and my colleagues have regarded with considerable favour. As the Lord Chancellor pointed out, it is not so much a question of abolishing the distinction as of the distinction having evaporated by itself by the course of events and by the conditions under which the war has been carried on. I would not like offhand myself to say that it will be found practicable—taking into consideration various international reasons—to abolish immediately the whole distinction; but of this I am quite certain, that a very large number of additions could be made to the list of absolute contraband. A great many, as noble Lords know, have been made, but a great many more might be and in my opinion ought to be made. Of course, as has been made quite clear in the debate, it does not do to hope too much from the mere placing of an article on the list of absolute contraband when we know what can be done and is clone under the Order in Council. But the point which was made by, I think, Lord Peel to-night, and which had been already mentioned by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack yesterday—namely, that the mere fact of a commodity being absolute contraband is of itself a strong deterrent to a dubious shipper—affords a good reason undoubtedly for adding to the number of articles on the list.
I do not want to enter to-night into the question of the declaration of what is called a complete and satisfactory blockade. It would take too long to discuss the

177
matter in all its bearings, but I think it is necessary to bear this in mind—that if there is any prospect of a blockade being declared and then not accepted by this or that country on the ground that it is not an actual blockade of the kind which was presumed to be effective in the old days, you are in no better position than you are at present; indeed, not in quite as good a one, unless you are in a position to show that some positive gain in the stoppage of articles followed the declaration of the blockade even though it were repudiated by this or the other country.
Then it was suggested that the doctrine of continuous voyage should be made applicable to exports from Germany as well as to imports into that country. That is a matter quite worthy of consideration, but I may remind the House that in every case of that kind, even though you admit the principle, the evidence of enemy origin has to be forthcoming in each special instance. And I might venture to remind the House also—I think it was my noble and gallant friend opposite who mentioned the subject—that the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage to conditional contraband was made by Order in Council in certainly the first two months of the war in 1914, and made by one of those very Orders in Council of which my noble and gallant friend spoke, I am afraid, so disrespectfully.
One word on the question of "rationing," as to which suggestions have also been made. It has been pointed out by more than one of my noble friends tonight that if you desire to confine a neutral country to its normal consumption you should name a figure and when that figure is reached after twelve o'clock that night say that no more of the particular commodity shall enter that country in any circumstances whatever. It might be highly convenient if that could be done, but noble Lords will see that this is not a practical proposition. Take, for instance, a case of this kind. Take such a commodity as copper. The ration of copper—whatever you fix it at—has been reached by, say, one of the Scandinavian countries. A considerable consignment of copper arrives—I am taking a hypothetical case—to the Government of that country for the purpose of making telephone wires, perhaps a very large and alarming consignment. Well, that is an excellent reason for considering most carefully what the destination of that copper is to be, and getting every
178
conceivable guarantee about it. But you cannot put that copper into the Prize Court on the ground that it has become illegal or contraband by the fact that you have announced a certain ration, and expect the Prize Court to condemn it and the ship. I put an extreme case, but it is one which shows that rationing, however accurate you may make it, will not allow you to bind a country down to a specific figure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, asked whether it would not be possible to supply him with some information as to the standard of rationing which we should propose to apply to any particular country, and that I should enunciate some kind of principle. I think my noble friend will see that a more difficult or complicated task than the fixing of a proper and reasonable ration of a particular article to a particular country could scarcely be found, and in my view it would be hardly possible to do it in any other way than by a great deal of discussion and agreement with the country itself. I do not think it is a matter about which it would be possible for us to lay down the law without agreement from the neutral country, and simply to say, "Thus much you shall have and no more, not an ounce more or a pint more; that is our order, and you must abide by it." That is, I think, an impossible attitude to take; and I should recommend any noble Lord who has in his mind a suspicion of belief that mere excess over the normal will be taken by the Prize Court as being a reason of itself for condemnation to read carefully the judgment of the Prize Court Judge in what has become now a leading case, the case of the "Kim" and the other ships which were condemned at the time. Noble Lords will see there what Sir Samuel Evans laid down as the necessary canon of proof even in view of such enormous imports as were being made in those ships, and it will be noticed that mere excess itself, however strong a presumption it might create, was not allowed to be taken as absolute proof.
On this question of proof, I should like to say a word because I feel that the time will come—and I should hope that it might come fairly soon—when a heavier burden of proof will be laid on the defendant in these cases than is the practice at present. But speaking with some diffidence, as I am not a lawyer, I do not think it is possible to bring that about by a mere announcement that you propose

179
that the Prize Court should transfer the onus of proof from one set of shoulders to another; but I think that, by ensuring the adjudication of strong and appropriate cases, within a comparatively short time that result will be likely to come about of itself, and in my view it would mark a great advance in our Prize Court procedure, and an advance of a legitimate kind due to the fact which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack emphasised—namely, that Prize Court procedure is a fluid or growing thing, and that reasonable developments of it, in conformity with circumstances, ought to take place and do take place. I cannot he help feeling that we are liable in this matter of the burden of proof to be a shade misled by the well-known and valued rule of our own law, particularly our Criminal Law, that a man is to be treated as absolutely innocent until he is proved to be guilty. That is a rule which in its application to our own polity we all appreciate and value and regard with pride, but it is only reasonable to remember that we are practically the only country in the world which lays down such a rule as that, and which refrains from making any direct inquiry of an accused person as to whether he is guilty or not. I have sometimes in relation to other work I have had to do with in different parts of the world wondered whether we have not overdone that in some respects even in our Criminal Jurisprudence, but that is another story on which I will not enter. I would merely state that this rule of the whole burden of proof resting on the accuser must not be taken as Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, for it is one which we value in certain circumstances but one to which we need not be enslaved.
There is one other point involving a suggestion on which I wish to touch for a moment. It is with regard to the question of the capture of enemy property, of which my noble and gallant friend spoke. It is not necessary, I think, to enter into the question of the Declaration of Paris of 1856. It has been pointed out that the United States are not and never have been parties to that pronouncement, and that it therefore in certain circumstances need not be taken as applicable to them. But, apart from that, I think it is worth while to examine for a moment what can be done and what cannot be done in the direction of capturing enemy property at sea on whatever ship it be found. There is an exceedingly clever gentleman, Mr. Thomas
180
Gibson Bowles, who has made a close study of these matters. Although he is not a professor of International Law, yet he has studied the matter closely, more particularly in relation to Sea Power and its exercise; and in a Review which he conducts and in which he writes largely himself he expressed the view—I think it was in the last number —that the capture of the property of enemies at sea would be the greatest step which could be taken towards crippling Germany. The view he takes is this, that if we would only do this every neutral intending to ship to Germany would take care to have either the goods or the money before entering on the transaction at all. And that, Mr. Bowles says, works out in this way. If a neutral merchant were shipping to Germany a commodity which would presumably be contraband, he would expect to be paid before the goods started; otherwise he would not run the risk. He having been paid, the goods at sea become enemy property and could therefore be seized, and, if the proportion of cargo allowed, the ship also confiscated. Then in the case of exports from Germany the purchaser would require that the goods should be in his possession before he paid for them, and so equally while the goods were at sea they would still be enemy property and therefore liable to seizure and confiscation. As we know, the amount of exports from Germany has been small, not more than 10 or 15 per cent. of the normal; but the imports, as we know, have been considerable. What occurs to me as the weak point in this highly ingenious suggestion is that it ignores the skilful manœuvres by which goods can be shipped and passed through a number of hands before they arrive at an enemy destination, and as it would still be necessary to prove that destination by means which would satisfy a Court of Law I very much doubt whether you would get any forwarder in practice by saying that you would seize all enemy goods at sea wherever found and ignoring the Declaration of Paris. As my noble and gallant friend opposite pointed out, even when consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust goods of certain kinds pass through a great number of hands; such an article as coffee might pass through a vast number of hands before it filtered down to the village grocer, who might smuggle it into Germany. Therefore the obtaining of proof that these were anything that could strictly be called enemy goods would, I fear, be hardly possible to obtain.

181
The only other suggestion on which I must say a word was that made by my noble friend Lord Emmott with regard to the publication of more figures. I have long felt that it would be a desirable thing to give as far as possible more information to the public. I have felt that some of the misunderstandings which have occurred with regard to our action, which have seemed to us hastily adopted and in many cases unreasonable, have a certain excuse from the lack of authentic information to which they are due. My noble friend, who knows this subject up and down, will know quite well that there are certain figures on certain subjects which it would be impossible to publish; but I think that more might be done than has been done, and I have very little doubt that my noble friend Lord Robert Cecil, when lie takes over the whole of this business, will be somewhat more free in what he is able to publish than the various Departments, without any blame to themselves, have hitherto found it possible to be. Speaking of my noble friend Lord Emmott, I was glad to observe the other day in a German paper an elaborate compliment paid to the manner in which he conducted his Department in comparison with the way in which German licences were issued. I am sure it must be comforting to my noble friend, as he has received some degree of adverse comment and criticism from time to time here, to know that an important German newspaper compared his operations so favourably with theirs.
In conclusion I would merely repeat that His Majesty's Government in no way object to or resent the inception of a debate of this kind; on the contrary, we definitely welcome it. It gives us an opportunity of saying certain things which we may desire to say and should have found it difficult to say otherwise; and, although I barely expect noble Lords to believe it, I can assure them that we do welcome all honest criticism of our efforts. Nor do we feel entitled to resent any form of criticism even though we consider it unreasonable if it is due to the lack of certain information which may be in our possession. We also welcome heartily definite suggestions made by noble Lords in this House, even if in all cases we do not feel it possible to adopt them; and we certainly lay no claim whatever to having evolved or to be carrying on a system so complete in its perfection that it cannot be improved possibly in some quite material respects. But we do
182
venture to say that the state of things in regard to the exhibition of our maritime preponderance is distinctly improving, and we believe it will go on improving as we get more knowledge and more experience. To say that we shall obtain the victory over our enemies by blockade alone is, in my view, to ignore other important facts and factors, and it appears to me to involve something like an unmerited slight on the efforts of the Army. But we do say that this blockade —as we describe it for purposes of convenience—represents a definite and a powerful element in the gaining of that victory, of the ultimate certainty of which we are absolutely assured.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, after the ample discussion which we have had I do not rise to detain your Lordships. But the question does arise as to what course my noble friend Lord Sydenham will take with regard to the Motion which he has on the Paper. I think we shall all feel that his Motion, introduced in an admirable speech, has been amply justified. His Majesty's Government themselves in the statements they have made have furnished the justification for this discussion. My noble friend invited us to say that a more effective use should be made of the Allied Fleets. I think we should have some little difficulty in voting upon that at this moment. The mass of figures placed before us by Lord Lansdowne and by Lord Emmott and the statement by Lord Faringdon as to his personal experience show that very great advance has been made recently. The most telling figures which were quoted by the noble Marquess opposite were figures relating to the beginning of the present year and the last month or two of 1915, and that fact itself justifies us in feeling that a more effective use might have been made of the Allied Fleets at an earlier period. Still we have this great advantage, that the Government have spoken with much greater resolution and have shown that there is much greater continuity in the present procedure.
We have also learnt from the debate that there is to be an actual Ministry for Blockade. Lord Lansdowne seemed to think that it would add more comfort to my noble and gallant friend to be told that the Committees to which reference has been made would be condensed into the hands of a single member of the Cabinet. I am not sure that my noble and gallant friend does not hold the same view

183
as some of us—namely, that the position of the Minister would be greatly strengthened if he were not merely one member of so enormously inflated a Cabinet as now exists. We understand that shortly there is to be a Minister for Air, and I presume he will be in the Cabinet. Gradually the Cabinet will run up to thirty and the question will arise whether it is to be manœuvred as a double company as at present, or whether a battalion formation will become necessary. I hope that the debate which took place here a few months ago will not be altogether lost sight of. In that debate we were given some reason to hope that there would be a reduction of the Cabinet; it was authoritatively stated that this would be so.
Appeals have been made to us, more especially by the Lord Chancellor, to consider the position of neutrals. We all have clearly before our minds the necessity of doing everything possible to carry neutrals with us. But may I not enter this caveat? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack implored us to remember that we had begun the war in defence of neutrality against a gross breach of neutrality, and he thought it would be deplorable if we were to end the war in a less favourable attitude towards neutrals. There are two things to be said, if I may be allowed to say them. The first is that neutrals cannot expect to carry on their old trade and at the same time have the advantage of the enormous new trade which they have acquired through the war. They must understand that circumstances of war are not made in order to create a fresh means of employment of their resources. The second point is one which was made by my noble and gallant friend and which I wish to emphasise—namely, that what in 1914 would have been regarded as a concession from this country becomes an established precedent, and in 1915 any question of its withdrawal is regarded as a grievance. Therefore if you do not take a resolute stand now, as far as you can, your difficulty in a few months' time in withdrawing everything you have conceded will be infinitely greater. As to the Motion on the Paper I trust that my noble friend will feel it right to be content with the excellent discussion which he has produced.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Marquess that there was no intention in this Motion of mine to convey the slightest censure upon the
184
Government. Our only hope was to throw light on some rather obscure points in the many subjects connected with the question of blockade, to strengthen the hands of the Government, and to assure them that if they saw their way to exert a little extra stringency there would be behind them a strong body of opinion in this House. I think I may say that the debate has had that effect, and I therefore beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ATTESTED MEN AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether when a man has presented himself for enlistment in His Majesty's Army under the so-called "group system of the Earl of Derby's scheme" and has signed on and taken the oath, and has subsequently been examined by a doctor, and has not received from that doctor or other official any notification or indication as to whether he is medically fit to be enrolled in His Majesty's Service or not—

1. Any notice will be sent him if he is medically unfit and not required for His Majesty's Service, and how soon after the medical examination that notice will be sent him; or

2. If he is medically fit, whether he will be so informed before he is required to join the Colours and in time to make reasonable private arrangements.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, it is clearly very undesirable that any man should be left in doubt as to whether he has been passed fit or not, and I think I can take it upon myself to give the noble Lord an assurance that in future any man who is in the position described in the Question will be entitled to a categorical answer to the inquiry whether he has passed. Should it not be possible to give the answer immediately, then if the man will write subsequently to the recruiting officer he will receive a reply as soon as possible. I hope that this will satisfy my noble friend.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I am touch obliged to the noble Lord.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Eleven o'clock.