Sitting of 3 July 1916

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

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Canada Company Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords],
Yeadon Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Land Drainage (Lilleshall) Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

DIET AT RUHLEBEN INTERNMENT CAMP (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 21, 1916).
Copy presented for Further Correspondence respecting the Condition of Diet and Nutrition in the Internment Camp at Ruhleben [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1915 compared with the four preceding years. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE OF AUSTRALIA.
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of Australia for the
1178
year 1915, by Mr. G. T. Milne, His. Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
Copy presented of Report to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund on the Administration of the Fund up to 31st March, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Order [7th March, 1916], that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Order [26th June, 1916], that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.

      DR. TAYLOR'S REPORTS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent disclosures of Dr. Taylor as to the starvation of British prisoners and to the German reply thereto, he will endeavour to ascertain the average ration at present allowed to British prisoners and its quality, in order that a ration of equal quality and quantity can be served out to German prisoners here, plus any provisions that may be sent to them from Germany or given by German sympathisers in this country, and such ration varied for better or worse in accordance with any Reports he may from time to time receive as to the treatment of British prisoners?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): We have received through the United States Ambassador Reports by

      1179
      Dr. Taylor, which show the amount of food issued to the British civilians at Ruhleben. Further correspondence on this subject will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.
      Major NEWMAN: Can I have an answer to my suggestion?
      Lord R. CECIL: As to that, the matter is still under consideration, and I would rather not make a definite statement on that point.

      BRITISH AND GERMAN CIVILIANS (REPATRIATION).
      Major HUNTasked why 375 unfit German civilians were allowed to go back to Germany during the four months ending with May, when Germany only allowed twenty-two unfit British civilians I to come back to this country?
      Lord R. CECIL: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the agreement for the repatriation of British and German civilians provides for the repatriation of a category of individuals, and is not an agreement for a man for man exchange of unfit civilians. The total number of unfit German civilians repatriated since the agreement came into force on 6th September last is 776, and the number of unfit British civilians repatriated in the same period is 394. There are, approximately, 26,000 German civilians interned in this country, as against 4,000 British civilians interned in Germany.
      Major HUNT: Are those German civilians unfit?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. The meaning of the figures which I gave my hon. Friend is that since there is a very large excess amounting to six-and-a-half times the number of German civilians in this country to what there are British civilians in Germany it is not surprising that there are rather more German civilians who have gone back to Germany than British civilians who have come back here.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      ENEMY ALIEN COMPANIES.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish a complete list, up to date, of the
      1180
      enemy firms who have been ordered to be wound up under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1916, with a statement against each name of the trade carried on and the approximate amount of the capital employed therein?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): Lists of the businesses ordered to be wound up or discontinued with a statement of the nature of each business and other particulars have been presented to Parliament in accordance with Section 1 (S) of of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916. These lists bring the information down to the end of last May. The amount of capital employed in such businesses is, however, not shown, and, so far as persons or unregistered firms are concerned, there are many cases in which it could not be shown without further investigation, while in others, owing to the absence of complete accounts in this country, the information would be very imperfect. I do not think the expenditure of time necessary for the compilation of this information would be justified, but if the hon. Member desires such information in any particular case, I will endeavour to supply him with it.
      Mr. TERRELLasked for the number and value of the shares of enemy aliens in British companies which have now been sold under the powers conferred by the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916; and whether such shares have been sold by private treaty through the medium of the Stock Exchange or by public auction?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Shares and debentures held by enemies in British companies of the nominal value of £1,300,000 have at present been vested by the Board of Trade in the Public Trustee for the purpose of sale. He has completed the sale of shares of the nominal value of £102,000 and is negotiating for the sale of the remainder. These shares have been sold by private treaty and on the Stock Exchange in cases where there is a quotation. In several pending cases the shares are being put up for sale by public auction.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is any care taken when the shares are not sold?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.
      Major HUNTasked why a German firm of which one of the partners is now living in Germany, after being ordered to

      1181
      wind up under the Hostile Foreigners Trading Order, has been allowed to be acquired by a firm of another name with an agency in London, and allowed to be under the same management as the former firm?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA {Mr. Chamberlain): The transaction to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers is at present under the consideration of the Government of India, and until a decision has been arrived at I am not in a position to make a statement.

      JOHN MCLEAN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether John McLean, now undergoing imprisonment for an offence under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, is the person who for several years previously conducted an educational movement among workers in the Glasgow district; if so, whether he will inquire into the work of education and organisation done by McLean before and during the War; and, if the result of such inquiry is to show that McLean exerted an ameliorating and enlightening influence, whether any mitigation of his sentence can be recommended?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND {Mr. McKinnon Wood): I regret that the results of my inquiries do not justify my adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman given his personal attention to this matter, and is he aware that this man has got a very high reputation and an estimable character?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind my hon. Friend that at the trial Mr. McLean put that plea forward and brought evidence in support of it, but the verdict was given after it had been presented.
      Mr. KING: Was it by order or at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman that the lady who has been interesting herself in this man's case with a view to mitigating the punishment has just had a domiciliary visit and all her papers taken away?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no knowledge either of the lady or of the domiciliary visit.
      Mr. KING: Will you make inquiries?

      DISTRESS LEVY.
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence passed on Mr. Fenner Brockway by the City of London Quarter Sessions on 28th June of a fine of £100 and in default of payment of a distress levy, and in default of obtaining the sum of £100 by such levy imprisonment for sixty-one days; whether the punishment is prescribed by Regulation 58 under the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether, in view of the fact that such Regulation makes no mention of a distress levy, and that the Quarter Sessions, by inflicting such an alternative penalty, exceeds their powers, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The offender in question was convicted at the Mansion House Police Court on 3rd April last and ordered to pay a fine of £100 and costs to the amount of £10. His appeal to Quarter Sessions was heard on the 28th June, and dismissed. The sentence passed at the Mansion House has now to be enforced in the usual way as provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. If the fine is not paid, the proper course is to issue a warrant of distress to recover the amount duo unless there is special reason for not doing so. The term of sixty-one days' imprisonment imposed at the Mansion House in default of payment is not enforced unless the defendant (who has been allowed fourteen days for the purpose) fails to pay the amount due from him and it is not raised by distraint. This is the course laid down by the general law for recovering penalties imposed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and is not affected by anything in the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
      Mr. HARVEY: Was that course contemplated in the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act? Is it not specified?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Mo, Sir; this procedure is quite independent of the Defence of the Realm Regulation. It is the ordinary procedure under the normal provisions of the law.

      PRICES COMMITTEE.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the

      1183
      Government proposes to appoint a member of the Grocers' Federation upon the committee on food prices?
      Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the grocers and provision merchants of the country that they are not represented on the Government Committee on Food Prices; and will he take steps to appoint a representative of this body on the Committee?
      Mr. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, while two members of the Food Prices Committee are representative of the co-operative grocers' societies, there is no representative on the Committee of the private grocers; and whether, in the circumstances, he will see that some suitable representative of this class of the grocery trade is at once appointed to the Committee?
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to see that the private distributive trades concerned are represented on the Government Committee on Food Prices as well as co-operative societies; whether two representatives of the co-operative societies have been appointed as members of the Government Committee; and whether he will see that private traders are proportionately represented on the Committee?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The inquiries of the Prices Committee will not be limited to food prices, and, even if they were so limited, it is not practicable to include on one Committee representatives of each important division of producers, wholesale merchants and retail dealers without unduly increasing the membership of the Committee. The Committee will, of course, call representative distributive traders as witnesses, and I will consider whether anything further can be done to meet the hon. Members' wishes, but I do not think I shall see my way to increase the members—already large—of the Committee.
      Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon Gentleman not think that the Grocers' Federation above all others has excellent claims to be represented?
      Mr. HARCOURT: If I said that then the Butchers' Federation would say the same thing, and they would also want to be represented.
      Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that co-operative societies have two representatives on this Committee? Surely the grocers should be entitled to a representative.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of my question about co-operative societies having two representatives on this Committee, and, if so, whether he does not think some representation should be given to the distributing trades generally?
      Mr. HARCOURT: There is only one member put on representing co-operative societies.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      ISLE OF MAN LABOUR EXCHANGE.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that Captain Hall applied to the manager of the Isle of Man Labour Exchange for farmers' sons as seamen, and that the said manager wrote Captain Hall promising that he would do his best to procure the same; if so, if steps will be taken to prevent managers of Labour Exchanges using their influence to defeat the Military Service Act in future; (2) if he is aware that a man named Turton agreed to go to Fleetwood on 12th May, but on finding out that there was a dispute refused to proceed, on. which Mr. Gubbon, the manager of the Isle of Man Labour Exchange, Douglas branch, wrote to. Turton on 15th May threatening prosecution unless he went to Fleetwood at once to join the ship; if so, on whose instructions did Mr. Gubbon act in using a Government office for this purpose; and (3) if he is aware that the manager of the Labour Exchange at Douglas, Isle of Man, has been and is supplying men to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the London and North-Western Railway Companies' boats at Fleetwood, where there has been a dispute for the past four months owing to the railway companies having refused Government arbitration; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent the Labour Exchange from supplying men in these circumstances?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The Douglas Labour Exchange is controlled by the Manx Government and not by the Board of Trade, and I am therefore unable to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend

      1185
      as regards the action stated to have been taken by this Exchange. I should explain that a temporary Exchange was maintained for some time at Douglas by the Board of Trade at the request of the Manx Government; but this Exchange was closed on the 8th April last.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a man named W. H. Lowey, a blacksmith, of Douglas, who had appealed to the tribunal for military exemption, was taken by Captain Hall, of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, to Fleetwood on the promise of exemption from military service; will ho say by whose authority Captain Hall made these promises for the purpose of defeating the Military Service Bill; and if he intends to take action to prevent Captain Hall, or any other person, taking such a course in future?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information in this matter, but I will make inquiries.

      POSTAL TELEGRAPHISTS (RECRUITMENT).
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether any discrimination is being made between postal telegraphists who have attested and those who are unattested; whether unattested men are being called to the Colours in preference to attested men; and whether he can give an assurance that the whole staff is being treated as one body, attested and unattested men alike receiving the same treatment?
      The POSTMASTER- GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): I am sending the hon. Member the answer which I gave in the House, on the 29th June, to a similar question by the hon. Member for Leicester. The circumstances under which it has been decided to release unattested telegraphists for general military service are explained in that answer.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it the case that discrimination is being made between the attested and the unattested men, and that those who exercised their legal rights before are now being penalised?
      Mr. PEASE: I think I had better deal with that subject later on.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Meantime is it the case?
      Mr. PEASE: It is a matter which cannot be dealt with in answer to a question. It demands fuller explanation.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What later occasion will there be for dealing with it?
      Mr. PEASE: On the Post Office Vote this evening.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the statement made on 28th June by General Child, Director of Personal Services at the War Office, that he would favour the elimination of all conscientious objectors by the powers given in Section 9 (1) of the Army Act; whether he is aware that that Section allows the death penalty for wilful defiance of authority; and whether General Child, as Director of Personal Services, will be the chief official at the War Office concerned with carrying out the policy announced in this House on 29th June?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As it was never the intention that any official in the War Office should be concerned with carrying out the policy announced in this House on the 29th June, but that the final decision as to the genuineness of a conscientious objector should rest solely and wholly with the Central Appeal Tribunal, the question does not arise.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state last week that the preliminary sifting would be done by the military authorities, and, in that case, are they not responsible?
      The PRIME MINISTER: That is done in order to get rid of obvious cases.
      Mr. KING: Even then will not General Child have a very real power to prevent these cases coming before the Central Tribunal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, he will not.
      Mr. KING: May we take the Prime Minister's assurance of that, because there is a good deal of anxiety on that point?
      Mr. HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals for the treatment of conscientious objectors to military service in the Army take account of the number of such men who have not been sentenced to imprisonment, but are under detention in military barracks and camps in consequence of declining to obey military orders; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with such cases?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. Men who during or after their sentence of detention refuse to obey orders on grounds of conscientious objection will, I have no doubt, be tried by court-martial and thus come under the scheme which I outlined to the House on Thursday.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there have been cases of conscientious objectors practising the hunger strike, either in Wandsworth Detention Barracks or elsewhere; if so, whether such men are forcibly fed; and how many men were so fed during the months of May and June?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I learn that soldiers who have practised hunger strike have been forcibly fed. I am not prepared to make the necessary inquiries with the view of ascertaining how many men have been so fed.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the cases of J. Clinch and G. Glasscock who, on 29th May, were fetched by an escort from Croydon to Kingston-on-Thames, being conscientious objectors; whether they were handcuffed together on this occasion; if so, why, seeing that they offered no resistance; of how many men did the escort consist; why was that number considered necessary; whether J. Clinch is now in Maidstone Civil Prison; and what action is intended when his sentence is completed?
      Mr. TENNANT: In view of the fact that no ill-treatment is alleged, no useful purpose would be served by making inquiry.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the case of Philip H. Sleep, of the 10th Border Regiment, Non-Combatant Corps, who was granted absolute exemption from military service by the Croydon Local Tribunal on 25th March, 1916; whether his exemption was after wards reviewed by the Surrey Appeal Tribunal, who were misled by Sir Lewis Dibden's advice that a conscientious objector could not obtain absolute exemption; whether this man, who was originally granted absolute exemption, is now in Maidstone Civil Prison; and what is it intended to do in this case on Sleep finishing his imprisonment?
      Mr. TENNANT: This case will be dealt with under the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week.
      Mr. KING: Are not the facts correctly stated here?
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, having regard to the natural anxiety of his parents, will he say what is the sentence passed by court-martial on H. F. Brewster, a conscientious objector, sent from Lowestoft to Boulogne on 8th May, and where he is now?
      Mr. TENNANT: As I have often stated, I cannot undertake to give information in this House about the situation from day to day of individual soldiers. Proper official machinery for making such inquiries is in existence, and I would recommend that my hon. Friend should address his inquiry to the Record Office of the soldier concerned. If, as my hon. Friend states, this man has been sent to France, it is not possible to disclose his whereabouts.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give information of Alfred Evans who, a conscientious objector of taking life, offered himself for the Royal Army Medical Corps, was recommended by his local tribunal for non-combatant service, but by the Ealing Tribunal was turned down, sent to Houns-low, then to Felixstowe, and placed in the Non-Combatant Corps, refusing to obey military orders, he was sentenced to twenty-eight days' imprisonment in the Harwich Circular Redoubt, and from thence was shipped to France; has he been sentenced to death; and why may he not be attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps, for which service he has offered himself?
      Mr. TENNANT: On the information contained in this question I cannot find that the enlistment and posting of Evans to the Non-Combatant Corps was otherwise than in order. No report has been received that he was sentenced to death.

      UNMARRIED MEN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War approximately the number of unmarried men, registered on the National Register as of military age, who have not reported themselves and who have not been traced and accounted for or brought into the Army?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is not considered desirable in the public interest to announce this figure nor would it be possible to say accurately how many men will finally be found to be absentees. Men are being traced every day.
      Mr. KING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that rumours are going about that this number is rather large, and we might be reassured if we got any approximate figure?
      Mr. TENNANT: I should be very glad if I could give any approximate figure.
      Major NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is it right to assume that you will get them all in time?
      Mr. TENNANT: I hope so.

      EXEMPTION FOE YOUNGEST OF FAMILY.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, on account of several brothers being already in the Army, a youth just arriving at the age of eighteen wishes to remain at home for well-defined reasons the youth has any right of appeal for exemption; and, if so, what course should he take?
      Mr. TENNANT: A youth just arriving at the age of eighteen becomes liable for military service on the thirtieth day following his birthday. At any time before that day an application may be made by him or on his behalf to a local tribunal for a certificate of exemption on any of the grounds provided in the Military Service Act. An application on business grounds should be made to the local tribunal for the district in which the youth's place of employment is situated. An application on personal grounds should be made to the local tribunal for the district in which he lives.

      DERBY SCHEME (REJECTED RECRUITS).
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the exact position of the men who enlisted under the Derby scheme and were rejected by the recruiting doctor, who wear the armlet, and have a card of rejection; does the Military Service Act, 1916, affect their position in any way; and are they subject to re-enlistment or will they be called up, or if called up will their previous rejection be a sufficient answer to such new call?
      Mr. TENNANT: The Military Service Act does not affect the position of attested men in the groups in any way.

      INTERPRETATION OF ACT.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Section 2 of the Military Service Act, 1916, applies to men over forty-one years of age who have served in the old Volunteers, the Territorials, and the Army?
      Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend wants an authoritative legal interpretation of this Section I can only refer him to the Courts. The question of the interpretation of this Section of the Act for administrative purposes is still under the consideration of the military authorities.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Cannot my right hon. Friend give any clear decision as to what is meant by the Section? You cannot expect these men to go to Court and take their case to the House of Lords.
      Mr. TENNANT: I quite understand that would not be a reasonable thing to expect, but the question of a decision for administrative purposes will be announced very shortly.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: If some of them apply—
      Mr. TENNANT: If they apply we will give them an answer as soon as we can.

      MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions taking away the right of the military representative on tribunals granting on his own personal responsibility exemptions, as such action on the part of military representatives is causing much dissatisfaction, thus guaranteeing all cases to be heard by the tribunals and the tribunals only being responsible for exemptions?
      Mr. TENNANT: The only case in which a military representative can cause a certificate of exemption to be issued without the matter coming before the local tribunal is when a voluntarily attested man is shown to the satisfaction of the military representative to be actually employed in a certified occupation. If an application is made to the recruiting officer for exemption in such a case it is referred to the military representative for advice. If there is any doubt as to the man's usual and principal occupation or whether it is necessary in the national interests that he should continue in civil employment, the question is referred to the local tribunal

      1191
      for decision. I am not aware that this procedure (which was adopted to save not only tribunals but employers and voluntarily attested men, unnecessary trouble in clear cases) has caused any dissatisfaction, and, as at present advised, I do not see any reason for its alteration.

      TIME-EXPIRED MEN (FURLOUGH).
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether time-expired men are in all cases being granted the usual furlough before being required to continue their service with the Colours under the Military Service Act?
      Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 28th June to the hon. Member for East Manchester. The hon. Gentleman appears to expect that rules should have no exceptions, but that cannot, I fear, be arranged.

      DOCTORS' CHAUFFEURS.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to medical men with a large rural practice by their chauffeurs being taken for military service; and will he consider the advisability of these men being enrolled in the Royal Army Medical Corps and left in their employment until absolutely required?
      Mr. TENNANT: There is urgency in the demand by the Army for motor car drivers. Subject to this paramount consideration, arrangements have been made for the consideration of individual cases on their merits.

      PRIZE CLAIMS COMMITTEE (AUSTRALIAN MERCHANTS' LOSSES).
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked whether there is any fund for dealing with losses sustained by Australian merchants through enemy vessels at the outbreak of war going into neutral ports and remaining there; and, if not, whether he can see his way to extend the powers of the Prize Claims Committee, so as to enable them to consider claims of this character, which are at present outside their jurisdiction.?
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL(Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. There is no fund in existence out of which losses of
      1192
      the character mentioned in the question can be dealt with. The Prize Claims Committee can only deal with claims against ships or cargoes which have either been condemned, or ordered to be detained by a Prize Court in the British Dominions. None of the losses referred to have been sustained in connection with such ships and cargoes, and it is not possible to extend the powers of the Committee so as to enable them to deal with such losses.
      Mr. TERRELL: Is there no fund out of which compensation can be given for these very important losses which are equally as meritorious as other losses?
      Sir G. CAVE: No such fund of any kind exists. These are losses involved by the War and, like any other losses of the same kind, they cannot be dealt with out of any existing funds.
      Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: Could not the merchants have avoided the losses by not shipping by German steamers?

      MESOPOTAMIA.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the position and prospects of our troops in Mesopotamia?
      Mr. TENNANT: I fear I cannot add anything to what I said last week about the position and prospects of the troops in Mesopotamia.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman go so far as to say that he regards the position as satisfactory?
      Mr. TENNANT: I think it is desirable that my right hon. Friend should postpone this question a little longer. I do not think it is desirable to make any statement now.

      ROYAL NAVY (PROMOTION).
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been come to as to the increase of the number of lieutenants for commissioned warrant officers and warrant officers (gunners) of His Majesty's Navy?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The list of lieutenants promoted from commissioned warrant officers

      1193
      and warrant officers has been increased from 100 to 150, and twenty-five additional chief gunners were promoted to lieutenant on the 1st of May.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board what progress has been made in the administration of the Naval and Military Pensions Act, 1915; whether any and, if so, what part of the £1,000,000 promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet been placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee; whether any pensions have yet been granted by them; and will he state fully the present position?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The whole of the million promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee. Regulations have been issued by the Committee with regard to recoverable advances, supplementary separation allowances and emergency grants, and upwards of £100,000 has been advanced by the Committee on requisitions from the local committees to enable supplementary separation allowances and emergency grants to be made, and also advances to disabled sailors and soldiers. The Regulations as to supplementary pensions have not been finally settled, but they are in an advanced state of preparation, and will, I hope, shortly be issued. Meanwhile the Pensions Sub-Committee of the Statutory Committee have been provided with funds, some emergency grants in pension cases have been awarded, and other like grants have been made through the voluntary societies. I hope to be in a position soon to make a more ample statement.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say how much of the £1,000,000 has been spent or ear-marked, and how soon he will require to come for a further sum?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: At present we have advanced £100,000 on requisitions made by the local committees. How much these local committees have spent of that £100,000 up to the present moment I cannot say, but the total amount that they will require in the year, if their expenditure is at all on the lines of the expenditure for the last year of war, will be something between £1,000,000 and £1,200,000.
      Sir F. LOWEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what person or persons separation allowances in respect of children of soldiers are payable when the mother is, by reason of her being in prison or other circumstances, unable to be entrusted with the care of these children?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): When a soldier's wife is in prison, separation allowance in respect of the children is paid to the relative or other person nominated by the soldier as guardian. If the soldier is serving abroad or is otherwise unable to find a guardian the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association usually accept responsibility for the guardianship of the children and receive the separation allowance.
      Sir F. LOWE: Do I understand that there is no delay in paying over the allowances, and that they are paid over at once directly the woman is unable to look after the child?
      Mr. FORSTER: Directly the question of guardianship is settled payment is made at once.
      Sir F. LOWE: Does that take long?
      Mr. FORSTER: No.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      COURTS-MARTIAL IN CAMERA.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether any civil legal authority was consulted by the military authorities in Ireland before holding their recent courts-martial in camera on the legality of that procedure; and, if approval was given, will he say on what statutory provision it was based, seeing that none exists in either the Army Act or the Defence of the Realm Act for holding a field general court-martial in camera?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, no civil legal authority was consulted upon this question beforehand, but during the progress of these trials, and while disaffection was still seething, the Law Officers were informed by the military authority that in the interests of public safety and the defence of the Realm it had been considered essential that in certain cases the courts-martial should not be

      1195
      open to the general public. The Law Officers, in reply, informed the military authority that while the responsibility for their procedure must rest with the courts-martial, they entirely approved of the course adopted in such conditions, as the safety of the State was the supreme and overruling consideration.
      Mr. GINNELL: May I ask if the Law Officers referred to any statute in support of their advice?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will address that question to the Attorney-General.
      Mr. KING: Will there be any legislation undertaken to give indemnity to those officers who have obviously contravened the law and might be subject to grave penalties?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that arises out of this question.
      Mr. GINNELL: With reference to the last answer the Clerk at the Table refused to take a question to the Attorney-General on the subject.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, seeing that in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland no opportunity was afforded for raising the question of the legality of holding field general courts-martial in camera, and that neither the Army Act nor the Defence of the Realm Act gives authority for holding field general courts-martial in camera, will he say whether the opinion of judges or of Law Officers on the question of the legality of that procedure was obtained before those courts were so held; and, if approved, on what statutory provision was that approval based?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Law Officers advised that express power to exclude the public is conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act, 1915, in cases tried before a Court within Section 1 of that Act, and this Section seems to assume the existence of a similar power in courts-martial in the trial of similar offences. Apart from statutory provision, a Court has inherent power to exclude the public when the publication of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the national safety. The course taken was in accord with the procedure adopted in cases tried by court-martial in London in which for public reasons it has been considered advisable to exclude the public.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Law Officers of the Crown have not expressly approved courts-martial held in camera, but have left the responsibility to the military officers? Now that these men have been executed and there is no one to raise the point, which was not allowed to be raised at the trial, will the Prime Minister arrange to get a legal decision on this important point?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
      Mr. GINNELL: No! Because it is Hunnish.

      COUNTY CLARE.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary the number and the names of prisoners from county Clare imprisoned in England on account of the recent rising; and whether, in consideration of the fact that there was no disturbance of the peace in county Clare, he will consider the advisability of the release of all these prisoners?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The cases are not classified by counties, but I understand that there are about ten cases from Clare. They are receiving the consideration of the Advisory Committee.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring it home to the Government that it may be running counter to the public interest to pursue those petty cases?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I should say that will be given due consideration.

      SHOOTING OF NON-COMBATANT CIVILIANS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the promised public inquiry into the shooting of non-combatant civilians by the military in Dublin will cover all such cases; how many such men are known to have been killed at Porto-bello Barracks with Mr. Sheehy-Skeffing-ton; how many in the North King Street area; how many at Richmond Barracks at which an officer boasted that 71 rebels had been shot; by whom the question whether they were rebels was decided; where their bodies were buried; how many were so shot dead in the Eden Quay area besides Ernest Cavanagh, John Hewson, William Maguire, Harris, Casey, and Fowler, all non-combatants trying to continue their peaceful pursuits at the time; why no report or military inquiry has yet been made into any of the latter three groups;

      1197
      when the promised civil inquiry will be held; and whether it will deal with questions of compensation?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I made no promise of a public inquiry except in the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington. The answer to the second part of the question is two, namely, Messrs. Dickson and McIntyre. The answer to the third part of the question is that fifteen persons were reported killed, and Courts of Inquiry have been held on all. The district is a centre of Sinn Feinism and of heavy house-to-house fighting. No proof is forthcoming whether these were killed by military or rebels. The answer to the fourth and fifth parts of the question is that no such men were shot. The answer to the last part of the question is that no information of these or other casualties in Eden Quay has been received. The hon. Member is apparently referring to the bombardment of Liberty Hall, a rebel stronghold.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House on what grounds he makes a distinction between the murder of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and the other men killed at the same time and place? In view of the indefinite answer he has been obliged to give, will he not agree to hold a public sworn inquiry?
      The PRIME MINISTER: We could not have a public sworn inquiry without an Act of Parliament.

      LOCAL SHOWS (PROHIBITION OF COMPETITIONS).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it is with the concurrence of the Government that the feis portions of local shows in Ireland consisting of children's competitions in Gaelic songs and dances, hitherto a source of amusement and revenue for the purposes of the shows, are now being prohibited; whether the prohibition will be removed from the projected show at Mallow; and whether he will specify any danger to the Realm apprehended from such entertainments?
      Mr. SAMUEL: In the disturbed state of the country it was desirable that large crowds should not assemble. All restrictions have now been removed, except upon parades, processions and political meetings. For the holding of these latter, permission must first be obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Police or from the County Inspector, Royal Irish Constabu-
      1198
      lary. Such permission is only withheld when it is believed there is likely to be some disturbance.
      Mr. GINNELL: Has permission been given in the case of Mallow?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

      ARRESTS AND TRIALS (PROCEDURE).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted as to the legality, without legislation, of the present policy of arresting persons on suspicion, imprisoning them indefinitely without charge or trial, and then permitting them to make an appeal in the nature of a defence without having been informed of the charge against them; whether the Law Officers have advised that this abrogation of the right of charge and trial and supersession of ordinary courts is legal; whether they have advised that the Advisory Committee set up to enforce this policy has been legally constituted for a legal purpose; whether they have advised that an Act of Indemnity will be necessary; and why a Bill for this purpose was not introduced before rather than after this procedure?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The procedure which is followed in these cases was adopted after consultation with the Law Officers. The internment of the prisoners is a necessary measure for the public safety, and is authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act. No Act of Indemnity is necessary. Every prisoner is furnished with a statement of the grounds for his internment.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the Defence of the Realm Act justifies sending men from Ireland, where the offence is alleged to have been committed, to this country?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The general provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act enable regulations to be made, and Regulation 14B, which has been enacted, authorises the procedure referred to.
      Mr. O. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to constitute the Advisory Committee under the Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act to try the Irish political prisoners now interned for alleged participation in the recent rebellion; has the Irish section of the Committee been selected, and will the name or names be now disclosed; what the procedure will be; and what facilities will be given to the prisoners to state their case?
      Mr. SAMUEL: As I have already stated in the House, the Advisory Committee has been constituted and has held a number of sittings. The Committee, when considering the Irish cases, consists of Mr. Justice Sankey, Mr. Justice Pim, the right hon. Member for the Epping Division, the right hon. Member for Peebles, the hon. Member for Newry, and the hon. Member for the Bewdley Division. Mr. Justice Younger is also a member of the Committee, but is at present unable to sit. As regards procedure, counsel and solicitors are not heard as advocates, but each prisoner has every opportunity of stating his case before the Committee, and, if he so desires, is allowed to consult legal advisers beforehand.
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to know whether any reference has been given to the Committee in respect of these prisoners, and whether they have instructions to confine themselves to acts of rebellion and to ignore expressions of opinion and opposition to recruiting?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reference to the Committee is really contained in the Regulation 14 B, under which they are appointed. No special reference has been issued to the Committee in respect of this group of cases.
      Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman and the Government hold that the law empowers them to call upon persons to make a statement in the nature of a defence before any charge has been made?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have repeatedly told the hon. Member that at the same time the order of internment is served on the person interned the nature of the charge is stated in writing.
      Mr. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these prisoners have not the advantage of legal advice, that they are far away from their legal advisers, that it is almost impossible for them to get legal advice, and that the defence is of no advantage to them whatever?
      Mr. SAMUEL: As no question of law arises in these cases, I think the Committee can be trusted to get at the facts of the case from the man's own statements.
      Mr. GINNELL: The question is whether the law can be trusted. The law
      1200
      empowers them to cross-examine prisoners who have never been categorically charged.
      Mr. CREANasked the Prime Minister (1) on what charge Daniel and Denis Manning, of Kilbrittain, county Cork, were arrested; why they are still detained in Wakefield Prison; and, as their business has been practically ruined and their mother, who has been an invalid for some time, is entirely dependent on them, if he will have their cases inquired into immediately; (2) why Eugene Murphy, who was arrested at Barra Upton, county Cork, on the 8th of May, without any definite charge being made against him of taking any part in the late rebellion in Ireland, is still detained in Knutsord Prison; and whether he will have this case immediately inquired into, so that he may be permitted to return to his home, as he is the only support of his mother; and (3) whether any charge can be made against Mr Michael Griffin, Ballinadee, county Cork, to justify his arrest and imprisonment other than that of permitting the local volunteers to meet in a house, his property, in the village; whether this house has been freely used for many years by the people of the district; and whether, in view of the fact that this man's family are kept from starvation by the charity of their neighbours, who are making weekly contributions for their support, he will have the man released immediately?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The persons referred to are all at Frongoch. The grounds on which they are interned are stated in the orders for internment with which they have been served. Their cases are being considered by the Advisory Committee, to whom I will communicate the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member.

      SINN FEIN MOVEMENT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether at least two newspapers openly advocating the Republican cause are now appearing in Dublin; and whether, in view of the punishments that have been inflicted by the Home Secretary on certain British newspapers held guilty of conduct tending to retard recruiting and prejudice the conduct of the War, he will advise the suspension of these newspapers?
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

      1201
      The question whether there shall be a prosecution in the case of an alleged offence by a newspaper is one for the decision of the competent military authority under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, unless the alleged offence is a "Press" offence, when such a decision lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
      Major NEWMAN: Do I understand that no Sinn Fein organ is being published in Dublin at present?
      Mr. TENNANT: That is a question which requires notice. It does not appear to arise out of this question.
      Major NEWMAN: That was my question.
      Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. GRANTasked the Prime Minister if he can give any information as to the extent of the increase in numbers of those who have joined the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland which has taken place since his recent visit to Ireland?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

      GENEKAL MAXWELL'S POWERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the plenary powers conferred upon General Maxwell in Ireland comprised power over the lives of persons not actually fighting; whether they comprised lining up the portion of the republican army from the Dublin Post Office after surrender against a wall with repeated threats of shooting; whether they comprised imprisoning a girl aged fifteen, putting her standing against a wall in front of a shooting party on three successive mornings, exhausted from hunger, bandaging her eyes to be shot, and giving all the orders for that purpose except the last, in order to make her divulge the contents of a dispatch which she had been carrying and had swallowed; whether they comprised telling the girl that her mother was dying and that she would be set free to see her mother if she divulged; whether they comprised finally insulting her because of her fidelity and bravery; and whether he proposes to take any action with reference to this use of the plenary powers conferred upon General Maxwell?
      The PRIME MINISTER: There is no foundation for any of the insinuations contained in this question?
      Mr. GINNELL: There is every foundation. If the right hon. Gentleman believes there is no foundation, will he institute a public civil inquiry?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, certainly not.

      ERNEST CAVANAGH.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any information respecting the death of Ernest Cavanagh during the rising in Dublin; whether this young man, though he had taken no part whatever in the rising, was shot while alone, unarmed, and defenceless on the steps of Liberty Hall, under conditions which gave no ground for supposing that he was a combatant; whether he will advise an inquiry into the details of this matter; and whether such inquiry, if instituted, will be held in public?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No information regarding the death of Ernest Cavanagh has been received. Perhaps the hon. Member will forward me the evidence on which he bases his question.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is being kept informed of the state of feeling in Ireland owing to the continuance of martial law; and whether, if it be made clear to him that martial law is producing effects quite contrary to the objects for which it was instituted and is causing the spread of disaffection, he will reconsider the whole policy and recall General Maxwell from Ireland?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Government is kept fully informed of the situation in Ireland.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the Government been informed that the presence of General Maxwell and the continuance of martial law are having the effect of greatly increasing the state of unrest and agitation in Ireland?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree at all.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing Lord Bryce to inquire into all these allegations of atrocities that constantly appear on the Paper, in view of their reproduction in America and their effect upon public opinion there?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

      PATRICK PEARSE'S PAPERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War by what authority Major Price has told Mrs. Pearse that she will not be given the papers and poems written for her by her son, Patrick H. Pearse, before his execution; whether all those papers and poems will now be given to her; whether his sword, watch, and all the papers found on his person at the time of his surrender will be given to her; and whether all the property taken from St. Enda's school by the military when searching will be restored to Mrs. Pearse, including her own two rings, the lease of St. Enda's, account books, photographs of her sons, 10s. 6d. in silver, and a 10s. Treasury note?
      Mr. TENNANT: Inquiry is being made, but I have not yet received the result.

      MATTHEW HORAN.
      Mr. GRAHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Matthew Horan, of Blackrock, Dublin, who is at present interned in Frongoch, was home with his parents in Tullamore on leave from Easter Sunday last until 5th May, and could not possibly have taken any part in the revolt in Dublin; will he say whether the constabulary authorities in Tullamore gave him a pass to enable him to return to Dublin; on what charge is he detained; and whether he has already received full evidence showing conclusively that Mr. Horan did not nor could not have taken any part in the revolt referred to?
      Mr. TENNANT: The prisoner will be able to lay all the facts of his case before the Advisory Committee.

      VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
      Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough): asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what provision the Government is going to make for the dependants of the men of the Irish Volunteer Training Corps killed in action while helping the Regular troops to defend Beggar Bush Barracks, Dublin, while wearing the G.R. red armlet in the Irish rebellion; and whether, seeing that they had trained and equipped themselves at their own expense, the Government will see that they do not fare worse than the dependants of paid soldiers?
      Mr. FORSTER: This question is at present under consideration by the
      1204
      Government. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a definite announcement.

      ALIEN ENEMIES (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a copy of resolutions passed at a meeting of 5,000 people held in Glasgow on 13th June, expressing dissatisfaction with the action or inaction of Lord Dewar's Committee who dealt with enemy aliens resident in Scotland, and calling upon him to adopt more drastic measures with these; and what action, if any, he proposes to take on account of these resolutions?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have seen reports of the meeting. I am not aware that any facts were stated which reflect upon the careful work of Lord Dewar's Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no lack of vigilance on the part of the authorities concerned.
      Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many days Lord Dewar's Committee sat dealing with cases in Scotland?
      Mr. WOOD: I could not say from memory, and I do not know that I was ever aware of the number of days they sat.

    MUNITIONS.

      WOMEN EMPLOYES.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he proposes to deal with the wages of women employed on munitions work under the powers conferred upon him under Section 6 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916; and, if so, whether he will secure that an adequate minimum wage shall be paid to all women to whom the provisions of Section 7 of the Munitions Act have been applied by Order?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): It is hoped to issue an Order dealing with this matter in the course of this week.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. WINGasked the Minister of Munitions if, on taking over the licensed premises of any given area, he will in preparing schemes for refreshment for the

      1205
      people give the inhabitants an opportunity of expressing themselves on the elimination of intoxicating liquors in such districts?
      Dr. ADDISON: It is the practice of the Board to take special measures for keeping in touch with local opinion in districts in which they take over licensed premises, and for acting in conformity with it so far as is consistent with the primary object for which the premises are taken over.

      DEUTSCHE BANK.
      Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Deutsche Bank in Berlin is preparing to finance a huge trade war upon us when peace comes, he can say why nine German clerks are still allowed to remain in the Deutsche Bank in London, where they will be able to help in the trade war, whilst British clerks in Germany are starving behind barbed wire?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on 28th June, and my remarks in the Debate on the Home Office Vote on the 29th.
      Major HUNT: Are not these clerks allowed to store up money for the use of Germans after the War?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The disposal of the money after the War is a matter that does not arise at present; and if it did arise it would be in the province of the Board of Trade and not of the Home Office.

      MINE INSPECTORS.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to maintain a sufficient staff of mine inspectors during the War, having regard to the number of members of the staff who have joined His Majesty's Forces?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): In view of the importance of the services performed by the mines inspectors, the Home Office has been careful to see that the staff of the inspectorate should not be unduly depleted. Fifteen out of the 79 inspectors have joined the forces since the outbreak of war, one of whom has now returned to the depart-
      1206
      ment, but the work of the department has been zealously and effectively carried on by the rest of the staff.
      Mr. MILLAR: Could the hon. Gentleman state the number of inspectors and sub-inspectors in Scotland at the present time?
      Mr. BRACE: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

      MINES RESCUE STATIONS.
      Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of mines rescue stations at present equipped and in working order in Scotland, giving the name of the district in each case?
      Mr. BRACE: There are now five central rescue stations equipped and in working order, namely, at Cowdenheath in Fife, at Edinburgh, at Coatbridge in Lanarkshire and at Auchinleck and Kilmarnock in Ayrshire. The three other stations which it was decided to erect, at Larbert in Stirlingshire, at Bathgate in Linlithgowshire, and at Lesmahagow in South Lanark, are also complete except as regards sets of breathing apparatus, and I understand that the makers have promised to deliver the whole of the sets required in the course of this month.

      COAL PRODUCTION (HOME OFFICE COMMITTEE).
      Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary for the Home Department how far the recommendations made by the Home Office Committee on Coal Production during the war have been carried out; and what steps have been taken to obtain the maximum output of coal at the collieries?
      Mr. BRACE: It would not be possible within the limits of an answer to give all the information desired by my hon. Friend. He will find some information in the second report of the Coal Mining Organisation Committee, and additional information will be given in a further report which I understand will shortly be submitted. I may mention, however, that as a result of the steps taken, a marked reduction in absenteeism has already been effected, holidays have been curtailed, and the number of days worked increased by

      1207
      the abandonment of customary stop days. Further, at the present moment, after conference between the Mining Association and Miners' Federation, special measures are in course of being taken to bring about a still further reduction in absenteeism. It has also been decided that no more men are to be recruited for the Forces from among the miners. The Government are fully alive to the great importance of taking all possible steps to increase the available supplies of coal.
      Mr. MILLARasked whether any inquiry has been instituted by the Home Office as to the causes of the short time being worked at some collieries; and what steps have been taken to secure the working of the pits as continuously as possible throughout the week?
      Mr. BRACE: The Coal Mining Organisation Committee has given close and constant attention to these questions, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the two reports which have already been issued by the Committee.

      EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
      Sir F. LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Excess Profits Tax, sought to be imposed upon controlled firms under the Finance (No. 2) Bill, is in addition to or in substitution for the levy imposed upon them under the Munitions Act?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 43 of the Finance Bill (as amended in Committee) from which he will see that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may treat any sums actually paid in respect of munitions exchequer payments which appear to them to be attributable to the same period and subject matter as that for which Excess Profits Duty is to be paid, as a payment on account of Excess Profits Duty.
      Sir F. LOWE: Does that answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government will take 60 per cent. of the 20 per cent. of the excess profits which under the Munitions Act the controlled firms are allowed to retain, as well as the whole surplus profits over and above the 20 per cent? Would it not be fairer to impose 60 per cent. on the whole?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument in Committee.

      NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked whether the custody of the naval prize money has been left with the several Prize Courts; whether this was done under Order in Council, and, if so, when the Order in Council was published in the "London Gazette"; and, if not, why Section 29 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, as to paying this money to His Majesty's Paymaster-General or an official accountant appointed by the Admiralty or Treasury, has not been carried out?
      Mr. McKENNA: Moneys for which the Admiralty Division of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Prize is accountable are held by the Assistant Paymaster-General for Supreme Court Business "on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize." Moneys for which Oversea Prize Courts are accountable are, in certain cases, held by the Assistant Paymaster-General in the account of the Oversea Prize Disposal Committee, in other cases they remain in the custody of the Court concerned. The Order in Council of 5th August, 1914, brought into operation the Prize Court Rules, 1914, for regulating the procedure and practice of Prize Courts. Section 29 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, was repealed by the Prize Courts Procedure Act, 1914, as from the date when the Prize Court Rules, 1914, came into operation; that is from 4th August, 1914.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Do I understand that the custody of the money is not in the hands of the Civil Prize Courts? Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Admiralty to the fact, as it was stated in the House the other day the funds were in the custody of the Civil Prize Courts?
      Mr. McKENNA: I should like to have further notice of that question. I rather think that some of the money is in the hands of the Civil Prize Courts.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, among others, the following boards of guardians have passed resolutions against the proposals for a settlement of the Home Rule question as outlined by the Minister of Munitions: Callan, Dungarvan, Baltin-glass, Mallow, Innishowen, Kilmallock,

      1209
      Castlebar, Granard, Ballinrobe, Sligo, Limerick, Tubbereurry, New Ross, Eden-derry, Skibbereen, Tralee, Manorhamilton, and Clonmel; and, if so, whether he will bring this fact to the knowledge of the Government; (2) whether he has official information showing that the Irish Trades Union Congress and Labour Party at a recent meeting held in Dublin condemned the proposals for a settlement of the Home Rule question as outlined by the Minister of Munitions; and (3) whether, among others, the following county, urban, and rural councils have passed resolutions to protest against the proposals for a settlement of the Home Rule question as outlined by the Minister of Munitions: Meath, Monaghan, Kerry, Dungarvan, Killala, Carriek-on-Suir, Sligo, Thomastown, Trim, Enniscorthy, Skibbereen, Delvin, Listowel, Castlecomer, Donegal, Manorhamilton, Mallow, Dundalk, Armagh, Tullamore, Carrack-on-Shannon, Boyle, Dunshaughlin, Tralee, and Millstreet; and, if so, whether he will bring this fact to the knowledge of the Government?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information to the effect stated in these questions, but I will make inquiry.
      Major NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman care for me to send in a supplementary list of the same sort—would it help him?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have asked the authorities in Ireland to report on the resolutions received. I understand they have not yet received them.
      Mr. CREAN: Has not the Cork Trades Council endorsed the resolution?
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it was with his concurrence that martial law and the Defence of the Realm Act were used in Belfast last week for the political purpose of facilitating a meeting in St. Mary's Hall to promote the partition of Ireland and preventing a meeting in the Ulster Hall in opposition to that project; and, seeing that the period for which the present Parliament was elected expired last January, whether he will delay the introduction of any Bill embodying that project pending the election of a constitutional Parliament by the electorate, and in the meantime withdraw the restraints on free expression of opinion on that subject?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cork City on the 26th June, to which I have nothing to add.
      Mr. GINNELL: The answer to which I am referred contains nothing about withholding any Bill with reference to the partition of Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question on the Paper?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, not at present.
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, under the Irish settlement proposed by the Minister of Munitions, the exclusion of the six Unionist counties was to be final and not subject to revision after the War, or whether it-was to be temporary and provisional; whether it was made clear to the Irish Unionist leader and to the Nationalist leader which it was to be; and did the Irish Unionist leader receive a promise from any Minister that the exclusion should be final and not subject to revision after the War?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the general statement which I hope to make at an early date.

      INVALIDED OFFICERS (DISTINCTIVE BADGE).
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any badge or other distinctive mark has been decided on for officers invalided from the Army; and when they will be ready for issue?
      Mr. TENNANT: The badge which I referred to in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division on 27th June will be issuable also to officers.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Captain BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether it is on the authority of the. Government that old age pensions committees in Suffolk and elsewhere are being instructed to reconsider and revise all old age pensions in cases where, owing to lack of agricultural labour, old people are assisting in farming operations

      1211
      during the War and receiving remuneration for so doing; and, if so, whether he realises that such action will accentuate the already serious difficulties of farmers in cultivating their land and harvesting their crops?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): In accordance with the undertaking given by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 18th May, 1915, action is not at present being taken for the reduction or revocation of existing old age pensions in consequence of temporary increases of means due to the pensioner's re-employment on account of the shortage of labour arising out of and during the War. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish particulars of any cases he has in mind I will have inquiry made into the matter.

      HIGHLAND REGIMENTS (PIPE BANDS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all pipe bands of the third line of Highland regiments have been cancelled; whether only bugles and drums are now permitted; and whether he can say what objection the War Office has to the bagpipes?
      Mr. TENNANT: The matter is still under consideration. It is expected that the question will be settled very shortly.

      CADET SCHOOL, GROVE PARK.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he will inquire from the three or four officers who constitute the board for appointing officers at Grove Park whether they will publish a list of the schools which meet with their approval as educational establishments at which applicants for officers' posts must have been educated before they will receive from this board positions in the British Array, so that those candidates who have not been educated at any of these approved schools may not waste their time going through the form of studying and sitting for examinations at Grove Park?
      Mr. TENNANT: I had made this inquiry before I gave my previous answer to my hon. Friend on the 29th June. I must repeat that it does not affect the decision
      1212
      of the officers who examine candidates at Grove Park, whether the candidate has been educated at one school or another. No good purpose would be served, therefore, by the publication of the list of schools which would be irrelevant. From November, 1915, until 3lst May, 1916, out of 245 cadets who have passed through the Cadet School at Grove Park, 231 have obtained commissions.
      Mr. WATT: Do I understand that there is a list of schools which has the approval of this board, and which does not wish to publish it?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, my hon. Friend understands nothing of that kind from me.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that time-expired men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, on offering themselves for re-enlistment, are being told that they cannot be reinstated in that corps, and are being relegated to rifle battalions; will he say whether this is done with the sanction and concurrence of his Department; and why, in the interests of economy, the training of such men is not utilised?
      Mr. TENNANT: It would be in accordance with the principle which has frequently been urged in this House that young single men in the Royal Army Medical Corps fit for general service should be transferred to the Infantry to make way for older married men who would rightly be given a preference as regards service in a service less exposed to danger. Such transfers would not, of course, be made if they involved dislocation of the service from which the transfer was made.

      INOCULATION AND VACCINATION.
      Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he will hold an inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment being inflicted upon B. J. Boxall, F. C. Colman, and W. E. Reynolds, all of whom are attached to the 6th (Reserve) Battalion London Rifles, at Fovant Camp, Wilts, on 1st and 2nd June; if he will, in the event of cruelties having been committed, see that proper punishment is inflicted upon those guilty and also upon the responsible officer within whose

      1213
      jurisdiction such cruelties were allowed; (2) who was the officer responsible for the conduct of No. 1 Camp, Fovant, Wilts, on 1st and 2nd June; and (3) by what authority B. J. Boxall, F. C. Colman and W.E. Reynolds, of the 6th (Reserve) Battalion London Rifles, were forcibly inoculated and vaccinated at No. 1 Camp, Fovant, Wilts, on 1st June; and, as this action was in direct contravention of the orders of the Secretary of State for War, will he say what action he proposes to take with regard to the officer responsible for the forcible inoculation and vaccination of an unwilling recruit?
      Mr. TENNANT: As regards the allegations of ill-treatment of these men the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, has made careful investigation. The Officer Commanding the 6th Reserve Battalion states that these men have not been subjected to cruelty or maltreatment. The non-commissioned officer in charge of the room occupied by Reynolds states that these allegations are absolutely untrue. The Officer Commanding further states that he interviewed the men in question and they assured him that they were getting on very well indeed with the men in their hut, and that they had nothing to complain of except for the fact that they are subjected to military discipline. These men were interviewed also by the senior chaplain of the United Church Congress of the Division to which they belong, and at this interview the men told him that they had got on very well indeed with the men, and that there was nothing to complain of. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, considers the officer commanding has satisfactorily disposed of the allegations made, and in this opinion I concur. As regards Queston 82, I must at once point out that these men were not vaccinated nor was vaccination offered. In regard to their inoculation, which took place on the 2nd June, the medical officer states—and he is supported in his statement by three eye-witnesses—that no force was used and no objection raised to the inoculation. One man is stated to have refused at first to strip for medical examination, but he afterwards did so. These men are reported to have behaved themselves, well. It is obvious, therefore, that my hon. Friend has had wrong information conveyed to him both in regard to the allegations of ill-treatment and the forcible inoculation. In the circumstances I do not propose to inform him of the name of the
      1214
      officer who was in command of No. 1 Camp, Fovant, Wilts, but I have the authority of that officer to say that he desires to court the fullest investigation should his military superiors consider such a course necessary.
      Mr. GLANVILLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the colonel in command admitted to a local doctor for Bermondsey that the man had been ill-treated?
      Mr. TENNANT: No; and if my hon. Friend is thinking of the same local doctor for Bermondsey that I have in my mind he will find that the doctor in question admitted that the evidence submitted to him was quite satisfactory.
      Mr. GLANVILLE: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the statement in the document sent to him to see whether it confirms the statement he has just made?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

      PRISON WARDERS' PENSIONS.
      Mr. CREANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the pension of John J. Cassidy, which he was in receipt of as prison warder, has been stopped during his employment at Woolwich; whether any other pensioners employed there have been similarly treated; if not, will he say why an exception should be made in his case; whether inquiry will be made as to the proficiency of Mr. Cassidy; and, if his immediate superiors bear testimony to his worth, will the stoppages already made be refunded?
      Mr. REA (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister of Munitions is having inquiries made into this matter.

      DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
      Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private Pearce, 15th Battalion Hants Regiment, supported his mother to the extent of at least 18s. per week previous to the War, but that Mrs. Pearce is now refused dependants' allowance because Private Pearce failed, from no fault of his own, to make a declaration within, one month of enlistment; and if he will inquire into the case and endeavour to put matters on a more equitable footing?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result in due course.

      WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
      Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, with a view to relieving farmers of some of the inconvenience caused by the commandeering of the wool clip of 1916, he can say when the Department will be prepared to take stocks of wool off the farmers' hands; and when payment will be made for it?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is anticipated that the arrangements for taking over the clip from the farmers, which are being pushed forward with all possible speed, will be completed and that buying operations will start in a week or two. Payment of 75 per cent. of the estimated value of the wool will be made immediately after delivery of the wool. The balance due will be paid immediately after the final inspection of the wool.

      HAY PRICES.
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a representative of the War Office visited Mr. Edward Hanrahan, farmer, Tullogher, county Kilkenny, last November, and purchased on behalf of the Army a rick of hay which was to be taken away and paid for at Christmas, and that the price agreed was £4 10s. per ton; whether he is aware that the hay has not yet been taken away or paid for, and that Mr. Hanrahan has lost opportunities of selling the hay at a higher price and has been deprived of the use of the money in the meantime; whether he is aware that the representative of the War Office has ignored Mr. Hanrahan's letters on the subject; and, as some of the hay has been injured by the weather it will be a dead loss to the vendor, whether he will take steps to compensate him for the loss caused by the negligence of the War Office representative?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (RATES OF PAY).
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the pay of a sergeant clerk in the Royal Army Medical Corps, Regular Force, is higher than that of one in the
      1216
      Territorial Force when serving abroad and doing exactly similar work; and whether he has been able to take any steps to equalise the position of the Territorial Force with that of the Regular Army in this respect?
      Mr. FORSTER: As I have informed the hon. Member privately, I am having inquiry made.

      SAUSAGE SKINS.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that only about 6½ per cent. of the hog and sheep casings used as sausage skins are produced in this country, and that the prohibition of the import of sausage skins will involve the closing down of a large part of the trade, to the detriment not merely of the trade but of those who have been accustomed to avail themselves of this supply of cheap food; whether he will state from what sources his information is derived that the supply of sausage skins in this country at present is adequate; and whether he is aware of the difference between hog and sheep casings, which are suitable for the manufacture of sausages consumed in this country, and cattle casings, of which practically our whole output used to be exported to Germany, which have now accumulated in large quantities in this country, but which are not suitable for the manufacture of sausages such as are consumed in this country?
      Mr. HARCOURT: My information is to the effect that the stock of hog and sheep casings available in this country is sufficient for all requirements for the next two months. I will consider whether licences for the admission of a limited quantity of these casings can be granted in due course with a view to meeting later requirements.

      LIFE-SAVING WAISTCOATS.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the Boddy life-saving waistcoats were on board His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" at the time she was sunk?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not possible to state precisely how many of the Boddy life-saving waistcoats were on board, but every officer and man afloat is supplied with personal life-saving gear consisting of either a Kapok waistcoat or inflated belt.

      NAVAL FACTORIES (WORKING CONDITIONS).
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in any of the naval factories men are engaged on the same class of work, some paid piecework and some paid by the day; and whether men engaged on day-work have the option of being put on piece-work?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The responsible officers have to take account of all the circumstances. It may very well be that when a man is first put upon work which is new to him, if he were immediately put upon piece-work his earnings would be less than his day-work rate would entitle him to. All these matters, as I have said, the responsible officers take into account.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether an efficient man who desires to be transferred from day-work to piece-work, and who can earn considerably more at piece-work, has the option of being put upon piecework?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No. There are some classes of work on which it is not desirable to put a man on piece-work—for instance, the vital parts of aeroplanes. I do not think it is desirable to put men on piece-work on that class of work.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: With reference to work on which men are engaged both on piece-work and day-work, has the man who is doing day-work got the option of being transferred to piece-work if it is work on which piece-work is being done?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is one for the local officer. If it is the sort of work I have mentioned, the man has no option, but if it is work that can be done by day-work and piece-work I know of no reason why the man's request cannot be met. There are, however, classes of work which are not suitable for piece-work.

      GERMAN PRISONERS, DONINGTON HALL (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES).
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the limit of quantity per man of light wines and beers allowed to prisoners of war at Donington Hall; and whether, in view of
      1218
      the starvation of British prisoners of war in Germany, he will give immediate orders that the luxury of alcoholic beverages shall no longer be allowed to German prisoners of war in England?
      Mr. TENNANT: The commandant ensures that no officer spends more than 1s. per day in the purchase of light wines and beers. The average amount so spent is less than 5s. per man per week. In camps in Germany officers have facilities to purchase light alcoholic beverages, and there appears to be no reason to withdraw these privileges from German officer prisoners of war in this country.

      ORKNEY ISLANDS (FERRY SERVICE).
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the loss sustained by the Orkney Islands by the limitation of the daily ferry-boat service to three services in the week, and if he will give instructions that the service shall be carried on for this week on the personal guarantee of private Members?
      Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I am aware that certain inconvenience must be sustained by such restriction in the service. I cannot undertake that this week the daily service will be carried on, but I am having inquiry made as to the practicability of the suggestion. We cannot, under the terms of the contract, compel the steamship company to provide a service of six days a week at the present time.
      Mr. WASON: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this question later.

      INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY.
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an announcement of the Independent Labour Party of a meeting to be held at Essex Hall, Strand, to-morrow (Tuesday) evening, at which a resolution is to be proposed containing charges of cruelty against British officers in connection with the treatment of conscientious objectors; if he is aware that such meeting will be a danger to the public peace, and if he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The only announcement I have seen was issued by the City of London branch of the Independent Labour

      1219
      Party, and it states that a public meeting will be held on Tuesday to consider the administration of the Military Service Acts. I am not aware of the terms of the resolution referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The announcement further states that the principal speakers will be the hon. Member for North Somerset and the hon. Member for North Salford.
      Mr. KING: If I guarantee the safety of the right hon. Gentleman will he be present at the meeting?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I should prefer that the invitation was addressed to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Griffiths).
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: Is it to be a public meeting, open to the public?
      Mr. SAMUEL: That inquiry ought to be addressed to the hon. Member (Mr. King).
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent the meeting being disturbed?
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: As the hon. and gallant Member's question may be a direct incitement to the breaking up of this meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent that?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The usual steps will be taken.

      Electricity Charges.
      Sir F. LOWEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Government are appealing to everyone to economise during the War, and that one of the objects of the Summer Time Act was to assist them in doing so, he will introduce legislation limiting the charges of electric lighting companies and local authorities in proportion to the saving of expenditure which they are able to effect during the operation of this Act?
      Mr. HARCOURT: As I indicated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 26th June, the chief object of the Summer Time Act was to effect economy in the use of coal by public utility bodies. I am not prepared to introduce legislation in the direction suggested, as any reduction in the charges for electricity might encourage consumers to increase their consumption, and this would involve a
      1220
      corresponding increase in the use of coal by the supplying authorities. Further, the saving to the undertaking on the cost of the fuel economised is probably more than outweighed by the loss of revenue, owing to the reduction in the amount of current supplied.
      Sir F. LOWE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion is very generally held that the action of these electric lighting bodies is not only bad form but very unpatriotic, and ought not to be encouraged by the Board of Trade?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think I ought to express an opinion upon that point.

      National Sea Fisheries Protection Association.
      Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has-been called to a speech made by Mr. H. G. Maurice, C.B., representing the Board of Agriculture at the annual general meeting of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, held at Fishmongers' Hall on the 21st June, advocating the abolition of the boards of fishery in Scotland and Ireland, in order that there should be one central administration for fisheries in England, Scotland, and Ireland; whether Mr. Maurice was speaking with the sanction of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and whether it is the practice of that Board to permit officials to advocate a policy which has not been considered by the Board or by the Government?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I have seen a report of the speech in which Mr. Maurice stated very clearly that he had no authority to commit the Board or the Government, but wished to say something off his own bat. The answer to the last part of the question is that there is no established practice in the matter, and that where, as in this ease, the policy advocated has been that recommended by two Royal Commissions and to some considerable extent by Select and Departmental Committees, the Board would not consider that the discretion which ought to be observed in such matters had been infringed.
      Mr. WASON: May I ask whether this gentleman did not in the same speech say

      1221
      that his object was that Scotland and England might be set by the ears and whether such a policy would not have that effect?
      Mr. ACLAND: He seems to have succeeded to that extent of this question.
      Mr. WATT: Did the right hon. Gentleman reprimand Mr. Maurice?
      Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, for the reasons stated in the answer.
      Mr. COWAN: Has the Government consulted Scottish opinion on this matter?
      Mr. ACLAND: I do not think the English Board has consulted Scottish opinion on the matter, for the reasons stated.

BILL PRESENTED.
MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL,—"to amend The Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Act, 1915," presented by Mr. BONAE LAW; supported by Mr. Steel-Maitland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY— [NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      POST OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,537,145, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.'" [NOTE.—£12,000,000 has been voted on account.]
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): In presenting the annual Estimates of the Post Office I think I should explain to the Committee that the War expenditure and the normal expenditure of the Post Office are inextricably intertwined, and it may be difficult for any hon. Member who studies the Estimates to be able to fully appreciate and separate the normal work and the War work which has been done in the past year and may be done during the current year. I think the Committee will be interested if I inform them what is the exact amount of the revenue that has been realised as a result of the extra charges which were imposed in the Budget last autumn. It will be remembered that an additional Id. was imposed upon letters over 1 oz.—between 1 oz. and 2 ozs.—and there was an additional l½d. imposed upon letters weighing over 2 ozs. That did not affect a great proportion of letters, because 80 per cent, of letters which are posted are under 1 oz. in. weight. With respect to the newspaper rate, in place of the fiat rate of ½d., a scale was imposed of ½d. for every 6 ozs. The increase of revenue in connection with those two impositions was estimated to amount to £438,000. The actual increase has amounted to £470,000. An additional Id. was placed upon parcels sent through the post, and an unexpected revenue has been secured, partly because railway companies have raised their rates, and partly because various carrying agencies have pursued the same policy,
      1232
      and because of the difficulty of many traders in securing individuals who will carry their commodities to their customers. Consequently there has been an increase in the number of parcels sent through the post, and instead of £90,000 being realised, as was anticipated, £170,000 has been realised. In regard to the increase of a ½d. on postal orders, the estimate was that £25,000 would be secured. I might say that the number of postal orders up to 2s. 6d. which are affected by this imposition amounts in a year to about 55,000,000. The increased revenue produced by that additional £d. upon the-postal order, instead of being £25,000, was £54,000.
      Then there was the surcharge of 3d. imposed on telegrams. It was expected that £170,000 would be realised by that. I cannot say what is the exact effect upon the telegraphic traffic which has been produced by the imposition of that tax, but no doubt it has been considerable. The result at any rate was that in the six months, from one cause or another, not entirely due to the imposition of this tax, but due to a great number of the short-distance messages formerly sent by telegram being now sent by telephonic communication, there has been a total reduction in the traffic in telegrams of about 25 per cent. But from the revenue point of view the surcharge imposed has been justified, as it has produced £200,000, as against £170,000 which was anticipated. In regard to the increase of £3 in the telephone flat-rate rental, and the increase of call-office charges from 2d. to 3d. in London, and from id. to 2d. in the provinces, so far as I can see, the 3d. London rate is not a charge which has come to stay. The traffic will hardly stand that increase, and the addition of these fees, instead of producing an increase in revenue over the estimate, as in the case of the other items, yielded only an increase of £115,000, as against an estimated increase of £205,000. The total increased charges were expected to produce an increased revenue of £928,000. They actually produced over £1,000,000.
      Making the accounts as intelligible as I can, I propose now to take them in round figures. The Post Office revenue for the year 1915–1916 amounted to £33,660,000, an increase of £4,000,000 over the previous year, and an increase of £2,800,000 over the pre-war period. The expenditure, including War expenditure,

      1233
      amounted to £30,300,000, showing a balance of profit to hand over to the Exchequer of £3,330,000, compared with the figure for the previous year of £3,380,000, or, for the year before that, of £6,650,000, but it is owing to the War that the net profit has fallen by £3,300,000. It is somewhat curious, in regard to revenue, that had the conditions of growth continued without the influence of the War, and without these extra impositions, they would have practically balanced one another, because the yield of the increased rates imposed and the increased revenue derived from the letters which go to our soldiers abroad have counterbalanced any contraction of revenue which has been caused by the War. This contraction of revenue is due more to the absence of millions of men in the field than to any reduction in the trade and industry of the country—millions of men in the field who, if they had been at home, would have been the users of the postal service and also of the telegraphic and telephonic communication.
      On the expenditure side the additional expenditure which was due to the War amounts to about £6,000,000. The Vote bears certain items due to the War. The balance has been charged to the Vote of Credit. The Vote docs not give economies which result in reduction. I think that I can explain by an illustration. The civil pay of the men who were in the Post Office, who are now serving with the Colours, still appears upon the Votes presented to Parliament, but they do not include the substituted cost of labour, which is charged to the War Account. Therefore the somewhat paradoxical result follows, that when you reduce the war expenditure of the Department, the economics effected by these arrangements at home do not appear in the Estimate presented to Parliament. The economies which have been, effected in the Home Service during the year 1915–1916 amount to rather over £1,000,000, but in the event of the War continuing during the whole of the present year we anticipate that a very much greater saving will be effected by the reductions and economies which have been secured during the last few months. The saving effected will, therefore, be considerably greater in future than that which is going on at the present time, and the saving should accrue at a considerably greater rate than it did during the average period of last year.
      1234
      Before I proceed further, I should like to express my gratitude and the gratitude of my staff for the generous way in which the public have accepted the reduced facilities and the increased charges in connection with the Postal Service. The Government have reduced the facilities to the customers of the Post Office, and have increased the charges upon the public with very great reluctance. But we thought it necessary. No one deplores more than the Postmaster-General of the day anything retrogressive in connection with the working of the Post Office, and while some of the economies may be permanent, yet I hope that others may shortly disappear when the War is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Domestic and commercial inconveniences must result from the reduction both in regard to the number of deliveries and the number of dispatches which we are able to give to the public. In most of the towns through the country the deliveries and the corresponding number of dispatches have been reduced to two. The restriction of hours in the Post Office has also enabled us to introduce other economies, and in many towns we have reduced the hours during which the General Post Office is open from twelve to ten. Naturally there must be some protests and representations made to my Department, but t do desire to acknowledge as fully as I can the way in which the public exercise restraint and accept as cheerfully as they can the reductions which have been made.
      4.0 P.M.
      A certain number of sub-offices have been closed, but we have endeavoured in all those cases to justify the action we have taken by securing that other facilities are provided in post-offices in the adjacent Some criticism has been offered, more in the form of questions addressed to me in this House than in any other way, in connection with the expenditure on the London Tube Railway. Parliamentary sanction, before the War, was given to the expenditure of £1,100,000 for the construction of this tube railway, and in October of 1914 it was anticipated that it would be desirable to find occupation for labour which might be thrown out of employment. A contract was entered into to construct this tunnel at a cost of £668,000, and it was anticipated that we would have been able to complete the work in May last. The Government have on several occasions considered

      1235
      whether they should suspend that work, tout it is to be remembered that the material has, to a very large extent, been both manufactured, delivered, and paid for. But we have entered into a certain contract, and the contractor had entered into contracts with sub-contractors, and if this contract had been cancelled a serious claim might have been brought against the Government for breach of contract. Again, if the contract had been deferred it could only have been carried out at an enhanced rate, and if the tunnel work had not been completed a considerable expenditure would necessarily have been incurred with a view to preventing damage to work already begun. We have up to the present time in connection with this tunnel spent £364,000, but, owing to the demands on the electrical plant, we fear that it will be impossible in the immediate future to complete the equipment, and the great benefit arising from the tube, and the consequent quicker and more uniform underground traffic, with the reduction of surface traffic, of mail vans and motor vans in our thoroughfares, must be for a time deferred. The tube railway is proposed to run between Paddington and Whitechapel, and there will be nine underground stations, where there will be automatic delivery and despatch of letters.
      In connection with our building programme, we have been able to effect several economies. Last year's estimate provided for an expenditure of £325,000 on new buildings; this year we propose only £111,535, and of only £1,000 is in respect of new works.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the damage to the General Post Office in Dublin be included in that amount?
      Mr. PEASE: These Estimates have no reference to the damage done to the General Post Office in Dublin. I am obtaining a statement in connection with that matter, but I am not in a position to say exactly what is the loss consequent on the damage to the buildings. If a case is made out against the Government, and if we are criticised for extravagance in connection with new work, all I can say is that it is all work which was commenced before the War, and it would have been a penny wise and pound foolish if this work had been stopped. In regard to the purchase of new sites for post offices, as compared with £70,000 last year, we only propose to spend
      1236
      £10,000 this year. Fifteen buildings which have been approved have been stopped altogether, but, as I have said, the expenditure has been justified in places such as Aldershot, where the number of military made it absolutely essential that we should increase the Post Office facilities, and Tunbridge, Dundee, and West Bromwich, if these buildings had not been proceeded with, detriment to the public service as well as to the buildings themselves would have resulted. There is another item of expenditure which is not on the Estimate, but is included in the Vote of Credit. It is an expenditure of £50,000 for the Regent's Park Parcels Post Office, which has been erected there so that the Army may have their parcels adequately sorted and sent out to each unit from there direct. The provision of this building is justified because the congestion at Mount Pleasant was such as to prevent efficient service either for the Provinces or for the Armies in the field. The sorting arrangements are sufficient not only for the military in the field, but for the wounded in our hospitals and prisoners in enemy countries.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is it completed?
      Mr. PEASE: It is quite completed. It remains for the House to know the extent of the services which we have been rendering to the military abroad. Our troops receive weekly 10,000,000 letters and 700,000 parcels, weighing 1,500 tons per week. There is free postage for letters posted in the field and sent home, and these amount from France alone to 5,000,000 every week. There has been a steady development in the numbers of letters and parcels between the troops abroad and those at home, and if we compare the Christmas week of 1914 and the Christmas week of 1915, there is a clear indication of the development of the work. There were 2,000,000 letters sent in Christmas week of 1914, and to France in Christmas week of 1915 9,000,000 letters were sent to the troops abroad. Parcels increased from 500,000 in Christmas week of 1914 to 3,000,000 in Christmas week of 1915. Complaint has been made with regard to the number of parcels sent to the Gallipoli Penisula which went astray in delivery. We were met by a very peculiar difficulty in connection with the base Post Office being in Egypt, to which all parcels were sent which were intended for Gallipoli. They had first of all to go to Egypt, whence they went at irregular intervals to Mudros, having to

      1237
      be there transhipped into smaller boats. In consequence of these transhipments a certain number of letters and parcels was damaged and possibly their contents were lost. When the great number of casualties is remembered, as many as 60,000 men at one time being scattered into different hospitals, and the number on active service—when it is remembered that all those letters and parcels had to be readdressed, with the added difficulty that the original address was frequently an address used in error, and when it is further recollected that we had submarine difficulties to encounter, that Egyptian and Greek dockers had to be employed and that transhipment often was carried out at night and under shell fire, it will be seen that it is wonderful the service was not more delayed than it was, and that there is some gratification in realising that a very large percentage of the books, parcels, and letters dealt with by the military reached the men to whom they were sent. Under the Hague Convention it was agreed that there should be free postal facilities for military prisoners of war, including civilians interned, and it is interesting to compare the way in which the Germans have supported their prisoners in this country compared with the way in which we support British prisoners in Germany, and also to compare our treatment of German prisoners in this country with the abominable and cruel treatment by the German authorities of British prisoners in their country. The Germans sent less than two parcels per month to each German prisoner in this country, while the English send to Germany two and three-quarters per w-eek, or rather more than eleven per month as compared with two per month which the Germans send.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: They do not need to send them. We feed them.
      Mr. PEASE: That is the explanation. As to the number of prisoners, we have in this country 40,821 military, naval, and civilian prisoners, to whom the Germans send letters. In Germany there are 25,621 British military, 1,089 naval prisoners, and 4,000 civilians. These receive 58,000 letters per week, as compared with 55,000 letters sent to Germany from here. The remittances which are sent vary in this way: A very large number of German civilians have been interned in this country, no doubt a large number of them being of the well-to-do class. Those who receive remittances get 16s. per week on the average in money
      1238
      similarly situated in Germany 11s. 5d. per week on the average. Each month, therefore, rather more than 200,000 letters go to our prisoners of war.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Are these figures limited to prisoners in Germany, or do they include Bulgaria and other countries?
      Mr. PEASE: These figures include letters sent to other countries where there are British prisoners.
      There is a general complaint made against the Post Office that we have limited the weight of parcels to seven pounds. The reason is that the military authorities have come to the conclusion that they cannot manage any increase of bulk beyond the seven pounds which is at present being sent abroad, and if we were to increase the weight of the parcels we would not have that same efficiency and regularity of service which I think is so creditable to us at the present moment.
      I thing I have now dealt with the general question of parcels sent to the military abroad. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Samuel), the ex-Postmaster-General, on my left. He instituted with Sir Edward Ward and Mrs. Anstruther a very happy arrangement by which books and magazines can be sent voluntarily through the Post Office to the men in our various camps not only abroad but at home, and to the hospitals and prisoners as well, and there has been a most wonderful response on the part of the public to the appeal made by him, Sir Edward Ward, and Mrs. Anstruther. The War Library and the London Chamber of Commerce have also sent to our troops and to the men in the Fleet large numbers of books, and these organisations are working together. The result has been that since the beginning of the War we have sent to men in the Fleet or in khaki 6,500,000 books and magazines. The week before last we sent to France 44,000, and to the Navy 22,000, and to prisoners and elsewhere 16,000, and since the beginning of the War we have sent to the Mediterranean some 600,000 books and magazines. Over 500,000 have gone to hospitals, and the best class of work is generally sent to hospitals where they become a permanent library for those who follow one another in those institutions.
      I should like now to refer to the wonderful way in which the Post Office employés of military age have responded to the call

      1239
      of their country in enlisting. Out of a possible 90,000 of military age, 56,000 are now serving with the Colours; 7,700 have been medically rejected, and 21,700 attested under Lord Derby's scheme, the unattested being only 4,600, and, of course, amongst them must be a great number who have very valid reasons for declining to attest or come forward. Of the 21,700 who attested, 6,000 belong to the Engineering Signalling Section, and are required in connection with the maintenance of telegraphs and telephones at home, the repairs to which have been considerable owing to the storms to which I shall refer in a moment. Therefore we regard that 6,000 as indispensable at the present moment, and we cannot liberate them for service. With regard to the telegraphists required at home or reserved for the Signal Service, there are 3,300 who have attested, and we are now considering with the War Office whether any of those can be spared. There are engaged on munitions 500 who are indispensable, and who are engaged on work which no one can do quite as well, as they have great technical skill in connection with the manufacture of minute apparatus for telegraphs and telephones. There are about 9,000 who may be called up for service at any moment. The balance of about 3,000 are chiefly all the older men who for the moment are being retained in the service but who may be liberated very shortly. The 4,600 unattested men, of whom about 3,750 are married, will come under the Military Service Act. Among those men are a certain number of telegraphists who are no longer required in the service, since, as T have already indicated, telegraphic communication has dropped from 25 per cent, to 28 per cent, during the past six months, and we are able to spare 250 of those telegraphists who did not attest last autumn.
      The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) asked a question to-day, and the hon. Member for Leicester asked a similar question last week, and say, "Are you not giving a preference to the attested men as compared with the unattested men," and at first sight it does seem as if equal treatment was not meted out between those two classes. The fact of the case is this: When the Derby scheme was being considered by my predecessor he communicated with the War Office, and ascertained that a very large number of these telegraphists would be
      1240
      required in the Signal Service, and at that period he felt he was fully justified in making a promise to all those telegraphists who would attest that they would be found positions in the Signal Service in the event of their attesting. The War Office now tell me that it is all they can do to fulfil that pledge, and that they do not and cannot undertake to find in the Signal Service positions for any more than those who have already attested, and who were given that promise last autumn. Therefore, it comes to this: Am I to break faith, or what would be regarded as a breach of faith, with those men who received that promise last autumn and tell them that they will not be given the opportunity of enlisting in Signal Service, and am I to put in their places a certain number of the unattested who were given no promise at all? I told a deputation which came to me that I felt under those circumstances that it was for those who had received that promise to indicate that they did not hold the Post Office to the spirit of the pledge that was given, and that if they took that view it would be very easy for the Post Office to place both the unattested and the attested exactly in the same class. Since I came to the House to-day I received this telegram:
      "Attested telegraphists of Metropolitan districts dissociate themselves from circular letter 27th June issued to you by executive of Postal Teligraph Clerks' Association re calling up of teligraphists, and look to you to see that the postmaster-General's pledge to attested telegraphists, who represent the vast majority, is redeemed in full"
      Mr. THOMAS: Have you endeavoured to ascertain how many people have signed that, or where did it come from?
      Mr. PEASE: I am giving it just as I received it. If those individuals are prepared to say, "We are quite prepared to accept the position, and to place ourselves exactly in the same position as the unattested" then I, for my part, will be only too glad to meet the views of those Post Office officials, but until the War Office can find places for more in the Signal Service it would, of course, be wrong for me to promise positions which the War Office cannot find in that service.
      In connection with the Volunteer Training Corps, I am glad to say that good work has been done by the Post Office employés. Three hundred have already been trained, and have left either for the Royal Engineers, the Flying Service, or for other technical corps. We have now established two companies of signal men,

      1241
      who have been allotted definite work for Home defence by the War Office, and this recognition by the War Office will, I am quite sure, stimulate that body, with the result that we shall receive additional recruits during the next few weeks. With regard to the disabled soldiers, there has been no great demand to find positions for them in Post Office employment. Labour is scarce in the country, and at the present moment people are generously disposed to those individuals who come home and who are no longer wanted in the fighting ranks. We can find, and later on we shall find, no doubt, a large number of places for those who will probably receive pensions, and we shall be able to give increased help to them in the Post Office in connection with work that may be. provided for them, such as on night telephones, cleaning of offices, as liftmen, and labourers in the engineering and stores department. But our first duty will be to our own men. We have promised our staff that their places will be kept open for them when they come back, and we have also promised that, as a permanent arrangement, one-fourth of the places in connection with certain vacancies shall be found as they occur for ex-soldiers and sailors, and those who are discharged with satisfactory certificates. I am anxious to do the very best I can for those men, but the Post Office Service does need men who are of really strong physique and good health. In connection with the orphans of those who lose their lives and who are left behind, the Treasury have enabled us under certain limitations to find situations for boy messengers and girl probationers.
      I have just now paid a tribute to the general public in connection with the way in which they accepted certain reductions in the facilities which we imposed upon them. I would now like to pay a tribute to my own staff for the wonderful way in which those at home have risen to the occasion and shown their patriotism in endeavouring to meet the very difficult situation due to the great depletion of the staff. Twenty-five thousand women have come forward, more out of patriotic motives than from any other, in order to take the places of those who had gone, and 22,000 men who are incapacitated from military service by age or defect of some kind have also come forward to fill vacancies, and I think they fully deserve the commendation which I am able to give
      1242
      them. A fortnight ago I visited a large number of our post offices in France. I was gratified by the reception given to me by the staff who are serving us in France, in an unostentatious way, in a position in which they get little thanks, and who, in spite of irregularities of the cross-channel service and other difficulties, continue to secure a regular service of letters for the troops. I am glad to say, on behalf of the Army, and on behalf of those who do the work abroad, I found no disposition to complain, but a cheeriness which forebodes very good results in the immediate future in connection with the conduct of the War.
      Criticisms directed against the policy of the Post Office are generally on trivial points of detail, such as the failure on a particular occasion of some individual to secure communication with another through the telephone. Those criticisms are not in connection with the main stream of work, which I submit has been in the past efficiently administered by those who are proud to belong to the service. But when the public, as in some cases they appear to do, expect to secure the same rapidity of service, the same dexterity, and the same accuracy as in normal times, they are expecting too much. The telegraphic service has been depleted, and the Government Departments have increased their requirements on the Post Office to a very great extent. It is my duty to try to balance the demands of the Government and those of private customers as best I can. It is also my duty to try to balance the interests of the staff, the interests of the customers, and those of the taxpayers and the quality of the service, so far as is possible. I cannot in these times suggest any heroic reforms to popularise the Post Office, as some of my predecessors may have been able to do with a flowing Treasury. On one hand I am criticised in the Press for a high-handed, arbitrary lack of appreciation of the needs of the nation, for stopping enterprise, and for thinking only of the Post Office staff. On the other hand, I am criticised by some of the trade union journals as being a hard-hearted individual who is not prepared to listen to the fair claims of those in our employ. I hope that, as I receive the two kinds of criticism, I hit more or less the right mean.
      In connection with Zeppelin raids, the work of the women who have come forward voluntarily to do duty at night deserves, I think, very high praise.

      1243
      Hundreds of women have thus come forward. When Zeppelin raids have been anticipated, and sometimes when they have been going on, these women have come out of their homes and even when bombs were dropping gone to their positions in the various exchanges. They have played an important part in an organised scheme of air-raid warnings, and in gallantry and self-sacrifice they have set a good example to the whole country. I might specially mention that in Dublin the women in the exchanges there, while bullets were flying and fires raging, stayed at their work, and it was through communication being kept intact by the telephonic exchange in Dublin that we were able to obtain the military who suppressed the rebellion so rapidly. The work of the telephone is really very monotonous, and I have considerable sympathy with those who give a great deal of attention, application, and devotion to their work. I think they ought to receive rather more sympathy from the public than is usually given. In an out-of-the-way country place the other day the exchange operator, after retiring to bed with a bell by the bedside, as she usually did, was rung up three times in a comparatively short period of the night. On the first occasion, at the conclusion of the conversation, she asked the individual who had rung her up whether he was likely to ring her up again, because, if so, she did not propose to return to bed. He thereupon called her a lazy hound, and reported her for incivility. Such is the lot of many of the telephonists.
      I referred a moment ago to the Dublin rebellion. It has been suggested that there were in the Irish postal service a large number of sympathisers with the Sinn Fein movement. I believe myself that that is wholly unjustified as a general charge Nothing could have been more loyal, taken as a whole, than the way in which the men in the Post Office worked to restore the services in Dublin. The engineers in a few days erected 136 new instruments in the new telegraphic central office, which was a remarkable achievement. I think the highest, praise is due to the sorters, postmen, and telegraphists for their self-sacrifice and the personal risk which they took and which they seemed to feel it an honour to take, with a view to showing their loyalty to the public service. After careful investigation, I have thought it necessary to discharge two or three of the
      1244
      staff. Ten who were arrested have been cleared and reinstated. One was sentenced to penal servitude. Thirty-five, against whom there is some suspicion, have been reported; I am referring all their cases to the Sankey Commission, and awaiting, their Report before taking action. With a staff of 17,000 in Ireland, nearly every one of whom served as loyally as possible, there must, of course, be a few black sheep, but the number is so small that I think the Committee will agree that there is no justification for any general charge of sedition.
      I said that I would refer to the damage done by the storm of 27th to 28th March. The storm extended from the Humber to Pembroke, and from the Wash to the Bristol Channel. It swept away almost all the aerial telegraph lines throughout that area; 2,150 poles were broken, 6,050 were uprooted, 33,300 were blown over. Thus the number of poles that had to be re-erected was 41,500. That, of course, does not include the poles on the railways, which were quite independent of the Post Office. The copper wire which was broken into small fragments represented a length of 17,000 miles. The whole of that wire had to be remelted and remanufactured and weighed 1,500 tons. We have a normal repairing staff of 20,000, of whom 11,000 are already abroad doing work at the front. Most of our best, most highly trained, and most experienced men are at the front. We have 9,000 at home, out of the staff required for the normal work of repairs, and naturally a storm like that of last March, which was the worst the country has ever experienced, has been a great tax upon the staff left at home. They are dealing with the work as rapidly as possible, and I hope that by Christmas the damage may have been made good. Underground communications saved the situation. But underground communications can be made only at great cost. After the War I hope that additional underground communications may be found possible with such places as Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, in order that in the event of any future storm of this character a satisfactory regular service, independent of aerial wires, may be secured.
      Mr. WATT: Are you doing anything for Scotland?
      Mr. PEASE: At present we cannot undertake to do anything underground, either in Scotland or elsewhere, owing to

      1245
      the great cost. I am sorry that we have been unable to meet the demands made upon the telephonic departments by the public for new services. With a view to checking these demands we have felt justified in placing a temporary surcharge on the public. In the last few months my predecessor and I have erected something like 7,000 new telephones for the Army, and during the last year 1,500 new telephonic communications and instruments have been erected for the Munitions Department. Hence there has been a great tax upon the staff and upon the number of instruments at the Post Office.
      Automatic telephones is a subject in which the Assistant Postmaster-General and myself have taken considerable interest. We should like to see automatic telephone replace the manual telephone, so far as that is possible; but again the expense prevents our launching out in the way in which I think development must take place immediately after the War. There are eight automatic exchanges working, and they are giving great satisfaction. The only ground of complaint that can be alleged against them is, I think, that when the public themselves make a mistake they have no telephonist whom they can abuse. There are six exchanges under construction. I cannot give the Committee any figures in regard to the relative cost. The matter is still in the experimental stage, but we are obtaining the data as rapidly as possible. I believe there is a real advance to be made in satisfactory telephonic communication by a large development of the automatic machines. In Liverpool we hope to be able to get on for another year with the present exchange, but a new exchange must be placed in that city before many months are over.
      I think I ought to deal to-day with a matter which was referred to in the Press by the chairman at the Marconi Company's meeting on Friday last. The Committee ought to realise what the position of that contract is. It was sanctioned in August, 1913. There was considerable delay between August, 1913, and the outbreak of the War in carrying out that contract. A dispute with the company as to the right to deal with three of the patents was one of the causes of the delay. The difficulty of settling designs and the construction of the stations on economical lines was another cause. An application of the company somewhat to vary the system the
      1246
      Government thought justified them in. making an inquiry in connection with these alterations. That was another cause of delay. After the War broke out the Admiralty erected for strategic purposes certain stations which partly fulfilled the requirements of the Imperial chain. The Government felt that in any event the commercial service could not be developed under war conditions, and the Admiralty took the view that only three stations. should be then erected and that the others should remain in abeyance. In the autumn of 1914 the company insisted that in view of the delay the terms of the contract should be considerably varied. In consequence of that, on the 30th December, as the result of a Cabinet decision, the Postmaster-General gave notice to the company to cancel the contract, the company, of course, in the event of that being agreed to, being reimbursed, as they have since been reimbursed, for their out-of-pocket expenses. An immediate protest was made by the company against the repudiation of the contract, rather to the surprise of the Postmaster-General of the day, who said that if the company were unwilling to acquiesce the Government were prepared to proceed on the original terms. The position then was that the company declined to go on with the contract, and insisted on its claim for compensation.
      Mr. HOGGE: What was the date of that?
      Mr. PEASE: January, 1915. Subsequently negotiations were reopened in June, 1915, and the company and the Admiralty arrived at a provisional agreement requiring the sanction of Parliament to be given by a given date. In the autumn of 1915 the First Lord of the Admiralty dropped the negotiations, as the Admiralty needs did not, in his opinion, then justify proceeding with the contract. The result of that was that a petition of right was sent to the Home Office in December, 1915, and when I came to the Post Office in January of the present year I found this litigation threatened against the Government. I at once got into communication with the Admiralty, the War Office, the Colonial Office, and the India Office. After consultation with the representatives of those Departments we have come to the conclusion that four stations ought to be proceeded with, and the Government have definitely offered the Marconi Company the following terms: "That the 1913 contract shall be varied, and that the erection;

      1247
      of only four stations at the present time shall be one of the variations; compensation shall be paid for net loss, if any, which the company may prove they have sustained owing to delay in the work, so far as it may have been caused by any act or omission on the part of the Postmaster-General, or any other variation of the 1913 contract, and the compensation shall be settled by an impartial body of arbitrators with judicial experience, or, failing agreement, by a Court of Law. In the event of it being accepted by the Marconi Company, the agreement will be submitted to Parliament for ratification." There seems, however, to be no prospect whatever of any agreement being arrived at in regard to the two points to which I have just referred, and some kind of reference I seems to the Government to be the right course to adopt with a view to securing an amicable and satisfactory agreement. It is to this offer that we are now awaiting a reply, and that is the position at the present moment.
      Sir H. NORMAN: What system would be used?
      Mr. PEASE: It would be the system of the Marconi Company, based upon the contract of 1913, with certain variations of a somewhat technical nature with which I do not propose to trouble the House on the present occasion.
      My right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General organised a scheme, which has found great favour with the public, in connection with insurance against Zeppelin raids. It may be of interest to the public to know that up to 21st June policies, varying from £25 to £75, to the number of 163,000 have been taken out for the insurance of property to the amount of £10,360,000, whilst the premiums paid under this insurance scheme amount to £10,360.
      Mr. WING: How much has been paid out?
      Mr. PEASE: I should be very glad to discover that if my hon. Friend will put a question down. There are two other figures perhaps which may interest the House. The value of the stamps sold through the Post Office in connection with Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance amounted to £17,216,000. The sale of postage stamps through the post offices, which, of course, includes receipt
      1248
      stamps, stamps in connection with postal orders, war savings cards, and telegrams has reached the very large sum of £28,250,000.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Docs that show an increase on last year in consequence of the altered postal charges?
      Mr. PEASE: It is impossible to say, because stamps, as the hon. Member realises, are used for so many different purposes, and we cannot earmark the object for which any particular stamp may be purchased over the counter. But if in connection with the increased charge the hon. Member desires figures on the subject, I have already undeavoured to give the exact amount of revenue which has been derived from each of the additional rates which were imposed last year.
      To come to Sunday deliveries. Last winter there was an expectation in many quarters that Sunday deliveries would be abolished. The Retrenchment Committee drew special attention to the matter. On the assumption that no compensation should be paid to persons employed in the Post Office, savings, it was thought, might be effected to the extent of £250,000. There was one other advantage in addition to the saving, and that was that there would have been one rest day in seven for all Post Office employés. Those, then, were the two arguments in favour of the proposal, which, if it had been carried out, would not have resulted in any saving of staff or the release of any men for military service. But it would have involved a very serious loss of wages and reduction of pensionable emoluments for the staff which were already very adversely affected by the increase in the cost of living. Whilst there may be a strong case in certain instances for discontinuance of Sunday services, these cannot be dealt with on their merits. When it came to be realised that the saving would be almost entirely at the expense of the staff, that there would also be considerable public inconvenience in many places, and that the staff were called upon to pay very much higher prices for the cost of living than they were at the beginning of the War, it seemed to me that to take away the extra pay on the most popular day's service in the week from the staff would be a drastic measure. After consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I came to the conclusion that, whilst the staff had no inherent right to

      1249
      Sunday pay, yet, under these circumstances, to enforce it upon the staff would not be justified.
      I desire to inform the House what has been the result of the efforts of the people to help the Government in connection with war investments through the medium of the Post Office. In connection with the Four-and-a-Half per Cent. War Loan, which was opened in the middle of June to the end of July, 1915, in which subscriptions were received of sums between £5 to £200, inscribed on the Post Office register as being in the Savings Bank, nearly £31,000,000 were invested by what we regard as the Savings Bank public. Up to the end of November the public subscribed a further sum of over £5,000,000. Then in the Five per Cent. Exchequer Bonds the net sales between 10th January and 31st May were £22,000,000. There is the War Savings certificate, £l for 15s. 6d. In connection with that offer it ought, perhaps, to be emphasised that everybody who applies for these £l certificates can surrender them at any time and get their money back. Aftew twelve months they get 3d. interest, and after that Id. per month. By 30th June there had been subscribed £5,600,000. These all make a total of £64,000,000 of war investments.
      Mr. WATT: If a person wishes to surrender the certificate has he to go to the Post Office; has the surrender to be made there?
      Mr. PEASE: Yes. A certain notice has to be given, and then the money is handed back. There is a small adverse effect on the Savings Bank by the investments, but not very much. The Savings Bank only gives 2½ per cent. interest, but it has certain advantages of its own. In connection with the first Four-and-a-Half per Cent. War Loan, £18,000,000 were withdrawn from Post Office savings, and therefore the Government did not gain anything by the transfer of the £18,000,000 from a 2½ per cent, investment to a 4½ per cent, investment. But I am glad to say that between then and now there has been a steady increase in the investment of the Post Office Savings Bank, and at the end of May our balance stood at £187,500,000.
      Mr. W. CROOKS: Against what?
      Mr. PEASE: That is within £1,000,000 of the figure immediately prior to the War. The deposits over withdrawals for the last three months reached £2,000,000, so that the public still appreciate the benefits of
      1250
      the Savings Bank, where there is no depreciation of capital, and provision is made for withdrawals without any risk.
      Some criticism has been made in regard to red tape and delay in connection with some of these war investments, and the difficulties which the public have encountered in some post offices. When, however, it is remembered that there were 1,300,000 subscribers for their Four-and-a-Half per Cent. War Loan, some of them more or less illiterate, and that we have a depleted staff, and a great number of untrained and temporary hands, I think it will probably be admitted that the work has been satisfactorily done throughout the 15,000 offices. Many of the temporary hands are quite unaccustomed to financial transactions and dividends have to be paid regularly, promptly, and with accuracy. I think, therefore, on the whole, very great credit is due to the officers responsible for the way the work has been accomplished. When aspersions are made upon the working classes that they are not thrifty, whilst, on the one hand, we all deplore the waste we see going on during the present War, at any rate it is a satisfaction to me, and doubtless to other Members of the House, to realise that there is in the Post Office Savings Bank, on an average, an account for every household in the country. That is to say, that one in five of the population has a Post Office bank account, and the amount which the depositors have contributed in War Loans amounts, on the average, to rather over £25.
      5.0 P.M.
      There has been during the past year a steady development of the means of communication. There have been many new inventions which have accelerated and improved the transmis- of messages. New engineering appliances have helped us, and there have been various instruments which have expedited and improved the conveyance of mails. There has been on the whole a vast improvement both in regard to the rapidity and the accuracy of communication. Wireless telegraphy has made equal strides, if not greater strides than those of other means of communication, but this, during a time of war, is not the moment at which I can dwell on the improvements which have been made, or what we can do or cannot do now. It has always appeared to me that each development of communication is one of those milestones on the road of civilisation which marks the real progress

      1251
      of the world. The deplorable world conflagration is regarded by many as retrogressive and discreditable to our civilisation. Be that as it may, we here take credit to ourselves that, so far as the progress of civilisation can be gauged by development both in rapidity and accuracy of communication, this country is not behind any other country in the world.
      Mr. MALCOLM: I wish it had fallen to somebody more conversant with the technicalities of Post Office administration to rise and congratulate my right hon. Friend on the most instructive and most interesting statement which he has made to the Committee. I suppose there is probably no one here who can carry ill his head all the figures with which the Postmaster-General has favoured us, but I think we are probably all left with a general impression that postal traffic of a character quite unknown to this House or to this country has been dealt with by his staff all through the country in a manner which is deserving of the praise which he so generously gives, and I believe that praise will be echoed by all. I do not know what criticism may be raised upon his statement, and I do not know on what points a reduction will be moved, but I do not propose to deal with anything that demands a reduction. The only criticism I have to make is one small one and a rather long one. The first is in relation to the delays in getting messages to Mesopotamia. It is not a question of weeks, but of months. I do not suppose we shall get very much satisfaction about it, and we shall probably not know what the delay is caused by, but the delay is very serious. I have a very large number of letters from Mesopotamia and Bombay all complaining of the great irregularity.
      I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the position of the manufacturers and inventors of what is known as the high speed telegraphy in this country. Before the outbreak of the War we had a Debate here on the 10th of June, 1914, which was initiated on the Motion of my hon. Friend who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, and then we learnt that a Committee had been appointed to report to the Postmaster-General upon this whole question of high speed telegraphic communication. Now foreign postal administrations have awaited that Report for a long time with anxiety, in order that
      1252
      they could make their arrangements for their contracts. The British manufacturer also has awaited with anxiety the conference and the Report, because he might have to make his arrangements for an increase of capital or plant. I understand that this Report is in being now, but that it is marked "Confidential." I do not know whether foreign or colonial postal administrations have seen the Report, but I know that the British manufacturers have not. So confidential is it supposed to be that the members of the three leading firms, to whom I will refer by name in a moment, went to the Post Office and asked if they might see it at the Post Office, but they were not allowed to see it there; still less, were they allowed to have a copy of it. But it so happens that, as is often the case with confidential documents, a rumour of what happened has got about, and it is the widespread belief of the British manufacturer that it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to issue a large order for this high speed apparatus and to place it with the Western Electric Company, of Chicago. I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but perhaps the Postmaster-General or his Assistant when he replies will be able to tell us whether that is true or untrue.
      I should like to offer a small argument to show how unfair such a decision would operate on British manufacturers. In the first place, it has to be noted that the three leading firms of manufacturers of this high-speed apparatus. Mr. Donald Murray, Messrs. Creed, Bille and Company, and Mr. H. H. Harrison, are now all employed in the patriotic work of munition making, in the most delicate branches. Therefore, their manufacture of high-speed apparatus is entirely suspended, arid to that extent these gentlemen, the pioneers of high-speed apparatus in this country, have been penalised for their patriotism, for what was the answer they got? They went to the Post Office, and a gentleman who is a high official there, Colonel Ogilvie, said to Mr. Murray, "We should be very glad to have your apparatus, but you cannot deliver it, as you are full up now making muntions of war, and so we have to order a similar instrument from the United States." Now I submit this is a very serious blow to British manufacturers. It is a British industry of great importance already, and one which promises to be of even greater importance in the future. What will be the net result to this

      1253
      country of this issue, as we believe, of an order from £12,000 to £15,000 of Western Electric appartus from Chicago? First of all, it will increase, though not, I admit, to a very large extent, our adverse balance of trade with America. In the second place, it will sterotype an American and not a British instrument as the high-speed plant in this country for years to come. It takes a very long time for the Government, or, indeed, for an individual, to alter instruments to which they become accustomed. It will be a serious thing for our country if, for many years to come, an American plant, instead of a British one, is started in this country. In the third place, it will proclaim to all foreign postal administrations—and I include therein Colonial administrations—that the British Post Office prefers the Western Electric to the British apparatus, and so it will kill the latter industry in our own country, both as regards external and internal trade, and simply because of no fault of the British instrument itself, but because our Government has filled the hands of these firms with munition work for the War.
      I think that this case has only to be stated for it to fall by the weight of its own injustice to British manufacturers and British inventors, and I want the Committee to observe that the hardship, of course, does not cease with this first order of £12,000 or £15,000, whichever it may be. As time goes on these orders must increase, and a great industry will be provided either for Great Britain or for America. I would like to ask the Postmaster-General if it is not the policy of the Government now to store up all the work they can for after the War for British firms? They must see clearly that when these vast orders for munitions are no more given, and when the munition shops have, perhaps almost at a moment's notice, to shut up, there will be a crisis in industry in this country. There may be a collapse of labour employment, and perhaps a very long interim before firms can collect orders to continue the original work for which their factories were constructed. Among such industries that will suffer will be certainly this of the high-speed telegraphic apparatus, and I think before the Government sends its orders abroad for these appliances it must be able to show a strong primâ facie case for urgency of construction at the present time. I submit, with great respect to those who are experts in the matter, that it will be very
      1254
      difficult to show such a primâ facie case for urgency at a time of ninepenny telegrams, and when the increased use of the telephone has automatically reduced the pressure of telegraphic traffic to a considerable extent.
      Therefore, I wish to make to the Postmaster-General and the Committee this twofold suggestion on a subject which, though in itself it involves a comparatively small sum of money, yet embraces a big principle so far as British manufacturers are concerned. First of all, I suggest that, unless a strong case for urgency is made out, this order should not be given during the War, but should be held over until after the War; and, secondly, if the case is urgent, then the temporary contract for munitions, amounting to this £12,000 or £15,000, now being executed by the three British firms which I have named, should be given to the Americans, and let them make the munitions, while the permanent contract for the high-speed apparatus should be given to the three firms in Great Britain which are now making munitions, so that this, which will increase in importance as time goes on, shall always be in the hands of British manufacturers. I think that is certainly what the French would do, and I should not be surprised if the Germans also. They would not at a time like this let a contract for such an important invention go abroad if it is possible to avoid it. I hope, therefore, the Postmaster-General may find it in the public interest to make known the findings of the Committee which was appointed two years ago to report on this matter.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move, "That Item Al (Headquarters Establishments) be reduced by £100."
      I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) on the important subject which he has raised. He has put his case with a moderation and force, which I am sure the whole Committee will appreciate. I want rather to deal with a special point to which allusion was made by the Postmaster-General in the course of his very interesting speech, and I am sure he will understand that if one has to criticise the action of his Department on one important particular one does not wish to give the impression that all of us do not feel the enormously important work the Department is doing under great strain and great difficulty. We appreciate his own zeal and ability in controlling that

      1255
      work, and the patriotic zeal and devotion of the whole Postal Service, which must be under a very great strain in this time of great national need. The Postmaster-General read to the House a telegram which I am sure he would not wish in any way should mislead the Committee in dealing with the situation of the attested and unattested telegraphists. The Committee saw from what the Postmaster-General said that he appreciated the fact that that situation was not an easy one, and that on the face of the matter there seemed very reasonable grounds for saying there ought to be equal treatment between attested and unattested men in this branch of the service. It is that equal treatment I desire to urge upon the Committee. I have no other plea to make, and if the Postmaster-General is able to give an assurance that he will reconsider the matter with a view to securing equal treatment, that is all I desire. The question is a very important one, and the way in which it has been dealt with by what we understand to be the decision of the Post Office will leave a very serious sense of injustice. The telegram which was read to the Committee was an anonymous one, and the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us who sent it. Consequently the Committee does not know from whom it comes. It would give the impression that it was sent by the attested telegraphists in the Metropolitan district, and it claims to come on their behalf. I have consulted the chairman of the Metropolitan District Branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, and he informs me that his association knows nothing whatever of the telegram, that it has been sent without his knowledge or approval, and the same applies to the secretary of the association, who says that his branch has not even met during the whole of the last fortnight. So that this anonymous telegram was sent out in a way which might very well mislead both the Postmaster-General and the Committee, if, indeed, it has not already done so. I hope that the subject will not in any way be prejudiced toy a communication coming in this way before this Committee.
      The Postmaster-General stated that during the course of the War the change in the condition of telegraph service, improvements and alterations had made it possible for him to dispense with a considerable number of the staff, and yet it would be a strange thing if the
      1256
      number chosen should almost exactly correspond with the number of unattested men. This is a coincidence which is very striking, and to the outsider it will certainly give the impression that there was some unfair pressure being used on these men, although it is no doubt the case that the pressure on the telegraph service is not so great as it was at the commencement of the War, and yet the pressure is sufficiently great to warrant the employment of boys doing men's work. I had myself occasion some little time ago to ask a question on the employment of boys at a wage of 12s. a week doing what has hitherto been considered a man's work, and being compelled to pay almost the whole of that sum for their meals in the course of the week. That is a point which I am sure is engaging the careful consideration of the Postmaster-General, although he has not been able to give me a reply on that particular question, and I think that shows that the condition is one which he himself feels could not be justified. It can only be justified as a temporary measure on account of the pressure which is being felt at all points of the postal service. It is on account of that that the Postmaster-General should hesitate to dispense with a large number of older men who are tried and experienced in their work, who are specially skilled for this very work and who are not skilled or specially adapted for other work. Many of them are, in addition, men with large family responsibilities, and some of them with very important trade union responsibilities. If it is necessary to dispense with men, surely the proper course to take is to dispense with attested and unattested alike, taking into account the question of efficiency and age and not going into any other reason or distinction. Surely it is singular if the very men who have volunteered to undertake military duties should not be allowed to do it while older men who, for various reasons, felt themselves unable to attest, should be compelled to leave their situation, even though in some cases they will never consent to undertake military duty. The particular circumstances of the decision of the Postmaster-General unfortunately makes the hardship even greater than it would be in itself. There was an unaccountable delay in the communication of the decision to the men themselves; many of them received the notice on the very last hour of the last day on which it was possible for them legally to make their claim. I have here a letter

      1257
      dealing with a case at Hull where a man received on the very last day it was possible for him to make a claim notice from the Post Office authorities that his services were no longer required. He received notice at five o'clock on that day, and six o'clock on the same day was the last hour ho was legally allowed to make any claim.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: The tribunal can deal with that.
      Mr. HARVEY: I am aware of that, but I should have thought that the Post Office authorities would not have allowed such a long interval to have elapsed before giving notice, although I feel sure that this occurred without the knowledge of the Postmaster-General; nevertheless it is a very serious case of hardship for the men concerned. One of them received a notice even after the last hour at which he was entitled to make a claim. Fortunately this man had some anticipation of what was going to happen, otherwise he would have been placed in a position of very great difficulty indeed. The Postmaster-General has put before the Committee an explanation of the position with regard to the pledge which was given by his predecessor. I am sure the Committee will be very unwilling to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should break or go back upon a pledge. I do not want that for a moment, but what I want to put to him is that surely this pledge was made not merely on his own behalf, but on behalf of the War Office. The Postmaster-General alone could not give a pledge that every man who attested should be allowed to go into the Signalling Service of the Royal Engineers, therefore the War Office is just as much pledged in this matter as the Post Office.
      The line that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take, quite involuntarily on his part, would mean that the suffering would fall upon men who are in no way responsible for it. It ought to be possible for the War Office authorities who consented to this pledge and were a party to it to find some way by which, if they are not able to place these particular men in the Signalling Section, they might place them in some other section of the Engineers, or some corresponding grade in the Army that will satisfy the legitimate requirements of these attested men. In the manifold division of service in the Army it should be possible to find for these attested men some corresponding position which they could fill with full advantage to the
      1258
      country and without having to suffer undue hardship themselves. If that is not possible, I would still urge upon the Postmaster-General that he should not make this fact a reason for doing an act of very serious injustice to a large number of men. Many of the 250 men who were affected are between thirty and forty years of age with family responsibilities, and some of them are cases in which peculiar domestic hardship would arise if they were to lose their work. I had one case brought before me to-day of a man who not only had his family to support but also a relative who is afflicted by a fatal illness, and there would be a very particular hardship in this case if the decision of the Postmaster-General were to be carried out. These men would be placed in a very peculiar position, if they have to go before the tribunal, and are not able to take any certificates from their department as to the importance of their work, for the tribunal would naturally expect some statement from a man's employer as to the importance, of his work and the way in which his services are required. These men will be prevented from making any claim of that nature effectively, and 5'et it is obvious if they are not able, on account of their conscientious convictions, to undertake military service, there is no way in which they can serve the community better than by the work in which they have acquired skill, in many cases, for a long number of years past.
      It would be a great hardship to take a man who has worked fifteen or twenty years in the postal service away and put him to do unskilled labour on the land or in some other similar capacity. That would be an economic waste and in no way would it be an advantage to the country. I think if the Postmaster-General considers the question from that point of view he would see that not only is his decision an injustice to the individual but it is also a loss to the nation as a whole. We have also to remember that there would be grave suspicion, aroused in the minds of a certain number of postal servants if amongst these men who suffered are men who have done Stirling work as trade union officials, and therefore, to some extent, have been compelled to make themselves unpopular with their official superiors. I do not think for a moment that the Postmaster-General would use an opportunity like this to victimise any trade unionist, neither do I think that that is the intention of the superior officials of the Post Office; but, nevertheless, this action would lend itself

      1259
      to very grave misconstruction and misunderstanding, and from all these points of view I plead most earnestly that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the decision he has arrived at. In the interests of the postal service as a whole, in the interests of justice to those individuals, I hope he will reapproach the War Office and endeavour to see that there should be some other way by which the pledge should be carried out which was given to the attested men; and that whatever decision is taken as to the number of men whoso services are to be dispensed with, attested and unattested men should be dealt with alike, on an equal basis, and in that way justice will be secured.
      Commander BELLAIRS: I rise merely for the purpose of asking the Postmaster-General a question with reference to an interview which appeared in the "Sunday Times" yesterday with Lord Leith of Fyvie. I drew the attention of the Postmaster-General to the matter earlier this afternoon, and I am sorry that I could not give him longer notice. It is not one of those questions of trivial detail, but concerns a charge made against an important official working under the Post Office. I cannot make myself responsible for the statements made, because I know nothing about the facts, but if the statements are untrue they ought to be contradicted at the earliest opportunity. Lord Leith of Fyvie says in the interview:
      "I know of several cases in which Genitalis—men of influence and position—are in Government employment here. There is one extraordinary case in the cable department. Many officers have tried to get this gentleman removed. He has been removed once and put back again, and lie is in the position of receiving and decoding all the most important naval cables. This man and his associates have openly gloried in the defeat of our fleets and our forces."
      Then he goes on to say:
      "This man was there a week ago. And there are others, he went on, whom he has influenced, One is a Dutchman, who has been in Germany most of his life. Another associate of his is employed at the War Office. I have thought from day to day that these matters would lie corrected, but my man in the cable department is still decoding all important cables."
      I have said that I cannot make myself responsible for these statements, because I know nothing about the facts, but I do say that if untrue they ought to be contradicted and dealt with. They are made by a Member of the other House, a Scotsman belonging to a nation whose reputation is one for prudence and cautiousness, and therefore, I think, I am justified in quoting them the day after the
      1260
      interview was published in order that the Postmaster-General may deal with the matter.
      Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the j House generally will sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who I gather has simply availed himself of this opportunity of confirming or repudiating what, if true, would be a very serious state of affairs. I think he will agree, however, that if they were to take notice of all the gossip and slander and misrepresentation which goes on, the Government would have nothing else to do.
      Commander BELLAIRS: These statements are made by a responsible Member of the other House.
      Mr. THOMAS: On the other hand, the signature to the letter does, I think, warrant action being taken. I join in the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the very bold and comprehensive statement that he has made. One of the most satisfactory aspects of that state-men was his reference to the savings of the working classes. It is, I think, something of which we ought to be proud, seeing there have been so many charges of; drunkenness and other things made against the workers, to find the Postmaster-General, from his place on the Treasury Bench, clearly indicating, although there are large numbers of people who are suffering from the increased cost of living, that the workers, where they are earning good money, are availing themselves of the facilities offered by the Post Office to provide for a rainy day. The House generally will be pleased to I note that statement. I also appreciate his reference to the fact that the Post Office is to be opened, as indeed it ought to be, to every one serving at the front, I and that a definite promise has been given that every man who has volunteered for service will be assured of his job when he returns. That is satisfactory up to a point, but I want to urge upon the Postmaster-General a definite policy in that connection. We can quite conceive that there will be large numbers of postal servants returning partially disabled. The disablement will not be such as to prevent them not being re-employed, but it may be that they will be unable to do the work they were doing prior to enlistment. Naturally, they will be in receipt of some small pension, though certainly not a pension which would enable them to live without work of any kind. I do hope-

      1261
      that the Postmaster-General will entirely disregard the pension that they receive. They will receive that pension for services already rendered, and if they are capable of doing any job they should receive the rate of pay for that job regardless of their pension. It is most important that principle should be adopted.
      I rose primarily to deal with the case of the unattested telegraphists. I understand the difficulty is due entirely to a promise that the late Postmaster-General made, and, like my hon. Friend, I am certainly not desirous that any promise should be broken. On the other hand, I desire to remind the Postmaster-General that when the Compulsory Service Bill was introduced, a definite promise was given by the Cabinet to the whole of the trade unionists of the country that the Bill would be administered fairly, honestly, and regardless of any picking and choosing. The acceptance by the trade unions of that definite promise is to-day responsible for the smooth working of the Act. If the Postmaster-General does not accept the principle which we now urge upon him he will be breaking the promise that was then made. What are the facts? There are 250 unattested telegraphists, and, as has already been pointed out, it is a very curious fact that is the exact number which it is alleged can be released. It is not the business of the Postmaster-General, or any Government official, or any employer of labour to interfere with a man whether he is attested or unattested. That is entirely a question for the man himself, and it is not for any Government Department to pick and choose between one and the other. The Government by attempting to differentiate are creating trouble for themselves. The House generally deplores the difficulty which arises in connection with the conscientious objector, and Members in all quarters would welcome a solution if that could be found. In this case the Government are going deliberately to pick out 250 men who are known to be conscientious objectors, in preference to men who have themselves attested and are willing to go. The Government are not only seeking trouble, but they are deliberately ignoring a solution of this very difficult problem. Looking at it from the military standpoint, it is impossible to suggest that married men of forty are better than single men of twenty-five. If this policy is pursued it
      1262
      means that probably there will be at least 200 married men taken and an equal number of single men left.
      The Postmaster-General can redeem the pledge that he made by saying that, so-far as these men to whom promises were given are concerned the promise shall be carried out, but that with regard to the remainder of the men the method employed will be based entirely upon the ground of sincerity, not interfering in the least whether they are attested or unattested. If that right were conceded you would be entitled to say that you could choose between a trade unionist and a non-trade unionist. That, after all, is a question of a man's opinions, and if employers, whether the Government or others, are allowed to interfere with a man's opinions it would be just as logical to say that they might interfere on the question of trade unionism. That would create a very dangerous situation, and I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has now an opportunity of dealing with the matter. Do not let the Government create a suspicion that victimisation is going to take place. Do not let them engender a feeling that they are going to pick and choose between prominent trade unionists and others, because included in this number are practically the whole of the officials—the executive—of the union. If the Postmaster-General does pick and choose in this way, an opinion will be created that it is done because of their trade union activity. I do not believe it is the intention of the-Postmaster-General or anyone else to deal with the matter in a punitive spirit. I believe it is due entirely to the difficulties which he himself has explained, and which I frankly admit, but I do beg of him to realise that there is a solution. I emphasise it because at this moment negotiations are taking place with a very large industry. We are in a difficulty in the railway world on this same principle. I do not want to say too much about it at this moment, but if the Government do not themselves set an example we shall have a difficulty with other branches of industry. It is because I want to remove those difficulties and because I want the Act to work smoothly that I ask him to reconsider the decision he has already given.
      Mr. CATHCART WASON: My predecessor does not seem to have any particular desire to reduce the salary of my right hon. Friend, nor, indeed, do I, for I

      1263
      understand that he really has no responsibility for the injustice from which we are suffering. I trust that the facts I put before him will at any rate enable him to bring moral pressure to bear upon the company whose dictatorial attitude is acting most prejudicially towards the country from which they make so much. I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that there are important questions in regard to which his distinguished predecessor, Lord Buxton, for the first time tackled this company and compelled them to carry out fair and reasonable alterations in the mail service for which we were asking. I think, if my right hon. Friend understands exactly what has happened, he will prove very sympathetic in the matter. The trouble is this, that the company which runs the ferry service to Orkney and Shetland has suddenly issued a notice to the effect that "the mail service no longer runs as usual." That is a very high-handed action on the part of the company. I am informed the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for being unable to bring the company to book, and I can only express a fervent hope that he will use some "efforts to do something in the matter. The facts are these: For many years this mail steamer has been utterly inadequate to carry out the necessary service, and time after time we have been assured that it was only at the gravest personal risk that the service was carried on. The company used to get something over £2,000 for the service. Since the War commenced there has been only about half the work to do, as the steamer does not call at as many places as it formerly did. The consumption of coal is considerably lessened, because the trip only takes from two and a quarter to two and a half hours, instead of four or five hours as in former times.
      In these circumstances I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the action of the company, in issuing this notice, was very high-handed and dictatorial. The local authority received no intimation of what was about to occur, the convener of the county, a man who has been doing admirable work for the county since the War commenced, received no notice whatever. I do not complain that the company gave me no notice. Of course, in these days, the Member of Parliament does not expect much respect from anybody. But, naturally, the whole community is up in aims regarding the matter. I put a ques-
      1264
      tion to my right hon. Friend to-day as to whether he would try and have the service resumed at once, and he told me 'he would consider the matter. Seeing that personal guarantees have been given I think he might bring some pressure to bear on the company to carry on the steamship service until we have had time to look round. There would be nothing further from the wishes or desire of any of my Constituents that they should not bear their fair share of the inconveniences of the times, inconveniences which everybody must necessarily be put to, but I humbly submit that on this occasion they are being asked to make far too large a sacrifice. If more money is wanted, let it be given. I am entirely in sympathy with that idea. I have stated my complaint frankly and freely, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some satisfaction.
      I pass next to the question of Sunday services. For something like fifteen or sixteen years I have been raising this question in this House. I have always felt it an absolute outrage that in a country like Scotland, with very limited areas, and a limited public, these Sunday services should be carried on. The right hon. Gentleman has stated to-day reasons why the services should be carried on, and has pointed to the expense which would be incurred in abolishing them, an expense which he suggests would not justify his taking that step. But if a little extra Grant in the way of pay would result in a great saving to the whole community, and at the same time do away with an injustice which is felt bitterly in Scotland, surely it is well worth consideration. A number of sub-offices are kept open at various hours on the Sabbath day. The question, to my mind, is a very painful one. I would like to give one instance: A mail cart starts from Ayr Burghs every Sunday morning and travels a distance of 35 miles, passing through numerous villages, at each of which a, sub-postmaster has to be on duty awaiting its arrival. It does a return journey of 35 miles, and again the sub-postmasters have to meet it. In all it covers a distance of 70 miles each Sunday. It is a horse cart, and the service is done exceedingly well, although it might perhaps be better done with a Ford car. At any rate it costs a very large amount of money, and I am sure that in a case of that sort, where a considerable saving might be effected, deserves the consideration of the Postmaster-General. If he could abolish the service without in

      1265
      any degree prejudicing those to whom he has expressed a very proper desire to do justice, I am sure it would give satisfaction.
      There is one other subject to which I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. He knows a great deal better than I do that a large number of postal deliveries in rural districts are carried on by women and girls, and I hope the number will increase, so as to release men who can be otherwise employed with greater advantage to the country; but the right hon. Gentleman might well consider the question of the wages paid to these women and young girls. He might also seriously consider the weights they are called upon to carry, and whether it is not possible to reduce them. It seems an outrage that the Post Office should lend itself, indirectly and unwittingly, to the breaking up of the business of the village shopkeepers, by carrying large parcels of comestibles sent from great stores at comparatively low rates, and competing very unfairly with the village shopkeeper. I think if wages were improved and weights decreased it would give rise to a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the best he could for everyone, and certainly the women and young girls would stand a better chance of carrying on the work of the Post Office satisfactorily. I sincerely trust my right hon. Friend will do everything he can with the means and in the time at his disposal to secure an improvement in the mail service to the Orkneys and Shetlands as soon as possible.
      Mr. JACOBSEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will be doing a very great injustice if he is going to assume that the married men who did not attest were unpatriotic. He should remember that the Government at that time had not introduced their scheme, and a very large number of married men felt that they were not justified in undertaking the responsibility of attesting. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat all of these men equally, for that is all that he is asked to do. I wish to call attention to the sale of stationery by the Post Office. Here we have a good example of how one Government Department nullifies the desires of another Government Department. The Board of Trade has issued instructions that in order to release as much tonnage as possible the import of paper-making material shall be severely curtailed, and we are asked to use all kinds of economies.
      1266
      The trade have accepted that view, and we have educated the people of the country in the use of very thin envelopes, so that the material available may go as far as possible. But the Post Office continues to make envelopes two or three times as heavy as is necessary, and, worse than that, it is selling them to the public very much under cost price to-day, thereby inflicting a very great injustice on small shopkeepers who largely depend on the sale of stationery.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: I am sorry I was not here to listen to the speech of the Postmaster-General. I do not know whether he referred at all to the curtailment of the public service which has been rendered necessary by the depletion of the staff at his disposal. I do not know also whether he referred to the possibility of further curtailment. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration very carefully indeed the needs of industrial communities, when he is making these curtailments. I am quite aware that the only way in which these economies can be effected, and the hours during which the servants of the Post Office work reduced, is by shortening the hours during which Post Offices are open, but I have been informed from Bury that inconvenience is being caused to the working classes by the closing of the offices between noon and 1.30 p.m. and again at 7 p.m. for the rest of the day. Many people are now working much longer hours than formerly, and they are subjected to great inconvenience by being unable to get postal orders cashed, and to transact other business at the Post Office which they desire to carry through. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether on, at any rate, one day a week this convenience cannot be secured at district offices in outlying districts. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to fall in with the proposal, but on the days when the town half-holiday is taken recompense might be provided for the sub-postmasters and mistresses in these outlying districts, by enabling them to take a half-holiday simultaneously with the town half-holiday.
      6.0 P.M.
      There is less objection to diminishing the Sunday services, and in that matter I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, but I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman should have advertised the Ford car, or why he should

      1267
      have advised the Postmaster-General to use it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needs any encouraging in adopting new methods for the transmission of mails. As far as my observation goes, he has not been unenterprising in that respect, and he has certainly secured an improvement in the large number of postal services in the manufacturing and industrial districts. There is one point which I shall look at with special interest in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and that is where he refers to the savings of the working classes. There is a section of the working classes which is doing its duty admirably in this matter, and I believe the Post Office affords them a convenient method for storing up their savings and yet keeping them reasonably handy. In the Post Office they are readily accessible, and yet they are safe from those casual emergencies which, in the working-class households, have a great tendency to eat up the savings if they are immediately available. One point upon which I should like to have some information, which possibly may not be available at the present moment, is with regard to what has been the effect of the abolition of the limit as to the amount which can be put into the Post Office Savings Bank. I believe that the limit used to be £50 in any one year and a total of £200. That always seemed to be an arbitrary limit. I do not know under what conditions it was imposed, but if after the War the question should arise of considering whether the limit should be reimposed the whole question ought to be gone into and we ought to consider it in a broad manner, looking particularly to the public interest as to whether there is any necessity for the imposition of this limit. The main question upon this is the amount of interest that is paid. If the conveniences supplied by the Post Office are such as to commend themselves to persons with money to invest, I do not see why a limit should be imposed. At all events, it is time the question should be reargued and reconsidered. During the emergency of the War, when money has been wanted, the Post Office has performed a public service in advertising and receiving War savings and supplying War Saving Certificates and Exchequer Bonds. Those are also very useful services. I believe they have removed from the mind of the public the idea of commissions, and so on, being received by outside
      1268
      parties. Persons who make use of the Post Office have the idea that the Government gets the whole of their money and the whole of the benefit which they desire to afford to the Government by entrusting them with their savings. I am quite sure that the Committee will look on all such enterprises on the part of the Postmaster-General with a fayourable eye.
      Mr. WATT: I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General upon the great success of his Department during this year of crisis, and also upon the lucid manner in which he explained the intricacies of his Department. Reference was made to the charge recently instituted for local calls on the telephone. The Post master-General indicated that it was a failure, that it had brought in less money and that it had been troublesome, but he did not indicate whether it was to be abandoned at once or whether the system now in vogue was to continue until the end of the War. If it has proved a failure as regards money it would be wise instanter, without waiting for the termination of the War, to go back on the former charge. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the Marconi contract. On reading the statement made by the chairman of the company during last week, I thought that the Post Office did not come out at all satisfactorily. I know, of course, that my right hon. Friend the present Postmaster-General was not responsible for that contract. Indeed, there have been so many changes in the Post Office during the last eighteen months that it would be difficult to spot who was responsible for any particular transaction. The position indicated by the chairman of the company was that the contract had been fixed, that the Post Office called off the contract and asked the Marconi Company to cancel it; that after considerable dubiety the company agreed to cancel it, but that that was no sooner intimated to the Post Office than the Post Office asked them to reinstitute the contract and that it should become a binding contract. If these are the facts it is a most unbusinesslike transaction for the Post Office to go about first asking that the contract should be cancelled and no sooner attaining their object with difficulty than—
      Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member makes a mistake. I am afraid I could not have made it quite clear. What happened was that the Post Office thought that the Marconi Company desired, with them-

      1269
      selves, to have that contract so modified that they would acquiesce in the cancelling of the contract. On 30th December, 1914, notice was given cancelling it, but that was not accepted by the Marconi Company. When the Postmaster-General found that the Marconi Company was not prepared to accept it, he then asked them to go on with the contract, and it was left with the Marconi Company to say whether or not they would be prepared to go on with it.
      Mr. WATT: I am very glad to have that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman because I was desirous that a contradiction should be given to the statements made by the chairman of the Marconi Company. Many people, like myself, on reading that statement, took the view that the Postmaster-General had been very slack in the handling of the matter. Another question with which I desire to deal is that of underground lines, which has been a grievance for many years in Scotland. The Postmaster-General intimated that he seeks to make arrangements for large contracts in regard to underground lines in many large towns in England, but he made no reference to Scotland. There is more necessity for these lines in the Northern parts of the Kingdom than there is in some of the Southern parts, because the storms in the Northern parts are much greater. The particular storm to which he referred certainly did pass over England and did not pass over Scotland; but, generally speaking, there is a much greater destruction of the telegraph poles in Scotland than in England, following upon which there is a greater call for underground lines. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman is making arrangements for large underground contracts he will not overlook the fact that for many years we have been calling out for such lines.
      The last point to which I desire to call the attention of the Assistant-Postmaster-General, who, I understand, is to reply, is that of the appointment of sub-postmasters. In the large cities of Scotland we have had a grievance for a long time that sub-postmasterships never went to the postmen who served in those particular offices. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be of opinion that the best men to fill such posts are men taken from smaller districts. This constitutes a grievance for the cities, at any rate in my part of the world, because the large offices are not called
      1270
      upon to fill these posts. Advancement in the large cities is very slow. Application after application is sent in by postmen in cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh, but they fail to get sub-postmasterships, which are going in nearly every instance to postmen from smaller rural districts. The postmen in my Constituency consider that that is a great grievance and think that they ought to get a fair proportion of the sub-postmasterships. They are under the impression that they do not get that proportion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me that these men will have consideration given to them, and that he will institute a system of giving sub-postmasterships in proportion to the various offices—that is to say, that if half the postmen are employed in the large cities in Scotland, one half of the sub-postmasterships should go to those men.
      Mr. DENNISS: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) spoke, I understand, about the High-Speed Telegraph Committee. I was not here when he spoke and am not sure whether he mentioned one or two matters in connection with it. I would like to ask one or two questions as to that Committee, which was appointed recently by the Postmaster-General to decide upon the best method of improving British arrangements with regard to machine telegraphy. I understand it has made its Report. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will make that Report public and tell us something about it to-day. I should like to know whether the Report recommends that an order for these new instruments should be placed with an American firm in Chicago, and would ask the Postmaster-General to give an undertaking that he will not do this during the War, unless there is some very urgent necessity for it. This is a new industry. I understand that the Committee took the evidence of inventors and investigated the various systems. Besides the American one, there are three English firms of highs-peed machine manufacturers, namely, Messrs. Creed, Bille and Company, of Croydon, Mr. Donald Murray, and Mr. H. H. Harrison. The high-speed telegraph: system is a new industry, not only in America but also in this country, and it must be of great importance after the-War is over. My object in calling attention to the matter is in order to conserve this new industry for ourselves after the War. The telegraphic industry and the engineering industries generally of this

      1271
      country will have a great deal of difficulty in reinstating themselves after the War. I understand that these three English systems are quite as good and, I believe, better in many respects than the American system. The apparatus is unquestionably better than that made by the Western Company of Chicago; it is better designed and better made, and the cost of maintenance is much less. I understand there is no appreciable difference in price if you take quality into consideration, and the superior excellence of the working performance of the machine would alone justify the Post Office in paying, if necessary, a little extra. Being a new industry, there is a promise of its being able after the War to supply foreign Governments with this machine. When once a system of telegraphy is installed it is very difficult to part with it. It has to be extended from time to time, and they will have to go to America, and the new industry in this country would be to a great extent shut out from a business which promises to be so useful to this country. The difficulty is this: I 'have no doubt the Post Office would order these machines from one of the three British companies, or perhaps from all three. The difficulty is that, having patriotically given up the working of their business for the purpose of making munitions of war and become controlled firms, they have not the staff and cannot at present, unless they give up their munition work, make these machines for the Post Office. If some arrangement could be made with the Ministry of Munitions by which this £15,000 worth, or something like that, of machines could be made by these people, great benefit to the industry would ensue, and you would keep a new industry in the country which would develop to a very great extent after the War.
      I am at a loss to think that the matter can be so urgent that it must be put in force at once. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say it can be postponed till after the War? I understand that the raising of the price of telegrams to 9d. has lightened the work of the telegraphs very much, and also telephones are very much used for the relief of the telegraph lines, and if they can only postpone it until the end of the War the English companies could do it without interfering in any way with munitions. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether
      1272
      or not it is advisable, if it is urgent, to make some arrangement with the Minister of Munitions by which these new telegraph machines could be made in this country by our own people, and the industry thus preserved? It has a fair chance to beat the American article in the open market for quality and price, but it will not be able to do it after the War when it begins business afresh, if in the meantime the English Government has given an order for these goods to America. These inventors naturally are particularly anxious to sec the Report of the Committee so that they may not be kept in the dark as to why this Committee, or the Postmaster-General, has determined to prefer the American invention to the English invention or to prefer the price of the American to the English article, or has decided simply on the ground of the urgency of the matter, if it is urgent. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to say it is urgent, perhaps he will give us some reason why it is urgent. I have given my reason for saying I fail to sec at the moment why the raising in the price of telegrams has not relieved the pressure. Of course it is an important thing that the Government should have this apparatus as soon as possible, but is it so urgent that you will sacrifice a British industry, or is it so urgent that some arrangement cannot be made with the Ministry of Munitions It is no use to say that the Western Company of Chicago has got a branch here and can make the goods here, because if it has machinery for making this telegraphic apparatus it is clear that it can make shells and munitions of war, and there is no reason why it should not be put on to make them and let other engineering companies make the electrical apparatus. I throw that out as a suggestion.
      Mr. HOGGE: I suggest that the Postmaster-General's salary should be reduced by the whole amount. When it is proposed to reduce it by £100 or some similar sum he is apt to take very little notice of you when he draws so much, but if you suggest taking it all away that may make up for the shortness of the speech that I want to make. I want to raise the question of the temporary war workers and their wages and conditions in the General Post Office at Edinburgh. I raised this point some time ago, and as a result my right hon. Friend investigated the conditions for himself on the

      1273
      spot, and made certain recommendations with regard to payment which, so far as the nominal wage paid to these workers is concerned, certainly increased it, but only by the addition of three hours overtime in a week, for which I think the recommendation was that they should get an extra 2s., or 8d. an hour. These workers, who are, I think, entirely women workers, were in receipt of a weekly wage of 21s., and since the War broke out an addition of Is. 6d. has been made in the nature of a war bonus. The bulk of the postal employes take their meals in the Post Office, and there, as everywhere, the price of the meals has risen to such an extent that it practically absorbs the war bonus, and so far as wages are concerned, they are no better off. If we consider the value of the sovereign now as compared with the outbreak of War we know how much it has decreased, and I think it is absolutely impossible for these temporary war-workers to subsist on the 21s. a week, which is their minimum wage. I believe the Postmaster-General suggests that they can rise to a maximum of 24s., but in the statement which he submitted to me he gave no indication of how long it would take for these temporary war-workers to reach the maximum. If he will compare the wages given in other Government Departments for temporary war-work ho will find that they compare favourably with the amount that he gives in Edinburgh. He will find that for that type of work a very much better wage is paid, and I want to submit quite squarely that the 21 s. which is paid now is not enough for the conditions under which these temporary women clerks must live at the present time. Many of them are girls who have to maintain their own home, and must live in rooms. If you consider the rent which has to be paid for lodgings and the price which has to be paid for food and the decline in the value of the sovereign, it is perfectly obvious that the Postmaster-General ought to consider the claim of these women favourably. I have no doubt he will take it into his consideration again, and I am not complaining that I have not got an answer to his second consideration, but I am only raising it because this is the most favourable opportunity.
      There is one other point which perhaps we can have a reply to. Like my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt), I, too, was somewhat concerned with the position of the Marconi contract. It has a history with
      1274
      which we are all familiar, and this House got into trouble before over it. My right hon. Friend suggested that if the Marconi Company agreed to the offer which he had made to them now with regard to the erection of four stations, the cost of that would require to be borne by the Government, obviously, of course. It was that phrase that rather suggested to me making this remark. How will that come before the House of Commons? Will it come in a separate form so that there is no chance of our missing it—no chance, as it were, of its going through the House without attention being directed to it? I should suggest a Money Resolution of some kind moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to raise the money. It might be taken out of one of the very many Votes of Credit, or perhaps the Postmaster-General thinks that his own finance would finance that transaction. Of course, if he thinks that, the money might be paid without reference to the House of Commons. I am very anxious that, after all the trouble we have had over the Marconi contract, we should have no more trouble over it. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong or anything that needs to be criticised, but only that the Postmaster-General should undertake that if this offer of his matures so that it requires a fresh expenditure of public money, he will bring it before the attention of the House in such a way that we cannot miss it.
      Mr. KEATING: I wish to draw attention to one or two matters affecting Ireland. I am informed that there is delay in the postage of letters from America to Ireland, in some cases of not less than fourteen or fifteen days above the usual length of time. I should like the Postmaster-General to inquire into it. I cannot expect a reply on the spur of the moment. I shall be quite satisfied by drawing his attention to it and asking him to inquire why this delay exists, because it involves a great deal of difficulty in the trade between America and Ireland. I have drawn his attention several times to the case of Thomastown, a very important place in my Constituency. One division of that district is a little place called Inistiogue, The House of Commons is not much interested in Inistiogue, but I am very much interested in it, because I represent the business men of that locality, who constitute a very important section of my Constituency. Why has the Postmaster

      1275
      General refused to consider the case of these men, who have appealed strongly against the regulation which has resulted in their being deprived of the usual facilities for the delivery of letters in that locality and for the dispatch of letters from that locality to London. The merchants and traders of that place are entirely cut off from the facilities of the market days by the regulation which has been imposed upon them by the Post Office. I do not wish to attack the Post Office in any way, because I am sure that the Post Office has done nothing consciously to inflict an injustice on these men. The officials of the Post Office in Ireland have always been courteous, fair and just, but I think in this case they have overlooked the real interests of the merchants and traders of Inistiogue. I would seriously call the attention of the Postmaster-General to this case, and ask him to inquire into it.
      Colonel YATE: I should be glad if the Postmaster-General could tell me whether any steps have been taken to give hon. Members who reside in the Western district the benefit of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates of this House by the early morning post. At the present time in Kensington we receive our Report of the Debates at the earliest by one o'clock, but generally at five o'clock on the next evening following the day of the Debate. In the next street to me, which is in the South-Western district, the OFFICIAL REPORT is delivered by the morning post. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give us any reason for this, and if he can possibly alter this state of things so as to give those of us who reside in the Western district the benefit of the early morning delivery?
      Mr. RUTHERFORD: I was detained through business from attending the House earlier, therefore I did not hear the observations of the Mover of this Amendment, but I know what his grounds were, and I desire very respectfully to associate myself with them. It seems to me that if you have got a considerable body of expert telegraphists in the employ of the Post Office, it is a mistake to take these men away and simply incorporate them as general privates in the Army. If they cannot be made use of in order to give the benefit of their specially skilled service to the Army, it seems to
      1276
      me that they would be far better used if the right hon Gentleman retained them in the Post Office, and let others go who would be just as useful for Army purposes without depriving the Post Office of the specially skilled service which these men have spent years in attaining, and which they carry out with such signal success.
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) paid tributes to the Postmaster-General and to the Post Office generally for the work which has been done during the last financial year. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that he had been to France and had had an opportunity of seeing some of the work done there. I also have had a similar opportunity during the last financial year. I have had an opportunity of going to Boulogne, Rouen, Havre, and the railway heads of the various places, and I should like to inform the Committee that, having seen many generals during that visit, I did not hear anything but high praise for the work which had been done by the Post Office staff. When we think that we have sent 500,000,000 of parcels and letters to the war area in France alone, it can easily be imagined the amount of work that has been done. My right hon. Friend also referred to the excellence of the work, and he mentioned the fact that a very large number of our staff in France have received signal honours. I think the Committee would like to know what they are. We have received one V.C., one C.B., five D.S.O.'s, one C.M.G., and a great many other Orders, including Russian and French distinctions and Military Medals, which have given great satisfaction to those employed in the Post Office at home. I very much regret to say that we have lost a very large number of men in this war. Reference has been made to the splendid response which was made to the appeal by my right hon. Friend who is now at the Home Office (Mr. H. Samuel). The number of men we have lost is very large. The number of men killed in action appearing on the Roll of Honour at the Post Office is: 1914, 460; 1915, 1,272; 1916 up to the 30th of June, 422 and 72—making a total of 2,226. I am sure that the full sympathy of this Committee will go out to the relatives and friends of those whose loss we so deeply deplore.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, in the first instance, referred to the question of the post to Mesopotamia. That

      1277
      is a question which is very easy to answer, but it is very difficult to explain exactly how long it takes for letters to get to that part of the world. My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of the Gallipoli post. As most hon. Members know, that post had to be sent to Egypt, then to Mudros, then on to Gallipoli. The post to Mesopotamia is much more complicated. We depend, to a great extent, on the amount of transport maintained. The irregularity of transport beyond the Persian Gulf port is very great, and it is impossible to give any pledge as to the time taken and the delivery of letters and parcels there. Of course we are as anxious as anyone to deliver these parcels and letters, which are so greatly needed, in the shortest possible time. Reference has also been made to the question of high-speed telegraphy. That is, at present, in a very experimental stage, and the amount of money which has been spent by the Post Office is a comparatively small sum—some few thousands of pounds. This money would not have been spent in America during this year if it had been possible to obtain the apparatus in this country, but it was not possible. The suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Denniss) as to whether a change can take place in this respect can be considered. I can give a pledge that the question of high-speed telegraphy after the War will not be influenced by the present position. The whole question will be considered after the War, under the conditions which arise at that time. In regard to the Report, I cannot say definitely at the moment whether it will be published or not, but the matter is now under consideration.
      Mr. KEATING: Docs that mean that it is shelved?
      Mr. DENNISS: Is it intended to give this contract to the American people for this high-speed telegraphic apparatus?
      Mr. PEASE: The total amount which has been spent during the year is about £5,000. There is no intention of this prejudicing the position after the War is over. So far as I know the amount that is to be spent will not exceed approximately that sum.
      Mr. DENNISS: No more will be spent then?
      Mr. PEASE: The position which I have stated is that the amount of money which has been spent up to the present
      1278
      time is a comparatively small sum; it is money which we have, spent because the men who were making this particular apparatus in this country are working on munitions. When the War is over the whole question will be considered. I cannot say anything more than that. In regard to the question which was raised by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey), I should like to mention that the telegram which was read by the Postmaster-General was not exactly an anonymous telegram, because he has received a letter in reference to it bearing a hundred signatures. This arrived during his speech and he had not then the signatures before him. The whole question is a somewhat difficult one, but I think that the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend is clear, and that is that the attested men should have the advantage. However, he is quite willing to consider the whole question again with the War Office, and he hopes that he will satisfy my hon. Friend in reference to it. A question was also raised by the hon. Member for Leeds in regard to learners in the Post Office. He referred to the apprenticeship class. Boys are recruited at sixteen and a half years and girls at fifteen and three-quarter years and sixteen and a half years. They are guaranteed permanent appointments within two years, but if a permanent appointment is not available for them at the age of eighteen they receive the minimum adult pay of the telegraphist class. They usually receive appointments as soon as they are qualified for the work, but recently, owing to the number of learners having been temporarily increased, there has been an interval of time before they receive their appointments. We much regret that, but it does not exceed a few months from the time they are competent to th3 time they receive permanent appointment or the minimum adult pay of the telegraphist class. In some cases during this interval they have been employed in full duties, and it is in regard to these cases that the question of pay arises in acute form. It was laid down in 1905 that the pay of learners should cover full attendance for eight hours, whether for learning or work, and this was endorsed by the Holt Committee in their Report. This question of the interval of time is regretted by the Post Office, and I can only say that the matter is under our consideration. It will be impossible to prevent there being delay at the present time, but

      1279
      I think the conditions which arise now are not the ordinary conditions of employment.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone mentioned a paragraph which appeared in the Press the other day in regard to a statement of Lord Leith of Fyvie as regards Germans in the cable department of the Post Office. There are no unnaturalised people in that Department, and I may say that we have no doubt in regard to anyone who is employed there.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Member deal with the statement of Lord Leith of Fyvie that many officers had made representations. I think the word "German" was probably used by Lord Leith of Fyvie in a general sort of way, but he said that many representations have been made by officers.
      Mr. PEASE: I will be only too delighted to inquire into this question. I have never heard it mentioned before today, but if my hon. Friend, who did me the honour to speak to me privately before he mentioned the matter in the House, will give me any information I shall be only too glad to make the necessary inquiries.
      Commander BELLAIRS: As I have no information myself on this matter, I could not take any responsibility, but the statement was made by a responsible Member of the other House, and I would suggest that the Postmaster-General should take it up with the Noble Lord.
      Mr. PEASE: If we can have any basis disclosing sufficient ground, the Postmaster-General will be only too pleased to inquire into it. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) referred to the unattested men as 250 conscientious objectors. I think he must be mistaken in regard to that. This is the first time that I have heard the statement made that these men were conscientious objectors. If they are, of course their proper plan is to go before the tribunal who will deal with the matter. In any case the Postmaster-General is bound by the pledge made by his predecessor that he ought to give, if possible, the privilege to those men who have attested.
      Colonel YATE: Are conscientious objectors retained in the Post Office?
      Mr. PEASE: I have not heard of one. I do not know whether there are any or not. In regard to the contract referred to by
      1280
      the hon. Member for the Orkney and Shetland Islands (Mr. Cathcart Wason) the position is this. In October, 1915, the North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland Navigation Company gave' notice that in consequence of serious loss of revenue and increase in expenses, the service would be reduced from six days to three days a week, unless the Post Office made a substantial increase in the remuneration of £2,000 a year provided in the contract. They were induced to defer the question, and on the 12th May, 1916, they wrote stating definitely that they proposed to reduce the service on the 1st June. But in order to afford the Admiralty an opportunity of reviewing the matter, the reduction in the service was postponed until the 31st July. That is the position in which the Post Office is placed. As the hon. Member knows, there have been considerable difficulties in regard to-these facilities, and, generally speaking, the Post Office has had to contend with considerable difficulties in regard to shipping. The hon. Gentleman referred just now to the difficulty with regard to the mail delivery from America. The answer to that is comparatively simple, because there is not the same class of ships carrying mails to America, and there is now a censorship of letters which was not experienced before the War, and this accounts to a very considerable extent for the extra time which is taken by the mails to be delivered in this country. I quite realise the view of the hon. Member for the Orkney and Shetland Islands. A Member for a constituency of that kind is perhaps placed in a somewhat different position from that of an ordinary Member, and I am sure that I personally, and also my right hon. Friend, will be only too glad to give any help we could in regard to this particular matter. The Post Office has, of course, to take into account the extra expenses which this country has to meet at the present time, but if the hon. Member will confer with me, I shall be only too-pleased to talk the matter over with him.
      The hon. Member for the Hyde Division raised the question of the price of Post Office stationery in a question which I answered the other day. It appears to me that the position is somewhat as follows: The Post Office supply stationery at a comparatively cheap rate, and there are many dealers in this country who consider that the Post Office have no right to supply this stationery at the rate at which it is supplied

      1281
      at the present time. They say that other people buy their stationery from the Post Office, and resell it. I was under the impression that that would be impossible, because no man would be likely to go into a shop and buy at an enhanced price the stationery which he could obtain at a lower price than the Post Office. But it appears that this is done by mixing different kinds of stationtry, and some of the stationery which is sold would be Post Office stationery, mixed with stationery obtained from other sources, and the whole sold at a lower price than that at which it could be provided by the ordinary stationer. I can only say that my right hon. Friend is considering the whole matter of stationery, and hopes to come to a satisfactory arrangement in reference to this matter.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt) mentioned the question of the Marconi contract. I think that the statement made by the Postmaster-General to-day has been very full, and I cannot add anything in regard to it except this. The contract and the resolutions which have been mentioned will come before the House of Commons for ratification in the ordinary way. The House of Commons will then have the opportunity of expressing its opinion in regard to the matter; that is, in the event of an agreement being arrived at. In regard to underground lines, we fully realise the importance of laying these underground lines, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not intend for a moment to suggest that these lines should be only laid in England, but that Scotland also should have the opportunity of enjoying their advantage, if it were possible to arrange it. But I am not at all certain about the date on which the work will be undertaken. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of postmasterships. I have been in the Post Office only for about a year, but I have had an opportunity on many occasions of seeing the appointment to various postmasterships, and I should very much doubt if there is any business firm in the world that takes more trouble about arrangements in this respect than the Post Office in London. The greatest care is taken to find the best men possible, and anyone with an impartial mind will agree that the postmasters selected are a particularly good class, and do credit to the system which has been in operation.
      Mr. WATT: Is there a notion in the Post Office that postmen in large offices are unsuitable for these positions?
      Mr. PEASE: As the hon. Member probably knows, there is a statement made in the Post Office Circular in regard to any postmastership which is vacant, and then anyone in the service can have an opportunity of making application. Each application is taken entirely on its merits. The Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the payment of temporary women in that office. I do not know whether the hon. Member had any particular class in mind, but I find that so far as telegraphists are concerned, the wages for fully efficient women would be 31s. 6d. The wages of post-women would be 23s. 6d. per week. These I acknowledge may be comparatively low wages in comparison with what are paid in some of the munitions works to-day. But, compared with the wages that are paid for like employment in other concerns, hon. Members will find that these are not low wages. In any case, I will mention the matter to the Postmaster-General for consideration. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Colonel Yate) mentioned the question of the OFFICIAL REPORT in London. I am quite aware that he mentioned that before, and that there have been difficulties in regard to the delivery. We do all we can to get delivery of the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that Members may have the opportunity of reading their own speeches as soon as possible after delivery. But the difficulty with regard to all Post Office matters at the present time are very great. The reason is simple. It is because we have had to send to the front about 60,000 men who have large experience on our established staff, and in many cases we have had to put in their place those who have had very little experience. It is quite impossible for any business firm to hope that they can be able to obtain the same efficiency from a temporary staff as from their experienced staff who have been accustomed to the work. I am very grateful to the Committee that my work this evening is somewhat light, as there have not been any very violent criticisms. I thank hon. Members for the expressions they have used in regard to the work done by the Post Office staff during last year, and for their appreciation of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend. I will conclude by saying that I hope that when next we meet to discuss the Post Office Estimates we shall be enjoying the priceless blessings of peace.
      Mr. KEATING: Have you made a note of the question which I raised? Kilkenny, I suppose, does not deserve any attention, but I assure you that it may be worth your while to attend to it.
      Mr. PEASE: I did reply to the hon. Member while he was out of the House. I have no knowledge of the position of affairs at Inistiogue, but will communicate with the hon. Member about it.
      Mr. HARVEY: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has not been able to go further in the way of meeting the grievance put by the hon. Member for Derby and myself and others, but I accept with gratitude the assurance that he is going into the matter, and that the Postmaster-General is going again into the position of the unattested telegraphists, and is going to raise the whole question again with the War Office. I very much hope that he will deal with this very difficult subject with the same kindly good nature that he has shown in dealing with all the difficult questions that have been brought before the Committee this afternoon, and that he may be able to make some arrangement with the War Office by which age and efficiency would be considered, and a just basis established in dealing with those men who are called up. In the hope that that will be achieved as the result of conference, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. HOGGE: I want to say in regard to the reply to my questions in regard to temporary war wages, that I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the figure 22s. 6d., as it is only 2ls. I hope that will be put right. I would not like to persist in my Motion to take away all the salary of the Postmaster-General, but I share the hope of the Assistant Postmaster-General that when the Post Office Estimates are again brought forward, we shall be in the priceless possession of peace. Both of them I am sure the House will agree with that.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported to-morrow; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
      The remaining Orders read, and postponed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [Lords].— (By Order.)

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I sincerely hope that it will not be thought, in the action I am now takings, that I have any other motive than that which will appear from what I have to say in regard to the Bill now before the House. I claim to state that I have no interest in this company, and that I simply want to show the facts, so far as I know them to be the facts, which make it seem to me to be undesirable that the company should be allowed to proceed with this work. In the first place, I would like to remark that this Bill must be taken, for all practical purposes, to be the Bill of one railway company. I know it will be said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who, I understand, is to speak in support of this Bill, that the measure declares, as to one portion of it, that it relates to the South-Eastern Railway Company, and that, as to another, it relates to the Chatham and Dover Railway Company; but the Bill itself shows clearly that the burden of support is laid upon both these companies, and I would suggest to those who care to do so to read Clause 19 of the Bill, and, inasmuch as the managing committee, which is mentioned, controls practically the whole operations of these two companies, I think the public will be found to consider that, for all practical purposes, they are one company. The Bill itself, within its provisions, asks for financial powers and powers to construct. With regard to the financial proposals, which merely seek to empower the companies to raise the rate of interest to be paid hereafter upon money raised on debentures, I do not say anything to-night. The other portion of the Bill to which I more especially wish to direct my remarks has reference to some alterations which the company propose to make that will very seriously affect the convenience of London, and also go very far to add to the ugliness of the structure which is now

    1285
    under consideration. Those powers are asked for on the plea that they are urgently necessary, and yet it is agreed by the promoters that nothing shall be done for one year after the termination of the present War.
    I would like to remind the House that this, also, must be borne in mind with regard to the terms of the Bill, that they empower the railway company to take four years over this work from the time they commence it, or seven years from the date of the passing of the Act, if they obtain it, and that the lesser of these two terms will be the term which will have to be added to the year after the War, whenever that may be, and necessarily during that period there will be the nuisance of an obstruction of the river and roadways. If I were compelled to confine my remarks to a single quotation—much as I know the House objects to quotations—I would take one from a speech delivered in May, 1892, by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then a Minister holding office under Lord Salisbury's Premiership. He was replying to the toast of "His Majesty's Ministers," at the Royal Academy annual banquet. He made one of those fascinating speeches which we all associate with his efforts in public, and, in the course of it, he made these very significant, and, for my purpose to-night, pertinent remarks. He said:
    "There is, however, one department of our activities in which I have often thought, and in which I am still disposed to think, Parliament might do something towards preserving us from the outrages on the public taste of which we are now the helpless and powerless victims. It is in the knowledge of every Member of Parliament here present, probably of every one now listening to me, that before compulsory powers are taken for any great public purpose the opinion of Committees of both Houses of Parliament have to be taken, and that before these Committees the particular projects and designs are most carefully thrashed out and are judicially decided upon. It seems almost incredible, but it is nevertheless the fact, that while before such Committees any individual who thinks himself aggrieved by the project has the right to appear, and has the right to have his case heard and have justice done to him, the public, who are as much interested as any private individual in the beauty of our great cities, are not represented and cannot be represented with regard to matters which interest them most closely.
    I never walk along the Thames Embankment and study the proportions of Charing Cross Railway Station, and the bridge which is appended thereto, without feeling how monstrous it is that such things should be allowed, and that there should be no power of dealing with them, that no one should have the power to come before the Committee which sanctions them, or have any locus standi in the matter at all. Careful as we are, and rightly careful, to safeguard the interests of every individual whose commercial position or whose personal convenience may even in the slightest degree be imperilled by these great works of public convenience, the great public, whose property such a site as the Thames Embankment undoubtedly
    1286
    is, has no locus standi before such a Committee, and cannot make its voice heard, and cannot have that decision modified in conformity with the dictates of sound reason and aesthetic taste."
    These words which I have read are the key to the objection which I bring against the proposal now before the House. Will it be believed that in a Committee dealing with this Bill in another place the only public authority which was represented there by legal right was the authority which has to deal with the unemotional and unimaginative barge and tug traffic! I am not going to turn aside from my path, except to say that I think that authority is doing work of very real importance and that there was justification for its presence. I only wish to point to the fact that the Government of our Imperial City is so split up and the responsible authorities have such limits put to their functions, which are so clearly separated, that nothing can be actually done or proposed to be done to the property of any other body, and, except what is controlled and looked after by the Port of London Authority, none of these other bodies, whatever they may be, and who as a whole are concerned in the amenities of London and with transport over the whole of its great area, could be called by right before the Committee. Let me here say that there was an Instruction passed by the Upper House that some interview should be given and some evidence taken on the part of certain public bodies, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Academy, and there was a representative from the London County Council, and all these bodies, as far as evidence was given by them and were permitted to be present, were adverse to this scheme, and they suggested for the consideration of the people of London a higher and a nobler idea. I might say in passing that they were of opinion that the time has come for doing away with this great excrescence by which this railway is hopelessly cramped and hindered in the full discharge of its duties to the public and by the limitations of the site on which the station is placed—limitations which might be avoided by a transference over the river at this particular point. I am sure there is no desire on the part of anybody whatever to lay upon this railway company or railway committee any unnecessary burdens, but we feel thoroughly confident that a very much larger and a wholly adequate site can be found on the other side of the Thames for this railway station,

    1287
    and the town or the city would be liberated from the presence of it any longer. May I remind the House, and I doubt if most of us Members are aware of it, that in Charing Cross Station and Bridge there is one unique character, and that is that the bridge and station in a sense are one. Perhaps the ironical remark of the First Lord of the Admiralty had that in mind when he spoke of the appending of the station to the bridge. The bridge is part of the station. Trains use it as a lay by, and as you go up or down Northumberland Avenue you may see that this is so, and the necessary crossovers for the terminus are also a large part of the bridge.
    I should like briefly to set before the House, for it is not within the memory of everybody here probably, what is the history of this undertaking. In the year 1859 one of the railways now merged in this joint railway company obtained powers to build across the river, and purchased the site of the Hungerford Market and the bridge leading thereto, which still remains in the memory of some of us older residents as Hungerford Bridge. Part of that bridge was removed, and now stands on the Avon, near Bristol. The chains, piers and a number of other things were taken away; but in the case of the great brick piers which supported the superstructure of the bridge, and carried chains therefrom —with an economy wholly unrelated to artistic considerations—the engineer of the railway company retained. One of them stands on the southern side in the river and the other upon the Embankment; and it is this mongrel contraption of partly old work and partly work not more than sixty years old that it is proposed to tinker with under the inadequate proposals of this Bill. The alterations proposed are to take this older portion of the bridge and to place between a number of the older vertical columns which support the transverse girders of the bridge, great blocks of masonry or brickwork, I am not quite sure which. In the evidence it was spoken of as "masonry," but whether it be masonry, brickwork or concrete these blocks are to jut out some fourteen feet. It was given in evidence that this would seriously curtail the fair way under the bridge for the purpose of navigation, more especially as the bridge spans the Thames in a bend of the river, and barges and craft find themselves approaching it making its passage at an angle which goes far to
    1288
    destroy all the width that might remain. Then, for some reason, which I have no doubt will be eloquently set forth later on, there is to be added to the superstructure and all those piers and blocks of masonry or concrete what are called cantilevers which were not to be linked up. That really became too much for the Port of London Authority, and they said, "Really you must link those up and make them like arches." Therefore, there is an agreement entered into that they are to be made to look like arches, although structurally they are not to be actually arches, but cantilevers. I do not canvass the adequacy of these provisions to carry any loads that it is desired they should carry.
    I notice that one counsel in the House of Lords against the Bill (Mr. Talbot) said that, owing to the fact of these arches or mock arches or cantilevers, or whatever we call them, springing outward from the piers, they necessarily at certain levels of the tide, more nearly approaching high tide, curtailed the fairway, because vessels passing could not get so near to those blocks of masonry. Therefore, he reckoned, and it was not denied, that the width of the openings would be by that means reduced from 154 feet, as at present, to 98 ft. 6 in. The House will remember I pointed out that the bridge stands upon a bend of the river, and is, therefore, approached very frequently obliquely at present, and the navigator can see between the columns, so if these are blocked up, then by so much is the view obstructed. I do not lay undue stress upon it, but, at any rate, his facilities of navigation are hampered. Powers were obtained in 1859, and the bridge came into complete being in 1862. In 1882 powers were obtained, and this bridge was widened, and they kept as carefully as they could to the then existing plans. In the year 1900 they obtained powers from Parliament for building a new and larger station, to include the present site of Charing Cross, and to build a new bridge. That Act has never been operative. Its term expired, but has been renewed by favour of this House for some unaccountable reason. Am I uncharitable in suggesting that we should possibly not have heard anything of this proposal to-night were it not for the fact that that Act expires again next month.
    In 1905 the roof of the station building fell in, and then we are told by advocates of the railway company that they thought it was time to look at the bridge. They

    1289
    had this Act, of which I have just spoken, for five years and had done nothing; but when this ugly barrel-topped railway station roof collapsed, owing to faulty construction, they then thought that possibly there might be trouble elsewhere, and they went over the bridge. They came to the conclusion that the bridge ought to be strengthened. They did not come to the conclusion that there was any danger in the bridge. They do not seem to have that opinion now, and I do not suggest it either. What they did say was, that it would be better strengthened. They had power five years old; they had no expense to incur in coming to this House; and they could have gone on with the work, and given us something respectable. They did nothing of the kind. They did nothing in spite of looking at this bridge, and possibly looking at the bridge was a disturbing thing for them. At any rate, it took them another eleven years—that is to the present year to wit—before anything was done, and then this Bill comes under consideration to-night. The companies think, or urge, that if the passage of this Bill is refused by the House there will be very considerable damage and hardship laid upon them. Is that so? There are many of us who are looking forward to the building of the Channel Tunnel and to an enormous increase of traffic between our splendid Allies and ourselves.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD: That ought to have been done long ago.
    Sir W. ESSEX: That is our opinion now, whatever some of us may have thought in past years, and public opinion, I believe, is veering round rapidly to the desirability of that proposal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope not.
    Sir W. ESSEX: There is, at any rate, one man fond of the sea; and good sailors like my right hon. Friend and myself would rather always go by sea.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not a good sailor.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Then the right hon. Baronet will not go either by tunnel or by sea. Be that as it may—and I am sorry to have introduced a note of difference in the matter—it will probably come to pass, and we say that nothing, not even the exercise of the 1900 powers, will in all probability allow adequate accommodation at Charing Cross Station for the
    1290
    traffic that will then flow in. One of the great claims or appeals made by the railway company in asking for this Bill is that they must consider the position of their passengers. That has already been done for them. I propose to quote some figures from the Traffic Commission Report of some years ago, and if those figures have increased, I think it will be found rather more in favour of my contention than, against. I quote from the Traffic Commission Report, Volume XXX., of 26th June, 1905, which states that at that time, these railways carried no fewer than, roughly. 53,750,000 people, including ordinary and season ticket holders, in the course of the year, but not all over this bridge. Does the House not remember that this singularly favoured railway has no fewer than six important stations in the London area north of the Thames, and if this House wished to do a strong disservice to some railway operating or bringing its terminus into London, there is no railway on which a disadvantage could be laid with less damage than this particular railway? They have six stations, and in five of them they carry of the 53,000,000 of passengers over 43,500,000, and they carry 10,000,000 at this station in question. The railway companies say that they wish still to take that one-fifth of their London traffic to Charing Cross. Our answer is that if it is clearly to the interests of the public that you should give them a more suitable station for the south side of London, surely it would not be a worse advantage to you for your Continental traffic than the London and South-Western have; for instance, they carry 31,000,000 at Waterloo only, and that traffic is carried on without hurt or trouble. No approach to disturbance or anything of that kind has accompanied any movement of that railway on the south side. It has, indeed, been an enormous advantage to have the whole of its London operations practically upon one area, and it is so manageable and economical a position for a station that the company have expended an immense amount of money in enlarging it. In regard to that enterprising line, it draws its customers not merely from London and the Continent, but from the ends of the earth. The South-Eastern and Chatham terminus might be made more acceptable to the public and to London if it were near Waterloo Station, and an enormous advantage would then be given to the whole of our foreign visitors. Again, it is known that in the course of a year or two one of the two stations

    1291
    belonging to the appellant company has been enormously enlarged—Victoria Station—
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is the Brighton Railway.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I am not speaking of the Brighton Railway, but of the Chatham and Dover Railway. If it is in dispute I would let that pass and you may consider as not said whatever has been said. You can see what has been done at the Chatham and Dover Station at Victoria, and you can satisfy yourself whether that station was adequate so far as any uproar or outcry came from the public. During the operation the whole of the South-Eastern and the Chatham Railways traffic was carried on through other stations than Charing Cross. After the roof fell in for two and a half months the station was closed to all kinds of trains, and for six months no foreign passengers entered the station. Another point is this: We have noticed of late that there is a steady closing, many persons think a needless closing I have no doubt, of suburban and South London Stations. The South-Eastern Railway has been closing its stations. It was given in evidence that the aggregations of trams and motor' buses had enormously affected the carrying of numbers of London people, and arguments were used that the working classes should have more means of conveyance in London, and mere easy access to London, and that some of these important railways were forgetting the enormous increase in the surburban traffic of South London within a radius of Charing Cross. We have here the Charing Cross Station, and the stations of the Tube Railway, which all radiate from that point, so that if only on that account alone, and apart from the question of the bridge, it would really give a decided advantage to this company. I have got another point, which is, that the proposals are to worsen the bridge from an artistic standpoint, though that may seem difficult. It may give rise to a stare of incredulity when I express that view, but I can only say that this curious conglomerate contraption does deserve what Mr. Aston Webb said when he described it as a monstrosity.
    Coming to the final part of the plea which I wish to make to the House, I would like to say that there is no part of a city wherein more work could be done for the improvement of its beauty, or the
    1292
    destruction of it, than upon the noble river which serves it. Our city has not merely a river whose hi story is great and striking, but it is a river which, in its proportion, is truly noble, and we have had a perception of that in our blundering, inartistic way, I believe, for many, many years. Of late years we have become still more rapidly conscious of it, and as I look back over what remains to me of my memory of sixty years I have found an increasing and still more rapidly increasing source of satisfaction and pleasure in the increasing beauty of my native town, which is fast becoming one of the most glorious of European capitals. If we could only get small things of this kind brushed aside and give our capital a chance to move, not merely along the lines of utility but also of beauty, which are two things which, rightly interpreted, should always run together, we should still be more proud of it. This question is not a question to be settled solely by the word of the tugmasters or barge pilots who go through this bridge. These good sailors, like all men who earn their living upon the water, are never going to say they cannot do anything or perform any task they are asked. I do not make too much of the question of navigation of the river. I think some people may be inclined to overstate that difficulty, but I may point out that an inquiry by a Committee was gone into as to how the traffic of London was to be carried on more conveniently. There were Traffic Committee and Police Reports. These Reports showed that from the Strand to Parliament Street the traffic was blocked, choked and congested, and a gentleman who was lately a Member of this House (Sir William Lever), gave figures to show that the difficulties of carrying goods through London made it the most expensive traffic area which he had known, not only at home but abroad. You have added to that congestion. You have made Shaftesbury Avenue and Charing Cross Road to bring the traffic nearer to the scene and so added to the congestion. Supposing anyone wants to go from the high-level bridge at Waterloo to the low-level bridge at Westminster, he has to go some seven furlongs in order to get to Parliament Street, and if you want to foot it along the Embankment you have to walk five and a half furlongs. There is no equal distance between the bridges in the whole of the rest of London, and this is the very eye and

    1293
    centre and focus of the City, and the place which our visitors see first and I think most. We have spent millions upon this part of London within the last few years. Let us start from where this bridge is now standing. We are spending a large amount on the great London County Hall. What would the man in Paris think of the County Hall being where ours now is? We are putting ourselves to enormous cost in the erection of this building, which will house 2,700 officials of one sort and another, so gigantic is the place to be. All that involves crowds of people on the Surrey side.
    You go over this bridge and you come to the place not far away where we have this splendid Millbank improvement. There we have spent over a million and the work is not yet completed. Then there is the Broad Sanctuary, with the Middlesex County Hall, and other buildings. As we go along Whitehall and Parliament Street we see, with the exception of one office which I will not specify, that we have put up some of the finest buildings in London which will be a credit to any city and of which Englishmen may be proud in the face of the competition of other cities. We have built Shaftesbury Avenue and we have built and have nearly completed the Mall improvement. Start at Buckingham Palace and go along the Mall and through King Edward's Arch and you come into Northumberland Avenue, and you pass along this procession of London enterprise, and then you come up against this particular structure, which even its owners declare to be an ugly cripple, on which, to provide splints and bandages, £167,000 is to be spent. If these improvements are needed and urgent, let them be rushed; but, if they cannot be completed for six years, why should we pass this scheme? I do say, and I hope I am not uncharitable, that this Bill is due to' the determination of the expiring powers of the 1900 Act. Even if they are to be carried out, while I feel that must be the reason, I say this is not the way we should do these repairs. I point to the reasons which were brought forward by experts like Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, the late chief engineer of the London County Council, and other witnesses equally eminent who were versed in bridge building. They stated that these repairs, ugly as they are and however dexterously they were done, might be carried out at less than half of the cost for the railway company, and that they might have been done better. That was the irresistible case
    1294
    of these gentlemen. It might have been done at half the cost to the company if they had been content to wait for a longer period than they did when the roof fell, and had been content to shut up and do without the station for ten or twelve months. The whole thing might have been done on a proper foundation.
    I think we ought on these occasions to take the opportunity of rearranging the traffic boundaries and arteries in London, and any addition now made to the bridge will be made an excuse for further expenditure when that has to be done. I believe also an application is to be made to renew the powers of the Act of 1900 and to retain the station. If that is so, we are up against another difficulty. Bit by bit this eyesore has been riveted upon London, and it has been an eyesore for many years. The other day one of the very handsome Members of this House came here in uniform, and we respectfully heard him declare that he had a Message from the King. He came to tell us that the Prayer or Resolution, moved by the Prime Minister at that box, that the House desired His Majesty to sanction the erection of a Memorial to the late Lord Kitchener, had been granted, and that His Majesty looked to this House to find the ways and means. Sir, these are epoch-making days, and history, is being written in great pages. I wonder whether we shall fitly mark our appreciation of what is being done by us and for us in these vivid stirring hours? I cannot tell, but I carry my mind back to what our fathers did in a period not less fraught with peril to the State, and I look to the grey, dignified lines of old Waterloo Bridge, and. just above it, beyond this abomination at Charing Cross i carry my eye forward to Trafalgar Square and Nelson's deathless story comes up, and I am wondering whether our people nowhere upon this spot, so eminently and obviously suited to a memorial of this great period, will rise to the occasion and will understand what an Empire in arms means, and will erect here an Empire Bridge, a bridge that will be not merely a convenience, not merely a thing of utility, but a thing which will add gloriously to the beauty and dignity of our Empire City— something that might be a memorial of Lord Kitchener and his millions of men to our children who will come afterwards, and be to them a tribute to the Empire's victorious legions, and also a memorial of our heroic and sainted dead.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough): I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I have been asked—though I am not either a director or a shareholder of this company, for, as the. House will remember, there is no director of the company in this House— to state the needs which lead to the Second Heading of this Bill and the case in favour of the promoters. I do not myself find much to disagree from in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and I find much to sympathise with in his speech. He says that the bridge is very ugly. He says that he does not quite see that it is possible to make it much uglier. [An Hox. MBMBEB: "Yes!"] Therefore, perhaps the main statement in his speech, that this is going to make the bridge uglier, is perhaps the only statement I am concerned to deny, or need to deny, on the ground of its impossibility. Let the House reflect as to the sort of question to which it usually addresses itself on the Second Reading of a private Bill. The hon. Member forgets that it has been sworn to that this bridge is dangerous. The case, of course, here is to deny that assertion. If so, it is going to be sworn to again. How can the House then choose between such asseveration and such contradiction except by applying the usual tests by which such statements, such asseverations, are usually measured and weighed?
    This is a Bill which is made necessary by the weakness and insufficiency of the bridge. It finds its occasion in the traffic needs and the passengers' safety. In a passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I did not notice was supported by any great proof, he committed himself to the statement that the bridge was not dangerous. How is the House to choose between an affirmation of that kind and the witnesses who are the only people who can speak for the company? I submit that this House would enter upon the most dangerous ground if it were to attempt, in the extremely limited time we have now, and in the extremely unsatisfactory conditions under which we can consider such a question, to go into highly technical and private matters which alone can decide whether that most important statement is or is not true. It can be proved, and will if necessary be proved, by competent authorities that the present state of this bridge has had the effect of
    1296
    placing its user under restrictions which deprives it of over 50 per cent, of its traffic value. When I speak of its traffic value, I mean its power of carrying the passengers over it. Although no doubt I shall be told that this particular value of 50 per cent, is a loss of gain only to the company's shareholders, I may remind the House it is also a loss of the facilities and the conveniences of which the working population and the large population of what are familiarly "daily breaders" go backwards and forwards to and from the Surrey side during the-course of the year. The hon. Member has spoken as if all these passengers went over this bridge and used the station to-suit the convenience of the railway company. The House must remember that they go there of their own choice, and that they are there in tremendous numbers is itself standing proof of the necessity for the present station, that is to say, the bridge by which it can alone be approached.
    Figures were quoted by the hon. Member from the report of the Traffic-Commission of 1905. My information is that since that date, and up to the time of the War, the number of passengers carried in the course of that year rose from 10,000,000 to 13,000,000, and just before the War, I am told, that of those 13,000,000 no less than 6,000,000 were those who used workmen's tickets. The hon. Member says this is a Bill which makes impossible the execution of a better scheme. There is no doubt that this Bill is connected with the question of the-possible making of a new station on the South side in substitution for this present railway bridge, and something much better in the way of a road bridge, with convenient side walks for passengers. The alternative proposals have been, made, occupy the public mind, and have great attractions for the public. Will it surprise the hon. Member to hear that this scheme has great attractions for me? He is not the only depository of our artistic tastes in this House. For myself, many years ago when I was a young man, I considered myself quite an aesthetic, almost a decadent; and may I perhaps hint at the faculties in connection with this matter which it has always been my joy to cultivate? I do not see that this-Bill interferes at all with that scheme. The case of the South Eastern Company-is that this Bill makes the minimum of

    1297
    interference with the possibility, if not that the alternative scheme in the fullness of time may become possible, that, at all events, it shall not be impossible. Although the company has unexpired powers to spend £750,000 upon widening the bridge, it is, in its moderation, going to limit itself to the much more modest proposal before the House, and to spend only £170,000 upon the necessary strengthening, which, it is advised, is the least that will suffice for the carrying of the traffic I have mentioned, and which the people who use this bridge and station show they prefer to make their means of going to and from their work.
    It is true, it is possible, that this proposal might be connected with the Surrey side scheme in two ways: it might raise the main question by blocking that scheme in such a way as to make it impossible to go forward; on the other hand, it might raise the only questions we say it does by proposing to do no more than providing the minimum safety and accommodation required—to make the smallest possible interference with its safety compatible with the status quo. The Bill does not raise that main question of the Surrey side station. Anyone who looks at this Bill with a view to supporting it will have an interest in, or rather be much attracted by the possibilities which the Surrey station scheme presents. What this Bill does, and the issue this Bill raises, is—its main allegation is—that it leaves feeling entirely free to the alternative. In other words, its object and intention is to preserve as far as possible the status quo. The hon. Member and his supporters may say that that is the intention of the Bill: "We do not believe in the intention." They may continue that, even if it is the intention, it is not going to be given effect to. What is the effect of this Bill I This Bill proposes no widening of the bridge, although the company has powers to widen it; it only proposes to strengthen it. It gives a pledge against any widening; or rather, in some shape or form, such a pledge has been given that there shall be no widening of the bridge for twenty years. It proposes to spend only the modest sum which I mentioned. The questions thus raised are two: Are these things required in the interests either of the safety or of the public convenience of the traffic? The second question is: Do these measures sufficiently save the alternative scheme and
    1298
    do they sufficiently preserve the status quo? The proof of that is, and can only be, a matter of complicated and largely technical detail. It is a matter of bending and tensile strains which, fond of art as we are, we cannot get rid of, and we must face. It is a matter of weights and locomotives, as modern as the traffic requires they should be. It is a matter of axle-loads and things called line-loads, the meaning of which I confess I do not understand. There is the question of the present restrictions on traffic, and the necessity for them. There is the question of the further probability of restrictions upon traffic—that is, upon the traffic required by these 15,000,000 to which I have referred if the bridge be not strengthened. It is a question of the traffic needs-of the whole of that population, of the population of London, as it was before the War, which finds itself living on the south side and finds its occupation upon the other side of the bridge. There is the-probable increase, too, after the War. All matters of this sort are not exactly those to be settled by Debates upon Second Beading. It is a matter of engineering stresses and bridge structures, and last but not least it is a matter for the adequacy and the estimates p resented of the probable cost of these alterations.
    I respectfully submit to this House that these are matters which must be proved or disproved, and can be proved or disproved only, and not by asseverations-and contradictions in Debates which may be honestly believed in, but nevertheless-may be perfectly well disproved. My own allegations may be based upon wrong information. How are these differences in matters of fact to be possibly settled I We say, rather on the other hand we state, that they should be, as they always are, settled according to the best precedents and action of this House; that they should be tested and should be founded upon statements of first-hand knowledge by skilled observers, made upon oath, and tested by cross-examination. I will not detain the House longer. Really there is nothing more to be said, except that I am concerned to deny the statement of the hon. Member that this work must inevitably take six years. That is not my information. That is another fact which cannot be settled by debate.
    Sir W. ESSEX: The company take such powers under their Act!
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Surely the hon. Member knows that a Bill of this kind has to take some maximum limit of powers in order that those concerned may not find themselves in the middle of their work with expired powers. There the Bill is. It is an ordinary Second Reading case. I submit it is not an extraordinary case, different from other Second Reading cases, and I respectfully ask the House to say that our intention is, and if you give us a chance to prove it we will, that the effect of this Bill will be to leave entirely unprejudiced the case for the alternative and better scheme of beautifying London, to give that better position both to the railway station and the bridge. The Bill pays due respect to the London, and Port, and County Authorities, and preserves unhindered freedom for the proper and natural aspirations of Londoners, and the ever-increasing importance of beautifying this great City which is their present abode. Even the eloquence of the hon. Member has not succeeded in showing that this is going to be in the slightest degree permanently-impaired by this Bill.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BURNS: In any other city but London, and in any other country but England, if a project similar to that which is embodied in this Bill had been submitted to Parliament, we should have had the guidance of some simple department, whose duty and responsibility it would have been to guide the House of Commons in a decision upon this important matter. Notwithstanding the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex), as a London Member I ask permission of the House to supplement what he has so ably and pertinently said by one or two observations that I intend to make directed against this Bill. If we had had, as in Germany, Prance, Austria, or Belgium, a Minister of Arts or an Office of Works in whom was vested the power of guiding Parliament in these matters, I venture to say that this Bill would never have passed the Examiners to a First or a Second Reading. The reason I say this is that we have no such central department, I am sorry to say, that can take a hilltop view of these matters, and adjust any difference there may be between, say, the county council on the one side and the railway on the other. But what bodies we have who have spoken upon this subject agree with
    1300
    the hon. Member for Stafford that this Bill ought to be opposed and rejected, because in the absence of a central department we find that practically all the architectural professions, the Royal Academy, the London County Council, and other bodies are against this Bill. Public opinion, as expressed by both daily and weekly newspapers, has found no argument in support of this particular measure, and I am glad to say that the Office of Works, who, like myself, regret there is not a central department with the powers that would destroy a Bill like this, very sensibly and kindly allowed its chief permanent official to give evidence within the House of Lords, reference enabling such a person to give evidence, and the Office of Works through its permanent official was against this Bill. One of the members of the Committee of the House of Lords itself, Lord Grimthorpe, said, "I think we would all like to abolish the bridge if we could."
    When we have those expressions of opinion, endorsed as they have been by a railway director, not of this company, who has just spoken, in the way he has spoken, not for, but, in my judgment, against this Bill, when we have a railway director who admits frankly that the bridge is very ugly, and it is not possible to make it uglier, with that view I go seven-eighths of the way. It is possible to make it uglier, and that is by erecting the bogus spandrel which this Bill suggests as the medium of temporary repair. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said the bridge has been sworn to be dangerous, and he urged that as a reason for supporting the Bill, but in the opinion of the engineer of the company and of the directors of this particular railway, the bridge is not so dangerous as to be so urgently in need of repair, and what repair this Bill proposes to give it is to be undertaken a year after the termination of this War. So it is pretty evident that this bridge is not going to fall down next week, next month, or next year, and the hon Member for Stafford was well within his rights when he said that if this bridge is not to be touched until a year after the War, and they work up, as they most probably will, in my judgment, to the six years that are asked for in this Bill, the reason for urgency, on the railway company's own showing, is in no sense proved by the last speech, which

    1301
    we are supposed to believe was sympathetic towards this particular project. The right hon. Gentleman said that he himself was in favour of a better scheme.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: No, no! I said I am favour of an ultimate substitution—at least, I am attracted by the idea of an ultimate substitution—of what is known as the Surrey-side scheme.
    Mr. BURNS: That is more than sufficient for my purpose, because it elaborates what I said.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It is not what you said.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman said that the ultimate substitution of the Surrey-side scheme has great attraction for him. He said once he himself was aesthetic. I am sorry to say we have but a remnant of his former æstheticism to-night. Perhaps railway connection has chilled the marrow of his artistic soul. He has an opportunity of getting back to his early ideals, his early æstheticism, in taking part in killing this Bill, because I can assure him that if this Bill is passed, and the £167,000 is to be spent in repairing in an uglier way than the present bridge itself, to the detriment of the navigation of the River Thames, the railway company, strengthened in their intention to maintain their present station and their present bridge, will come up, as inevitably they will be compelled, for another similar proposal to repair the other half, and, having spent in all £350,000, as they will have done, they will say, "We are anchored here by virtue of the money we have spent, and we therefore ask the public to allow us to remain." If this Bill is carried, great injustice will be done to London, and, what is more, I believe the company, by having this Bill carried, and the conditions imposed upon them, will themselves be in a position in -which some day they will regret that they did not take the bigger, the wiser, and the permanently economical view, and use this as an opportunity of transferring their station to the Surrey side, which the right hon. Gentleman himself is in favour of seeing carried out. The interval from now until the War terminates, and a year after the War terminates, should be used in a more excellent way than this Bill proposes.
    I suggest that if this Bill is suspended or killed to-day, the London County Council, with the architects, with the
    1302
    Office of Works, who are the body nearest in sentiment and in action with subjects like this—the Home Office ought to deal with the traffic aspect of this problem, particularly on the Strand side—the City Corporation and the Westminster and Lambeth Borough Councils should call a conference to be attended by the railway company, and the subject of the repair, the extension, the removal, or the transfer, or the abolition of Charing Cross Railway Station, should be discussed by that joint conference. The railway company should get not only fair and just, but, in my opinion, most generous treatment when the. transfer to the Surrey side takes place. The reason I suggest this is, first, on æsthetic grounds, and I mean in a broad and a general way, for the æsthetic view, pushed too far, untempered by reasons of utility and reasonable economy, would be, in my judgment, not the only reason that should induce you to throw out this Bill. But I do say this, on the æsthetic side, slowly but surely, London has displaced Paris as the cynosure of all European eyes. It certainly is a superior city from many points of view to Berlin, and is nearly abreast of Vienna. And I would like to point this out to those who consider trade and commercial interests in connection with projects of this kind. What is it that has made London increasingly a place to which tourists from all over the world, particularly the Continent, are coming increasingly? First, it is its cleanliness, its sanitation, its comfort, and, in recent years, the attractiveness that has been brought about by the enormous expenditure by public bodies, which for the last twenty-five years have certainly improved London from every point of view. And I respectfully suggest that beauty in a city is not a thing that materialists and cynics can lightly brush on one side. Beauty is not only pleasing to the eye and consoling to the mind in a great city. It pays in solid cash by the people who value natural beauty in a city such as this river affords us, blended with architectural adornments such as we are increasingly having, and the harmonious and symmetrical unity of commerce with civic pride, public taste, and fine public amenities. Let me express that in a cash way, and this is a surprising figure. Before the War it was estimated by hotel proprietors that 80,000 people came to London every day—I do not mean people who live at Tring, Harrow, Richmond, and

    1303
    Windsor, who come up to town every day —I am excluding all the home counties people—but 80,000 people from America, Canada, Africa, and in fact all parts of the world, came to London, and are increasingly coming, mainly because sanitation at great cost has kept pace with the large sums of money that the county council and other bodies have spent in the last twenty or thirty years on their forty or fifty new parks and gardens, all of which have attracted those 80,000 people a day, who come from all parts of the earth to stay in our hotels, look at our libraries, see our museums, and enjoy the increasing delights, comforts, and amenities of this great city.
    Charing Cross Bridge never attracted anybody. In my judgment it violates all the canons of public taste, and it outrages all the amenities of a fine riverside view that would be enormously improved by the course I am suggesting. From the point of view of railway convenience, if this station was moved from the north to the south side and linked up with the London and South-Western Railway it would benefit that railway, and it would considerably more benefit the South-Eastern Railway, because it would get rid of that stopping at Waterloo Junction which you only get in one train out of two, and it would get rid of that absurd running round to Cannon Street and back to Waterloo Junction again. It would give you on the river a handsome station with a fine facade linked up with the South-Western Railway, using the deteriorating property in that area for a cheaper, larger, better, and more convenient station than you can possibly get even if this Bill were passed. I appeal to hon. Members of this House. It is just over 100 years ago that, standing on old Westminster Bridge, Wordsworth, looking in the direction of Waterloo Bridge, without any monstrosity like Charing Cross Bridge to obstruct his view, wrote:
    "Earth has not anything to show more fair
    Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
    A sight so touching in its majesty."
    Wordsworth would not write that to-day. Constable, one of our greatest artists, painted one of his finest pictures from. Westminster, when he gave us, without Charing Cross Bridge, a splendid picture of that magnificent sweep from Westminster Bridge to Waterloo, and that picture is now in the possession of Lord Glenconner. And last, but not least.
    1304
    Canova, one of the greatest Italian artists and sculptors, said that to see a single arch of Waterloo Bridge was worth coming from the remotest corners of the earth. I might mention that Sir Edward Watkin Wynn was very much opposed to the original Charing Cross Station. Because we had too many railway directors in this House who do not know their business and do not take a long-sighted view, Wordsworth even has been flouted, Constable's picture has been effaced, and Canova's dream of Waterloo Bridge is not visible from where all those three witnessed that wonderful structure. Since this bridge was built, see what has happened. Million upon million of public money has been spent on the making of the Embankment, Aldwych, Kingsway, the widening of the Strand. Constitution Hill and the Mall, all of which have given increased facilities by roads; and thoroughfares all leading to that bottle-neck in the Strand known as Charing Cross Bridge. Beyond the expenditure of all this public money, look what the banks, newspaper offices, insurance and other corporations have spent in erecting fine buildings in and around a mile of Charing Cross Bridge.
    What do we propose? We propose that public money should be expended to provide for the growth of traffic and to overcome the incapacity of Charing Cross station to stand on its own legs. The only decent thing that Charing Cross station has ever done was to fall down in 1905, and in 1906 the railway company came here and asked for a pair of crutches to prop it up again. We ask that this bridge should not be repaired, because urgency is not pleaded on its behalf. We suggest that now is the time and now is the hour when a discussion of this problem suggests that all the local authorities concerned and the railway companies should substitute for Charing Cross station, which is "cabined, cribbed and confined" on the north, a fine station on the south. What is my proposal with regard to that? I suggest that there is a long distance between Waterloo Bridge and Westminster Bridge, much too great a distance for so large a city, and this is accentuated in its difficulty and distance by the fact that that most beautiful bridge, Waterloo Bridge, was made two-thirds too narrow between the curbs when it was put up. Here you have between Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge no other

    1305
    medium for conveying from the west the traffic to the Surrey side. Now we have an opportunity of getting rid of Charing Cross Railway Bridge and putting the station on the Surrey side. Where Charing Cross Railway Bridge now stands I suggest that we should have a bridge rather on the lines of Westminster Bridge: in steel if you can make it, because that is a beautiful bridge. Instead of being 85 ft. between the parapets we should have a bridge on the site of the present Charing Cross Railway Bridge 120 ft. in width, that the centre 60 ft. of that bridge should be practically reserved for all the traffic from the West End of London going straight into the South-Western, South-Eastern and Chatham Railways, and the remaining distances on either side should enable the traffic from the north to the south to go down a gradient road into Stamford Street on the left and Westminster Bridge on the right. Do not say this cannot be done, because there is something like it being done, and has been in use for a number of years, by the South-Western Railway. I am not averse to the railway company in thi3 matter, and I know how heavily burdened this railway is, with its needless bridges across the river, its ugly Cannon Street Bridge, Holborn Viaduct Bridge, St. Paul's Bridge, and Victoria Bridge, which is on the southeast of my own Constituency.
    I do not wish to burden this company in any way by the proposal which I make. On the contrary, I believe that the London County Council itself, in co-operation with the other public bodies, should spend £1,000,000 on a 120-feet magnificent bridge, that the company should be allowed to sell the surplus land on the north side, and the money derived from the sale after the bridge is made should go towards building a better station, with a river facade such as I have indicated. If the railway company were reasonable they would accept a proposal like this, and I should do everything in my power to influence those public bodies, and they want little influencing, after the evidence of Mr. Taylor, the chairman of the Improvements Committee of the County Council, after the expressed opinion of the Office of Works, after the splendidly public-spirited way in which Sir Aston Webb and the architects have helped in this matter. I am convinced, from the point of view of artistic appearance, public convenience, public view, and railway economy, it would
    1306
    be an advantage for the railway company to take our suggestion and not proceed further with this Bill.
    I leave the general question and come for a moment to one or two of the practical proposals in this Bill. I attended every meeting of this Committee upstairs. I am sorry that a project of this kind did not originate in the House of Commons, where a Second Reading Debate would have been more easy, and would certainly have had better results for the public than the Second Reading Debate in the other place. First of all, the railway company prove that the repairs asked for in this Bill are not urgent. It does not mean the substitution of strong girders for weak girders in the present design. It means putting in spandrels that spring from strengthened buttresses, the strengthening of which will take about 140 feet from the total navigable channel of the river. The effect of it from the point of view of appearance will be that it will make this ugly bridge uglier. Owing to the peculiar set of the tide and the river taking a sharp turn at Charing Cross—it is called Charing Cross not after Queen Eleanor's memorial, a substitute for which is now outside Charing Cross, but from the seventh-century Anglo-Saxon term of Cérran, which means to take a sharp turn —large steamers like the "Wandle" and the "Vauxhall," to say nothing of the "Battersea," carrying 1,200 and 1,500 tons of coal up and down the river, even now with 100 feet space between the uprights, have the greatest difficulty in safely navigating the river. Between Lambeth Bridge and Westminster Bridge the steamers can go straight down the river parallel with the embankment, but immediately one of these large vessels gets beyond Westminster Bridge she has to make for the Surrey side, and then cant over to the northern side, and to get through Waterloo Bridge she has to take an entirely different course. It is very difficult owing to the set of the tide for these steamers to avoid a collision. I am satisfied, if these spandrels are put in, that, as the captain of the "Wandle" truthfully says, we shall find that navigation will be considerably hampered. On the grounds of beauty, on the grounds of public taste, on the grounds of restoring Waterloo Bridge and the embankment, and on the grounds of improving the amenities in and around Charing Cross, this bridge should not be allowed to be repaired, because if it is repaired it will

    1307
    be used as an argument for doing the other part, and ultimately we shall find the railway company asking to be allowed to stay where they are.
    When Members from the West End of London go to and from Charing Cross and drive by the National Gallery they always witness one thing. The omnibuses, the taxi-cabs, the motor cars, and the people on the pavement are to be seen all obstructed. There is perfect congestion at that particular spot. Why I It is because the turntable in the quadrangle of Charing Cross Station is not of sufficient size to enable them to go in and come out with accessibility and convenience and without harm to the crossing public up and down the Strand. It is due to the narrowness and smallness of the space of that particular quadrangle. Another objection to the present station is that people on the south side of London —there are 2,250,000 of them who want to go to Kent just as much as the people on the north side—the man who lives at Rotherhithe, Clapham, Tooting, or Bermondsey, instead of being able to get into a Kent train at a new joint station on the south side, as he ought to be able to do, has to congest the already congested bridges of Waterloo and Westminster with his cab, motor, or omnibus, and go down either the Embankment or Whitehall. A tremendous amount of traffic over Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, and along Whitehall would not be there at all if a joint station was on the Surrey side and was accessible, as I have suggested.
    It is no good depending upon the railway company considering the public taste in this particular matter. Look at Charing Cross Bridge since they had power originally to erect it. We were told that it was to be a simple box-girder bridge, enabling locomotives and trains to go in and out. See what they have done with it. The first station has been extended, hiding still more the Embankment and Waterloo Bridge. Signal boxes have been put up, and there are now advertisement hoardings. If this Bill is allowed to pass—and appetite grows by what it is fed upon—then the railway company, notwithstanding all the æsthetic and general claims that are made upon them, will consider the interests of the company and say that the House of Commons decided that they should have this privilege. If tie South-Western Railway can carry
    1308
    112,000 people every day as against 54,000 passengers at Charing Cross, then Charing Cross could easily be transferred to-the Surrey side and linked up with the South-Western without any inconvenience at all. It has not been hinted at here, but upstairs I heard a South-Western witness say, "What about the working-class traffic?" Do not let us hear too much of consideration for the working classes by the railway companies in this connection. Without consulting the working classes scores of railway stations have been shut up, giving the workmen of London greater trouble and inconvenience than the transfer of this station from Charing Cross to the Surrey side of the river would give to them.
    My own view is that this Bill ought not to get a Second Reading for the reasons that have been given. It offends public taste. It is contrary to the railway company's own interest. If the Bill is thrown out, and I appeal to the House to throw it out, I shall do my very best with this-project, as I did, and perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, may recall it, when there was a proposal by a syndicate to overwhelm the House of Commons and the House of Lords by building a second Hankey's Mansions in the New Garden west of the House of Lords, Victoria Tower. That Bill was given its Second Reading, and it got. through the Committee. On that occasion I appealed to the House of Commons to accept my guarantee that if they threw it out I would persuade the London County Council to get rid of the walls and the unsightly premises between Lambeth Bridge and the House of Lords. If they would throw out the proposal for this sybaritic lodging house, eighty-six feet high, to be erected 100 feet from Victoria Tower I said that we would give Parliament an infinitely better neighbour than a second Hankey's Mansions to overshadow and overwhelm it with its colossal ugliness. On that occasion the House of Commons accepted my advice. They threw out that Bill, although it had had its Second Reading, and had gone through Committee. And see how the county council kept its word. They have spent a million of money between the Victoria Tower and Lambeth Bridge on a fine garden, a vast embankment, a new road, and they have attracted by that wise expenditure large private corporations to put up some of the handsomest buildings in keeping with the dignity of this House that have been erected in the last twenty years in London

    1309
    If we can do that for a garden, what ought we not to do in order to relieve that noble sweep of the River Thames from Westminster to Waterloo Bridge from this monstrosity that you cannot get even a railway company to defend, of which no architect will guarantee the safety, and in nothing connected with which can you get any engineer to take a pride? I appeal to the House to give Sir Aston Webb, the architects, the county council, the two borough councils, the Office of Works, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the railway company, a chance to come together and to confer in a sane, practical way, without any prejudice to the railway company, in the consideration of this particular problem. If the House do that—suspend this Bill, 01 what is better, vote against it having its Second Reading to-day—I guarantee, on behalf of the public authorities with whom I have consulted on the subject, that we shall find a more excellent way for a better station on the Surrey side without damnifying the company in the least, and adding to the amenity and the beauty of one of the noblest sweeps of embankment on one of the noblest rivers in the world, peopled by the freest, and, in my judgment, the greatest community the earth has ever yet seen.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I certainly do not think that any Government Department, certainly not the Board of Trade, would come here to oppose the public suggestion that has been made, and regarding which, I think, it is a great advantage that we should have been given the opportunity of discussing it, of removing Charing Cross Station and bridge to the south side of the river; and if that question really arose out of this Bill, then I think we should have to debate it from a very different standpoint from that which I propose to put before the House. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns) suggested that there was no public department which could take a hill-top view. I do not know whether I can take a hilltop view, but I can certainly take a direct view, because my window looks out on Charing Cross Bridge. I certainly should not come here to defend that structure, because I hardly suppose that an uglier structure could be found anywhere. Certainly it is a most attractive proposal that that Bridge should be replaced by such a structure as my right hon. Friend has suggested, and that the enormous advantages
    1310
    that would be derived from it, and which have been so very eloquently described by the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex), and by my right hon. Friend, should be available for the country. But where I differ from the right hon. Gentleman is that he says this is an opportunity, I think I understood him to say, for commencing to put into operation this great proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] For considering it. I think he suggested that conferences might take place, in any case, which, if they were to have any ultimate effect, would have to result in some actual beginnings of some undertaking. It is quite obvious to anybody that, however desirable this great scheme may be—and I can say exactly the same as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortley)—that I am very much attracted by it myself, and that so far as I am concerned, and I think so far as the Board of Trade are concerned, we should not only not oppose such a scheme, but obviously it would be considered with every desire, if it were found to be feasible, to carry it out. Nobody can deny the advantages that have been so eloquently set forth by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns).
    The real question before the House, however, is not the question whether a transfer of the station to the south side is desirable or not. That really is not the question before the House. The question before the House, the only Second Reading point before the House, in my opinion, is this. Will the giving of a Second Beading to this Bill prejudice the greater scheme? That really is the point, and I do not think that anything that has been said has made that point good. I cannot see how this scheme can prejudice the greater scheme. The present position is that the railway company has the power to widen the bridge at a cost of three-quarters of a million of money. They have had that power for a very long time, and that power can be extended. It expires in August, I think, but it can be extended again. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW?"] I believe it can be extended by authority of the Board of Trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, as I understand the view of the railway company it is this: That this widening in no way commits them to any opposition to the greater scheme, and it is a purely temporary matter to enable the bridge to carry the traffic which it now has to carry, and which it will have to carry in the immediate future. Of course, as the right hon.

    1311
    Gentleman said, it is a matter which must mainly be argued in Committee. But it is an urgent matter. My hon. Friends suggest that it is not an urgent matter, because under this Bill seven years are given within which the work can be completed. That is a maximum period, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The other point that is taken to indicate that it is not an urgent matter is that under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Bill it is provided
    "that the powers conferred by this Section shall not be exercised by the company during the continuance of the present War and twelve months thereafter unless the consent of the Treasury has previously been obtained."
    It is quite obvious that why that Clause is inserted is that all engineering enterprises which are not directly necessitated by the requirements of the War have to be postponed until the Treasury sanction can be obtained for the spending of the money, and that is all that that Clause means. The desire of the company is to carry out this work at the earliest possible moment, and I am bound to say that when the matter was being first considered at the Board of Trade we were rather of the opinion that it might have been deferred, perhaps, until the end of the War, and then come before Parliament.
    We have now come definitely to the conclusion, however, that this work is really urgent. So far as the information placed before us goes, it is urgent, and there are a great many preliminary matters which must be carried through before the work can be begun. Many engineering matters will have to be considered, contracts will have to be entered into, and arrangements will have to be made with the Port of London Authority. There must be a long preliminary period before the work can be actually undertaken, even if the Bill is authorised. What the company proposes is to do all that can be done without the labour and material which is required for war purposes, and as soon as that labour and material are available, if they have authority, they will then ask the Treasury to sanction the putting of this work in hand. The sole object of the work is to obtain the full value of the left or down-stream side of the bridge, which will not involve and obviously will not require similar action to the up-stream part of the bridge, the
    1312
    reason being simply that the down-stream part of the bridge was constructed in 1859, when the weight of locomotives was about half what it is now, while the up-stream half of the bridge was constructed in 1852 and is sufficient to bear the traffic. It has three lines and can bear the ordinary traffic of the present day. The lower part of the bridge has four lines and at present the structure is so weak that it cannot carry the heavy traffic of to-day, except as to some 50 per cent, of the full traffic which it ought to bear. Further, it is now reported that even that amount of traffic will have to be restricted. It is pretty obvious that when the War ends, quite apart from the very heavy suburban traffic which this bridge has to carry, there will be a very great increase of traffic to the Continent.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It can start from Cannon Street.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Cannon Street is not a very large station, and my hon. Friend can hardly suggest that it will take the whole of the traffic from the West of London as well as from the City.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: There is Victoria.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We really must consider public convenience and take a practical view. None of these stations are really large central stations. They are all fully utilised at the present time, and after the War, when we hope there will be a great revival of travel and of traffic, all these stations will be fully required until replacement has been provided.
    Sir J. LARMOR: Local traffic as well?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It all counts. Both local and Continental traffic will grow and will have to be provided for. One, of course, naturaly dovetails into the other. What the railway company and this House have to consider is the total traffic that has to be carried. It certainly does appear that we cannot and shall not be able to afford to forego this temporary strengthening, which will only be required to enable the bridge to be used until effect can be given to the greater scheme. It is quite obvious that after the War it must take a very considerable number of years before any new station constructed oh the Surrey side, with all its approaches, can be brought into actual use. Hon. Members must realise that to wish a thing is very different from carrying it out. When a considerable number of millions of money will be required for constructing

    1313
    a new station and all the approaches to it, it is pretty clear that this House will be taking a very great responsibility if they say they will not allow this dangerous structure to be strengthened at a comparatively small cost in order that the existing and future traffic may be carried with safety because they are afraid that it may prejudice the greater scheme.
    The point of view of the Board of Trade is that this Bill is not introduced with any idea or suggestion of prejudicing the greater scheme at all, and that it is merely meant to provide for the temporary traffic which now exists and to provide safety for that traffic Therefore it amounts to a Committee point. It can be fully argued in Committee whether or not this bridge is dangerous, and particularly as to its construction. There have been criticisms of the matter of construction and the engineering methods by which the strengthening of the bridge is to be carried out. Those are clearly not matters which we can argue here on the Second Reading; they are matters for Committee. This is not a Government matter. It is not a Government Bill, and every Member is, of course, absolutely free to express his own opinion, but it is the duty of the Board of Trade to examine the case from the public point of view and to advise the House what, in their opinion, is the course it should take. In the opinion of the Board of Trade no case exists for refusing permission to send this Bill to a Committee on the ground that the greater scheme will be jeopardised. We do not believe that the greater scheme will be jeopardised. There is certainly no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to support any present scheme which would jeopardise the greater one. We do suggest that the House might allow this Bill to go to Committee, where the question of construction, which is a question more or less of expert evidence upon which the Port of London Authority will have a locus before the Committee—the matter has already been before a Committee of the House of Lords—can be argued. Taking all these matters into account, we think it would be wise to allow the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs, where all its points can be considered. That will in no way prejudice the greater scheme. Therefore, although the arguments in favour of the greater scheme may be of great value, and may have a very desirable effect in ventilating that greater scheme, in calling public
    1314
    attention to it, and thereby furthering the scheme, which, I believe, everybody in the House would be glad to see carried out, I hope that hon. Members will be content to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and will not prevent the repair of the present structure being carried out if a Committee of the House approves of it.
    Mr. HORNE: I believe that if this Bill is allowed to go through it may prejudice the greater scheme in the future. If the greater scheme is to be carried out there will have to be a very big arbitration. The question of the land that will have to be bought will have to be settled, and an arrangement will have to be made as to the value of the goodwill of the trade this company is able to do and the amount it will lose by giving up this length of railway. At the present time the railway has to sell the old bridge in a damaged condition. It is not in a dangerous condition. It is perfectly safe if you restrict the number of trains going over it, but if you are going to allow this to take place you are going to allow a much larger trade to be done by the railway company; they will ask for so many more years' purchase of the profits they make, and it is quite possible that the extra sum may be just sufficient to turn the scale against the greater project ever being carried out Imagine if London wanted to make a new street, and the whole plan was scheduled but no Bill had been brought in, and powers had not been obtained, and that then the possessors of old property, obsolete and out of date, were allowed to spend money to renovate it in order to be able to get a larger price because it was new. This is exactly what is being done at present, and I hope the House will object to allow money to be spent which will be returned to them many times in future if they should ever, be able to sell their undertaking under a compensation Bill.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Whatever the result of this proposal may be, I think the House will agree that it has produced a number of very interesting and able speeches. The hon Member (Sir W. Essex) excelled himself in the eloquence with which he proposed the Amendment to the Second Reading. We have also had the pleasure of the re-entrance into our Debates of my right hon. Friend whom I might call the member for London. If we are sorry not to have him so often on Imperial affairs, we are glad to know that he has his old vigour and power when he takes part in purely domestic concerns. I am with my

    1315
    hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, and I am with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns) in so far as they are against the continuance of the present structure of Charing Cross Bridge, and against doing anything whatever as an obstruction to the carrying out of their idea. We have heard to-night in regard to the bridge what an eyesore it is. Everyone, so far as I know, is against it. No word has been said for the bridge to-night, and if that was the issue, should the Charing Cross Bridge be removed, there would not be the slightest opposition to that proposal. My right hon. Friend rightly described its objectionable character. It is noly fair to say, however, that it was as dirty and as objectionable twenty years ago as it is at present, and I regret that my right hon. Friend's enormous influence in the London County Council has not been able to influence that body during all these years of its existence to move a single finger in order to remove the bridge.
    Mr. BURNS: My right hon. Friend is not correct in saying that no steps have been taken. He said this thing has been before the public for twenty years. On more than one occasion I have interviewed the directors and I am very glad to say that at last public opinion, as expressed through its local bodies, is unanimously against this Bill. We have had a great battle to fight in getting public opinion this far, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that for the last twenty-five years a small body of men who have a regard for London have done everything in their power to influence public opinion, but we were not able to influence the directors as we should have liked.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I accept entirely what my right hon. Friend says, but the London County Council, after all, is the trustee of the people, and I think they ought to have been more alive and to have brought a measure before the House and taken action to express what I believe to be public opinion in regard to this particular bridge. It has not taken that action up to the present. That is the only point I will make so far as that is concerned. I come back again, and say the House is united in its opinion as to the bridge, but that is not the question before the House to-night. If I thought any vote given to-night against this Bill would remove Charing Cross Bridge I would willingly and
    1316
    gladly give it, and, if I thought the course which my right hon. Friend advises, of killing this Bill, was going to help the accomplishment of his ideal, I should certainly support him. I want to go to the same object as my right hon. Friend, but I want to take a long view of it and not a short view. What is the position if this Bill were destroyed? It has been stated that the company has the power to build a bridge.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: To widen the bridge.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I understand they have consent, so that they could go on. I see in some of the literature which has been sent to me—and we have had plenty of it—that the reason why these powers have not been exercised up to the present is in order to try and meet, if possible, the public demand for an entirely new public improvement, and I see in one document the manager of the railway says in an interview which has been circulated:
    "Our attitude has been entirely misrepresented. So far as we are concerned, we are entirely against the continuance of the present bridge, and in favour of its removal to the Surrey side."
    If that is the case it seems to me that we have to devote our attention to seeing whether we can take the responsibility which has been stated to us to-night, first of all by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade. They have told us that this bridge is dangerous. He says the matter is urgent. Can the House of Commons, the Bill having been examined by a Committee of the House of Lords and having been endorsed by that Chamber, take the responsibility of saying we will not even allow it to go to a Committee? I think that is a very great responsibility to take on what is purely a technical point. Imagine what a responsibility you will take. My right hon. Friend alluded to Charing Cross Station falling down some years ago, and says that was the best thing that could have happened, but he forgets that many people lost their lives by that accident.
    An HON. MEMBER: Two.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: No, more than two. I was in the neighbourhood at the time. Is this House to take the responsibility for many years to come?
    An HON MEMBER: Why not hasten it?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: How can it be hastened? It is made a complaint to-night

    1317
    that the company are taking more time. What would hon. Members say if they asked that the improvement should take place at the present time—the strengthening of the bridge? It is impossible to get labour to carry out the scheme. Are we going to take the responsibility in face of -very strong engineering evidence, in face of the right hon. Gentleman speaking for the company, and in face of the representative of the Board of Trade, of saying, "We will not allow it to go to a Committee," with the possibility, and it may be a great possibility, of an accident taking place on the railway bridge within the next year or two? That is too great a responsibility. For hon. Members to deny the right of a Committee to examine witnesses and hear the strength of their case is a very strong order indeed. I speak feelingly with regard to this matter. Any hon. Member who happens to live in the country or has been on the Continent has experienced the great annoyance of getting to the end of that bridge after a long journey, and waiting for half an hour before being allowed to move into the station. That is an argument for removing it to the other side, I know, but that is the case at present. It annoys us and annoys our foreign visitors and makes many working and business men late for their appointments in the morning because they are uexpectedly detained there for half an hour. In face of the statement of the company that they will have to reduce facilities by still one more line of traffic unless this power is given for the strengthening of the bridge, we ought to pause before we refuse to allow the Bill going to a Committee. I think the responsibilty is too great, but at the same time I think that if the Bill tomes before the Committee there ought to be an Instruction given so that the Committee should clearly understand that nothing in this Bill is to be inserted, or can be inserted, which would interfere with the removal of the bridge and the placing of the station on the other side of the river. I would go further and say that a Clause ought to be inserted expressing that clearly in definite terms.
    I think the Committee ought to be fully and absolutely satisfied as to the case that is put forward. With regard to the question of expense, a point has been made that the company would be creating a greater vested interest by the expenditure of this money. That is obviously a point which ought to come before the Com
    1318
    mittee, and, so far as I am concerned, if it was not put in by the Committee I would move it myself, that no expense that is to be incurred in connection with this bridge is to count for greater value when the whole question comes to be dealt with later on in regard to compensation. It ought to be clearly stated that advantage to the company is not to be the object in view, but security in the public interest. I think these points ought to be fully established before we allow this Bill to pass into law. Have hon. Members thought of the length of time it would take before the ideal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) and our own ideal of a new bridge across the River Thames and a new station is carried out? You have, first of all, to buy your property, get your powers from Parliament, establish your station, and then build your bridge. Should I be overstating it if I say ten or twelve years would be necessary to carry out such an undertaking? Certainly not. Therefore, we are dealing to-night not only for the immediate future, but with the future for years to come. That is a case that we should leave to the responsibility of the Committee, and then we can review the situation when the Bill comes back to this House for Third Reading.
    Mr. BOYTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) condemned the county council quite unnecessarily. Within my own recollection, when I was a member of that body, there was a very well-known member, Captain Swinton, who went to very great lengths in preparing drawings and showing how well this great improvement could be made. I do not think that, so far, those who are in favour of this bridge are having the best of the argument. The speeches which have been delivered show what a very desirable and great national improvement the provision of a new bridge and station would be. There is one point I wish particularly to impress upon the Government, because it will come within the range of the scheme when, as I hope, it will ultimately be carried out. The right hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) referred to the congested approaches to the Charing Cross station as it now exists. When the time comes for the approaches to be made to the new bridge—and I think the time is ripe now to refer to the matter—I want the Government to bear in mind that the Crown are the owners of the eastern side of Trafalgar Square, and the leases of the property, I

    1319
    believe, bounded by the West Strand and I by Duncannon Street will shortly be falling in. It would be a thousand pities— in fact, it would be a calamity—if the Crown were during the next few years to grant building leases on that site. It will be quite easy, and probably to the profit of the Crown, that they should consider in regard to granting any building leases for that side of the Square, the possibility, indeed, the successful possibility, of the great improvement in question being carried out. I am very anxious that the Crown should not commit themselves by accepting what would be the very tempting bait of very great accretion of land value compared with what they at present enjoy there. In such times as these, and with the pressing necessity for income they might be tempted. Therefore, I have ventured to make my point, and I particularly desire to emphasise my remarks, and to impress upon the Government that they will be committing really a very great crime if they grant building leases for their valuable island site on the eastern side of Trafalgar Square. I am sure that the hon. Member (Mr. Prety-man) who is in charge of the Bill will, after accepting his defeat with good grace, convey to the Government my suggestion that, although they have there a great nest-egg, a great accretion of income which would come to the Crown, they could, by discreet and judicious methods of replanning, and by conferring with those gentlemen who have already got out plans to show what a magnificent improvement this would be to the Metropolis, take advantage of the opportunity not only to enrich themselves but to very greatly and permanently improve Trafalgar Square, and produce what, I hope, will before long be one of the greatest improvements in London.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I agree that the Debate this evening has been extremely useful, and I think the fact that this evening has been given up to the ventilation of this question of getting rid of this ugly monstrosity is all to the good. We have never had so much public opinion behind us as we are getting to-night. It seems rather strange that, in the middle of the War, we can get the House of Commons to devote itself so enthusiastically to this matter, which many of us devoted ourselves to years ago without getting that support and backing that we ought to have had at the time. I happened to be the
    1320
    chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council in 1900, when the Bill was passed giving powers to the railway company for making the new bridge. I was grieved at the time, as we all were, that we had to see that Bill pass into law, because it looked almost hopeless to look forward to the future and to think of this station south of the Thames, after the Bill had been passed, enabling the company to construct practically a new bridge. That is what it meant; it meant widening the bridge and reconstructing Charing Cross Station. I was chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, when the London and South-Western Railway carried their Bill for altering their station on the south side of the Thames. It always seemed to us, on the London County Council in those days, that there should be one general station for the London and South-Western-Railway and the South-Eastern Railway on the south side of the Thames. It all seemed so obvious to us that it did not really want any argument. But we were called wastrels. I see hon. Gentlemen' sitting opposite who enjoyed themselves, in those days, in opposing our schemes, and they were the same people who prevented the London County Council carrying out their schemes. It was impossible to get forward with this matter then.
    Two things have, however, occurred' since then. We all know that the London County Council has put its county hall on the south of the Thames. That tends to make the south side of the Thames a more attractive place for a great station than it was years ago. Another change that has come about is that, I understand, the railway company are not hostile now to some scheme for putting their station on the south side of the Thames. Therefore, there are many circumstances today which make the greater scheme more possible than it was years ago. As an old advocate of this great improvement I welcome the Debate to-night. We all realise what a great improvement it will be when we have the South-Western station, the South-Eastern station, and the county hall on the south side of the Thames, and we feel what a great opportunity the right hon. Member for Battersea lost when he was President of the Local Government Board and was putting forward his town planning scheme for the rest of the country, that he did not use his great authority and position then to get he finest town planning scheme carried out in London

    1321
    right under the very windows of the Local Government Board. There was an opportunity for a town-planning scheme to take the whole of the land. The Government might have assisted and the county council might have taken the whole of the land between Charing Cross Bridge, Westminster Bridge, and the London and South-Western Railway, and put the County Hall in the centre of a reclaimed district, and then the value of the land all round the County Hall in the centre would have been so great that practically the land might have been acquired by the county council for its County Hall without any cost. That was the finest opportunity for a town-planning scheme that any town ever had, but my right hon. Friend did not move a finger then, as President of the Local Government Board, to promote that.
    Mr. BURNS: That is not true.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Now he and others come all supporting this proposal for this great improvement of London, which we all endorse. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman) and others who have spoken that we are all in favour of getting rid of this monstrosity in London, but where I join issue with the right hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Stafford, who moved that this Bill be not given a Second Beading, is when they say that this Bill touches this point at all. The right hon. Member for Batter-sea said that this gives us an opportunity of getting rid of Charing Cross Bridge and of putting the station on the other side of the Thames. I dispute that absolutely. I do not think that it is fair in this House to say that anybody who votes for the Second Reading of this Bill is voting against getting rid of this monstrosity, or against putting the South-Eastern station on the other side of the bridge. To my mind, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is pure nonsense to make such a statement. This Bill proposes to spend £170,000 to repair a bridge which the company say is dangerous for their traffic, and which Sir Alex Binnie told me twenty years ago was dangerous. [Laughter.] I may be very dense, but I do not see the reason for laughter. Sir Alex Binnie told me, and I dare say he told other members of the county council—it was his business to report on these matters—that the bridge
    1322
    was dangerous then. They have tinkered at the bridge ever since. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If we can get them to put a station on the other side I say "Hear, hear!" also. Now, when we are told that the bridge is dangerous for traffic, is this House going to refuse the railway company £170,000 to make this bridge safe for traffic? What is £170,000 on a project of this kind? The money must be spent over a series of years, at least five or six years. The idea that giving a company power to spend £170,000 to make this bridge safe for its traffic is interfering with a great scheme of a great Metropolitan improvement which must cost millions of money is ridiculous. Why, it is not the insurance money connected with the cost of the scheme, and if you want safeguards I thought that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) made a point when he said that they might claim compensation for extra traffic. That, I agree, is a point, but that is no reason for rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill on the plea that if you do not vote against the Bill you are voting against this great improvement. You can put Clauses in the Bill to meet these points. You could have a Clause that the company should not have any claim under this Bill for increased compensation, either for traffic or for expenditure of the money. They could put a Clause in the Bill that it should not be used as an argument against this scheme if it is brought forward by the London County Council. You can put a sterilisation Clause in the Bill, which is often done. It was done in regard to the water undertakings of London before they were purchased. You could put Clauses in the Bill that you should only spend money with the consent of the Board of Trade. These are things which are reasonable and a safeguard. But to say that you are voting for or against this great improvement, when it simply means that £170,000 may be spent in the course of six or seven years, and to deny the company power to spend that money, seems to me to be asking the House to take a step which would be extremely unwise. Suppose some accident happens in London and that a train falls into the River Thames, who will be to blame? Evidence is given that this bridge is not safe for traffic. The railway company ask for a reasonable sum of money.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: They are not asking for any money. It is the company's own money.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: They are not asking money from us; the Bill only asks for authority for the company to spend its own money. Railway companies are not in the position they were years ago; they are much more linked up with the Government than they were; they are practically Government concerns now during the War. I do not suppose that they are ever going back to their old position; I do not suppose for a moment, control once having been taken over by the Government, and the railway companies having made the pooling arrangements which they are now making with regard, to their traffic, that we are going back to the old order of things. It is, after all, the public that we are dealing with, so I hope that the House will not be led away by the enthusiasm of some of our Friends for a scheme which we all favour into misinterpreting what the proposal before the House really is and perhaps endangering the lives of large numbers of the travelling public. I hope to live to see the great improvement referred to by the right hon. Member for Battersea and other speakers carried out in London. Nothing would delight me more than to see it, and if there is anything which I can do in this House to further that improvement I shall do it with the greatest pleasure and the greatest enthusiasm, but I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that voting against this Bill would do nothing of the kind.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is by pure accident that I find myself an auditor of the arguments which have been advanced against and to this Bill. I knew nothing of the contents of this Bill until I listened to the very eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford and the arguments, which were reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. For a great number of years I have always found myself in the same Division Lobby as my right hon. Friend, and I anticipated that that would be the case as the result of his arguments to-night, but I confess that I found in those arguments a considerable flaw. It seems to me that this Bill is being debated from the point of view that the London County Council were proposing a great scheme for the improvement of London, and that this scheme would be prevented from coming into operation if this Bill were passed. A picture was drawn of the London County Council, the Office of Works, the Royal Academy, and various other authorities of municipal power and artistic influence meeting to-
    1324
    gether and producing a scheme which would add to the beauty of this London, which the right hon. Gentleman justly describes as not merely one of the most famous, but one of the most splendid cities in the world. That is not really the position of things as they stand. As I understand it, there is no proposal before the London County Council at this moment to lift a finger towards the removal of Charing Cross Railway Station, to provide any money for the evacuation of that site and its occupation by a memorial, either to that great figure who has passed away from our midst or to commemorate any other national institution or person. No such proposal is before the public or the county council, or this House. What is before the House is this: A railway company comes down to the House and says, "We have a bridge which we are bound to maintain by our Act, we. have got a station which may be on the wrong side of the river"—I think it is—" we have got to join up, even if the station is on the wrong side of the river, with our traffic on the other side of the river, and the connecting link between the traffic and the station is not safe." Is this House in a position to say that the link is safe? I have not heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex) that the bridge is safe and needs no repair, nor do I know what the rights and wrongs of the case are, but I do know that the question would be much better threshed out before a Committee of this House or a Joint Committee of both Houses, as the ease may be, than before the House in its corporate capacity, when it is perfectly unable to judge of the engineering or mechanical argument one way or the other. I think we will be taking a most heavy responsibility on our part if we reject this Bill without any expert knowledge of any sort or kind, and simply on engineers' statements which may be advanced in support of this Bill or in opposition to it.
    It may be that the Committee, when they get this Bill before them, will throw it out, not on its artistic merits, or as a scheme for beautifying London, but on the ground that the bridge is so secure that it needs no money spent upon it, or that it will impede traffic on the Thames, that nothing ought to be done, and that it ought to be removed. I confess for my own part that if the London County Council came here and said, "We have got a

    1325
    scheme which will beautify the north and south of London, which will create a fresh access from north to south, and such a scheme is approved by every authority to whom it has been submitted, your Bill will block the realisation of that scheme, it will delay the improvement of London, it will impede the improvement of the communication between north and south," then I should unhesitatingly oppose this Bill. I do not understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. John Burns), who, as everybody knows, is more interested in the improvement of London than any other Member of this House—with great respect to my fellow Members, is here, or that anybody is here, on the part of the London County Council, to say that such a scheme is ready to be put before that body or before this House. If this matter goes to a Division I shall support the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I am sure we are very much indebted to the right hon. Member for Battersea for having brought forward so clearly the grounds of opposition to this Bill. He shows, as he has always shown, great foresight in dealing with these big questions concerning London. He, like myself, has had a great deal of experience with regard to these projects of London improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) referred to his own action—it was praiseworthy action— nearly twenty years ago, when dealing with precisely the same question; and I remember myself being in communication with the directors of this company on this subject as to whether or not it would be possible and advisable for them to carry out the powers of that Act of Parliament which they had got at that time by means of a proposal to transfer the station from Charing Cross to the other side of the river. Nothing has been done. We are twenty years older, and exactly where we were, and I think if the House votes with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green we shall have to wait another twenty years before we realise this great improvement, which I honestly believe is desired by not only everybody in this House, 'but everybody in London, namely, that the Charing Cross Bridge should be abolished, and that we should start a process of embellishing and improving London south of the river in the same way as Paris has done with her river to such an enormous extent.
    1326
    But the one difficulty in the minds of Members of this House is the assertion that this bridge at the present moment is unsafe. I can only quote the words of Sir Francis Dent with reference to this point, and, to my mind, it is important. In an interview which is reported on 25th June he said:
    "Whilst there is no danger of a train falling into the river, the bridge is overstrained. So far we have got over any risk by limiting the number of trains that pass over it at any one time. There must be no train on adjoining ways at the same time—that is to say, two up trains may run at the same time, but no down train may pass them on the bridge. This means that we cannot get as many trains in and out of the station as are required in the busiest hours."
    Is it not perfectly clear that the company "wants to carry out this improvement of the bridge in order to facilitate its traffic? There is no question of danger. The bridge is perfectly safe, and will be safe for many years to come, but in order to enable them to get over certain difficulties in regard to traffic they ask Parliament to give them this power. We are justified in saying that if the only urgency is the urgency of traffic they should wait another year or two till we see whether it is possible to bring forward this great improvement which has been in the minds of the people of London for many years—a scheme when in its original form before the London County Council was looked at by that body with great favour, and I believe that the present county council, or at least the Improvements Committee are willing to look upon it with favour. In these circumstances in a Debate like this, with the evidence that the management of the railway does not wish for the project of the removal of the station to the south side of the river, with the knowledge that the London County Council, and probably many other authorities, have the conviction that, after the War, there will undoubtedly arise a great question as to whether or not a vast improvement should be made somewhere in commemoration of the War, and in view of the fact that, against that, the company only want to get a few more trains over the bridge in certain hours of the day, I think we are entitled to ask them to wait another year. It is far wiser to wait a year or two, if necessary, than to commit ourselves to a position in which the company will be able to say, "Our bridge and our station are perfectly good for all our requirements for the next twenty or thirty years." It is of far more importance, from the public point of view, that the company should be brought face to face with this fact, that

    1327
    unless they make some such change as is proposed, unless they show themelves willing to enter into negotiation with the various public authorities to carry it through, this House will not stand any tinkering with this Bill, and I hope the House will reject it in the interests of beautifying and embellishing London.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: It is really time that one who is not distinctly and directly concerned in the company should say a word on this subject, and I confess that I was rather surprised at the argument used by the speaker who has just sat down, and also, I think, by an hon. Friend of mine a little earlier. They say that there is nothing in this question but a few trains more running over Charing Cross Bridge. It is not a question of a few trains more, but a few trains less, and there are already restrictions of a very severe character put upon the traffic. A great many hon. Members may be tempted to vote against the Bill because they have been in trains that have had to stand for a considerable time on the bridge because of these restrictions, and anybody who has been on the bridge in the circumstances I have stated knows what happens and knows the vibrations, which take place. Surely it is rather an extraordinary argument to put forward in this House that the company should run lighter trains. The one thing that has been pressed on the South-Eastern Railway is that they should take in hand the question of running heavier engines up the larger gradients, in order that we may have the journey between the coast and London conducted on terms more similar to those of other railways. It is really putting the clock back to an extraordinary extent if you are going to ask the South-Eastern Company to run lighter trains and lighter engines because you do not wish any money to be spent on this bridge. We are suffering from restriction of traffic already. We have large additional traffic thrown upon us in connection with military matters in a way which may tie more permanent than perhaps some people think, and there is the Continental traffic, which is certain to increase as soon as the War is over.
    Surely, then, this is not the moment for restricting in any sense whatever facilities we have of railway accommodation in London, even if there is a very great project looming in the distance.
    1328
    There is not one of us who is not familiar with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-sea and other speakers. We should all rejoice to see Charing Cross Station and bridge removed, but such a step could not possibly be taken until after the War, and if the railway company now attempted such a gigantic step the Treasury would prevent them. Even when they did start anybody who followed the difficulties which they had in connection with the enlargements of their line a few years ago through a crowded district would realise what a long time it would take in order to provide space for a sufficient terminus on the south side of the river. It is really impossible at the present moment to dispense with Charing Cross and the facilities for traffic connected with Charing Cross Station. Therefore it seems to me that we must, if we are wise, accede to such an expenditure of money as will make the bridge safe for the traffic. That, as has been put forward by the Board of Trade and other speakers, is a question for the Committee. The Committee would have to decide whether £170,000 was really necessary, and it might be found that a smaller sum would be required, and that it was not necessary to interfere so much with the navigation on the river. Those are technical points which we are absolutely unable here to decide in the House on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Battersea said that he was able to prevent another scheme on Third Reading. That is the opportunity, for the Committee will then have considered the technical question and will have been able to give an opinion. If the House thinks that this is going to interfere in any way with the larger project which is favoured in their minds, of course it has power to reject the Bill on the Third Reading. In a case of this sort, which really affects the safety of the people and facilities of transit to a large district and for Continental purposes, do not let us merely, because of artistic sympathies or because of a latent dislike to a particular railway company, put a stop to expenditure which in my opinion is necessary and at this moment should be settled by a Committee. I hope the House is not going to take the very great responsibility of refusing to allow the matter to go to a Committee.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think that in a Debate of this character there should be some consideration for the general public

    1329
    who have to use these lines in getting to their destination. My right hon. Friend "who has just spoken intended to make a strong point by reading a quotation, I believe from the engineer, that the bridge was not absolutely unsafe. It is not unsafe, but for what reason? It is because they curtail the amount of weight they put upon it. In other words, it is absolutely unsafe if they attempted to use the whole of the lines and the carrying power they possess I say that that is one of the strongest arguments for something being done. "Oh, but," says the right hon. Gentleman, "they only want to facilitate their traffic." Of course they do, and if my right hon. Friend had, like many of our constituents, to come from Kent twice a day, and knew what it was on a foggy morning to be held up because this bridge will not allow the railway company to take the proper number of trains over it, then I think he would very speedily become a convert to the desire for facilities for that traffic. I should not have taken any part in the Debate were it not that some of the speeches entirely ignored the welfare of the travelling public. Over and over again from the other side it has been said, "What matters about Charing Cross, let the public go to Victoria or to Cannon Street." My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex) pointed out, in 1905, at the time of the accident, for six months they had to do so. I know that that was the case, and they had to put up with it, but if those gentlemen had to try and get certain trains at Victoria and Cannon Street, and had to consult the official railway guide of the South-Eastern Railway, they would find that they would have very great difficulty in getting out at Victoria to some of the lines, and that they would have to go a very roundabout journey.
    I therefore put in a plea for the travelling public who have to get into London by this railway. I do not care how strong the protection afforded in the Bill for the other scheme. I endorse everything my right hon. Friend has said, and I say let the House put into this Bill safeguards against using this at any time as a lever against the greater scheme, but I do beseech the House to let the Bill go before the Committee. The company will have to prove its case before the Committee, and if they fail to do so we can have all the eloquence of the hon. Member for Stafford, and the rest, on the Third Reading to prove that the company have not made out their case upstairs, and that the Bill ought to
    1330
    be thrown out. We are told that there is going to be a grand new scheme, and we are all in favour of it. Surely, as a Londoner, I am in favour of the improvement of London. I have been advocating the improvement of London before the London County Council came into existence. I sat here in this House before that event, and was one of the creators of the council. While I give great credit to the county council for their improvement, I also give great credit to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the great improvements they carried out in the shape of main arteries, parks and other matters. Therefore I am as deeply concerned as anyone else in the improvement of London. Get your great scheme by all means; but the moment that scheme is foreshadowed, as it has been so eloquently tonight, other difficulties arise before it can be carried out. You have to make new arteries to begin with. I welcome the observations of the hon. Member for Marylebone, in which he pointed out the difficulties you would have to overcome before the great scheme could be carried out. It shows at once the magnitude of that scheme. We want it, and we will welcome it. We will welcome it, if you like, as a great monument to the heroes who have fallen in the War. But while we are getting that scheme ready do not let us fail in another direction by refusing to allow the directors of the South-Eastern Railway Company to spend this paltry sum of money in order to make the bridge secure, and to afford the great facilities which the travelling public require.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: We have had a long and interesting discussion, from which two things emerge clearly. One is a very general support for the bigger scheme. I believe that in principle that scheme would be carried unanimously. The second thing that emerges is the great adroitness with which the supporters of the Bill carefully confine themselves to the very narrow issue of the danger of the bridge and the urgency of the proposal. It was not the inconvenience; it was the danger. The evidence is perfectly clear that the bridge was not dangerous. Take the words of the engineer called be the promoters of the Bill—
    "I do not go so far as to say it is dangerous, but it is in such a condition that you cannot have the full use of it."
    If the supporters of the Bill are going to change their ground, which I understood

    1331
    was that of danger, and to substitute the ground of inconvenience, surely we may take that as supporting our case. We say that you will never get a satisfactory arrangement while you have the station on this side of the river. All the traffic arguments, the cost of cartage, the provision for passengers in the future, and the dispersal of your passengers when they arrive —all these things are arguments not for this paltry proposal, but for a sound scheme of putting your station on the other side of the river at once. We are told that-it is so urgent that it must be set about at once. If that is so, a Clause in the Bill negatives that, because it is provided that nothing can be done until a year after the War.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: That was put upon the promotors.
    Mr. BARLOW: I am dealing with the proviso. I am not going to minimise what they suggested. It is true there is a proviso that, unless the consent of the Treasury has been previously obtained, they cannot do anything until a year after the War. It is not a question of the Board of Trade; it is not a question of traffic; it is purely a financial question—whether the Treasury think that the financial condition of the company is so satisfactory that they can be allowed to appeal for the money. Suppose the Treasury decide that the condition of the company's finances is not such as to allow the money to be appealed for: what then Is this awfully dangerous bridge to go on! Is this awful inconvenience to go on? Surely the company would do much better if, instead' of making two bites at the cherry, they set about putting their house in order at once. If they did so, they would without doubt receive the wholehearted support of the County Council. I had at one time the privilege of being a member of that body, and I can remember this improvement being mentioned. I can also remember that our advisers gave us this advice—that there were certain other improvements, such as the Kings-way improvement, which were more immediately necessary. They were more immediately necessary because they concerned the road traffic of London and the tramway facilities for which the County Council were more directly responsible. Those great improvements have now been carried out. The main bottle-necks for the road traffic of London have been
    1332
    dealt with, and I think that this improvement comes next on the list of those which the County Council would have to undertake. The County Council passed nem. con. a resolution against this Bill. The chairman of the Improvements Committee gave evidence against the Bill, and he gave an undertaking as far as he could that the County Council would readily support some such scheme as that which has been sketched for us to-night. We have been told that it will be easy to-provide that whatever is done now shall not prejudice the greater scheme. I have had the privilege of being in at the birth of some of these schemes, and I always-view that sort of vague suggestion with considerable suspicion. If we can get a Clause to that effect put in the Bill, well and good, but personally I am rather doubtful. What I am afraid will happen is that if the Bill passes in its present-state, years hence the company will say,. "On the authority of Parliament this money has been expended, and you must give us greater compensation," and so the scheme for the beautification of London will be damnified. I hope the Bill will not pass, but if it is read a second time, I hope an Instruction will be moved on the lines of the Instruction passed by the House of Lords.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I have no right to make a second speech, but I wish to answer, if I may, the serious point put by the hon. Member for the Guildford Division (Mr. Barlow), namely, that the amount expended upon this bridge might be added to any future compensation which the company might claim should the bridge, under a larger scheme in future, disappear. I do not know whether an Instruction is necessary to enable the Committee to deal with that point, but I am authorised to say that no such Instruction will be opposed by the railway company. It is not their intention to claim for this expenditure in the event of the larger scheme going forward within a reasonable time which it should be in the power of the Committee to fix.
    Mr. HOHLER: I desire to say a few words upon this Bill from the point of view of a Member of one of the Constituencies of Kent. I have listened to the Debate, and have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, who has introduced quite a different proposal to that which this Bill asks Parliament to sanction. With a grandiose scheme of

    1333
    the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman before Committee every Member of the Parliamentary Bar ought to make his fortune in a very short time. Very, very little has been said during the whole of this Debate, either by the right hon. Gentleman or by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, which has any bearing upon the merits of this Bill. What does this Bill ask? It asks simply that Parliament shall sanction the expenditure of a certain sum of money in the strengthening of a bridge in order that it may do the duty for which it was constructed. Then other hon. Friends of mine have read to the House one single passage from the evidence, and have asked us to form a judgment upon it. If I am asked to form a judgment upon that which was read to us I should unhesitatingly say that the bridge requires strengthening because it is in a dangerous condition. Anybody, even if he were addressing a common jury, who read such a passage from evidence would suggest that a bridge which will only bear one train at a time when it is intended to bear three or four, was safe. I confess I cannot think that such a contention would commend itself to me or any man. Really, as to whether the bridge is safe or not, surely this House is not the proper forum before which to try that question. We can only decide in this matter upon the evidence of experts and engineers which can be put forward and tested by cross-examination. Surely that would be a much better way to deal with this matter than by this House. I want just to say a few words on the question on which I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea does show his want of knowledge. I am sure the hon. Member for Stafford is in error; and I speak, I confess, as having travelled as much on the South-Eastern, Chatham, and Dover as any Member of this House. It is quite incorrect to suggest that the old Chatham Victoria Station is being enlarged.
    Mr. BURNS: Who said it was?
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. HOHLER: The hon. Member for Stafford said it was, and that is the answer. He refused to accept the correction. It is quite incorrect to say so. There has been no enlargement of the station accommodation there for the last thirty or forty years. In regard to the Holborn and the Victoria Stations to
    1334
    which the right hon. Gentleman referred, they are stations which have no real facility and afford no useful purpose in connection with the old South-Eastern and Chatham Railway. Indeed, the only connection between those lines, the nearest connection to London, is about Bromley. These railways are of no possible use to the South-Eastern Railway in dealing with their traffic. Some hon. Gentlemen suggested that we should close to all traffic the Charing Cross Bridge for twelve months. Has that hon. Member ever considered the inconvenience if such a proposal were carried into effect? The whole of the south-eastern traffic would have to go to Cannon Street; it could not be got elsewhere, except some of the Continental trains were sent to Victoria,, which are where the traffic is already at a great disadvantage, and where there is a great want of facilities for travelling purposes. I do submit that in the consideration of this question those who talk ought to have some regard to the people who are habitually travelling on that line. It would be the greatest inconvenience to the great towns all round the north of Kent, which are solely dependent upon that or Cannon Street. Consider also the whole of the traffic of the South-Eastern, especially coming from the coast! At the present time many forget that, owing to the ravages of the sea, the communication between Folkestone and Dover has gone. It is essential that each line should be kept a living entity, with such through communication as they have got, and that the whole thing may be kept working. The advantage of the trains and the convenience of the passengers, more particularly when the atmosphere is foggy, at Charing Cross is enormously intensified by the question of the repair of the bridge. It is suggested by some, "Oh, the railway company would benefit more than anyone by getting the further use of the bridge." How would the company benefit? The bridge will still simply be a bridge capable of carrying the traffic which it was originally constructed to carry. It really would? seem as if hon. Members sought to postpone that which is absolutely necessary in the interests of the public. Assuming that the Committee were of that opinion before whom this Bill was ultimately heard, until some day the bridge falls into the river, and perhaps a train with it—because there is nothing to compel the

    1335
    railway company to carry out this proposal! Now we are to put on the back of the Bill the scheme foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea. What does it mean? It could not be introduced by the railway company. I do not know who are the local authorities who would have the power to carry it out, or how they could agree amongst themselves as to the proportion of the expense they would incur. In other words, the scheme that is proposed must emanate from the Government. It is a scheme which, to my mind, is not to he thought of for a moment. The millions it would cost is no object! Everyone seems to think that this nation is as rich and will be as rich at the end of the War as it has been in times of peace. I submit that to try to postpone and hang up this Bill for the reasons given is to try and prevent a useful user of this railway for the benefit of the public.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I do hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. To my mind it is a most extraordinary thing that at a time like this, when the country is in the middle of a great War, when its resources are strained to the uttermost, that some should contemplate a scheme such as this foreshadowed in the speeches which have been made in opposition to the Bill—and a scheme which is going to cost anything up to £20,000,000! We are holding up the repair of what is really a dangerous structure for a scheme in connection with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea talked about £1,000,000. I am told that the scheme will cost £20,000,000, and that it will take many, many years to carry out. Really, it is a scandal that this Bill should be refused a Second Reading, or that opposition should be offered to it by reason of the scheme to which I have referred. We have to consider what is the responsibility of this House. We are told that, in the opinion of experts, this
    bridge is more or less dangerous. We know that accidents do happen on the railways, and that collisions do occur. We have to realise what might happen if a collision occurred on this bridge. It would enormously increase the strain, and the disaster might be followed by a second disaster, that is, the collapse of the bridge. I myself have a very strong feeling that we are not acting rightly unless we give a Second Reading to this Bill. Goodness only knows where the money is to come from for this scheme for the beautification of London. Why, no money may be available for years. It will probably be twenty or thirty years before we shall be able to go on with any of the schemes which the county council have dealt with in the past. In the meantime, we have got to tinker up the bridges and all the old buildings as best we can. What will our Allies think of us when they see the time of this House occupied for the greater part of the sitting debating a question of this kind? Surely this is a time when we ought to study economy in every possible direction. The hoardings are covered with placards telling us that it is unpatriotic to wear new clothes, and advice to that effect, and we shall have to do with the old bridge as long as we are able to put up with it. I do beg that the House will accept the scheme, coupled as it is with the offer which the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has suggested, that it should be without prejudice to the greater scheme being carried on at a later date, and also without any additional compensation. That I venture to think, covers the whole ground, and disposes of all the questions that have been raised by the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I beg and hope that the House will pass the Second Reading.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 30.]

    AYES.

    [10.7 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stewart, Gershom

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Hardy Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Stuart-Wortley and Mr. J. Rowlands.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    NOES.

    Alden, Percy

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Barnes, Rt Hon. George N.

    Grant, J. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Radford, Sir. George Heynes

    Bird, Alfred

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Raftan, Peter Wilson

    Bliss, Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hinds, John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Boyton, James

    Hogge, James Myles

    Shortt, Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Bytes, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Watt, Henry A.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    John, Edward Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    King, Joseph

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Dickinson, Rt. Hen. Willoughby H.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Percy Harris (Leicester, Har-

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    borough) and Mr. Montague Barlow.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Millar, James Duncan

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Words added.
    Second Reading put off for three months.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd
    1338
    February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter past Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    MR. SHEEIIY-SKEFFINGTON (INQUIRY).
    MR. SHEEIIY-SKEFFINGTON (INQUIRY).
    ARRESTS.
    ARRESTS.
    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
  EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOMES (TAXES).
  EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOMES (TAXES).
  MENTAL AND NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (ROYAL NAVY).
  MENTAL AND NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (ROYAL NAVY).
  COMMISSIONED RANK (ROYAL NAVY).
  COMMISSIONED RANK (ROYAL NAVY).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  ATTESTED MEN (GARRISON DUTY ABROAD).
  ATTESTED MEN (GARRISON DUTY ABROAD).
  ARMY LIST.
  ARMY LIST.
  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  HOHENZOLLERN REDOUBT (DISPATCH).
  HOHENZOLLERN REDOUBT (DISPATCH).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTORS (REDUCED SALARIES).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTORS (REDUCED SALARIES).
  EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
  EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
  ALLIES' TRADE (UNIFORM SYSTEM).
  ALLIES' TRADE (UNIFORM SYSTEM).
  MACHINERY IMPORTS.
  MACHINERY IMPORTS.
  INSURANCE AND FREIGHT.
  INSURANCE AND FREIGHT.
  HOPS IMPORTED.
  HOPS IMPORTED.
  CAHIRCIVEEN POSTAL SERVICE.
  CAHIRCIVEEN POSTAL SERVICE.
  Letting Houses and Apartments.
  Letting Houses and Apartments.