Sitting of 11 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wakefield Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 7th July, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT, 1866.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 7th July, 1916, finally approving Revised General Orders for regulating the Procedure and Practice of Naval Courts Martial [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Essex (urban district of Burnham-on-Crouch) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copies presented of Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of Associations for the county of Devon and the county of Essex under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Courts (Emergency Powers), England (County Courts),—Copy of the County Courts (Emergency Powers) Rules, 1916 (No. 3), dated 26th June, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor for County Courts under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914, to 1916 [by Act].

2. Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions), England,—Copy of Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Rules, 1916 (No. 2), dated 26th June, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, as amended by the Courts (Emergency Powers) (No. 2) Act, 1916 [by Act].

IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE).
Return ordered "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 308, of Session 1914–16)."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    TERRITORIAL ACQUISITIONS BY GERMANY.
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to find out whether the Imperial German Chancellor, in opposing all territorial acquisitions by Germany, is representing the views of the German Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): We have no means of finding out the views of the German Government except by their public utterances. I must point out that it is their business to make

    177
    their own views known without our help, and they are perfectly capable of doing so when they think it desirable.
    Mr. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it possible through a neutral Power to get this information?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.
    Mr. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether His Majesty's Government are desirous of eliciting this information?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement recently made by M. Sazonoff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the Russian "Slovo," in which he stated that he was ready to admit that Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg did not wish the War and was not the direct promoter of it, and in which he further stated that at the beginning of the War resolutions taken by the three Allied Powers with regard to the various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and particularly those interesting to Russia, fully assured to Russia the realisation of her national and ancient aspirations; and whether, in view of the importance of the statement, he will cause a translation to be placed in the Library?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have seen, in the British Press, a summary of the interview to which the hon. Member refers. I will inquire whether it was an authorised statement by M. Sazonoff, and if so a translation of the article will be placed in the Library as soon as it has been received from Petrograd.

    EGYPT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, to correct current accounts in Egypt of buildings burned and persons outraged by Australian soldiers there, he will have an authentic list of the buildings burned and persons outraged prepared and circulated throughout Egypt?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.
    Mr. GINNELL: Why?

    RUSSIANS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Government has announced its readiness to permit Russians in France, who are mostly Jewish or political refugees, to emigrate to America; and whether, in order to harmonise our policy with the policy of our French Allies, he will give a similar permission to Russian subjects in this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: Except for what my hon. Friend has told me the answer to the first part is in the negative; the answer to the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. KING: As I seem to have better information than certain official quarters, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on this point, upon which I am quite confident that I am correct?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am quite ready to make any inquiry which my hon. Friend thinks desirable.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the Commission appointed by the French Government, under the chairmanship of Professor Durkheim, to consider the position of allied aliens in France; whether this Com-mission recommended that no action should be taken to compel them to serve; whether the French Government have since then acted upon the recommendation; and, if so, whether, in order to co-ordinate the policy of the Allied Governments, the British Government intend to follow the same policy?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information on the subject.
    Mr. KING: Here again may I ask the Noble Lord if, on this matter of very urgent and pressing interest at the present moment, he will make inquiry from our representative in Paris?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will consider that.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce details of his policy affecting the Russian Jews resident in Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Russians of military age settled in this country will, unless they prefer to

    179
    return for military service in Russia, be required to enlist in the British Army. Tribunals will be set up which will grant exemptions on principles similar to those which apply to British subjects. Care will be taken that these tribunals should include persons specially qualified to deal with the cases of the Jews, who form so large a proportion of the Russian immigrants. The details of the scheme are now being worked out and will be announced in due course.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What will be the position of political refugees?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I see no reason why they should not serve in our Army.
    Mr. KING: But if they think that they are unable to serve in our Army will they be deported to Russia, as political refugees who know that they will be imprisoned or sent to Siberia through being deported?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If there are such cases it will be considered whether they had good grounds for refusing to serve in the British Army.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In constituting these tribunals will the right hon. Gentleman appoint persons who are conversant with these matters affecting political refugees?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, that will be borne in mind.
    Mr. KING: Will the members of this tribunal all be British subjects, or will some of them be foreign subjects?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As at present advised the intention is that they are all to be British subjects.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the Russian Government any request that Russians of military age now in Britain should be returned to Russia; and whether he has intimated to the Russian Government that such Russian subjects will be shortly sent back from this country to Russia?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. The position of Russian subjects of military age in this country was clearly explained in the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 29th June.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that a Russian who has become a naturalised
    180
    British subject, on his return to Russia immediately resumes his Russian nationality?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to express an opinion about that. I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are requiring British subjects in Russia of military age to return to this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of these numerous questions.

    BELGIANS IN BELGIUM.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an approximate estimate of the number of Belgians now resident in. Belgium?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if men who have been passed by a medical board for Home service can be passed, after entering the Army, by one doctor for active service; and, if not, why all the men in H Company of the Cheshire Regiment, at Prees Heath Camp, have been re-examined by one doctor and some Class II men have been posted to Class I?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send him the result of his inquiries by letter.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for War if he can give any information as to the case of H. F. Runacres, formerly a theological student of Pusey House, Oxford, who on or about 1st June was tried by court-martial at Reigate for his conscientious refusal to obey military orders; whether he is aware that the sentence passed by the Court was one of six months' imprisonment with hard labour, which was commuted to six months' detention; and whether steps will now be taken to bring this man, and others in a similar position, within the scope of the new scheme?
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Walker Heddle, of Thomas Street, Woolwich, who attended at the County Hall, Spring Gardens, on 29th June, for the purpose of having his case reheard by the Appeal Tribunal under Section 4 (5) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2); whether he is aware that Captain Anstey, the military representative, interrupted the proceedings and ordered Mr. Heddle to be arrested as a defaulter; whether Captain Anstey had any right to act in this manner or order the arrest of Mr. Heddle; whether he is aware that Mr. Heddle was thereupon taken into custody by a police officer, taken to Great Scotland Yard, and transferred without any legal proceedings to the custody of a corporal of the Scots Guards, who took Mr. Heddle to Woolwich in charge to await a military escort; whether he is aware that late in the evening a military escort arrived and took Mr. Heddle to Stoughton Barracks, near Guildford, where he was detained till Tuesday, 4th July; will he say by what authority Mr. Heddle was so detained and by whose authority on 4th July Mr. Heddle was released, and who was responsible for the arrest and detention of Mr. Heddle; and what steps are proposed to be taken to compensate Mr. Heddle for his imprisonment and to punish the persons responsible for it?
      Mr. FORSTER: The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send the result of his inquiries by letter.

      WIDNES TRIBUNAL.
      Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary for War whether he has received information as to the appeal by the military representative from the decision of the Widnes Tribunal in the case of an employé of Messrs. Bibby and Baron, Limited; whether he is aware that the firm are the largest exporters in the country of the goods manufactured at the Widnes works; and whether he can now indicate a method by which their case may be fully heard?
      Mr. FORSTER: Careful inquiry has been made into the facts of this case. The result shows that several of the statements contained in my hon. Friend's question of the 4th July are inaccurate. The clerk to the Appeal Tribunal definitely states that it is not a fact that the Appeal Tri-
      182
      bunal were mislead by a statement made by the military representative, and that they refused to listen to the appellant's-explanation. As a matter of fact, the appellant gave evidence, and was examined by the chairman, and it was on his own statement that the tribunal dismissed the appeal. On the 3rd July an application was made by the firm's solicitor for a rehearing. I am informed that this was heard by the tribunal in private, and that the military representative was not present, and that the application was refused. The case does not appear to be one which should be reopened.

      MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
      Mr. WILESasked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the advisability of all medical certificates issued by medical boards under the Military Service Act being signed by the examining doctor, so that some responsibility may be taken for the decisions given and a more careful examination ensured?
      Mr. FORSTER: The responsibility of decision rests with the Board and not with any individual member of it. No member of the Board, which usually consists of five doctors, can be rightly described as the examining doctor. Any man may be examined when necessary by more than one of the members. The certificates given to the men are prepared by the recruiting officer from the medical history sheet pre-pared by the Board. I can assure the hon. Member that in any case of a mistake it is quite easy to assign the responsibility correctly to the Board which examined the man.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentle-man give us the instructions upon which these medical boards are now acting?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that arises out of this question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that each person is actually examined by the medical board before they give their decision?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think I can give that assurance.

      MEDICAL BOARDS.
      Mr. WILESasked the Secretary of State for War (1) why the Crowndale Road medical board passed A. G. Hopkins, of Charlotte Street, Islington, for general service, having regard to the

      183
      fact that he is suffering from consumption and is a patient at Mount Vernon Hospital, Hampstead; why his examination was not postponed when he produced a certificate, but was only informed that the doctor who attended to consumptive cases had left; and (2) if he will ask for a report to be made by the military medical board sitting at Crowndale Road, N.W., on the examination of W. H. Spong, of Highbury Hill, whom they passed for general service, having regard to the fact that this man has had a severe fracture of his skull, which has been stitched up, that he has a fractured left arm, and is totally deaf in one ear; and will he say why, when the Islington Tribunal asked for a special examination to be made and the medical board made an appointment for Spong on 30th June at 9 a.m., when he attended no further examination was made?
      Mr. FORSTER: The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made, and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send him the results of his inquiries by letter.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the policy of the military authorities to get those men into the Army and see if they will crack up afterwards?

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sentences of death passed on conscientious objectors in France were widely known by private persons in this country before they were known to the War Office, and that this information was regarded as untrue, because legally impossible, by the representative of the War Office in this House; and whether he can make some statement to reassure the House that the Intelligence Department of the War Office is promptly and correctly informed of events relating to the Army in France?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The first part of the question seems to suggest, what is not the case, that these men were sentenced to death and then. after an interval, reprieved, whereas, in point of fact, the sentence was commuted to penal servitude and both sentence and commutation were promulgated together. It is quite possible that the news of this promulgation reached private persons in this country before the War Office, as the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full power to confirm sentences of courts-
      184
      martial, and is under no obligation to refer cases to the War Office unless he is in doubt on any point. After promulgation of sentence the proceedings of all courts-martial are sent to the Judge Advocate-General for review. I see no reason to interfere with the existing arrangements.
      Mr. KING: Does the Prime Minister quite realise the point of my question which has been rather overlooked? May I point out that we had a statement about steel helmets in the House on one day when they were said to be sufficient, and a few days later it was said that they were not—
      HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
      Mr. MORRELL: Has it not been stated again and again by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in this House that it was impossible that the death sentence could be imposed? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how his colleague came to mislead the House as he did?
      The PRIME MINISTER: What I believe the right hon. Gentleman said was that it would not necessarily be carried out.
      Mr. MORRELL: If the Prime Minister will refer to the speech made by the President of the Local Government Board, on the 22nd March, in this House, he will see what the right hon. Gentleman said. When asked whether the death penalty would be imposed upon a conscientious objector, he replied, "Most certainly not."

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      SENTRY SHOT IN DUBLIN.
      Major NEWMANasked the Secretary for War whether a sentry on guard was shot at and severely wounded by a sniper from an adjoining building in one of the main streets of Dublin on the 4th instant; and can he say to what extent the practice of sniping at the military is still prevalent in Dublin?
      Mr. FORSTER: A sentry was wounded on 4th July in Fleet Street, Dublin, and the shot is supposed to have been fired from an adjoining house. This is the only such case known since the outbreak was quelled.

      LEITRIM (DEPORTATIONS).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

      185
      whether his attention has been called to the address of Judge Brown to the grand jury at the recent Quarter Sessions, at Manorhamilton, in which he said there was no necessity for the military coming into that district, and congratulated the jury on the peaceful state of the district; and, in view of that, whether the evidence, if any, on which the military dragged young men from their houses there and had them deported will be scrutinised as an example of the evidence on which numerous deportations have been carried out and the victims released and compensated?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the address referred to contained no allusion to the military coming into the district although it did state that the county remained peaceful. The evidence referred to in the second part of the question is a matter for the Advisory Committee.

      CIVIL SERVANTS.
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Home Secretary the reason of the delay in inquiring into cases of Civil servants who are suspended on suspicion of complicity in the recent rebellion in Ireland; and whether, in view of the hardships inflicted on the persons concerned, some of whom have been suspended for over two months though having had no connection with the rebellion, he will take steps to secure that their cases will be disposed of as soon as possible?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The collection of evidence in these cases is now approaching completion, and it is hoped that they will be disposed of at an early date.

      FRONGOCH CAMP.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that letters containing any complaints of bad treatment will not be allowed to pass the censor at Frongoch Camp; and if he will say what means will be at the disposal of Irish prisoners to make their grievances known?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Letters containing complaints of treatment are referred by the censor to the Commandant, who investigates the matter. Moreover, any man can address a complaint direct to the Commandant, who will give it his careful consideration.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford opportunity to the people in-
      186
      terned to make known the conditions of the camp and their grievances to friends outside?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the conditions of the camp are excellent, and that the prisoners, who have been frequently interviewed on the subject, have no complaints whatever to make.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House under what law he denies interned prisoners the right of making complaints to outsiders, who are in a position to have them redressed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: They are interned under the ordinary conditions of internment.
      Mr. GINNELL: Do those in power pre-vent them communicating with their friends outside, who have power to get their grievances redressed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.

      PUBLIC INQUIRY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the delay in opening the promised public inquiry into the murder of Thomas Hickey, Christopher Hickey, Peter Connolly, and others in North King Street, Dublin; when it is intended to open the inquiry; whether the soldiers concerned are in custody; and, in view of the necessary expenditure by the next-of-kin, poor people, in connection with the cases, whether their letters on the subject to friends in America, which have been stopped in the post, will be forwarded?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I must repeat that no such promise has been given. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that, as has been frequently stated in the House of Commons, no letters to the United States of America or to any other neutral or allied country are stopped unless they contravene the Defence of the Realm Regulations or will be required as evidence in proceedings against the writer, the addressee, or a third person referred to in the letter.
      Mr. GINNELL: Apart from the question of a promise will the right hon. Gentleman have the case of these non-combatant civilians inquired into when similar cases are being inquired into by a civil tribunal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answers I have given on several occasions.
      Mr. GINNELL: Does that mean that they will not be inquired into?
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will say on what ground of distinction a public civil inquiry, promised into the shooting of some non-combatant civilians in Dublin, is refused in other cases exactly similar; whether the promised inquiry will be extended to all cases found to be similar; and, seeing that the non-combatant civilians Ernest Cavanagh, John Hewson, William Maguire, Harris, Casey, and Fowler, at their peaceful pursuits, were, without warning, shot dead in the Eden Quay area; does the fact that that area comprises Liberty Hall deprive the relatives of these non-combatants of the right of inquiry which they would otherwise have?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The first part of the question is based on a misunderstanding which I explained in answering the hon. Member's previous question. With regard to the last part of the question, I may say that such information as I have received does not lead me to think that any inquiry is called for in this matter.
      Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on the last occasion these were mentioned he justified the shooting of these non-combatant civilians on the ground that they were in the neighbourhood of Liberty Hall, and why should the fact of a non-combatant being in the neighbourhood of Liberty Hall on peaceful business justify anyone in shooting him?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly one, if not two, of these men was shot by the rebels.
      Mr. LYNCH: Why does the Government assume two totally different policies, one with regard to men remotely connected with the rising, and in the other case taking no notice whatever of cases where innocent men have been deliberately shot, and who had no participation what-ever in the affair?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will cause particulars of the private inquiry held by the military into the North King Street shootings to be made public, including the evidence, in order that Dublin citizens may be satisfied in reference to the matter?
      The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is under consideration.

      PUBLIC APPEALS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that public appeals are being made in the United States for funds to alleviate the distress in Ireland of families whose supporters have been deported or killed; and whether he will obviate the necessity for such action by taking steps to give adequate compensation to those men who were arrested and subsequently released as innocent?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 22nd June to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin.

      OFFICERS ENGAGED.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether any of the officers engaged in the rising in Ireland or holding any position in Ireland since the rising took any part in the Jameson raid?
      Mr. FORSTER: So far as can be ascertained without instituting very elaborate inquiries the answer to the question is in the negative.

    BRITISH AVIATORS (ACTS OF GALLANTRY).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked (1) the reason why the name of the young aviator who shot down Immelmann, the Fokker champion, has been suppressed by the Press Bureau; and (2) why the names of airmen who have distinguished themselves are not allowed to appear in the Press?
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary for War, who were the British aviators who succeeded in bringing down the German, Captain Immelmann; and if he will say why their names have not been already published?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I stated yesterday, it has not been customary to mention in communiqués the names of officers or soldiers who perform acts of gallantry, but I may inform hon. Members that the matter is being further considered in consultation with the military authorities in France. With reference to Question 14,

    189
    I would add that the name of the aviator who brought down Captain Immelmann was not communicated to the Press Bureau for publication, and that consequently there is no question of the bureau having suppressed the name.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the name was actually sent by the "Daily Chronicle" representative to that paper and suppressed by the Press Censor, and that the name was Second Lieutenant McCubbin, aged eighteen and a half years?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that. I was dealing with the allegation that the name had been suppressed by the Press Bureau.
    Sir E. CARSON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us some indication as to what is the objection to giving the names?
    Mr. FORSTER: If my right hon. and learned Friend will cast his mind back to the earlier days of the War, he will remember—I think I am right—that it was the expressed desire of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps that no mention of individual names should be made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would it not be desirable, on the same grounds, to withhold the names of those upon whom the Victoria Cross is conferred?
    Mr. FORSTER: The names of those upon whom the Victoria Cross is conferred are communicated by the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief, of course, will name any person whom he thinks specially deserving.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why should an exception be made in regard to these flying officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: For one thing, I do not think the flying officers want it, and, in the second place, it is a matter which, I think, ought to be left largely in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.

    DENTAL TREATMENT OF TROOPS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints that adequate attention is not being paid to the dental requirements of our troops at the front; whether the services of qualified professional dentists who are enlisted are refused by the Army
    190
    medical authorities, and these educated men, whose services are much needed both in the Army and in the civilian population at Home, are passed into the ranks as ordinary soldiers; and whether the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops are far better served in regard to dentistry than our own British troops?
    Mr. FORSTER: All applications for dental surgeons with our troops at home or abroad have been fully and promptly met. There is a large waiting list of candidates for dental commissions, and each application is considered in the order in which it was received. Preference is given to candidates who have voluntarily enlisted in the Army. There is no reason to think the British are less well served in the matter of dentistry than other troops, and I am not aware of any complaints that dental requirements are receiving inadequate attention.

    SOVEREIGN (PURCHASING POWER).
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the purchasing power of the sovereign was on 1st March, 1915 and 1916, as compared with its purchasing power on 1st March, 1914?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The average percentage increase in cost of food, clothing, etc. (including rent), is estimated to have been 16 per cent. between March, 1914, and March, 1915, and 33 per cent. between March, 1914, and March, 1916—in other words, it would have required a sovereign in March, 1916, to purchase an amount of the above commodities which would have cost 17s. 3d. in March, 1915, or 15s. in March, 1914.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that the old age pension is now worth only 3s. 9d. a week?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can make the calculation for himself.

    AGRICULTURAL WORK (TRAINING SOLDIERS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any provision has been made in Scotland for the

    191
    training of discharged soldiers in agricultural work; and whether any men are now being so trained
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): A scheme for a training hostel in Easter Ross is under consideration, and two agricultural colleges have stated that they are prepared to offer facilities for the training of discharged soldiers; but the difficulty of residence has to be overcome. At present the West of Scotland College is giving instruction to a few discharged soldiers. The whole matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any and, if so, what arrangements have been made for the release of labour necessary for the completion of the sanatorium at Hallmyres at which it is proposed that disabled soldiers should be trained for agricultural work?
    Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the local authority regarding this matter and has taken steps which give him reason to hope that additional labour may be obtained for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an institution which has offered to take a number of discharged soldiers for training in agricultural work?
    Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps my hon. Friend is quite correct. I was not aware of that.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if he will say what provision has been made for the training of disabled soldiers in agricultural work at the agricultural colleges or otherwise; and whether any men are now being so trained.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): In October last the Board obtained the approval of the Treasury to a scheme for giving a free course of training at an agricultural college to fifty disabled sailors or soldiers. Applications were invited in the Press and through the various naval and military societies, but there have been very few applicants. Fifteen men have been or are now being trained at Holmes Chapel. I will send my
    192
    hon. Friend a copy of a notice of the scheme which has been widely circulated amongst those likely to be concerned.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is not this in charge of a Sub-Committee of the Statutory Committee? Why, if the Committee can deal with discharged soldiers, should it refuse to deal with blind soldiers?
    Mr. ACLAND: Before the Committee came into existence it was carried on by the same organisation.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD AND LAND COURT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked when the Reports of the Scottish Local Government Board and of the Land Court will be published?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Local Government Board's Report will be published tomorrow. The printing of the Land Court's Report has been delayed this year owing to a fire at the printer's, which destroyed much of the type and manuscript, but it is hoped that the Report will be published next week.

    WEST AFRICAN COLONIES.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the provisions in the constitutions of the respective West African Colonies which make it legal for the governors to secure powers from the legislative councils to increase, by Order in Council, taxes to any amount they think desirable without further recourse to the legislative councils?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): There is nothing in the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions constituting the Legislative Councils of the several Colonies which limits their powers in this matter.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked what were the selling prices of palm kernels in each of the five years preceding the War in our several West African Colonies, and the prices for the same in each of the years of the War up to the latest date; and what were the selling prices in this country at the corresponding dates?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no official information which would enable

    193
    me to aniswer this question, but I am having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consult local opinion in the West African Colonies before he presses upon the several Legislative Councils of those Colonies the immediate imposition of a duty of £2 per ton and upwards on the principal export of those Colonies?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The proposal to impose the duty has been given full publicity, and there will be ample time for local opinion to express itself through the usual channels before the proposal becomes law.
    Colonel GRIFFITHS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Colonies, as far as West Africa is concerned, are strongly in favour of this tax?
    Mr. STEEL—MAITLAND: I have no reason to doubt it.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked how many Sinhalese were in prison untried on the 11th August, 1915, when Mr. Harry Creasy, European member of the Legislative Council, urged the immediate enactment of the measure to bring to trial or release imprisoned citizens; how many of those have been tried in the special tribunal then created; why all have not been brought before that tribunal; and whether any of those untried prisoners are still in prison untried?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not got this information in my possession, but I will ask for it.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not heard of the memorial, but will make inquiries on the subject.
    Mr. JONES: Will effect be given to the request of the chiefs?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: We must see the memorial before any indication of intention can be given.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the wishes of the populace as well as those of the two chiefs be considered?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The whole circumstances of the case will, of course, be considered.

    ENGLISH PRISONERS INTERNED IN ENGLAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the advantage afforded to aliens interned in this country of receiving visits from representatives of the American Government, followed by ameliorative consequences, whether the Government have considered the reasonableness of granting a similar privilege to untried English women and men interned in this country; and whether the American Government will be invited to send an official visitor to investigate and report on the condition of those English persons?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I see no reason to adopt the course suggested. The American Government is not charged with the interests of prisoners other than Germans or Austrians.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is not the American Government as much interested in prisons in this country as in Germany?

    GOLD COAST (SALE OF RUM).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the memorial of the Omanhene and Chiefs of Eastern Akim, Gold Coast, presented to the Governor in April last, praying for the exclusion of the sale of rum from their area; whether the Governor declined to accede to their request; whether there is any reason why this petition should not be granted; and, if not, whether he will give instructions accordingly?

    BARON EMILE D'ERLANGER.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether Baron Emile d'Erlanger is a naturalised British subject; if so, what was his nationality before he became a British subject; and has he obtained a Royal licence to bear the title of baron?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On application for naturalisation in 1891 this gentleman stated that he was the subject of no foreign State, having been released from German nationality. He was

    195
    born in France of German parents. I understand that he has not obtained a Royal licence to use the title of baron, and that it is not therefore officially recognised.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT. DOMICILIARY VISITS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a domiciliary visit was paid on 1st July to a house in Lexham Gardens, and that among other papers taken away was an account of a speech on education delivered before the War by Sir Victor Horsley, F.R.S.; whether especial suspicion attaches to the pre-war utterances or subsequent conduct of this gentleman; and whether this document will now be returned to the owner?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that a visit was paid on 1st July to a house in Lexham Gardens and papers were taken for examination, but I understand that no such document as that referred to was seen or was among the papers taken away.
    Mr. KING: As this was a valuable document which was taken, will steps be taken to return it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It cannot be returned if it was not taken.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary of State whether he is aware that on 1st July a domiciliary visit was paid by the police to a house in Lexham Gardens; whether it was acting upon his instructions that the police took away a number of papers, including lectures on education and other matters totally unconnected with the War, the military position, or existing conditions, and mostly written or printed before 1914; why large packets of note-paper and printed forms were thrown into utter confusion on the floor and trodden underfoot; why the lady's bedroom was similarly treated and cigarette ends and tobacco ash left freely on furniture; and whether, no charge having been made against the occupier of these premises, he will say whether peaceable subjects must expect similar treatment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The visit in question was, I understand, made by the police in the execution of their duties under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. As soon
    196
    as the printed matter seized had been examined the bulk of it was returned to the owner. I am assured that the police were not responsible for any occurrence such as is described in the last part but one of the question.
    Mr. KING: As I myself visited those-premises a short time ago, may I be-allowed to give my personal experience?.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will narrate his personal experiences in the Lobby.

    WILD BIRDS' PLUMAGE (IMPORTATION).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on 3rd April, 1916, a petition signed by 223 Members of the House of Commons, and supported by the High Commissioners, respectively, of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Dominion of New Zealand, was presented to the President of the Board of Trade praying that the plum-age of wild birds should be placed under the shipping prohibition of luxuries; that in 1915 648,888 lbs. of these feathers were imported, the vast majority of which were charged freight by measurement, and being in the raw state were very bulky; whether, although the warehouses are already choked with supplies, these feathers continue to be imported; and whether, in view of the fact that the import of so many necessaries of life has been prohibited owing to the scarcity of tonnage, anything has been done to prohibit the import of the feathers of wild birds as unnecessary luxury?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The figures are, of course, exclusive of the much larger imports of ostrich feathers. As to the state of the warehouses, I have no information. On general grounds I am, personally, in sympathy with the proposal to prohibit the importation of these feathers; but, in view of the very special object with which the present restrictions on import have been imposed, namely, the saving of tonnage space, I feel that there would be considerable objection to a proposal to utilise them for a quite different purpose, which is likely to involve controversy.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Would not this prohibition liberate a great quantity of tonnage—as these goods are sent by measurement and not by weight—for other articles required in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: To a very small amount.
    Colonel YATE: What grounds has the hon. Gentleman for supposing that a controversy would arise on this point
    Mr. PRETYMAN: From the former history of the question.

    BRITISH ABRASIVE WHEEL COMPANY.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that E. Gerbel Strover, the late manager of the British Abrasive Wheel Company, Sheffield, has recently been interned, he will now notify the Admiralty and the War Office that this company is now entirely under British control?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot undertake to notify other Departments of the internment of an alien enemy manager of a business. Probably any company so situated would be willing and able to make such a notification on its own behalf and in its own interest.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that I have asked numerous questions for the purpose of getting this company struck off and you have now got rid of the manager?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This company had only a minority of Germans interested in it, and always the majority were British. We have now got rid of the German manager.

    COAL FREIGHTS (DUBLIN).
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freights now levied by ship-owners is a principal factor in the price of coal and other commodities in Dublin; and whether the Government will take measures to enable a more moderate profit to shipowners in the interest of consumers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am, of course, aware that freights are an important factor in the price of seaborne commodi-
    198
    ties. As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 22nd June all practicable steps are being taken, and will continue to be taken, to alleviate the tonnage difficulty.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman say what are the practical steps which are being taken, because the people in Dublin are complaining of these freights and their commerce is practically stopped?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Our practice is to direct the tonnage, as far as possible, to those particular trades and those particular places where they are most required.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have not the Board of Trade power to prevent the shipowners from charging the extraordinary freights for coal which they demand?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not except under the terms I indicated just now, or by taking the ships and putting them under Government control.
    Mr. BYRNE: Could not some of the captured vessels be used for the Dublin coal trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will look into that.

    AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister why American newspapers are prevented from entering Ireland; if he is aware of the meetings held daily in all parts of America to demand better treatment and the release of the Irish prisoners; and what steps, if any, he will take to satisfy their wishes?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no distinction is made, so far as the censorship of newspapers is concerned, between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The great majority of American newspapers enter the United Kingdom freely, but if any are stopped they are stopped for military reasons.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, inquiring what steps they are taking to meet the wishes of the American people with regard to the release of Irish prisoners? Has not the Advisory Committee made any recommendations yet?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid not. The present practice has been thoroughly considered, and I do not think there is any intention to make any departure from it.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case of the five young ladies was tried over fourteen days ago, and do the Advisory Committee intend to make any recommendation with regard to those ladies?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that that has anything to do with the War Office, and it does not arise out of this question.

    MINISTERIAL REPLIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will say why the official account of the first terms offered by Patrick H. Pearse prior to surrender is still withheld, and none published but an unconditional surrender alleged to have been signed by him when in custody; whether he has seen the last republican bulletin, dated 29th April, 1916, stating that, believing that the stand that had been made by the soldiers of Irish freedom during the previous five days had been sufficient to gain recognition of Ireland's national claim at an international peace conference, and being desirous of preventing fruitless slaughter of the civil population and to save the lives of as many as possible of their followers, the members of the provisional government present had agreed by a majority to open negotiations with the British commander, which was signed by P. H. Pearse, commanding-in-chief; whether he will give the House the text of Mr. Pearse's first communication to the military in pursuance of that bulletin, and of the reply from the military; whether all who knew the terms first offered and accepted before surrender have since been executed; whether it was to prevent his making those terms known that, differing from the other leaders, no one now living was allowed to see Mr. Pearse before his execution; whether his desire to see his mother was effectually denied; whether his desire to see his brother William, subsequently executed, was effectually denied; if there was any motive for this exceptional seclusion other than to prevent the terms of surrender becoming known, what was it; and whether, now that the exigencies of the time are past, he will, in justice to Mr. Pearse, state the terms first offered by him before surrender and the military reply to that first offer?
    Mr. FORSTERrose—
    Mr. GINNELL: Order! I beg to ask Question No. 53 of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. FORSTERrose—
    Mr. GINNELL: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish the question to be answered—
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes; this question is too important. Does the Prime Minister shirk it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has asked the representative of the War Office to reply.
    Mr. GINNELL: I have not. I beg to ask the Prime Minister Question No. 53?
    Mr. GINNELL(subsequently): I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a Member thinks a question which he has on the Paper is of sufficient importance to get an answer from the Minister to whom it is addressed, that Member is not entitled to have an answer. If he is, under what Standing Order do you deny me that right?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If a question is ad-dressed to a Minister and the Minister has not the information in his office, he naturally asks that Minister who has the information in his office to give the reply. If the hon. Member who asks for the in-formation will not accept it from the Minister who has it in his office, there is no object in repeating the question or putting it down again.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask you further, when the object of the Prime Minister is known to you and to all in the House to be a deliberate shirking of the question, is it not straining the rules of the House to facilitate him in that? Further, if he is not in a position to answer the question to-day, may I ask under what Order you deny me the right of postponing the question until to-morrow for the Prime Minister's convenience?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member declined to accept the answer from the Minister who had the information and was prepared to give the answer. That being so, I have asked the Clerks at the Table not to accept the question again from the hon Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is there any means open to a Member of the House to get an

    201
    answer to a question of that character and in such circumstances? If there is, I desire to know it, and I will pursue it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had his chance. I gave him two opportunities, and he declined to avail himself of them.
    Mr. GINNELL: It is not yet a quarter to four o'clock. I will take the answer now.
    Mr. FORSTER: As the hon. Member was informed on 23rd May, P. H. Pearse neither proposed nor asked for any terms before surrender. This being so, the remainder of the question does not arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the Prime Minister deny this House and the man he has got shot in cold blood the right of vindication?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

    BULBS AND CUT FLOWERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his Department has prohibited the importation of bulbs and flower roots into this country on the ground of ship tonnage requirements, while at the same time permitting the importation of cut flowers in large quantity; and will he say why this preference is given to the manufactured article over the raw material, in view of the fact that the Government calls for the greater utilisation of the land of this country?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Grinstead on the 1st June, of which I am sending him a copy.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether he sanctioned the action of the Central Liquor Control Board in getting exemption from military ser-vice for eight barmen of military age in Annan, on the ground that the Board is a Government Department entitled to demand exemption for them; whether his attention has been drawn to the protests of the members of the Appeal Court upon
      202
      this claim of the Liquor Control Board; whether, in view of the need for men and the sacrifices made by every section of the community in parting with men, he will allow the claims of the sale of liquor to rank above those of every other section of the community, including the State itself; and what action he proposes to take?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): With regard to exemptions from military service the Board are acting in accordance with the Treasury and War Office Circulars addressed to Government Departments. The policy is to release all employés of military age as soon as possible, but in view of the importance of improving the conditions as regards drink in certain areas of importance in connection with the War, they have treated some men as temporarily indispensable until substitutes for them can be provided. Among these are three, not eight, barmen (of whom one will be forty-one this month). I understand that a question was raised before the Appeal Tribunal by a member of the local tribunal, and that the position of the Board was explained to the Appeal Tribunal.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the Central Control Board in fact a Government Department, and, if so, what is the object of the Clause in the Acquisition of Land Bill?
      Dr. ADDISON: That should be addressed to the Treasury or the War Office.
      Sir J. D. REES: If it is, why is legislation required to make it a Government. Department?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not think that arises out of this question.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Do barmen employed under the Central Control Board get exceptional treatment as compared with ordinary publicans?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not know whether that is so or not.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions what were the convictions for drunkenness in Carlisle in the months of May and June, 1915, and in the same months 1916; and at what date Carlisle became a controlled area?
      Dr. ADDISON: The restrictions imposed by the Board's Order became operative on the 22nd November last, since

      203
      when the drinking population of Carlisle and neighbourhood has increased out of all proportion with the past. The figures of convictions for drunkenness are: 1915: May 12, June 10; 1916: four weeks to 28th May 91, five weeks to 2nd July 163. The increase of drinkers in the area and the total unsuitability of existing premises and present arrangements were among the reasons which have led the Central Control Board to take direct control of the liquor traffic in Carlisle as rapidly as possible.
      Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from that answer that the regulations of the Control Board proved ineffective at Carlisle?
      Dr. ADDISON: No, certainly not. What you are to understand is that there are 15,000 persons in a country district who were never there before, and that they require drink.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Defence of the Realm (Amendment—No. 3) Act applies to Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that the total contracts placed in Ireland since the outbreak of war until May, 1916, amounted to £4,330,860, he intends to add a representative of Ireland to the Board of Control and to extend the operations of that Board to Ireland?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend sees no reason to depart from the decision announced when this matter was under consideration in 1915.
      Colonel GRETTON: Those Regulations do not apply to Ireland?
      Dr. ADDISON: That is so.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would help the Irish settlement if they did apply?

      WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if, in view of statements made on the 3rd instant at a meeting held in connection with the National Economy Exhibition, he will say whether he has official information showing that one woman had loaded more shells than five men, and that a woman at Woolwich Arsenal had, after a short training, turned out 102 shells as against forty-five turned out by men?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have no information as to the subject of the statement referred to in this question.
      Mr., WILSON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a speech made by Sir George Paish, and, if so, will he make inquiries with regard to it?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have not seen the speech in question. Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the particulars.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Who supplied the Gentleman with the information contained in the question?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have not the faintest idea what the speech was about.
      Mr. THORNE: It must have been some of the officials at Woolwich.

    SCOTTISH SHIPBUILDERS (PAYMENTS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has had any complaints from shipbuilders in Scotland as to the slow payments of his Department; and will he say whether there are any cases of shipbuilders there having rendered their accounts more than twelve months ago for work completed and not yet having received payment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Complaints have been received from time to time of delays in payment, and this, I am afraid, is inevitable in the circumstances. Owing to the fact that a large quantity of work has had to be placed on the net cost and percentage system, some delay has necessarily taken place in arriving at a final settlement of claims, but arrangements have been made under which contractors receive from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the amount of their claims for work done under this system within a short period after rendering them. It is not considered possible that claims could be in office for twelve months with-out the contractors receiving, at least, a substantial payment on account. Ship-builders under the ordinary firm price con-tracts receive payments on account at intervals of from a week to a fortnight.
    Mr. WATT: Does the Department not receive its share of the £5,000,000 per day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA'Sreply was in-audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

    Intermediate Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Home Secretary for what reason there has been inserted in Rule 10 (b) of the new Rules of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland the words: obtain not less than 30 per cent. on the pass paper, or 25 per cent. on the honour paper, in the course or courses in which he presents himself; can he state when it was decided by the Board to introduce a qualifying examination in experimental science in addition to the system of certification which has hitherto obtained; and whether the proposed change has been approved by the Department, whose certificate after inspection had been hitherto accepted in accordance with prescribed rules?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Rules referred to were made by the Intermediate Education Board and approved by the Lord Lieutenant. The formal approval of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is not necessary. I will consult the Board and endeavour to obtain the information asked for in the first part of the question.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary the grounds upon which Mrs. Winifred Kiernan, of Clonrobert, Coole, Westmeath, a confirmed invalid, has been deprived of her old age pension, no change having occurred in her circum-stances but that of increasing age and infirmity; and, if the Government disapprove of economy at the expense of the aged poor, whether the pension will be resumed in this case and the instalments withheld made good?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The pension granted to Mrs. Winifred Kiernan was discontinued because the Local Government Board were not satisfied that the pensioner's means did not exceed £31 10s. a year. She is maintained by her son on a farm of 78 acres, of which the rent is £35 and the valuation £53 10s. The farm is well stocked and cropped, and is probably worth £120 a year at least. Mrs. Kiernan is entitled to maintenance under the deed by which her late husband transferred the farm to his son.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the
    206
    question, asking whether any change whatever has taken place in her circumstances other than that of increased age?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of any, but I am informed that if the facts now known had been known at the time the pension was granted, it would not have been granted.

    Scottish Estimates.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to give a day for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer this question until my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has secured a seat in this House.

LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment;
North British Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer powers upon the Glen Bank Trustees; and for other purposes. [River Glen Bill [Lords.]

RIVER GLEN BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir E. CARSON: Can the Prime Minister state what will be the business for Thurs-day, and also when he will make his promised statement upon the questions of Registration and Franchise and the Parliament Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday we will take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and, if time permit, the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill. With regard to the second part of the question, I will answer to-morrow.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What business is it proposed to take to-day, if any, beyond Supply?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Only the first three Orders. The first, I think, is formal; the second is Supply; and the third is an Expenses Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that there are ten pages of Amendments to the Acquisition of Land Bill? It will not be very convenient to take that after the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, as the time will probably be short. As the House takes a great deal of interest in that Bill I think it would be only fair that we should have a day on which it was the first Order, and not the fag end of a day after other important business has been disposed of.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into that and reply to-morrow.
  Mr. KING: The Government have adopted the rather unusual course of put-ting down Supply as the second Order. That means, I suppose, that this cannot count as one of the allotted days of Supply. Does that mean that we shall have an extra day on to the Session waiting here because we have not been able to count the Local Government Board Vote as an allotted day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is necessary to have this Resolution in Ways and Means in order that we may have the Report stage of the Finance Bill to-morrow. I believe it is an agreed Resolution.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the relief given under Section, fifty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1853, as amended by any subsequent enactment, in respect of insurances and contracts for deferred annuities shall not—

  (a) be given at a greater rate than of three shillings in the pound; or

  (b) be given for the purposes of Supertax;

  and that, the said relief shall not, as respects insurances or contracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen—

  (a) be given except in respect of premiums or other payments payable on policies for securing a capital sum on death, whether in conjunction with any other benefit or not; or

  (b) be given in respect of premiums or ayments payable on a policy which becomes fully operative only after the expiration of a certain period until after the expiration of that period.

  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): It will be remembered that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill a Clause was passed relating to insurance premiums in certain cases. That Clause was passed on the understanding that between during the interval before the Report stage of the Bill I should do my best to come to an arrangement with the representatives of the life assurance companies as to the best form of Clause to be introduced to the House. I have now come to an arrangement with the life assurance companies as to the principle of the amended Clause. The only point on which we have not come to an agreement is as to whether the Clause is to apply to existing contracts or not. Upon that point I am quite prepared to listen with a perfectly open mind, as I think it is a point which should come before the House. Subject to the consideration of that matter, the new Clause, for which this is the foundation; Resolution, is an agreed Clause. Therefore, I hope the Resolution will be

  217
  accepted by the Committee in order that I may be enabled to show the Committee what our new proposal is.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have heard the Resolution read, but I do not in the least understand it. I do not know whether any other hon. Member does. It is a striking instance of the inconvenience the House is put to by these important Resolutions not being put on the Paper. I have heard a certain number of words read; to my mind they convey no information of any sort or kind.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that the Resolution will enable that point to be debated as to whether or not the proposal falls harshly upon bad lives-that is to say, men who are not medically or physically fit? Is the Resolution widely enough drawn to enable us to discuss that point?
  Colonel GRETTON: The House is under a great disadvantage owing to the procedure which has been adopted and in the way the terms of this Resolution has been submitted to the House. I want to ask you, Sir, whether there is any reason why this Resolution should not have been put on the Paper? Certainly it is a very important Resolution, and an extremely complicated one, and the House is asked to pass it. I have no doubt the matter has been satisfactorily negotiated between certain persons and the Government. The House is asked to assent to the principle, but we are in this great difficulty: No Member of the House knew the terms of the Resolution which was to be proposed to the House, and we are really no wiser now that you have read it over. You read the words, Sir, perfectly clearly and distinctly, but the proposal is very long and very complicated. I do not know that any hon. Member of the House, except perhaps the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, possibly understands what it means. Is there any printed Rule or Order of the House by which a Resolution like this is not to be placed before the Members? If there is such a Rule, obviously it is working very harshly and very unfairly to Members on this occasion.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has asked my opinion on a point of Order. There is no Rule that I am aware of to prevent a Resolution that is going to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means being put on the Order Paper, but it is not the custom to do so. In Committee of
  218
  Ways and Means we follow the procedure upon which we begin the introduction of the Budget, namely, no one except the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supposed to know what the proposals are until they are moved. On some infrequent occasions the practice has, on request, been departed from, but these are the exceptions and not the custom.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to thank you, Mr. Whitley, for the very clear and courteous reply. I must now appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone this very complicated Resolution, and to put it on the Paper, so that we may know what is the proposal.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member will see it on the Paper to-morrow on the Report stage.
  Colonel GRETTON: It is no consolation that we are asked to take on Report an important matter of principle. We really know nothing about it. It is desirable, of course, in the ordinary way, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in the imposition of new taxes, take means to avoid a loss to the revenue by anticipation. But there is nothing in the subsequent stages, and in the present matter, to prevent this Resolution being put on the Paper. I must make a serious protest against the present procedure, and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to reconsider the practice adopted by the Treasury.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that this Resolution, read from the Chair, is a very difficult one to follow.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that I am more stupid than any other Member of the House.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Quite so. I think we are all more or less in the same position. I am asking for information, and I should like to know whether I understand that the Resolution means this: That there has been an agreement come to between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Insurance Commissioners—I do not know to whom the invitation has been extended—that all persons who pay Income Tax up to 3s. in the £ will get relief—will get it for the amount of the assessment of their premiums from total Income Tax up to 3s. £ in the £? Where men pay Super-tax, and

  219
  where the possibility may be that a man is taking a very extended policy amounting to £50,000 or £100,000, no relief will be given?
  Mr. McKENNA: Beyond 3s. in the £.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Do I understand that that is really the meaning of the Resolution?
  Mr. McKENNAwas understood to assent.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In that case I think it is a very fair compromise to the ordinary or small Income Tax payer, to whom it will be a great relief. The right hon. Gentle-man is now trying to avoid what is going on in the insurance world of large investors in deferred annuities getting relief when they pay Super-tax. I think we ought to have an explanation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I support the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Gretton). Everyone, of course, knows that in Committee of Ways and Means there is an excellent reason for not putting on the Paper a Resolution that is to impose increased taxation or to alter taxation. This is quite a different Resolution. The matter has been discussed for a long time, and it is now, I under-stand, something that has been agreed upon. Therefore the people concerned know perfectly well, though this Committee does not, the terms of the Resolution. From that point of view there can be no objection in putting the Resolution on the Paper. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have done on several occasions—and may do so again, because what I have said does not seem to have had very much effect—that when the right hon. Gentleman sat on this side of the House no Members were more indignant than the members of the present Government when the Conservative party followed the course that the right hon. Gentleman is doing now. Over and over again I have read out from "Hansard" extracts to prove what I say, and said. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends were most eloquent in showing how wicked and wrong it was that these Resolutions should not be put on the Paper. On one or two occasions the Resolutions were put on the Paper; now right hon. Gentlemen opposite have gone back to their old principle, of never, under any circumstances, putting these Resolutions down. There is
  220
  no necessity for being in a hurry. We really have very little to do at present. The right hon. Gentleman might accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman behind me to put this Resolution on the Paper, so that we may know something about what we are doing; at the present time we do not.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really must admit that there is a misapprehension. It is not the custom, but really a departure from the custom, to put these Resolutions on the Paper. It is my duty to keep the Committee informed of that.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly tell the House what the effect of this Resolution is? I do not follow it. Would he also say if it makes the law stricter than in the original proposal? Am I to understand from what the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) said, that no one is to get relief for the purpose of Super-tax, although he may have a wholelife policy? Surely that cannot be so.
  Mr. McKENNA: After my hon. Friend's appeal, I shall be very glad to state what the effect of the Clause will be when it is moved. It is proposed that in no case shall the relief given in respect of premiums paid for life insurance be greater than 3s. in the £.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: On the gross income?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, on the amount. No deduction is allowed in the payment for Income Tax in respect of premiums paid for life insurance. Income Tax and Super-tax may both be deducted in respect of insurance premiums under the existing law, with certain limitations. It is proposed now to limit the deduction to a maximum of 3s. in the £. That is to say, the limit is put at the amount of deduction which existed down to about a year ago, when no more than 3s. in the £ was deducted in respect of both Income Tax and Super-tax from premium payments, and it is proposed to limit the possible deduction hereafter to 3s. in the £. The only point left open for discussion in the House is as to whether this limitation to 3s. shall apply only to contracts made after the 22nd June—that is, after the introduction of the other Clause—or whether it shall be retrospective and cover contracts already made. That is a question which the

  221
  House can discuss on the Clause, and which is not agreed between the Government and the life insurance companies. This deduction up to 3s. in the £ will be allowed in future in respect of all life insurance, herein differing from the Clause introduced on the Committee stage with a single exception, that it will not be allowed in respect of a policy which becomes fully operative only after the expiration of a certain period—that is, a policy in which there is no death clause, but is purely endowment—and then no deduction will be allowed. In every other case a deduction up to a maximum of 3s. in the £ will be allowed.
  Super-tax for the purpose of deduction from premium is treated as Income Tax. Therefore, at the present moment, a wealthy man paying Income Tax of 5s. in the £ and Super—Tax of 3s. in the £ is entitled to deduct 3s. 6d. in the £ from his premium, whereas a poorer man can only deduct 2s. 6d. in the £. We propose that the limitation for all persons shall be 3s. That is the proposal. I should have thought the language in which it is expressed in the Resolution is absolutely clear, and I am surprised that so acute an intellect as that of the right hon. Baronet did not at once see its full meaning. This Resolution will appear in ordinary course upon the records of the House to-morrow morning. We propose to take the Report stage to-morrow. The House will have a much better opportunity of debating the merits of the proposal on the Clause than on the Resolution. In these circumstances I would ask the Committee to allow me to have the Committee stage Resolution now, and I hope to take the Report stage to-morrow, when we can discuss the Clause as a new Clause in substitution for the existing Clause in the Bill. I am sure, on the whole, that is much the most convenient, rapid, and satisfactory proceeding.
  Mr. J. MASON: Assuming the Committee now passes the Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, will have it on the Paper to-morrow morning. Will the Clause be on the Paper also I Am I right in assuming that this is part of the existing Finance Bill, because that Bill is going through Report stage to-morrow, and the Third Reading has been announced by the Prime Minister to take place on Thursday. In that case, are we to settle not only the Resolution, but the
  222
  whole wording of the Clause to-morrow at one sitting? If so, I assume we may anticipate seeing it on the Paper to-morrow morning; otherwise the whole-thing, having to be finished for Third Reading on Thursday, will have to be very hurried.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is very inconvenient, for the Report stage to-morrow that it cannot be, in the ordinary case, circulated with the Papers as a New Clause to the Bill until the Resolution has been Reported, but I thought I could get out of the difficulty if I included—and, if practicable, I shall do so—in a White Paper the proposed Clause. If I get the Committee stage now, I will circulate as a White Paper to-morrow morning, if I can do so with the Papers, a draft of the? proposed Clause which we shall introduce after the Report stage has been taken. Let me tell the Committee quite frankly what the object is in pressing on this matter. Our borrowing powers are running out, and, unless I can get the Finance Bill through all stages and the Royal Assent, I shall have to introduce a hurried single-Clause Bill to give me new borrowing powers. I have the powers in the Finance Bill, and, therefore, I am rather pressing it forward, which I would not otherwise dream of doing.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a new Clause on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, or, indeed, any other Bill, must be given notice of, whether by a private Member or by the Government.
  4.0 P. M.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether all this hurry is necessary in this instance. I do think it is a case in which the House might very well press-although I will not go further on this occasion than state it for the reform of getting this Resolution on the Paper, but, as that has been touched on already, I will not say more about it. The Committee is seized with the fact that this is a very wide Clause, and I would remind the Committee that on Thursday the Bill is to be passed into law, and that this is a Bill which cannot be reviewed in another place, so that all this legislation is going through with lightning speed, though it embodies a very big principle. The principle is that of modifying the relief which has been given

  223
  with regard to Income Tax on life premiums. It may be right that this should be done, but the principle on which that relief is given ought to be examined by the Committee before the change is sanctioned. I believe the principle on which "the relief rests is that the life premiums are taxed afterwards for Death Duties, and it is not fair that it should be taxed twice. That is the reason why an allowance was made on the amount of the premium hitherto. My right hon. Friend suddenly gives notice of a change by which only a partial allowance should be given. If it is 5s., it is only to be on three-fifths of the tax. It may be only two-fifths, or one-fifth, to-morrow. This principle has been sanctioned by many years of usage. Now the right hon. Gentleman has extended the 4.0 P.M. Clause in the Finance Bill. The original Clause was one to which much objection could not be taken, but now he proposes a change giving relief to life insurance. This is a very large matter, and we ought to have full time to consider it before it is passed into law.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on one point. On the Report stage is it not a fact that a Clause imposing a charge cannot be moved even by the Government, and even if we pass this Resolution in Committee to-day and get the Report to-morrow, we shall have to recommit the Bill? The suggestion is that if we allow the Committee stage to be taken to-day and the Report stage to-morrow, the rest of the Finance Bill should be taken next week.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the view of the right hon. Baronet opposite is right, would it be possible to take the Committee stage to-day of this Resolution, the Report to-morrow, and the Report of the rest of the Bill to-morrow, and then recommit the Bill in respect of this Clause subsequently?
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first point put by the right hon. Baronet, of course if the Clause is set down on the Order Paper for the Report stage, the matter is for Mr. Speaker to deal with, and therefore I have some little hesitation in answering that question. It certainly appears to me that it will be necessary to introduce this proposal in Ways and Means, therefore I am extremely
  224
  doubtful whether it is possible to introduce such a proposal on the Report stage of the Bill, whether by the Government or any other Member of the House. It seems to me that it will be necessary to recommit the Bill. With regard to the point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a recommittal of the Bill can take place either at the beginning of the Report stage or at the end, and then, of course, it would be possible to take the Report of the Bill as amended on recommittal on a subsequent day, but the Third Reading could not be taken on the same day except by a special Order of the House.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the Committee stage of this Bill, when he withdrew the Insurance Clause, I specifically asked him whether when he brought up his new Clause he would recommit the Bill, and he agreed to do so?
  Mr. McKENNA: I said if necessary.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it is necessary.
  Mr. McKENNA: If I get the Resolution now and the Report stage to-morrow, and the rest of the Report stage of the Bill to-morrow, and then recommit the Bill on a subsequent day, we can then take the Third Reading.
  Sir ERNEST LAMB: The point we are not agreed upon is the question whether the alteration should be retrospective. That point affects infinitely more than insurance companies; in fact, it affects tens of thousands of policy holders. Therefore I think the country should have a longer opportunity of considering the position, because it does affect tens of thousands of policy holders who have entered into those contracts believing they were going to have this relief. We have not had an opportunity of examining this Resolution. I do not know to what extent insurance companies have been represented upon the deputation referred to, but I am associated with one company, and I do not know that we have been consulted. Are we to understand that this new Clause supersedes the old arrangement?
  Mr. McKENNA: This would be a new Clause in substitution of the existing Clause. The insurance companies object

  225
  to the existing Clause, and that is the view of the Insurance Committee which represents them all.
  Mr. BOOTH: It does not represent them all.
  Mr. McKENNA: Substantially I think it does. They objected to the existing Clause, and I thought the House accepted the view that I should come to an arrangement with them in respect to the new Clause. Of course the House represents not only the views of insurance companies, but the nation as a whole, including the policy holders. We want to get our new Clause on the Paper, so that it can be discussed, and we want to get rid of the old Clause. We cannot do anything until we pass this Resolution, and then we can get the new Clause placed on the Paper.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the Resolution in terms is retrospective in effect? If so, is it not an extremely large order?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is retrospective.
  Sir J. D. REES: Then it is a very large order.
  Mr. McKENNA: Unless we take it in that form we cannot discuss it. The Clause cannot be wider than the Resolution, and I have to introduce it in this form in order to give the House an opportunity of discussing it. I have an open mind upon it.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it to be understood that if this Resolution is got to-day that the question is in no way decided?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have just said so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his earlier speeches, said that the procedure which he was adopting was rapid, convenient, and satisfactory. I think the subsequent Debate has shown that he was wrong, and it is obvious now that the procedure he suggested is neither convenient nor satisfactory, and it is certainly not rapid. The right hon Gentleman must be aware that he will lose a day in getting his Bill as a result of the mistake made by the Government in dealing with the matter in this way. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have put this Resolution on the Paper to-day, and had he done so he would have saved this long discussion. In regard to the merits of this proposal, it is extremely difficult to discuss them now. May I point out, however, that there are more parties concerned than the insurance
  226
  companies. There are all the policy holders, whose interests are affected by this Resolution. They cannot by any stretch of the imagination be held to be represented by this committee of insurance companies, and in view of that fact I think it is obvious that they should receive the protecton of the usual procedure of the House, namely, the Committee stage and the Re-port stage of this Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is going to put the Report stage of the Resolution and the remaining stages of this Clause into a single day, which seems to me to be quite inadequate for the consideration of an important question of this kind.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that that cannot be done, and the Government cannot do it. They must have for this Resolution all the stages of any taxing Resolution.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Am I to understand that they can take the Second Report stage and the Third Reading on the same day? [HON MEMBEES: "NO!"] AS a matter of fact they cannot get the Third Reading until next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then it is satisfactory that the forms of the House are to be observed. I understand that we shall have both to-morrow and Thursday for the consideration of this question.
  Mr. CURRIE: The reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for hastening this matter is a perfectly good one, but I wish to remind him that he gave an undertaking a week ago, when he persuaded the House to pass his Clause as it stood, that existing contracts would be saved. If there is any possibility of that undertaking not being adhered to or being modified, I think the policy holders have rather been lulled to sleep under a misapprehension. It is not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he has come to terms with insurance companies, and I hope his new proposal will not upset old contracts.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I understand that we are to have the Committee stage to-morrow?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the Committee stage to-day and the Report of the Resolution to-morrow.
  Sir C. WARNER: Then there is to be a Committee stage of this Clause. That is an important point, because it is an extension of taxation whatever arrangement has

  227
  been made between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the insurance companies, and that does not concern the agreement we have to come to between the people of this country, or at any rate that portion of them who are policy holders. I do hot think any arrangement with the insurance companies can possibly protect the policy holder. We must have that question discussed in the House, and what I am asking for is that we should have an assurance that we shall have a Committee stage of this particular Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: We have agreed to that.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should like to know whether the mutual societies have been consulted. A number of these are very large institutions and they have not got shares or directors, but mutual societies are governed by the policy holders. I will not name any of them, because I might be considered to be advertising them, but they are well-known institutions which are governed by the policy holders and they have no shareholders at all. I would like to know if those institutions have been seen?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think they were represented on the Committee. Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.

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

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.— [PROGRESS.]

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.—Class II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £166,797, 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 Local Government Board." [NOTE.—£190,000 has been voted on account.]
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOV—ERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): According to practice, I propose to make a state-
      228
      ment to the House dealing with the work of the Department over which I have had the honour to preside during the past year. Last year, in moving this Vote, I made a general reference to the work of the Department, and to some of its more recent history. I do not propose to-day to do more than allude in passing to the change that has taken place in the Estimates them-selves. The total of the Estimates for 1916–17 is £356,000; £50,000 of this goes entirely in promoting the welfare of children. Therefore, the actual cost of the Department is £300,000, this year's Estimates being actually less than the Estimates of last year by £5,000. It is fair also to remember that in the Estimates for this year are included the salaries of men who are on military service, and of many of my officials who are lent to other Departments. Last year I made an appeal, in anticipation, to the local authorities of the country. I indicated that I thought it was very probable, though great demands had already been made upon them, that still greater demands would be made upon them in the coming year, and I appealed to them to give to the Government and to the country their cordial assistance in the discharge of the numerous duties which I thought would probably fall to their lot. My prophecy has been abundantly verified, for it became my duty on behalf of the Government to impose upon local authorities a great many new duties, and it would be wrong not only of me but of the House not to express here our appreciation of the devotion, the spirit, and the ability with which the local authorities of the country have applied themselves to their very difficult duties. I believe they have discharged them in a way which has won the confidence and respect of the great majority of the people.
      I do not think hon. Gentlemen realise what an enormous tax it has been upon the time and the labour of the members of these local authorities. I know many of them have had to sit four and five days a week, and sometimes every day in the week, for many hours. When it is remembered that these authorities are composed of busy men, men engaged in businesses of all kinds, I think we must appreciate the fact that they are doing their share in the national work and are making very considerable sacrifices on behalf of the country. In the National Register and in the tribunals which have been set up to deal, first of all, with the Derby scheme, and subsequently with what are called the

      229
      Military Service Acts, local authorities have had specially hard and difficult work, and I am confident that they deserve the thanks of all loyal men who desire that we should all co-operate in these difficult times to do our duty to the country. The National Register, the first of its kind, was taken on 15th August, 1915, and subsequently, and we have done our best to keep it up to date. Under Section 7 of the Act notification of changes of addresses must be given to local authorities. Public notices have been issued from time to time calling attention to this provision, and to the penalty for failure to conform with it. Notices have also been issued calling on persons who had omitted to do so to register, and the Registrar—General has issued a great many leaflets, giving the necessary information, which have been posted and circulated by the local registration authorities. Under the (Defence of the Realm Regulations we have secured power for the visitation of houses and for the demand of certificates of all male inmates, and we have given power to the police and persons duly authorised by the local registration authority to make the necessary inquiries and investigations in order to see whether the register is being properly maintained. So far as my information goes, this work is being satisfactorily done, and it is not too much to say that without the existence of this register it would have been, if not impossible, at all events extremely difficult, to carry out the provisions of the National Service Acts, which have given us such an increase in man-power for the defence of the Empire.
      With regard to the share which this Department has taken in "helping on the War," as it is called, I think, perhaps, the most important branch of our labours has been in regard to the protection and saving of life, the enforcement of health regulations, and the general work which we have done in respect to this particular national necessity. The normal work of the Department, of course, has been greatly reduced. I have thought it right to curtail as much as possible that kind of work, which though no doubt important was not absolutely essential, and which in time of war, I thought, might be either reduced or dropped. There are a great many routine sanctionings involving a great deal of correspondence and time which have been dropped. There are a great many statistical Returns which we thought could be dispensed with, and they have been
      230
      discontinued. Loans, excepting for war purposes or very urgent public health purposes, have been stopped altogether. I have already referred to the National Register Act and to the Military Service Acts. There has been a great increase of work thrown on the Department in consequence of the War, to which I will not refer in detail, but in regard to which I will simply content myself by saying this: The staff of the Department of necessity has been greatly decreased—not merely has it been decreased, but, like other Departments, we have lost, of course, many of those who were trained in the work—but there has been no failure to discharge all these new duties, so far as I know, without dissatisfaction, because when there is dissatisfaction it generally finds expression in this House, and although I have been in charge of the Department for more than a year I can safely say, in regard to the greater part of our new duties, that there has been no evidence of any complaint in the House or in the country.
      We have been on more than one occasion challenged as to our action in public Departments in connection with men who are sent and who go to serve. There has been, I think, an impression in some quarters that Government Departments have not done their duty in this respect. Some hon. Friends of mine who belong to the party with which I have been all my life associated rather complained at one time of my attitude in this respect, and thought that I was a little too hasty, but I would like to remind them that these charges do not come against me as the head of the Department. If they are true, they come against the men themselves, and if I resented them with some show of heat it was because I really felt that they were undeserved, as I think I shall be able to show, and statements of that kind ought not to be made, impugning want of loyalty to men who are amongst the most loyal of all the subjects of His Majesty. There were on the staff 347 men of military age. Two hundred and thirty-nine have gone to the Army or Navy, or are ready to go as soon as called up. Fifty-one of the staff were medically unfit. Thirty-seven are temporarily retained. They will go when called for. Only nineteen have been retained as indispensable out of the whole staff, and eleven of those nineteen are professional men, such as doctors, and all but two of the nineteen are married men.
      Mr. G. FABER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any conscientious objectors in his Department?
      Mr. LONG: I am not quite sure whether I have one, but I rather think he is now working somewhere else. I have not inquired for him, because I am not ashamed to say that I belong to that section of the community who have very little regard for conscientious objectors, and I am utterly unable to understand their views. Out of those men belonging to my Department who have been serving at the front, no less than nine have made the supreme sacrifice, giving their lives for their country, and in each case I have reason to know that they did their duty up to the very last moment of their lives with splendid valour. Forty of my officers are lent to other Departments. I think the Committee will agree that is a satisfactory record of service on the part of the Civil Service. I said that we had cut down our loans to the lowest possible figure. For the year ending Lady Day, 1913, the loans sanctioned amounted to £12,000,000. In the year for which I am now giving account that sum had fallen to £4,250,000. Of the £4,250,000, £2,600,000 was for electricity and gas which were necessary for war purposes. Existing liabilities—of course the Committee will understand that they have to be met whether you are at war or at peace—account for another £900,000. There is therefore very little left to be used in any other way. Those are, comparatively speaking, only small matters in which it was impossible to exercise the same vigorous restriction. With regard to housing loans, which are included in the above, they had risen from the year 1913, when they amounted to £395,000, to £1,125,000 in 1915. In 1916, this year—I am now talking about this year—it fell to £439,000. Of that £439,000 all but £6,000 was connected entirely with housing which was necessary for war purposes. With regard to the general condition of the country as evidenced by the Poor Law, I am glad to say, and the Committee will not be surprised having regard to all that is going on in the country, that never have we had so satisfactory a condition of things to record with regard to pauperism and un-employment. Pauperism has never been so low, and unemployment, as the Committee know, is non-existent. The Unemployed Workmen's Grant was not required at all last year, and I hope it will
      232
      not be required this year. I took a very diminished sum last year, and this year I am proposing to take a still smaller sum, only as some guarantee against trouble, supposing there was some sudden necessity for it, and to cover the outgoing expenses of the management of the Unemployed Workmen's Farms, which have still to be maintained, although I am in negotiation with the object of taking advantage of them; for other purposes until the War is over, at all events.
      The Committee would possibly like to know that, while there was a very rapid rise in regard to pauperism in 1914, it had fallen since March, 1915, and has now reached a low figure, which is actually a record, nearly 100,000 less than in 1914. On the 27th of May there were 537,000 paupers, and of that 537,000 one-half were sick people in institutions, and nearly all the others were children and people of old age. London pauperism was about 100,000 in 1914 and has now fallen 20 per cent. Vagrancy in England and Wales is now only one-third of the 1912 figures. The London County Council returns with regard to homeless people sleeping out show that in February, 1913, that they were 491, and in March, 1916, they had fallen to forty-four. The local Poor Law authorities have done their best to co-operate with us, so far as they could, in connection with the War. They have freely placed their workhouse buildings at the disposal of the War Office for hospitals, and 40,000 beds have been made available for the War Office for such purposes. Other institutions have been taken over for barracks, and I think I may say that everything has been done by the Poor Law authorities to make their institutions, buildings, etc., available for war purposes, and I can assure the Committee, who would naturally wish for an assurance of this kind, that while we have provided these extra services during the War, we have been careful to see that there has been no interference with the necessary requirements of these institutions; no want of accommodation, or anything of that kind. In addition to the 40,000 beds, accommodation has been provided by the local authorities for infectious diseases among the soldiers. One-half of our medical staff has been engaged upon war work, and the work which we have especially undertaken has been the visiting of camps and billets and the inspection of food, both here and abroad. I am glad to say that I have had it from soldiers at the

      233
      head of these great branches of our War Department that they believe that in no small degree it is due to the co-operation of my Department and the admirable services rendered by the officers of my Department, both here and abroad, that they have been able to maintain so high a standard in the food provided for our soldiers. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that never have soldiers either at home or abroad been fed so well as—ours have been in this War, and I believe the enforcement of the necessary regulations to secure an ample supply of food, of good and wholesome food, is in no small degree due to the assistance which the officers of my Department have given and are glad to give to the War Office. There has been a complete system of co-operation. We have dealt with wastage in the camps, and have dealt with the most important regulations which are necessary in order to control disease and to secure the notification and prevent the spread of disease.
      It is really most remarkable that during the period of now nearly two years, when we have had enormous numbers of men suddenly collected in certain areas of the country, where there was all too often at the beginning very insufficient accommodation for them, no sanitary arrangements, and none of the provisions which are necessary to defend the health of the community were to be found in existence, notwithstanding these facts the health of the country has been wonderfully maintained. There has been a steady decrease in enteric fever, cerebrospinal disease, which at one time caused a great deal of anxiety, is now practically causing little or no anxiety. Small-pox, as the Committee know, which was at one time the cause of some alarm in the country, has now been satisfactorily dealt with, and there is no cause for anxiety at all now, no possibility of any raid by this terrible disease upon our people, and I believe this is largely due to the prompt action taken by the officers of my Department, presided over by the medical officers, to secure that, amongst other things, no less than 3,000,000 tubes of lymph manufactured by us on the latest principles were supplied to the War Office for the British Army. That is a not unsatisfactory record of the public health and other work done by the Department in regard to administration, and the Committee will perhaps allow me to turn to something which is not merely administrative, but is
      234
      another branch of the public health question. Probably one of the most grave facts borne in upon us by the daily announcements which we hear and read in connection with the health of the country is that we are suffering, and must of necessity suffer, the loss of some of the best, healthiest, strongest, and most gallant of our male population, and never was it more incumbent upon Parliament and upon our great Government Departments, and upon the whole country, than it is to-day, to strain every nerve to see that our population from its youngest days is brought up under conditions which will provide us with healthy men and women. In connection with this there is probably nothing more important than the work associated with the welfare of infants, and of women both before and after the birth of their children. We have done our best to get the local authorities, and they have most willingly co-operated with us, to adopt schemes for that purpose.
      Mr. KING: Not all the local authorities equally.
      Mr. LONG: The local authorities have done extremely well. I do not know what is the suggestion of the hon. Member. There may be here and there some delay in a time of great pressure, but I adhere to what I have said, that the local authorities have co-operated with splendid spirit and devotion, and are doing this work with remarkable unanimity, considering the great difficulties that are associated with the work of local government at the present time, when the staffs are depleted owing to the fact that so many men have gone to the Colours, or are serving the country in some other way. I do not think the hon. Member can say anything in the way of criticism of our local authorities in that particular direction.
      Mr. KING: I will do so in a minute.
      Mr. LONG: We have secured the adoption of schemes to safeguard the health of expectant mothers, of nursing mothers, and of infants and young children. Nearly all the large urban districts, and many of the small ones, have adopted these schemes. The Notification of Births Act which Parliament was good enough to pass in 1915 has already had many excel-lent effects, and I believe we shall see as time goes on most admirable results following this important change in the law.

      235
      We have made a number of Grants to local authorities equal to half the cost, and last year the amount was £42,000. Local authorities and voluntary societies are all doing their best, and the great majority are willingly co-operating one with the other. No less than 900 health visitors have been appointed, and a great many voluntary societies are engaged in the work of home visitation. The scheme consists of health visitors, maternity and child welfare centres, and the supply of mid-wives, and the Nursing Association are doing admirable work, and in addition to visiting there is inspection by the inspectors of the Department. On the whole, I think this is a good record, one which we may look upon with pride as preserving the health of the country generally. We have been able to assist in the Notification of Measles Order. Some of the local authorities have been able to provide nursing. The London nursing scheme has been notably a valuable contribution to this work. We have made a Grant of £50,000, and we are only too willing to make an increased Grant if more is needed, and some effect has been caused in the reduction of infant mortality as shown by the figures. Per 1,000 births the number of deaths averaged 119 from 1904 to 1913, and in 1915 it was 110. In 1916, for the first quarter, the figure was much lower than in the corresponding quarter of 1914 and 1915. I would ask the Committee to be allowed to say one general word about this question of control and care of public health work by Government Departments. My excuse for saying this is that I have been so long in public life in one office or another, and I have had many opportunities during that period, which covers more than a quarter of a century, of watching the effect of various efforts upon the health of the country, and I am confident that if there is one thing which shows a tendency to increase, and I would ask the Committee to bear this in mind when considering proposals for legislation in the future, it is the tendency of Departments to break out into work which is often really not connected with their Department, and the result is overlapping, and what is often worse, a diminution of the responsibility of the particular Department concerned. I have noticed during the past ten or twelve years that there has been a tendency for Departments to take up work which really belongs to other Departments, and the
      236
      result is that you get two inspectors visiting the same home, two, views taken as to what ought to be done, and the people whom you are seeking to help and guide resent this dual form of control, they are puzzled by receiving varied advice from different Government officials, and I am confident it leads to weakness of administration rather than strength. With regard to public health, I venture to say that the Department with which I have the honour to be connected is the one that ought to be charged with the sole duty of caring for the public health of the country. There ought to be and there need be no competition. There ought to be no interference with our Department. Let any other Department do the work for which they may be suited, but when it comes to visiting the homes of the people, whether in the cases of infants or of adults, let all that work be concentrated in one Department. If the Committee agree with me, as I believe they will on giving further consideration to this question, I hope that they will in future devote their energies to preventing anything like overlapping, and that they will never lose an opportunity to press upon the great Department over which I for the moment have the honour to preside that probably their most urgent and most sacred duty is to see that everything that can be done is done to give our people healthy surroundings and conditions which are likely to be healthy.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he deal with the question of the relation of the Board of Education to the health of school children?
      Mr. LONG: It is not my business to deal with the relation of the heads of the Education Department to the health of school children
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Have they no concern with the health of school children?
      Mr. LONG: I do not wish to argue individual cases. If my hon. Friend wants my opinion, I shall be delighted to give it for what it is worth. In my opinion the Board of Education exists for education. My Department exists to care for public health. I believe Parliament will do well as it goes on to increase the responsibility, and, if necessary, to

      237
      increase the powers of the individual Departments to do all they can to prevent overlapping.
      Mr. KING: Does not the Report of the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, Sir George Newman, cover a great deal of child welfare before school age, and does it not therefore overlap with the work of the Local Government Board?
      Mr. LONG: It does.
      Mr. KING: Then that is overlapping.
      Mr. LONG: You get overlapping not because officials do their work improperly, but because so long as Acts of Parliament are passed, as they have been passed for years, throwing these duties upon different Departments, the inevitable result is overlapping, consequential unsatisfactory administration, and, in a great many cases, a great wastage of money, because you are paying twice over for a thing that could be got much more cheaply and, I believe, much more efficiently. Dealing also with public health, during this year we have had a very important Report from the Royal Commission dealing with venereal diseases. I am glad to say that I have been able to make a beginning and to adopt, to a very large extent at all events, the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I desire here to pay a tribute of gratitude on behalf of the Government—and may I also say on behalf of the House of Commons?—to the Royal Commission for the splendid work they did. I do not invite anybody to study the history and the consequences of these terrible diseases. I believe there are no diseases which have eaten more into the life of the people, which have more destroyed soundness in the people and which have been more terrible in their consequences, for the reason that these diseases, with their evils, their terrors, and their sufferings, too often appear not in the generation that has has incurred the trouble, but it may be in the next, or even in one further on. There is nothing more horrible than to see, as I have seen, little children who have inherited this horrible thing, and who, if they are not cared for at once, are doomed to go through a life of misery and of health so bad that they will never be able to be self-supporting citizens. Anything more horrible than that picture nobody can contemplate. Therefore we owe a very great debt to the Royal Commission for the fine work they did.
      238
      In their recommendations have already been found proposals which, being followed up consistently by the country, will give us no small measure of relief.
      I cannot now, of course, deal with these-matters, except very briefly. The Royal Commission suggests that there should be facilities for diagnosis and for treatment; that they should be available for the whole population; that they should be free of cost, and that, if the work is done through local authorities, 75 per cent. of the cost should be found by the—State. I am glad to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to accede at once to my suggestion that that Grant should be given, therefore the announcement was made by me some weeks ago to this effect, and our schemes are now actually coming into existence. They are that counties and county borough councils should organise measures by which facilities in connection with existing institutions like our larger hospitals, etc., should be provided. We are issuing an Order now—I approved it only the other day, and it will be issued directly—imposing this duty upon local authorities. The measures which we call upon them to take are: first, that there shall be laboratory facilities for free diagnosis; secondly that there shall be clinics at the large hospitals for treatment; and, thirdly, that there shall be a gratuitous supply of that great remedy, salvarsan. I have seen myself in one of our great London hospitals a ward set apart for this work of mercy' and of care, and I most earnestly hope that all the great hospitals in the country will give us their immediate aid in this work. I know that some of those who are responsible for our hospitals entertain a fear that, by the importation into their establishments of this kind of case, they will be injuring the reputation of the hospital. They will do nothing of the kind. I saw this ward in a great London hospital the other day. That London hospital has not suffered, because it is well known that it has made provision of this kind for these unfortunate sufferers.
      It is only possible to deal with these fell diseases satisfactorily if the provision is universal. If patients have to go long distances in order to get hospital treatment, I am afraid they will not do it. They will not take the trouble. They will not like to go so far from home, and

      239
      the remedies will not be available for them. I am confident that there is no reason to fear that, by offering facilities for the treatment of these diseases, any hospital in the country will suffer in credit or in the good opinion of those who support it—quite the contrary. On behalf not only of the Government but of the sufferers from these horrible troubles, I invite, as I am receiving the co-operation of local authorities, hospital authorities, medical men, and the general public. I hope also that in this work we may have the co-operation of all those people, especially ministers of all religions throughout the country, who can do a great deal to help us in this munificent work, because naturally there is a feature attached to these diseases which does not belong to the ordinary troubles of health. The patient does not like it to be known that he or she is suffering from this disease; they like to conceal the fact; they do not want it notified. There-fore, if we are really going to deal with our suffering population, we must take care not only that there is proper provision for their treatment, but that everything is done that can be done to get it without notification. One of the conditions I have endeavoured to establish in connection with these hospitals throughout the country is that in consequence of their getting this big Grant of 75 per cent. from the State, it shall not be considered essential that the patient using a hospital should belong to the particular district which that hospital serves. What I am imploring them to do is to take the patients in and welcome them from wherever they come, to ask them no questions, and seeking in no way to identify them with this horrible misfortune that has overtaken them. It is all very well to say that we must point out to them the error of their ways, or must take the opportunity to give them other information. That is not what we want to do now. We want to cure them. We want to eradicate this horrible disease. It can be done. If the Government receive the same assistance from people of all classes, to whatever calling in life they belong, I believe, nay, I am very confident that the time is not very far distant when this disease may be added to those the real permanent ill effects of which have been eradicated by satisfactory and successful treatment.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: I hope you will be as successful with this as you were with rabies.
      5.0.P.M.
      Mr. LONG: While we have progressed in these new fields of public service, we have not allowed the ordinary medical work to fall behind. I am very happy to say that although there is, of course, a considerable shortage of medical men, there are to-day no less than 290 sanatoria and hospitals, providing 11,743 beds which have been approved for the treatment of tuberculosis in England; 359 dispensaries have been approved, and there is to-day sufficient accommodation for all our present demands. All soldiers and sailors discharged on account of tuberculosis can be provided for in these institutions. Of course most of these cases are insured persons, and arrangements are made for them through the insurance committees, but there are a good many soldiers and sailors who are not insured, and for them arrangements are made by my Department, with the approval of the local authorities. We have also special arrangements for the treatment of officers at King Edward's Sanatorium at Midhurst. This will show that we are not allowing our normal work in connection with public health to fall behind even though we are departing into no new fields of enterprise, and the demands upon our staff and upon the medical men of the country have been, in consequence of the War, excessive, and in some cases so great as to throw an immense burden of work upon our medical men. I am sure it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the life-saving work of protecting men, women and children from the mortality which follows from a preventible disease. Some of these diseases if they are not actually traceable to them are undoubtedly aided and abetted by over-crowding, by insanitary conditions in our homes, and many of those social evils which we have been combating for so many generations, and I am sorry to say the solution of which is not yet nearly within sight. We have done our best to maintain sanitary services, and I think on the whole, considering the movement in the population and considering the fact that there has been so great an aggregation of people in new and unprepared areas, the record I am able to present to the Committee is one which they will feel is not altogether unsatisfactory. So much for our ordinary work.

      241
      Now for our new operations. We are not overlooking the fact that after the War many problems will present themselves for immediate consideration and for prompt action—the housing of the people, public works, further health provision. I am happy to say the Government has got the Reconstruction Committee, as it is called, in existence, and all these problems are under our careful survey and examination. I am not going to deal with them now. Every member of this Committee is as familiar with them as I am. But if we are really to improve the health of the people, if we are to make it possible that the infants of to-day shall be the healthy men and women of the future, it will not be by one Act alone, it will not merely be by the enthusiastic and devoted work of those public officials, whether in our Department or in the country, who labour incessantly in this cause, it will not be by passing Acts of Parliament, it will only be if the nation realises that the health of the people is its first consideration, and the promotion of the health of the people is the most sacred duty of Parliament and all loyal citizens. Once this great central idea is grasped and followed up by Parliament and peoples, I believe we may live to see the day when the general condition of the health of our people is better even than it is now. In some respects there' is great room for improvement. There is no field of enterprise so worthy of the best efforts of our citizens than this one which I commend to every man who desires to do something for his country. During the last year or two there has been an enormous amount of voluntary work on the part of people of all classes. We are immensely indebted to men and women alike who were not able to go and fight, who had no particular vocation which enabled them to do what is called war work. On all hands they have co-operated. Voluntary service has become the rule and not the exception. To them all we are greatly indebted, and I desire to pay a special tribute to the doctors in town and country. All our new legislation, insurance and other, has thrown upon these men an enormous burden of work. Doctors have been taken to go to the front. I told the Committee last year the large number of medical men by whom the R.A.M.C. has been reinforced. This results naturally and necessarily in diminishing the number available for the work at home. Cheerfully and bravely have these men done it. Let anyone examine the diary of their
      242
      day's work and see what it is now for a country doctor or a doctor in one of our great towns. Hours and hours do they labour, and when they come home there is a great deal of writing work to be done in the making up of the returns There is no complaining and no grumbling. They are doing it with all the will in the world, and I think the nation owed a special debt of gratitude to these men who are labouring in order that we and the rest of the population may be sustained in good health. To them I desire to pay a special tribute, because I believe of all the civil professions there is none which has played so great a part in war time as these men have who are doing so much at this moment.
      Since I moved our Estimates of last year the Civil Service has lost one of its oldest and most distinguished members, Sir Hugh Owen, who put in sixty years of public service, was the permanent head of the great Department with which I am connected. I knew him intimately. I had the good fortune to be able to learn at his feet. An abler, more distinguished, more single-minded Civil servant never lived, and his death is a great loss to the Civil Service and to the country. But our country is better in that he lived, and I am confident that his example will be followed and emulated by all those who are fortunate enough to have known him. I hope the Committee will allow my Department to feel that, on the whole, it has not played an unworthy part in this tremendous period of our country's history.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Rumour has been very busy with the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that the whole country will rejoice that he is still a member of the present Government and is presenting the Estimates of the Local Government Board this year. I have had the good fortune to work sometimes with and sometimes against the right hon. Gentleman for a good many years, and I am quite certain that it would be a national calamity if his services should be lost to the country in an official capacity through any point of domestic controversy, and I sincerely hope that next year, if the Coalition Government last so long and the War lasts, he will be occupying the present position which he fills with so much distinction. Now, being in a position of less responsibility, I am able to agree absolutely with what the right hon. Gentleman has stated about the inspection of public health. There has been a tendency

      243
      for a good many years to create and increase inspectors, and really it has come to the point, or it had before the War, that a considerable part of the population was engaged in inspecting the other part. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that all this overlapping is wasteful. It is demoralising to the local authority who have to have all these examinations, and I wish him well in his effort that the public health shall be under the Local Government Board and that that Department shall be responsible, and its inspectors only shall inspect local authorities and their work in the interests of the health of the community. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one dread disease. I interjected across the floor that I hoped he would be as successful in dealing with that disease as he was in dealing with hydrophobia. We all know what odium he incurred through having the courage to muzzle dogs. He did it, and rabies was practically extinct. I hope the right hon Gentleman will be equally successful in dealing with the disease which he has mentioned.
      He told us that there were very few unemployed, and that the unemployed question at present was practically non-existent. That is perfectly true at the present moment, but will these conditions last? The War will come to an end some-time, and is the Local Government Board providing machinery to meet the dislocation which must ensue when the War comes to an end? So far as I can foresee the future there must be an immense deal of distress when Government orders cease. There is an enormous number of people employed upon producing war material. That must come to an end at some time. The industrial population of our country is revelling in fictitious prosperity. There are high wages and plenty of employment, but that is due entirely to Government expenditure. Directly Government expenditure stops I fear there will be a great wave of unemployment, and I hope the Local Government Board is making provision for dealing with the dislocation which must inevitably ensue.
      I want to draw attention to the work of the local tribunals, and to the work which the Local Government Board has under-taken in directing these local tribunals as regards their duties in dealing with the various industries. I cannot help feeling that the Local Government Board in the circulars which they have issued—and I have one here—have not given sufficient
      244
      attention to the very important industry of agriculture. I have read all their circulars. They have sent them to the local tribunals, but the local tribunals have not taken that notice of the circulars of the Local Government Board dealing with the food production of our people to the extent which I think the Board itself would wish to be done. I feel that in this matter they might have given more precise directions to the tribunals. The tribunals often do not feel that they have got the Local Government Board behind them in this matter. I had the opportunity, the other day, of making an appeal before a local tribunal for the exemption of a ploughman. I was armed with the circulars of the Local Government Board, and I pointed out to the tribunal how necessary it was that this ploughman should be retained. I even quoted the words of the Prime Minister, but the military representative said, "Oh, never mind what Mr. Asquith says!"
      The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with the Local Government Board now. That is a War Office matter.
      Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir, I submit that it is a matter for the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board issue these instructions, and what I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that they should give more explicit directions to the local tribunals, that agriculture is of the first importance. Here is a circular issued on the 6th July. It draws attention to the home-grown timber trade. That trade is important, but it is not so important as food production. The circular also draws attention to shipping. Shipping is most important, especially for war materials. Surely agriculture might have been included in this circular. I do assure the Parliamentary, Secretary to the Local Government Board that this question is getting into a most chaotic state, and unless they take direct steps to prevent the local tribunals from taking more men from the land there will be an enormous shortage of food production next year. That is the only thing I wish to say about that point; but I do hope that the representative of the Local Government Board, when he comes to reply, will promise that he will issue a circular to the local tribunals on this point.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: That is already done.
      Mr. LAMBERT: If that is so, they do not take any notice of it.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: There is a specific circular which has been issued.
      Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend is a member of the Central Tribunal, and, of course, he is more conversant with the facts than I am. I am afraid, however, that the information which my hon. Friend has given to the House has not reached the tribunals in Devonshire.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I think so.
      Mr. LAMBERT: They have not acted upon it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board will give us a promise that he will issue explicit directions to the local tribunals to exempt necessary agricultural labour.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has been able to present to the Committee a most gratifying Report of the year's work which has been done by his Department. I have had the pleasure of listening to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject both sitting before him and behind him, and I have had great pleasure this year in being a supporter of his as he has delivered the speech to which we have just listened. There is undoubtedly a strong team at the Local Government Board at the present time, and one would almost wish that they could have had a time of peace in which to carry out the very admirable programme which has been set forth this afternoon. Unfortunately, the long experience that both the President and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board have had in public work has led to their employment in various directions not necessarily bearing upon the administration of their office, with the result that they have very important duties in other ways. Therefore, I think they have kept their office very efficient in regard to its proper work so far as their depleted staff has been able to cope with it. Very largely the speech we have had has dealt with matters arising out of the War. I wish to turn almost entirely to the ordinary work of the Department. I think our duty, when this Vote is before the House, is to guard against the lowering of our standards in any way, even in these times of emergency, particularly in regard to children, who come more directly under the care of this Department. I welcome—and I think the House will welcome very
      246
      strongly—the claim which the President of the Local Government Board has just made that his Department should be considered the real health department of the State, charged with the health of the homes of the people throughout the country. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall remember his claim, and that we shall enforce his responsibility for securing healthy surroundings in order that we may have a healthy generation. I rather favour the idea which has been thrown out of a proper and definite separation of the functions of the various Departments of the Government. There is an interlapping and interchanging in more than one direction. I admit that the point raised by one hon. Member is rather at difficult one.
      The health of the children at school arises very largely, almost entirely, from the health of the children at home, and I do not quite see that we must blame the Education Department for thinking about it. I think the responsibility must be fixed definitely upon the Local Government Board, and they must take such measures as will secure healthy homes for the children who go to school. The schools offer a gathering ground for information. They offer an opportunity whereby the developing health of the children may be noticed at various periods, and that information can be so collated that it may bear back upon the Local Government Board and assist them in the direction of their efforts in order to secure healthy homes. One part of the right hon. Gentleman's comprehensive speech, which I am sure was listened to with very great pleasure, was where he dealt with the health of infants and of mothers. That problem is beginning to be attacked at the proper end, and that is almost before the birth of the child. You cannot secure a healthy race unless you have healthy mothers, and a healthy mother cannot have healthy children unless she is in healthy surroundings. Nothing could be better for the health of the nation than a vigorous prosecution of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman has just set forth. We want a vigorous administration of the Notification of Births Act. We are gratified to know that there are 900 health visitors already appointed, to learn of the spread of maternity centres, and of the growth of nursing schemes, and other very good developments which should bring about great changes in the coming generation. The right hon. Gentleman has said;

      247
      a word about the economy which he has endeavoured to secure. We desire economies in the administration of any Department of the Government, but it ought not to affect the physical and mental growth of the children. Recently a Committee of this House has had the duty of going through the statistical publications which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, and they found that the Department had either suspended or curtailed their publications, wherever reasonable. That is a form of economy we shall be all very glad to welcome, for I am sure the House must feel overwhelmed with the torrent of figures which sometimes is poured upon it.
      I should like to refer to the amount of money given in some cases for the sustenance of boarded-out children. In work-houses and the village communities the board of guardians have to pay increased prices, but how are they dealing with the boarded-out and out-relief children? If they had to supply these children with food and clothing they would have to pay an increased price. They would have to meet the 33 per cent. or 50 per cent. increase which has taken place in these prices. From the Board of Trade this afternoon we had a statement that prices, including rent which has not risen, had risen 33 per cent. If you exclude rent, as I think would be reasonable in discussing what it costs to keep a boarded-out child, I think it is not unreasonable to say that the figure is something like 50 per cent. Therefore if some person is receiving 5s. per week for looking after a boarded-out child the amount expended on it upon food has increased to such an extent that they ought certainly to get from 6s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. now. I recognise that the Local Government Board has notified its willingness to sanction a payment for boarded-out children now of 6s. instead of 5s. In many cases, particularly in the rural districts, in all probability 6s. is a very good figure. The Local Government Board inspectors have called the attention of boards of guardians to this matter, especially where the guardians are inclined to be parsimonious. It appears to me that in maintaining the low fees which are paid in some of the Western districts of the country, the guardians really are trading on the affection of the foster parents for the children whom they have taken. They have taken these children, in some cases a year or two ago, for such a pittance as 3s. 6d. a week. The
      248
      child has endeared itself to them, and now that the cost has gone up, the foster parents cannot find in their heart to send the child back to the workhouse, for that is the only alternative where the guardians will not recognise the increase in the price of food. Some of the more ignorant and backward guardians seem to resent the remarks of the inspectors. I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will absolutely support his inspectors in this matter, because they are only doing their duty in calling the attention of boards of guardians to these things as they arise. I should like to mention one or two cases. At Llanfyllin, Miss E. M. Jones, Local Government Board inspector, in the course of her duty, very properly reported complaints from foster parents as to the inadequacy of payments in face of the present cost of food. The present payment is 4s., which, of course, is inadequate. Because the amount had been raised a little while ago from 3s. 6d. to 4s., an increase was refused, and one of the guardians thought it consistent with good taste to make certain remarks as to the personal qualifications of this lady inspector—a course which, I think, ought to be very strongly reprobated. My own experience of these inspectors, both ladies and gentlemen, is that they show very great tact, and very great discretion. They have accumlated a very great deal of knowledge, and boards of guardians would do very well to listen more than they do to the advice which these inspectors give them. At Taunton, where 4s. 6d. is paid, a motion was made that 5s. should be given, but that was defeated. It shows the kind of idea which is in the minds of some guardians, when such a reason as this was given for defeating the motion.
      "There is more employment for the children now. They can earn a nice little bit of money in the summer time, even now."
      If the children, for whom, 4s. 6d. per week is being paid, can earn a little money, surely that ought to go to increase the narrow margin of comforts which they have. For instance, to provide an additional pair of boots, or something of that kind. At .Uppingham 4s. 3d. is paid, and an increase has been refused. These are cases where increases have been refused. There are numerous,others where increases have been given. At Ely, an allowance of 5s. has been raised to 6s., and at Weymouth the 5s. allowance has been increased to 6s. At Halstead the maximum is now

      249
      5s. 6d. At Grimsby increases have been given of from 1s. to 1s. 6d., according to age. That introduces a principle which I think is worthy of consideration by the Board, and that is as to whether there should be in these cases any graduation according to age. Where the Board has to consider any possible increases of the 6s. limit, they might consider whether permission might not be given for something greater when the children are older. I was talking to an old grandmother, whose son and daughter-in-law had both died, and she had one of her grandsons who had just gone to work. The payment for him had been dropped, and now she had to content herself with a few shillings a week as wages. She told me how hard it was. She said, "He only gets a lad's wage, but he has a mon's appetite." I am inclined to think that when some of these boys are growing fast, we find that these allowances of 4s. 6d. per week are very short. I am glad to be able to include Grimsby among the more enlightened boards, because I should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the overcrowding of children there is being remedied. I hope that the point has not been lost sight of. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham would have liked to raise this point, but he was not able to be here this afternoon. The limit in certified schools has, I think, been raised, but I would like to know when inquiry is to be made to see whether the increased cost has really been met by the increased allowance which has been granted.
      The children who are boarded out and the children who are accommodated in cottage homes one may say are efficiently looked after, but there is one class of children as to whom the control of the guardians, and certainly of the Local Government Board, is rather difficult. These are the out-relief children. If there is one class that does deserve our sympathy it is the widows with families and the out-relief children who are living with relatives. In my opinion there is no sweating in the Kingdom does harm equal to the sweating of mothers with children. I call it sweating when mothers with four or five or more children are made to work in addition to having to look after their family. I do not think that any mother can efficiently do all the manifold duties which require to be looked after and go to work or take work at home. There is one case—unfortunately I have not been able com-
      250
      pletely to verify it—in which I am told that a widow with eight children is allowed 10s. a week, because she can take in washing. She has to take in washing and look after eight children. I think that that is a piece of the most scandalous sweating. Personally, I should be prepared to forbid by law any mother in that condition who has not other resources, any mother who is dependent on the State for the sustenance of herself and her children, from going to work when she has four or five children. If you want to compare cost, compare the cost to the guardians of those children and the cost in a cottage home or when boarded out, and you will find that the amount which is paid for them would be very much cheaper, even if the guardians give what appears to be a very liberal allowance. It is a pound-foolish policy to starve a family like that, because if they are well treated and the children are brought up healthy within a very few years they would form a very comfortable little family and would sustain themselves. In reference to the treatment of these out-relief children where it is not adequate, I know that the Local Government Board-have issued a circular demanding that it should be adequate, but I believe that even more pressure should be brought to bear upon boards of guardians. Treatment which is not adequate has a very bad effect in lowering the vitality of the whole nation. Wherever a child touches the State its condition ought to be improved, and the State ought to make it an occasion of raising the normal average.
      There is one point to which I should like attention to be paid—that is the treatment of mentally deficient children. Unfortunately, that is one of the things in which the War has interrupted schemes which we hoped to have seen developed by now. Almost necessarily those schemes are suspended, but workhouse accommodation is being offered to municipalities in some of these cases and the consent of the Local Government Board is being asked. I hope that special regulations and arrangements will be insisted upon, and especially that it will be made known that any such arrangements entered into by municipalities will be purely temporary to meet the present emergency. After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I feel confident that this point will not be lost sight of, and that progress will be made as soon as possible according to the scheme in hand. Like the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench who has just sat

      251
      down, I have some apprehension as to what may happen after the War when thousands of millions of pounds cease to be spent on war purposes. There must come a time of readjustment when boards of guardians will be tested. I do not think that they should be hampered with too many of these emergency schemes. There are now old folks earning money who never expected to earn any more money; they are living with relatives whose earnings are increased. They will be the first to suffer, and the accommodation of the guardians will be called upon. "We cannot see too far ahead. I know, and I think we all knew before the right hon. Gentleman told us, that the very valuable services of some of the chief officials of the Local Government Board are being used in this War. But I do hope that some foresight is being shown that in the difficult times which are to come we may not be taken unawares. The statement which we have heard was satisfactory to the House, and has given a feeling of great confidence that all that can be done by the Local Government Board will be done.
      Mr. CROOKS: It is not often nowadays that I trouble the House with any observations of mine, but I must certainly say that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides with so much dignity and helpfulness might easily nowadays change its name, and instead of being called the Local Government Board it might be known as the Good Samaritan Department. I have had frequent conflicts with that Department from time to time, some of which have been repeated over and over again, and now I come down praising this Department for its attempt to deal with various departments of the Poor Law. I reecho the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) as to out-relief and boarded-out children. I am afraid even nowadays that they are taken for profit rather than for love, and where they are taken for love and kept for love the guardians take good care to save on the love and affection of the parents. I well remember many visits which I made to boarding-out centres years ago, and how it was impossible to get rid of the pauper taint. Apparently that has gone now to a very great extent, and people do not know that the children are chargeable to the Poor Law. In some places which I visited I asked where certain lads lived, and I was pointed to a particular division
      252
      where the Poplars were, and the children from Hackney and Shoreditch. Then again I asked parents how they are getting on, and I was told, "They are doing very well. They are now getting to be rather big, and they are eating such a lot." If that applied years ago, it applies still more nowadays.
      I hope that the Department will act up to the new Regulations, and insist upon people taking care of these children. As I have said hundreds of times in this House, you may make a mistake with regard to buildings, roads, tunnels, rivers, or canals, but if you make a mistake in the bringing up and feeding of children they are ruined for all time. I wish to say something about the guardians' power to assist in the matter of adequate old age pensions. I suppose I should be out of order in raising that now, but there is an Order of this Department which encourages guardians to give some relief on the advice of doctors. I think that if that was generally enlarged upon and pointed out, it would do good. Nowadays when food has gone up by 25 per cent., it is not unreasonable to ask the guardians of the poor to make this better known than it is now. A speech in this House would go a greater distance than a placard on any guardians' office wall. If that is done, it will practically meet all the criticisms which I wish to make. I was going to raise another question entirely—the Statutory Committee, the committees of local authorities dealing with pensions—but I have been told that I should be out of order. I should like it to be known that we did make some attempt to get in these committees, but as this is out of order I will not pursue it.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): That is included in Special Vote 7 under Clause 6. Therefore it is out of order.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: The Statutory Committee now is under the control practically of the Local Government Board, and they are responsible in this House for all its actions, and unless we can raise the question upon this Vote, I do not see upon what Vote we can raise it. I understood that the salary of the new chairman of the Statutory Committee was in this Vote. There is no item that would indicate it, but I may point out that there is a very great deal of unrest in the country with regard to the action of the Statutory Committees, both in London and in the

      253
      provinces, and many of us were requested by municipalities to take action, and they understood certainly that the Local Government Board are responsible for overhauling the work of the Statutory Committees and having some supervision of the circulars which they are sending out.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member. It has been the universal custom of this House that when an item is included in a Special Vote it is declared out of order on the original Vote. When this Vote 7 of Class VI comes up before the House then the representatives of the Local Government Board will be prepared to answer in respect of any criticism that is made.
      Sir JOHN SPEAR: I desire also to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the great ability of the statement which he has made, and on the renewed evidence which it affords of the very beneficial influence which the right hon. Gentleman exercises in presiding over this great Department. It is a matter for great congratulation that such a report is able to be made in this House. Having regard to the terrible War in which we are engaged, when we hear details given of the decline of pauperism and unemployment and of the many signs of better conditions in which the poorer classes, especially children, are living, it is a matter of congratulation that, as we all feel, the poor are being catered for in this country better than ever was the case before. The right hon. Gentleman has given a testimony as to the value of the services of local bodies. I think that he is quite justified. The local bodies have responded loyally to the appeal to deal economically with their finances, and the right hon. Gentleman, by the Votes which we are asked to pass to-day, has shown that he, at any rate, to some extent, practises the principle which he inculcates on local administrative bodies. In regard to the boards of guardians in the country, there are two or three points to which I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention, and in regard to which I would observe that I hope, after the statement which has been made here to-day in regard to the work of these bodies, we shall hear no more, for a generation at any rate, of the theory about scrapping boards of guardians. Those bodies have done their work well and earned the gratitude, I think, of the community, and it was gratifying to hear the
      254
      right hon. Gentleman bear testimony to the efficiency of their work. I think such testimony shows the value of the work which has been done by the boards of guardians, who have given so much time and anxious care to their duties, inquiring into every case of poverty. I submit that both the men and women members of the boards of guardians well deserve the praise which the right hon. Gentleman has bestowed. May I suggest to him, as I have done on previous occasions, that it would be a fitting compliment if the chair-men of boards of guardians were made ex-officio justices of the peace? The chairman of a board of guardians, because of his ability, experience, and knowledge, if he were appointed to the position of a justice of the peace, would be able to show that he was eminently suitable for the important duties of such a position. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot promise that, in normal times, or at any rate as soon as possible, the chairmen of boards of guardians shall be made ex-officio justices.
      An experiment has been made in respect of the annual audit of accounts as against a six-monthly audit. I should be glad if the President of the Local Government Board can tell us what has been the result of that change, which relieves boards of guardians, and especially their clerks, of a considerable amount of work, and, if the change should be satisfactory, I hope he will continue the annual audit instead of a six-monthly. I think it is desirable that should be done. In reference to the commutation of pensions, I am not quite sure whether I am in order in mentioning that subject, but it is felt by the Poor Law authorities to be very desirable that pensions should not be commuted for a long time, and that the payment should be made monthly. A great many of the pensioners are persons of discretion, but others are not, and some who are paid every three months find that their money is soon gone, and that they are quickly in poverty, but if they were paid monthly that would be avoided. If the matter is not within the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, perhaps he will make representations in the direction I have suggested to the Department which is concerned, for I think the boards of guardians would be assisted in that branch of their work if the suggestion which I make were carried out. I had made some notes in regard to the question of giving assistance to old age pensioners in this

      255
      period of crisis without menacing their pensions, but if that subject be not in order I will not pursue it. The guardians are surely bodies conversant with all the cases which ought to have some little allowance during the War, when the prices for the necessaries of life are so high. With reference to the boarding out of children, I believe it has been a complete success, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in claiming that they are being well taken care of. The number of vagrants has declined immensely, partly because work is so plentiful, that even these men, who do not like work, cannot help falling up against it. But the time will come when they will be on the road again.
      As I have said, there has been a great decrease in their number. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to forward to me statistics, showing the influence of the way-ticket in reducing the number of vagrants. I think the result was very satisfactory, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when there is a recrudescence after the War of vagrants it shall be made compulsory in every union that there shall be this way-ticket system. If that were done generous people would abstain from giving assistance to these persons, and it would cease to be worth the while of vagrants to pursue that line of life, and they would have to find a better system of living. The public would know that they were not really bonâ fide, or in need of assistance, and they would have to go to work. In reference to the question of housing, I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not need any prompting in that direction, but I do venture to submit that it would promote the increase of the rural population very much more than any system of colonies that we may set up if plenty of good cottages were provided throughout the country; and there would be work that can be found at a very much better remuneration than would be paid in certain senses where there is a very small outlook on life.
      One thing of great importance is the action of some of the tribunals. I think we must all admit that here, as in other departments of public work, the tribunals as a whole have rendered great service in undertaking an enormous mass of some what disagreeable work, and, generally speaking, I believe that they have acted fairly. But I submit that there has been
      256
      a lack of guidance on the part of the Government which has caused an irregularity of action that has been extremely serious, and, if I may say so, I cannot help blaming the right hon. Gentleman a little for the delay which took place in issuing the arrangement that was made between the War Office and the agricultural authorities, as to the basis upon which the tribunals could leave men for the working of the farms. We do not claim for our industry special treatment, but we do say-that the provision of food is as necessary a branch of equipment to win this War as the provision of soldiers, and all that we ask is that the necessary men, the absolutely necessary men shall be left, in order to accomplish the purpose of producing the food supply. The right hon. Gentleman said he had issued recommendations; they were called recommendations, but I submit they ought to have been described as instructions. Those recommendations provided that there should be one man left for a team of horses on the farm, one man for twenty-five milking cows, one man for fifty indoor cattle, and one shepherd for 200 sheep. I am sorry that the tribunals have not acted upon that principle. I have here two letters which I received to-day, both complaining of refusals of exemption to farm hands. I do not see the use of instructions being issued such as those I have read, unless they are carried out.
      We all know how important it is to have men for the Army, and I think farmers have done their part and are willing to do their part in that direction, but we cannot maintain or increase the output of food unless we have the men absolutely necessary to do the work. I believe the tribunals are desirous of doing what is right, but I submit with all respect that they ought to have definite guidance, and having that guidance it should be obeyed. Some of the military representatives on these bodies have acted in a very arbitrary way, but on the whole, important and good work has been done, though there have been those difficulties to which I have referred. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on the tribunals acting on the arrangement between the War Office and the local tribunals, I believe he would do an act of justice to agriculture, and would be supporting the food supply, while still securing the right men for the Army. I can only hope that he will give this matter his special attention. The letters I have received in regard to it are extremely plaintive. Large breadths of corn and

      257
      hay cannot be dealt with; there is no one to go with the horses, and, when it has been promised that a man would be left for a team of horses, I think those concerned in agriculture have a right to expect that the promise will be carried out.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so, to add my tribute for the very sympathetic review which he made of the work falling within his Department. I am quite sure that the Committee will be fully conscious of the broad and human sympathy which was reflected in the opening address of the right hon. Gentleman. But, if he will allow me, I should like to criticise one statement he made—because I think it would be unfortunate if it went forth as the verdict of this Committee—about the overlapping of Departments, and his claim that the Local Government Board was the proper Department for dealing with all questions of health, both for children and adults, thereby touching on a very acute controversy as to the respective functions of the Board of Education and the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman's views were accepted by the Committee and the House of Commons, it would mean that the whole medical oversight and care which have been so properly exercised and developed by the Board of Education, respecting the school children, would be really outside the province of the Board of Education. The observation of the right hon. Gentleman must be limited, it must surely receive only a very limited assent, for it would be a great pity if anything were said by a Minister of the Crown which would discourage, or limit, or throw any doubt on the propriety of the work undertaken by the Board of Education in connection with the physical care of school children.
      Mr. LONG: In the school.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In the school and in their homes. Certainly there is no other body as capable of looking after and taking care of the school children as the body which has the control of their education. So far from the view of my right hon. Friend leading to a diminution of inspection and overlapping, it would greatly increase both inspection and overlapping. I am quite sure that the right
      258
      hon. Gentleman does recognise that the physical care of school children must remain subject to the Board of Education.
      Mr. LONG: In the school.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the school treatment influences the home, the parents, and the children.
      Mr. ALDEN: There are visits to the home.
      6.0 P. M
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As my hon. Friend reminds me, there are visits to the home. I think he will see that it is quite impossible to draw any arbitrary distinction between the physical care of children of school age in school and at home, and that those two departments of the question cannot be separated. I would go further and say that some of the functions which the Local Government Board exercise at present ought to be transferred to the Board of Education. We look forward to the time when there will be a scientific rearrangement of the duties of these two Departments, and when the school children, at present under the care of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will be transferred to the care of that Department which obviously should have their care, namely, the Board of Education. I am really digressing from the points I wish to put, but this point seemed to me so important, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that I am sure he will forgive me for having referred to it.
      I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer in his opening address to a very great and very new question which has been dealt with by his Department. Since the outbreak of war we have had the spectacle, almost unique in the history of this country, of a great portion of the population of another country coming to these shores in numbers unparalleled in history. I had hoped to hear some reference in the right hon. Gentleman's address to the position of the Belgian refugees in this country, the schemes that have been undertaken for the organisation of their work, and some information with regard to their numbers. I trust we may hope before the Debate concludes that some information on this subject will be given. It has been my privilege to have been closely associated with the arrangements for the reception of the

      259
      refugees. I would lay down this principle: I think the lessons of history prove to us that in the case of refugees coming to this country they have never remained permanently separated from the rest of the community. In each case they have become merged in the general national life. They have brought their own special skill, their own peculiar handicrafts and trades into the national life, and they have greatly added to the national wealth and character. These refugees in the past have always been looked upon at the moment as temporary, but nevertheless they have proved to be permanent. Following on these reflections, and considering the problem that confronts the right hon. Gentleman, I think it would be a great mistake if he attempted, and I do not think he is doing so, nor do I suggest that he is going to do so, to keep the refugees in compartments by themselves, living their own life. I think the easiest way to solve the problem of the refugees, and to get the greatest possible national benefit from their arrival in this country, is to treat them as fellow citizens and to receive them into our trade and industry without seeking to restrict them in any arbitrary way. I am sure that on those lines the final solution of a very great problem, unique by reason of it dimensions, will be found.
      I desire also to refer to the question of the tribunals so far as they are under the care of the right hon Gentleman. I am not going this afternoon to make any general attack upon the work and methods of the whole of the tribunals, but I would remind the Committee that since the passing of the first Military Service Act the complaints of the conduct of the tribunals in many individual cases have been numerous and long continued. My right hon. Friend would, I believe, be the last man to deny that the tribunals, faced with this novel work, have made frequent mistakes. I want to put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. These tribunals, created for a novel purpose, and having to take decisions of so grave a character affecting men's lives and going to the roots of society and of our social system, obviously must be subject not only to the occasional advice of the right hon. Gentleman, but to his constant oversight and care. It is no good creating these tribunals in an Act of Parliament under the conditions under which they were created and then think
      260
      that they will run themselves, and leave it to fate to adjust the mistakes that are made. I believe that the present injustices can only be met by the right hon. Gentleman with sympathy, watching the proceedings of the tribunal, and interfering whenever he sees that either the manner of receiving evidence or the action of the military representative or the reasons given for decisions require interference by him. He will say that the tribunals are independent bodies and need not accept his advice. That may be so according to the letter of the law, but in practice, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, he is able to exercise a great amount of guidance and control, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, it is his duty to make Regulations. He should not be content with a set of Regulations issued at rare intervals, but he ought to add to them as he sees that the existing Regulations do not meet the needs of the case, and to watch the actions of the tribunal in connection with the Regulations and the conduct of the military representatives at the tribunals. There is no other Department that will interfere unless he does so, and frequently the advice given to the tribunals by military representatives requires controlled interference by the President of the Local Government Board. I think a great part of the public were scandalised only a few days ago, and certainly our ideas of justice were shocked, by the proceedings at a tribunal. I fancy the right hon. Gentleman remembers the case where a man claimed exemption on the ground of ill-health, and where the military representative said to the tribunal, "Let him go into the Army, and if he is unfit he will soon crack up." That is a case for interference by the President of the Local Government Board.
      Mr. KING: What did the tribunal do-in that case? Did they send him?
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I believe the chairman of the tribunal expressed regret that such advice should be given by the military representative, and insisted on making further inquiries. I want it to be quite clear that I am not complaining of the action of the tribunal in this case. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to watch the conduct at the tribunals of the military representatives. Again, take the proceedings at the Cambridge tribunal recently, where methods;

      261
      were adopted which certainly were antagonistic to our ideas of fairplay and justice. I refer to the case of Professor Pigou, a distinguished professor at Cambridge. I think it was an amazing thing that the military representative should have been allowed to appeal for Professor Pigou to be conscripted because another professor, Professor Boxwell, had offered to do his work if he were conscripted. For it to be possible for occurrences like that to take place is a very lamentable thing, and shows the need for constant care to be exercised by the President of the Local Government Board. Finally I come to the very vexed case, the most difficult of all the cases, and the case so full of trouble, namely, that of the conscientious objector. Every time a conscientious objector is refused the provision given to him by the Acts of Parliament endless social difficulties and suffering are caused, and a great amount of trouble has to be gone through before that initial injustice is put right. I believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman sees injustice being committed by the tribunals, by being firm in his advice to the tribunals, and by insisting upon his Regulations being obeyed, he will largely reduce the difficulty of the conscientious objector. Let me give an instance which occurred within the last few days. A man claimed before a tribunal for exemption as a conscientious objector. That claim was supported by evidence of the most conclusive character. But ultimately the tribunal decided that he was not a conscientious objector, notwithstanding the evidence that had been given, because, forsooth, he had been instrumental in carrying out insurances against air raids, and it was thought, because he had carried out those insurances that he could not possibly be a conscientious objector to war and that he was not entitled to the benefit of the Act. That is a case I suggest for interference by the President of the Local Government Board. If he will interfere in these cases with sympathy and tact and strengthen the Regulations where they are found to be inadequate, and insist upon their observance, and introduce new Regulations where those are proved to be necessary, he will do a great deal towards removing the many injustices which still occur in the hearing of cases before the tribunals.
      Mr. HORNE: Attention has been drawn to the subject of unemployment after the War, and in connection with that I would
      262
      wish to mention the subject of the arterial roads of London, a scheme which I believe has been under consideration for some four years. I would suggest for the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board whether a Bill might not be brought in later on which would define these roads, and would have a schedule of the land which is to be taken, and also a proper plan. Of course, I do not suggest at the present time that any money should be spent, but it would be a very great economy in the future if this could be done at the present time, and if this land were what I would call ear-marked for this purpose of roads. In that way greater economy would be obtained when the land comes to be used.
      Mr. MORRELL: My object in rising is to refer to the question already referred to by my hon. Friend, namely, the action of the tribunals under the Military Service Act, and especially with regard to conscientious objectors; and I want at once to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I want to ask him whether he has taken any steps, and, if so, what steps to see that the administration by the tribunals of the second Military Service Act is just and more satisfactory than was their administration of the first Act? That is a specific question on which I hope we may get some answer this evening when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply. This question of the conscientious objector and the action of the tribunals, has for the last three months, at least, continually occupied the attention both of this House and of the other House of Parliament. It has occupied an enormous amount of attention in the Press, and it has, I believe, stirred very deeply the feelings of large masses of people in this country. I believe they are shocked at the things that have happened. I believe they are scandalised at the treatment that a great many men—men of the highest character, of good reputation and of deep conviction—have suffered in prison, in the Army, and in all sorts of ways as a result of the Military Service Act. Although I quite recognise that lately the Government have made an attempt, and a very sincere attempt, to get this question settled, I think the Committee would be very much mistaken if it it imagined that at present it was in a satisfactory condition. I want to show that it will really rest with the action of the President of the Local Government Board whether this great problem with

      263
      which we are faced of the conscientious objector is satisfactorily settled or not. What I want to show, first of all, is that everything that has happened has really justified the warning which some of us gave when the first Military Service Act was introduced—the warning we gave to the right hon. Gentleman as regards the action of the tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman at that time scouted all that we said. He would have nothing to say to it. He said over and over again that with very few exceptions the action of the tribunals was satisfactory. On the 21st of March he said:
      " They are doing their work well, and holding the balance evenly. I am not prepared to admit that all the criticisms addressed against the tribunals are based on fact."
      And, over and over again, he has said that the tribunals have done their work admirably, both as regards ordinary applicants, and especially as regards conscientious objectors. What do the facts show, the facts of the last three months? The facts show that over and over again, not in scores of cases, but in hundreds of cases, I venture to say, even in thousands of cases, but certainly in hundreds," the tribunals have utterly declined to acknowledge the genuineness of the objection held by the applicant before them, and they have not given him the relief which Parliament intended that he should have. What is the reason of all the trouble? It can all be traced back to one thing, the mistake of the tribunals before whom the men were called. To-day a question was asked about thirty-four men who were condemned to death in France. Here you have thirty-four men, well known, of good education and high character, who were taken over to France, and who, because they refused to obey military orders, were condemned to death, and after-wards to ten years' penal servitude, which, presumably, they are now undergoing. Who is responsible? Ultimately it is the tribunals who fail to recognise the genuineness of the conscientious objection of these men. What these men had suffered and are prepared to suffer is absolute proof that the tribunals before whom they came acted wrongly. These men suffered over and over again what the Secretary of State for War called horse play, but what most people would call torture and persecution, and all because their consciences prevented them obeying military orders. Who was responsible? Again, it can be traced
      264
      back to the tribunals who failed to discover the real conscientious objection that these men held, and failed to give them the relief which Parliament intended them to have under the Act. As a matter of obvious fact, this shows that we were right, and the right hon. Gentleman wrong in saying that the tribunal would act fairly in regard to this matter. If I want any further evidence I would call the Government's attention to the speech made in this House on 30th May by an hon. Member who would certainly not be accused of any undue sympathy with conscientious objectors, or of being out of sympathy with the Military Service Act, as some of us are supposed to be. I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith). In his speech on that occasion he said:
      "I say with great respect to the large body of men who are rendering voluntary and valuable services on the tribunals, that there is still a large number who are not administering the Act and not treating the conscientious objector in the way which Parliament rightly or wrongly decided he ought to be treated."
      He added:
      "I must say with respect to a great many tribunals which I have attended that I think when a conscientious objector comes to the chair the judicial mind of the tribunal generally ceases."
      Lower down he says:
      "Every case such as that mentioned by the lion. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) of a man who is to-day standing first of all, ridicule, the abuse, the contumely to which he is subjected, and finally imprisonment—I say, without fear of contradiction, that every such case is a standing example of a mistake which has been made by a tribunal."
      There are no less than 1,200 of such cases to our knowledge—1,200 cases of men of high character willing to be arrested and imprisoned, and to be subjected to all the suffering to which conscientious objectors have to submit, and each one of those cases proves that a mistake has been made by the tribunal. Therefore, I am entitled at once to ask what steps the Government are taking to see that the administration of the second Military Act will be better than the administration of the first Act. So far as I can gather from information which has been brought to me, although there has been improvement, and although a good deal has been done, and although the Government has shown themselves willing to see that things are put right, there are still deplorable instances of miscarriages of justice that are going on. There is the case of a conscientious objector from my own Constituency-a man who was a local preacher, and who is described as being very devout. He obtained total exemption from the local

      265
      tribunal, but when he was brought before the Appeal Tribunal he was denied any exemption of any kind. He was sent into the Army and has undergone arrest and imprisonment. Here is another case of a similar kind—a man called Theodore Pumphrey, a Quaker. He joined the Friends' Ambulance Unit, and went out to France. He obtained from the War Office, in March, 1916, a certificate which stated that exemption was absolute, and which also stated that the ground on which his exemption was granted was conscientious objection. That man, having got absolute exemption, was brought before the local tribunal at Tottenham in June, and was granted the absolute exemption to which he was entitled. He was a perfectly conscientious man, whose views were well known. The military representative appealed against this decision, and in July this man came before the Westminster Appeal Tribunal, which is presided over by a Member of this House—I am sorry not to see him in his place at present. The clerk read this man's original appeal and the notes by the local tribunal, which stated that they were satisfied that the man was a conscientious objector. That local tribunal acted in accordance with the Act; it found that his objection was genuine, and gave him the form of exemption which met the case. The military representative objected to this, and said it was wrong to give any man absolute exemption under the Act, and then a long conversation went on between the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal and this applicant. The result of it was that, at the end, the chairman said, "Now, Mr. Pumphrey, we want to be quite fair to you. I am going to give you agricultural work under the Friends' Ambulance Unit. Will you accept that?" The applicant said, "No, sir"—on the ground that he was entitled to total exemption, which he claimed he had received from the local tribunal.
      Mr. BOOTH: Why did he not accept?
      Mr. MORRELL: He wanted to do his own work.
      Mr. BOOTH: What age is he?
      Mr. MORRELL: The chairman said, "Very well, you are given non-combatant service." The applicant replied, "I cannot accept that." The chairman then said, "You will not accept that? Very well, we have your refusal in your own words; you will have combatant service only." The applicant replied, "There are already
      266
      1,200 men who are suffering because they have cons ciences like mine; I am proud to take my stand at their side." The chairman's only reply was, "Next case."
      HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"
      Mr. MORRELL: Hon. Members cheer, but this man will ultimately be persecuted; he will be driven into the Army, is being driven into the Army, to a position his conscience will not allow him to accept. He will then resist orders, and "be sentenced to imprisonment, and suffer for it as other conscientious objectors have suffered. That is the sort of thing that is going on to-day, and which this House, when it passed the Military Service Act intended to provide against. Here is an-other case which occurred at the Maiden-head Rural Tribunal on 5th July. The letter to me is written by a man called Mr. Stansfield, who says that he was present and saw the case of a man called Tavener, a Quaker. Before he was heard the tribunal went into a room and brought back a written decision. Thus the applicant had no opportunity to add to written answers to questions. The tribunal explicitly admitted his sincerity, and recognised that they were not satisfying his claim, but said they had no power to give him full exemption, and in support of this decision they quoted a case before the Central Tribunal, in which a similar decision had been given in the case of a Friend. Here is an instance of a tribunal denying the power given by this House—that is the power to grant absolute exemption to conscientious objectors. The writer of this letter says that he heard half a dozen or so previous cases in which business or domestic grounds for exemption were put forward, and he states that this tribunal was completely dominated by the military representative. The chairman repeatedly asked him, "May we do this?" "Do you agree to this?" and so on. In cases where I myself have been present I can bear out what the writer of this letter says, that the military representative in the case of these local tribunals still dominates the decision of the tribunal. I will give one other instance to the House in which I think injustice has been done to one of these men. This is the case of an applicant for exemption which was heard by the Liverpool Local Tribunal:
      "After retiring, while the tribunal deliberated, I was recalled, and the Chairman said,' We have decided to give yon exemption from combatant service, but only on condition that you accept this decision, and agree not to appeal further.'…"

      267
      The man had a legal right to appeal against the decision. Obviously the chairman had no right to limit him in that way.
      "I was given time to consider my answer, and replied that the question of appeal was a matter of form, which I should decide in due course, and that it would be wrong to say that I accepted the decision. I had stated in my application that I would not consent to non-combatant service. 'No exemption' was then pronounced."
      Because the man would not say that he accepted non-combatant service, and would not say that he would agree not to appeal, they said, "We will give no exemption at all." That is the sort of arbitrary, high-handed proceeding which leads to the scandal which has been going on in the Army in regard to the conscientious objectors. That is the sort of thing that leads to these men being forced into the Army, and there finding themselves unable to submit to the orders, then being sentenced to penal servitude or condemned to be shot.
      Mr. KING: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Local Government Board is not really trying to correct these grave mistakes which have been made?
      Mr. MORRELL: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is just the point I was coming to.
      Mr. KING: Let us know whether or not they have been successful.
      Mr. MORRELL: The cases I am quoting are very recent cases, cases of what I should call miscarriage of justice, and cases which have occurred in the last few weeks. I think these cases tend to show that, although the Local Government Board have, no doubt, made attempts to regulate the procedure of the tribunals, more can be done than has been done to see that these conscientious objections are not allowed to continue. That is what I want to ask the Local Government Board to do. It seems to me that what the Local Government Board first want is a special set of conditions or regulations dealing with this peculiarly difficult case of the conscientious objector. I quite agree that when a tribunal is asked to decide whether the conscientious objections are genuine or not they have a most difficult and delicate task put before them. I will go so far as to say that some cases of miscarriage were almost bound to happen; that is in the nature of the Act. But I would say this: cases of miscarriage of justice need not be so
      268
      frequent as they are. I venture to submit that if the Local Government Board would use their powers to issue Regulations dealing solely with conscientious objectors, showing the way in which they ought to be treated—the way they have not been up to the present—the Local Government Board might do a great deal to see that these men are treated more fairly than they are now treated. Principally what I want is this: that the Local Government Board should issue Regulations—not merely advice—to the effect that when any tribunal is satisfied that the objection of a conscientious objector is a genuine and bonâ fide one, it becomes the duty of the tribunal to give him a form of exemption which will meet his case. Parliament has already decided this. It has decided that a man who has a conscientious objection to military service is entitled to have absolute exemption, or conditional exemption on his undertaking work of national importance, or, thirdly, he is entitled to merely what is called non-combatant service. It seems to me that it is the duty of the tribunals not to impose upon an objector that form of service which he in his conscience cannot accept. That is my view, and I think that is the only way. To say to a man, as the tribunal does, "We recognise that you are a conscientious objector, and we therefore put you into a Non—Combatant Corps," only to evoke the reply, "Non-combatant service is making me part of the military machine, and I decline to accept it," is only to make further trouble, and really only aggravates the difficulties of the situation and the sense of injustice. Non-combatant service—that is to say, being a non-combatant member of the Army—ought not to be imposed upon any conscientious objector against his will. You will never get a satisfactory solution to this great problem until you see that a man's conscience is not to be forced in the way it is now being forced, by his being driven into the Army and treated in the manner that I have described. I think that is the first and most important thing to lay down. Lastly, I do think that the Local Government Board might well provide more frequent revision of the cases where injustice has occurred. We are continually appealing to them in various cases, saying, it is obvious that the local tribunal, or the Appeal Tribunal, has not judged this or that case fairly. We get the same answer, "Oh, well, we must leave it to the tribunals; we see no reason for revising the

      269
      case." In that way again you are laying up for yourselves trouble in the future. We get the scandal and the discredit which has already been caused by endeavouring to force these men to be soldiers against their will. After all, as regards the military question the whole problem is a very small one. There is nothing to be gained from a military point of view by forcing these mens' consciences. It is mere persecution, for no benefit whatever. What the Government, if they want to deal with this question-and I believe they do-ought to do to get it out of the way once and for all, is that they should deal with the matter thoroughly now, and see that the tribunals do not add to the second Military Service Act similar difficulties to those created in the first.
      Mr. KING: We have heard a very comprehensive and interesting discussion of the ordinary kind. That is to say, such a discussion begins by the Minister getting up and telling the House what a wonderful Department is his; what a wonderful achievement there has been during the year; what marvellous work he has done—far greater than that of any predecessor or any other holder of the office; what wonderful economies have been effected! In fact he almost overdoes it. So much so that one is almost afraid to offer any words of criticism at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I am justified in this bold course at the moment because both the representatives of the Local Government Board have left the Chamber. That is, of course, quite natural. I do not expect them to pay any attention to me, or to consider my remarks as being of any value at all. They are not obliged to stay and listen to me, and they are perfectly at liberty to go away. If I had much respect for them, and desired that they should hear what I have to say to them it might perhaps bring them back into the Chamber, or if I followed the usual tradition on such an occasion I should ask leave to report Progress, in order that the representatives of the Local Government Board, now that the Local Government Vote is under discussion, should be, as they ought to be, now in their places. I do not do that, but I simply make these remarks in order that I may be able, possibly on some future occasion, to refer to the fact that my ideas were justified. I am glad, however, to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has now come back to his place
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have been absent for one minute during the whole of the afternoon!
      Mr. KING: I do not wish to make any reflection whatever. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to go out as much as he likes. If he chooses to do me the honour of listening and making a few notes, mental or otherwise, of my remarks, I shall be obliged and pleased. As regards the remarks we have had to-day from the President of the Local Government Board, I failed to observe any reference to the extreme difficulty under which local authorities are carrying on their work at the present time. That work is being carried on under very great difficulty, and it is suffering in consequence. In the districts where I go, and where I live, sanitary inspection is almost for-gotten. I observe many cases of nuisances, of bad conditions of housing, that are left over until after the War. I observe many cases of roads getting into disrepair, and even into dangerous disrepair, and when I remind the inspector, what he says is, "You seem to forget a war is on!" The War covers a multitude of omissions. I want to suggest that in these matters we ought, as far as possible, to keep up the efficiency which is necessary, and that certain public services, such as sanitary inspection, the upkeep of the roads, ought not to be in an absolutely dangerous condition. The Local Government Board should not let off the public authorities, and inspectors, and others, ought to be required to see that essential work of that character is done. At the present moment there is a great amount of economy, so-called, going on by reason of doing away with the watering of the streets and of public places. That is false economy. The dust that is spread about in consequence is very deleterious to health. Certainly the dust is unpleasant, and extremely irritating to people's nerves. The dust of the London streets, and its effect upon the mucous membrane, is acknowledged by medical authorities to be the cause of very grave irritation. Therefore, I wish to put in a plea that local authorities should be encouraged to do watering in the streets and public places, and especially in the poorer parts of London, where such economy only means increased disease.
      The President of the Local Government Board took pride to himself on one or two

      271
      grounds which did not convince me, because I was, as a matter of fact, acquainted with the figures and facts to which he only superficially alluded. One of the matters to which he referred was infantile mortality, which, in the first six months of 1916, he pointed out, was less than in 1915. The fact is that the births in 1916 have been far fewer than those in 1915, and if you take the proportion of infantile mortality to infant births you are in no better position than in 1915. Therefore it is quite futile to leave out one set of figures which is the most important set, and pride yourself on other figures which are immaterial. That is, of course, rather characteristic of men in office, whatever their party or office may be. They try to make out the best case they can, and of course can quote figures to prove anything of that sort.
      The subject I will go into still further in connection with the work of the Local Government Board is that known as Child Welfare. My hon. Friend I thought was quite on right lines in pointing out that the real credit for child welfare does not belong to the Local Government Board, but belongs to the Board of Education. It was the medical officer of the Board of Education who, by a series of annual reports, put the Government on the line of policy they are now pursuing-a very good policy, and a very right line on which to work-which is that instructions should be given to mothers before even the birth of their children, so that they may know how to rear those children in health and strength. Instruction of prospective mothers is actually being given in many centres already under the Board of Education. To hear the President of the Local Government Board talk, you would think it was all his duty and all his work, but where he might come in, and where I think he ought to come in, is to insist that all local authorities everywhere should take up work on the lines which have been laid down in successive memoranda, and should do it equally. At the present time he is praising the local authorities because some local authorities do their duty, but there are many local authorities who do nothing at all in this direction, and there are many parts of London in which you get child welfare started by health visitors, Grants from the Local Government Board, and voluntary agencies taking up the work, while there are other parishes in London where there
      272
      is an absolute lack of all such facilities. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman himself as to whether that was not the case, and, as a matter of fact, I brought the facts out in unstarred questions which can be referred to in the OFFICIAL REPORT a few weeks ago.
      It is perfectly notorious that this scheme of child welfare is being most unequally pressed. It is being carried out well in many districts, but it is quite ignored in others. I can prove this from statistics that have been given to me in answer to questions. I asked one question recently about the towns with over a quarter of a million population. The money that they have received out of grants for child welfare come to nearly one-half of the whole Grant. Now the population of this country does not live in towns over a quarter of a million. It lives in smaller towns, and the large towns which are wealthy, and where local organisation, education, and other facilities—hospitals, dispensaries, and so on—are really more available than in many other places, are getting the best of this Grant. I do not grudge for one moment the amounts they are receiving, but I do say that large areas of this country are now without any benefit of this fine work of child welfare. If it were not for causing some trouble to the Department, I should ask for a Return showing what is being done among all the authorities of the country where there are health visitors, how much money is being expended by public authorities in local agencies and so forth, because, of course, it is a complicated question. But if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board will honour me with any attention and any reply at all, I should like him to take this course: Will he see that those authorities which are doing nothing for child welfare shall have something more than a reminder by circular of what may be done. It is all very well to send a circular. It is read before the local authority, and it is put off for a month, or possibly the chairman suggests that it may be left until after the War. There is no good in merely sending circulars to local authorities, and even if you offer them Grants on the top of those circulars that is not enough. I want to suggest a personal visit by the inspector, so that he can bring personal influence on the authority. I would even go to the extent of penalising in some form those local authorities—many of them large ones—

      273
      which do not act. I could quote one very large Metropolitan borough where practically nothing is being done for child welfare, and where there are thousands and thousands of births a month.
      I am now going to say a word or two about the policy which is being pursued in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases. Of course we are very glad that something is being done—that £75,000 will be utilised, or will be available, for diagnosis, for treatment, and for the supply of that wonderful drug salvarsan. And here let us remember that we owe this wonderful drug, which offers to our nation, and every nation, the possibilities of sweeping away one of the most terrible scourges of disease that the human race has suffered under, to a German Jew who was here in our midst a very few weeks before the War broke out, who was honoured in this land by the medical profession, German Jew as he was, as few other men of our generation have been honoured. Do not let us forget in the time of our hostility, or in our legitimate and bitter hostility, to the German race, that we owe to that man a great possibility for mankind. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman very heartily for the initiation of a policy in dealing with these terrible venereal diseases. It is intimated that we are to have £75,000 for institutions, hospitals, and so on; but I want to go a little further. I want to ask him whether he is informing all medical men of this policy. I think all medical men who are local practitioners, at any rate all doctors who are panel doctors—and, I will go further and say, all secretaries of friendly societies—ought to be informed of the opportunities that there are available, or shortly will be available, for treatment.
      If a man contracts one of these diseases, it is of the very greatest value that he should be rapidly informed of the possibilities that there are for his being cured. He ought to be informed if he can at once, and more than informed. He ought to be able to go to a man of his friendly society, or his doctor, who will at once not only tell him, but will urge him in every possible way to take advantage of this new policy, and I do hope that some means or other will be taken to bring this about. The publicity of it is a matter of prime importance. It must be, of course, tact-fully and wisely done, but it ought to be broadly and widely made known what facilities there are in this matter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go
      274
      further in several directions. I have heard of cases in rural parishes where there has been an outbreak of one of these terrible diseases a long way from any town or institution where cases can be treated. I think facilities ought to be given under certain circumstances, on, say, the report of an inspector, for supplying to a medical man in that place drugs for treatment. I have in my mind at the present time one of the most outlying villages in my own Constituency where, I was informed, that one person had recently brought a considerable number of cases of this disease. Let us stamp such a thing out by some such development as I suggest, that in certain circumstances, where means of treatment are not available, you should place—the right hon. Gentleman does not think it is possible; perhaps he is right, but he will, at any rate, see the point I am urging, that in outlying places you may get centres of infection which are terrible. If he is considering that, that is all I ask. At any rate he sees the strength of my point, that this policy must be one the facilities of which are widely known, and can be instantly taken advantage of.
      7.0 P.M.
      I am; going to add a word or two on the subject of the tribunals. So many Members this afternoon have criticised the tribunals that it is almost superfluous, but, so far as I know, no one has got up in anything but a, mild sort of way to say they have done good service. However bad an Act of Parliament is in this land, there are always genuine, honest Englishmen who will try to make something decent out of it, and, however bad an institution that is set up, there will be some men who will bring themselves credit for it. About one tribunal I have heard constant praise, and especially about the chairman of it, and it is the one which sits under the roof of this building in the corridor upstairs, and is presided over by the Deputy—Chairman of Committees of this House. That is legarded by all parties as a model tribunal. People of different kinds, conscientious objectors, men and women, militarists, and conscriptionists, have nothing but praise for that tribunal. If there is any tribunal which is not doing its work well I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make them sit a whole day upstairs and listen to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, who often presides over our own deliberations here, conducts the business. I think if he could make them come and see how a model tribunal conducts its business I

      275
      believe it would be a very good thing. I think that is a practical suggestion. I am going to touch upon the tribunals from another point of view. The right hon. Gentleman knows my Constituency very well, for I believe he sat for an adjoining constituency once. I spent several days at Whitsuntide in my own Constituency, and I find that two adjoining tribunals, both in the rural parts, had very different reputations, one for fairness and the other for unfairness. One had a reputation for looking after the farmers and doing what they wanted and the other had a reputation for giving a fair hearing to poor men and labourers. Why was this? Because the local authority in one of these rural districts is practically wholly composed of farmers and men of that class, while in the adjoining district, which is a large mining area, a number of miners sit on that local body, and there is a totally different atmosphere upon the local authority upon which they sit. The result is that you have a much fairer tribunal in the one case than in the other.
      Here you have two tribunals, one of which is constantly putting the Act into force in a different way to what another tribunal does across the border in the next parish. This is very undesirable, and it is not being corrected by the Appeal Tribunal for the county, which apparently always takes a harsh view. In the county I represent I am afraid the Appeal Tribunal for my Constituency has very little to be said in its favour. If these tribunals have still got a great deal of work before them, and I am afraid they have, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter, not by tinkering them up with one circular after another, but now that we have practically got the great rush of the married men's cases just coming up on the tribunals, let him send out a revised and consolidated order which will, at any rate, show them that there must be an attempt to obey the law and the intentions with which Parliament passed the law. If the right hon. Gentleman says he has not the power, let him take the power, and let them know that there is an authority which, if they do not do their work properly will be able to out them out of office and put other people in their place. I could say a great deal about these tribunals, but I will only say this: I urge the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to avoid friction, suspicion, waste of time, and temper and
      276
      money, let him take the whole ease in a wide spirit into consideration, and send out new instructions to cover the whole field. I have made a good many remarks about various aspects of the work. I have criticised fairly severely one or two Departments in the work of the Local Government Board. Of course, we all recognise in the right hon. Gentleman a most courteous, industrious, and experienced administrator. He does not always go so far or so quickly as I should wish, and many of his doings, his views and beliefs are not mine, but, personally, I thank him for the way in which he has begun his duties, and I believe, when we make suggestions, we are always making them to a Gentleman who is always sensible and most sympathetic.
      Mr. WING: I wish to associate myself with the various tributes which have been paid to the right hon. Gentleman on his annual statement. Several speakers have not only paid their tribute, but they have also presented a number of difficulties. For instance, some speakers, like the last speaker, think that the care of child-life should be left entirely to the educational committees.
      Mr. KING: I did not express that view at all. It was another hon. Member.
      Mr. WING: Then I am glad to find myself in harmony with the hon. Member for North Somerset. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has to do with these children before the Education Committee comes into contact with them, and I should be very sorry to see any interference with the work which the right hon. Gentleman has in hand. As to the tribunal and the question of the conscientious objector, the more it is discussed the more difficult it becomes. I have watched the operations of these various tribunals and I do not know of one that is entirely satisfactory. There is always a something, because every man who appears before the tribunal, whatever it may be, is a man who desires to be exempted, and if the verdict does not fall in line with his desire, of course, there is disappointment, and the psychological form of decision differentiating one objector from another is exceedingly great. I know that the least friction has been where you have a legal mind as the presiding officer. The hon. Member for West Leeds will bear me out in this in relation to the tribunals in his own city. Allusion has been made to the

      277
      Appeal Tribunal in this city. What ever may be their disappointment they never leave the tribunals to which I have alluded without feeling that they have really been able to state their case. But when all has been said, there is a feeling that before the verdict is given that the applicant should be asked, "Is there anything more you would like to say before we come to a decision?" I should like the right hon. Gentleman, if he can see his way clear, to multiply the number of men on these tribunals who will have patience to sit and listen to evidence, and who will be led rather by the evidence than any prejudice they might have apart from the evidence, and that would largely meet the objections which have been raised by my hon. Friends on these benches during the last few months.
      It is an exceedingly difficult thing for a man who has a conscience to come up against it, but we have to deal with this case and we have to help this man in some way or another. We have provided for him in the law, and I hope we shall do our best to see that he gets the advantage of that which the law grants to him. I specially rose for the purpose of calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a matter which I feel certain he will really be somewhat in sympathy with. I am not going to discuss the old age pensions question, but I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to allude to the old age pensions question. In addition to the old age pensioner's difficulty and the decreased value from a purchasing point of view of his pension, the law provides that he shall have medical attendance free. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make this more fully known. I know the reply will be that it is already known, but it is not universally practical. I believe that in Bethnal Green where any medical aid is given it is given as a loan, the result of which is that a number of elderly people are kept from applying for medical aid, when if they knew that the authority granted it free they would apply. In addition to that, I am informed that such applicants for medical aid have to appear before a committee. Now, I do think it should be generally understood that an old age pensioner goes through a sufficiently severe examination before he receives his pension, and I think that ought to be sufficient without further humiliating him by having to go before the committee which grants this aid as a loan. It is surprising how these restric
      278
      tions prevent the poor in a general way from making an application.
      I got some figures the other day in relation to three great authorities in this big City, namely, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, and Poplar. In those three districts the population at the last Census was: Shore-ditch, 111,000; Bethnal Green, 128,000; and Poplar, 162,000. The out relief in Shoreditch was £2,892; Bethnal Green, £1,113; and Poplar, £33,010. You see the great difference. I suppose this restriction is regarded as a very good way of keeping the poor in their place. We have already had in Bethnal Green an old age pensioner die of starvation, and, whilst it might be said to be quite accidental, still it is a point that last year no such death occurred in Shoreditch, and no such death has occurred in Poplar for very many years. I am not specially referring to Bethnal Green by way of exposing it, because I believe it is representative of a very large number of unions in the country. I really would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to see that old age pensioners, when unwell, are encouraged at once to go to the medical officer and that the medical officer exercises that power which the law at present gives him of granting some assistance, not as a loan, but as a free gift, without humiliating the pensioner by calling him before a committee.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think all who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend in introducing the Estimates would say that the outstanding feature of that speech was the intense desire shown for the health of the community and particularly for the welfare of the child. There, I think, we might possibly even be doing a little more. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) did not seem to think that I was paying much attention to his speech, but I can assure him that I was. I am altogether at one with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in my desire to stimulate local authorities to put in force the schemes which they can put in force, if they like, in the direction of maternity welfare. Membere of Parliament themselves might do something. I find my own personal influence has not been altogether lost in approaching those who were responsible for what I thought was some neglect or laxity in not taking advantage of the Acts of Parliament and the Grants which accompanied them, and I think every Member of Parliament, particularly in

      279
      these days of Coalition, might do something in his own constituency to see that the local authorities are encouraged to set on foot schemes for child welfare, maternity care, and matters of that kind, and to raise their standard up to the level perhaps of their neighbours. In that way we might do infinitely more than we can do by merely issuing circulars, though I do not quite hold the view of the hon. Member for Somerset about the efficacy of circulars. The best way of paying our tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has been connected with the Local Government Board now off and on for thirty years, would be by following up his speech and in every local area seeing that the utmost is done under the existing Acts of Parliament, with the benefits of the Grants, to stimulate the action of the local authorities for the pro-motion of infant welfare, never more necessary than at the present time.
      I have to reply to some questions and to comment on some criticisms that have been made to-day. The first criticism was in connection with overlapping by the Local Government Board and the Board of Education in the matter of attending to the health of the child. That overlapping, after all, has come from the zeal of the two Departments to do all that they can in that direction and to take the greatest possible advantage of the various Acts of Parliament that have been passed. There is plenty of zeal in the centre. We have to distribute that zeal so that it may radiate from the centre to the different local authorities. If there is some overlapping, and undoubtedly there is, you will generally find it where new services are partly in one Department and partly in another Department. After all, it is only by experience that you come to delimitation. There is undoubtedly overlapping and there ought to be delimitation, but as one of the two representatives of the Local Government Board I must say that I think it is the Local Government Board possibly whose territory has been encroached upon by the Board of Education, and it is not we, but the Board of Education, who ought to give way in this matter where the two authorities come at any rate into conflict. I know these questions pretty well, and I am certain that any Committee of the House of Commons chosen almost from any quarter of the House would settle this matter satisfactorily at one sitting and would do away with a certain amount,
      280
      perhaps, of friction which may occur from time to time in carrying out the various. Acts of Parliament.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: Why not have a Committee at once?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am sure that, it would be an easy matter for them. My hon. Friend who represents Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) addressed to me one or two-questions in connection with the welfare of children. He asked about the children that are boarded out, and he called my attention to the fact that some boards of guardians seem to think that 3s. 6d., 4s., or 4s. 6d. per week is an adequate sum to pay for the boarding out of a child, whereas the circular issued by my Department empowers boards of guardians to raise that payment to 5s. and 6s. In a few cases we have even sanctioned a larger payment than 6s. I should have said that in these days when the cost of living has gone up that 3s. 6d., 4s., and 4s. 6d. are, in all probability, not sums which can wisely be paid by boards of guardians, and that they would do better if they reviewed their decisions and looked to the circulars we have issued and at 5s. or 6s. rather than the sums they are now in the habit of giving. There must, however, be-some difference in different localities. Some localities are undoubtedly more expensive than others. It is true that we do very often find that foster parents do not look at the amount of money they get with the child. They really do get attached to the child and like it, and would even keep it for nothing, but I quite agree with my hon. Friend that you must not play too much on their feelings, though I am sure he would like to know that we have very few complaints from our women inspectors and from foster parents. I will take notice of what he says, and I will have any cases which he specifically brings before me followed and see whether the money is or is not satisfactory to the foster parents, and if there is any chance of the child not getting the food or the care and comfort that it ought to have. The House should remember that this 5s. or 6s. does not cover clothing or medical attendance.
      My hon. Friend asked me about children in certificated schools. He asked' whether there had been any necessity to increase the amount of money paid there. Yes, we have issued a circular authorising" an increase of something like 25 per cent.

      281
      to 30 per cent. Then he asked whether we would pay attention to the question of adequate outdoor relief for children, and particularly for the children of widows with large families. I hold the very strongest possible opinion with him that women with many children should not only not be encouraged, but should be actually discouraged to work, and I might say, by way of example, that the Statutory Committee which has to administer the supplementary pensions and grants are going to lay it down that where a woman has no children and is accustomed to work she is probably better at work, but where she has two or three little children, then, even although she is accustomed to work, she had better stop at home and look after her children. It is better for the nation in the end. There again I will take notice of what the hon. Member has said and see if anything can be done to give adequate relief to widows with large families. The next point that came up in debate was the question of the old age pensioners, but on that I must follow the Chairman's ruling, and I can say very little indeed. It is a question which has been discussed and doubtless will be discussed in this House, but it is a matter rather for legislation, and so far as it is a matter for administration, it is more a matter for the Treasury than for the Local Government Board. Anybody who looks at the tremendous increase in the price of necessities, and particularly of those things for which old ago pensioners have to pay, cannot but have sympathy with them in their position. We have made a great number of inquiries at the Local Government Board, and I am glad to say that the evidence does not bear out the suggestion that old age pensioners are to any large extent giving up their pensions and receiving Poor Law relief. That is probably due to the fact that in most cases they do not rely entirely on their old age pensions, but they have relations and friends who are now enjoying greater wages and are probably even more generous to them than they were before. Still, I am not happy about it; I am anything but happy about it. Whilst the Treasury turns a blind eye, and the Treasury is turning a blind eye, to anything that is urged in regard to old age pensioners—it is neither taking them away nor reducing them, and it has given a hint that nothing of that kind is to be done-possibly other Departments might also turn a blind eye and—
      Mr. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department make it perfectly clear to boards of guardians that doctors' orders cover such things as bread and meat and tea and sugar? Your Department can do that; not the Treasury.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not sure what my Department can do, but I will take note of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, who always takes such a deep-rooted interest in this question, and with my right hon. Friend who sits beside me, and who is responsible for the Department, I will consider it and see if there is any possibility of our extending a blind eye in the direction of selected cases of pensioners, because I am not at all one of those who think that it is necessary to increase the pension in every case, without discrimination, by 1s. or 2s. The whole matter could be better dealt with by discrimination, and in all probability in the local area by the local authority, than if could be by any general system of raising the pension, to which I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would strongly object.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needs to turn a blind eye. The medical officers are entitled in proper cases to order these com-forts, and that should be well known and recognised by boards of guardians.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is so, and we might possibly make that known. There was just one other subject that is rather akin to, at all events it is within the area of, kindness, philanthropy, and mercy, and that was the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid—Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse)—the question of Belgian refugees. I do not exactly know what he desires me to say about them. He asked for the figure of how many there were. We compute them at 200,000, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of us all, our immense gratitude to the committees which, from the very beginning of this War, have taken these unfortunate Belgian refugees by the hand, and with a very kind hand. These commit-tees are still paying the greatest possible attention to the Belgian refugees. Everybody desires that they should have the hospitality of this country—yes, the wide hospitality of this country—to the very end of the war, but I am not sure that

      283
      I join with the hon. Member for MidLanark in the hope that they will stay with us after the War. I hope that, for their own sakes, they will be repatriated, and I am quite sure that all Belgians will be glad to go voluntarily back to their country when it is freed from the Germans, and is able to be reconstructed, as we all hope will be possible, with help given them, not too willingly, by the Germans themselves. So long as they are in this country, however, we shall want and shall desire to exercise towards them the same hospitality as we are showing them at the present time, and to see if it is possible to improve the method by which we distribute that hospitality.
      The main stress of criticism, as I have said, has been directed to the public health, the welfare of infants, and of the mothers; but there is another stream of criticism, and that relates to the tribunals. There was, first of all, my right hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire (Mr. G. Lambert), who made a bitter complaint that the local tribunals did not give sufficient attention to the needs of agriculture, and that more precise directions ought to be given to them. I really do not think he could have studied the two circulars which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long), who, after all, knows a great deal about agriculture, addressed to the committees. He has quoted in his first circular of the 1st of June, with the Prime Minister's approval, this statement the right hon. Gentleman made in the House of Commons:
      "I can only repeat with emphasis that the Government hold that the maintenance of the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies remains a national object of a most essential nature, and that labour which is essential and irreplacable should be retained on the land for this purpose."
      Later on, on the 22nd June, he issued a very precise circular in which he set out the scale agreed upon between the Army Council and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as a general guide for determining the number of men to be retained on farms. It is only a general guide, because there may be exceptions in every case, and it may be that the local knowledge of the tribunals will incline them to allow more or less men than the circular suggests. They may be glad to say, "We know that the labour in this case could be replaced by a woman, and that it is not needed to the full extent indicated in the circular." Or they might take the
      284
      other view and say, " We know more labour is wanted for this particular farm than is specified in the circular." The circular says:
      "The tribunal, in determining any individual case, must take into account the particular circumstances relating to it, and pay due regard to the importance of maintaining a food supply as well as of releasing for the forces any man who is not essential for that purpose."
      I do not think the circular is at fault. It is for the tribunals to act up to the circular.
      Sir J. SPEAR: The advice is good, but we want it to be made compulsory on the tribunals.
      Mr. ANDERSON: There is nothing: wrong with the circular.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think I need pursue that, then. I thought the complaint was that my right hon. Friend had rather neglected his duties, and that he had not shown his very natural sympathy with agriculture. I only want to show that he has done that in the most complete manner. Of course, we have had a good many speeches directed to the tribunals for their general attitude towards-the conscientious objector, and complaints of the most grievous kind were made against them. The hon. Member for MidLanark said that these tribunals ought not to be allowed to run themselves, that they ought to be interfered with, and so forth. My right hon. Friend is always interfering. He is always addressing inquiries to them. I do not think a day passes without his addressing inquiries to them. He is always circularising them, and trying to ascertain the truth about cases quoted in this House, a very difficult matter in many instances. I believe his Department is doing its utmost to see to it that the tribunals follow the instructions laid down in the various circulars of the Local Government Board. They are independent. They must be independent. I myself sometimes have remarks made to me by chairmen of tribunals that it is a little bit more their business than that of others, that they have a perfect right to construe these instructions, and that they have greater local knowledge than I have of the particular cases. I hear that, and hon. Members would do so if they occupied my place and position. It is extremely difficult to keep a judicial mind in the case of a conscientious objector. I think that quite as much applies to the advocates of conscientious objectors in this House. The hon. Member

      285
      for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) paid the judicial mind of a tribunal ceased to exist as soon as it encountered a conscientious objector.
      Mr. MORRELL: I did not say that myself. I was quoting the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith). I read from the OFFICIAL REPORT to quote him. I agree, but there are two views.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: So far as the cases which the hon. Member put forward are concerned, he cannot expect me to reply now. Before I could possibly say whether these decisions were just or unjust, or whether they were within the four corners of the instruction or without them, I should have to hear the other side of the case. Conscientious objectors are extremely difficult people to deal with. I am thankful I have never had to deal with them, because I am not certain whether I should' preserve my judicial balance or not, although I should endeavour to do so. There was one particular case, the case of a Quaker. I understand that he had absolute exemption given him practically by the representative of the War Office, and that he was doing work of a most useful kind. He then comes before the local tribunal, and it says, "Oh, no; you are not entitled to exemption at all. We shall give you combatant service"; and they gave it to him.
      Mr. MORRELL: That was the Appeal Tribunal.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Did he ask for leave to appeal, and was it refused?
      Mr. MORRELL: Yes; it was the Appeal Tribunal which decided that. The War Office and the local tribunal gave him absolute exemption, but the Appeal Tribunal said that—the military representative.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think it would be most extraordinarily difficult to set up any tribunal which would give equal decisions or standardised decisions in cases of that kind. There was doubtless a general desire to do the man justice, but, apparently, an absolute divergence of view on that question. So far as I have heard that case, I think I should have given the man exemption, because he has had it before; he had done good work, and he was, apparently, willing to do so again. But the personal factor must come in in a decision of that kind, and if my right hon. Friend himself had to decide in these cases I am sure he would find him-
      286
      self in conflict with the hon. Member below the Gangway, although he would have every desire to do justice in every possible way. I am glad to know that he thinks that so far as the treatment of conscientious objectors is concerned it has improved compared with what it was. Two Committees have already been set up, one called the Home Office Committee and the other the Pelham Committee. These matters are being looked into, and my right hon. Friend is now giving great consideration to this subject. It is quite possible that he may follow out the suggestions made here, and group together the various instructions, and put them into one new code of instructions in regard to conscientious objectors. Other things he may do. That is for him, to say. All I am empowered to say now is that he is paying very great consideration to this question, although I am not very hopeful that anything will ever satisfy some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who seem to think that a conscientious objector is the most important person in this country. I do not share those views myself. I think there are other matters which demand our attention more closely.
      The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) said that we ought to pay the greatest possible attention to reconstruction after the War. That is quite true, and there will be unemployment after the War. I venture to see some consolation in this: if the War has arrested, as it has arrested, social progress in many ways, if it has prevented, as it has prevented, much housing in this country, and if it has prevented many sanitary, water, and drainage works, and others of all sorts of kinds—if these are all held up there is at least this consolation that when the War is over all these matters will require the hand of man. After all, housing will have to be dealt with, sanitary arrangements will have to be made, waterworks and drainage works and all manner of things will have to be done. Our roads will have fallen into great disrepair. These will have to be repaired, and so there is some little consolation that if we have to forego municipal and local amenities and advantages which we should otherwise have enjoyed in time of peace, at any rate they may give some opportunity for the employment of many who will desire employment when this War is over. I can only say generally that that work of reconstruction is engaging the attention of the

      287
      Government at the present time. There is a Cabinet Committee dealing with this particular question, and we at the Local Government Board are making the best contribution that we can towards the solution of the problems raised this afternoon.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: I desire to put forward one definite suggestion to the President of the Local Government Board {Mr. Long) with regard to this question of the conscientious objector. I entirely agree that it is extremely difficult for any of us to keep a judicial mind on this question. I sympathise very warmly indeed with the men who sit on the tribunals, and who have these extraordinarily difficult decisions to come to. I do believe, however, that if the President of the Local Government Board would specially give his mind to the men who are prepared to do work of national importance, and to seeing that they get the exemption that they desire it would save the military authorities a very large amount of trouble. We know that at the present time there is a great shortage of labour in connection with agriculture, and in some other departments, and what I am so anxious to see is that the tribunals when they have decided that a man should get exemption on conscientious grounds should obtain for the man the exemption that he can accept. The hon. Member for Burnley {Mr. Morrell) dealt with those who desire absolute exemption, and I do not wish to refer to those at this moment. The man who gets exemption and is sent to the Non-Combatant Corps and is willing to join that corps is satisfied, and his case is met. I want specially to put to the right hon. Gentleman the point that there are imprisoned to-day hundreds of men—it is no exaggeration to say so—who have been adjudicated as being sincere conscientious objectors by the tribunals, but who have been given an exemption which they cannot accept. A large amount of the difficulty surrounding this subject would be removed if the right hon. Gentleman would in some way put before the tribunals the fact—I believe it is a fact—that men are not so much wanted for the Non-Combatant Corps at the moment, but that there is a great need for men on the land and in one or two other departments. If men who have been admitted by the Courts to be conscientious objectors could be given exemption on doing work of national importance, that would go a
      288
      long way to solve this very difficult question I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are several tribunals yet who really do not know that there is such a Committee as the Pelham Committee. In reply to a question I put to-day, I see that the War Office have informed the military representative of the Middlesbrough Court that there is such a body, and that men should be, and can be, transferred to that Committee.
      Mr. LONG: The military representative has nothing to do with the tribunal.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: I mentioned the fact as to the military representative in that case, because he said he knew nothing about the Pelham Committee when the man asked to be referred to it.
      Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend said that many of the tribunals know nothing of the Pelham Committee. I do not think he is accurate. Every tribunal in the country is not only aware of the existence of the Pelham Committee, but of their duties and what they are doing. The military representative he quotes has nothing to do with the tribunal. He is a War Office representative.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It was only in my desire to save time that I did not elaborate the fact that several tribunals did not know of the existence of the Pelham Committee Only a fortnight ago there was a tribunal near the city where I come from who knew nothing about the Pelham Committee. I know perfectly well information may have been sent to them, but in the rush of affairs I am afraid a good many members of the tribunals do not read everything that is sent to them. I only state the fact, which I believe I can substantiate, that in several instances this Pelham Committee is not known, and, because of that, men are sent into the Army to join the Non-Combatant Corps who do not feel that they can accept that course. It is true to say there are hundreds of cases of men imprisoned who want to do work of national importance, but who have not been able to get that exemption. Many military men have said to me when I have been talking this matter over with them, "You ought not to blame us for the difficulties that are occurring. We are put in an almost impossible position. It is the tribunals that you ought to blame."

      289
      I do not wish to blame anyone at the moment. I am only anxious, if I can, to help the President of the Local Government Board to try to see that the cases of these men who are willing to do work of national importance is met. What is necessary is that if it is a fact, as I believe it to be, that the men are not wanted in the Non-Combatant Corps, but are wanted on the land, then that new fact should be brought to the attention of the tribunals, and that they should be encouraged to say that men who desire that exemption should be given it.
      I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend does not like interfering—it is perfectly natural—with the tribunals, and he and his Department refuse again and again to suggest to the tribunal the rehearing of a case. Several cases have been brought to the attention of the Local Government Board where, if a rehearing had been asked for, the difficulty of sending the man into the Army, and the difficulty of imprisonment or detention and that kind of thing, would have been saved. I had an ex-ample of that only last week. A young fellow came to me from a neighbouring town and told me that he had been given exemption, and had been given a week to obtain work of national importance. He had not found that work. He was rather a dull boy. He had got discouraged after he had asked two people to give him work, and I do not think he had gone on. He came to me a day after the exemption was up. I said to him at once, "Take a bicycle, go into the country, and go from farm to farm to see if someone will not take you on." He said, "I shall be a day late." I said, "If you are a day late, I will write to the tribunal, pointing out that you are looking for work and asking them to overlook it or to give you an extra week." The boy took my advice, and almost at once found a position on a farm. The military representative in that case cordially supported the application of the boy that he should do that work, but, for one reason or another, the tribunal would not overlook the fact that he was a day or two late. Now that boy, against the wish of the military representative and surely against the national interest, is being forced into a position which he cannot accept. That boy wrote to the Local Government Board and received a perfectly courteous reply, saying that it was quite impossible to interfere or to ask for a rehearing.
      HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not know why. I know perfectly well that a large number of cases have been sent up to the Local Government Board, without any desire to hamper them in any way, asking them to get over the difficulty that had arisen, but because of my right hon. Friend's natural disinclination and that of the Department, which we can all under-stand, to interfere with the tribunals, those cases have not been redressed, and these men are being forced against the national interest into an impossible position and are causing trouble and difficulty to the Army authorities. My right hon. Friend will, at any rate, acquit me of any desire to hamper him in the administration of this Act.
      Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
      Mr. ROWNTREE: If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the two suggestions I have made—first, of pointing out to the tribunals the need for labour, especially in connection with farms, and therefore the need for seeing that men who want that exemption, whose conscientious objection has been granted, should get that exemption, rather than be given an exemption which they cannot accept—I believe it would save hundreds of men in the future being forced into the Army, and there, against their wish, having to hamper and thwart the military authorities; secondly, I believe that if in some way his Department could do a little more to encourage some kind of revision in absolute bonâ-fide cases, a great amount of difficulty would be spared. I have only spoken because of my desire to see removed some of the difficulties that are being caused by the Act, and I believe they can be partially removed if these two suggestions are carried out.
      Captain C. BATHURST: I had not intended to participate in this Debate, but it is only fair to say in the presence of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) that this particular subject was discussed only this morning at the monthly meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture—a very authoritative body of agriculturists—arising out of a letter addressed to the Chamber by the Home Office asking them to send representatives to discuss with the Home Office the question of to what extent conscientious objectors could be employed on agricultural land. Rightly or wrongly, the Chamber decided unanimously that they could not see their way

      291
      to advance the suggestion made in the Home Office letter. Some of them made it perfectly clear that they themselves had a conscientious objection to the employment of these men on their farms in place of those who have gone to serve in the Army. For my part, I believe that if these men are to be employed on the land at all, far and away the most useful kind of employment, and the most advantageous to the country, would be to employ them upon reclamation work, for which there is enormous scope, thus rendering a larger area of land available for use for cultivation after the War is over. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has referred to the latitude with which his Department regards the Regulations under which old age pensioners receive their pensions. I should like to mention to him that a case of complaint has come to me from the county of Suffolk of old age pensioners being given to understand that if they take agricultural employment they would have the amount of their pensions reduced. It is perfectly clear, if that is so, that the instructions coming from his Department or from the Treasury are not in every case being acted upon. I venture to hope, in view of the great anxiety of these old age pensioners who are willing to give us assistance on farms, that no such abuse of his instructions or those of the Treasury will be permitted.
      The only other observation I desire to make is that the circulars that are issued to tribunals in agricultural districts allow a great deal of discretion to the tribunals. All I can say is that the Board, short of giving mandatory instructions, has done most useful work by issuing those circulars. But the exemption of indispensable labourers on farms is being granted at a very unequal rate throughout the country. There is no doubt whatever that there is a very strong feeling, which is largely justified in some districts, against the obviously prejudiced attitude of some members of those tribunals against those indispensable labourers who ought to be retained on the farms. In consequence of their non-retention the land is undoubtedly suffering. It is get-ting very foul, and will not produce anything like the amount of food which, in existing circumstances, it ought to produce.
      8.0. P. M.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: In reference to this question of conscientious objectors, the
      292
      difficulty arises, I believe, largely from the fact, in the very nature of the case, that decisions are given from feeling rather than from judgment. It is quite natural, in establishing these tribunals all over the country and taking men who have never had any previous experience in weighing evidence, which must tell against men who are apparently evading their duty to the country, that many of these decisions should not be just, and it is almost impossible that they should be just. But, at any rate, the conscientious objector is recognised as an existing being. He is recognised by the Act of Parliament, and it is the intention of the President that the Act of Parliament should be administered. There have been miscarriages of justice due not merely to prejudice but to lack of knowledge on the part of these tribunals as to what their powers actually were Many tribunals which would have given absolute exemption have given exemption of a character which has landed their victims in prison. Is it possible to devise means whereby cases, decided by tribunals which were not aware of the fact until quite recently that they should give absolute exemption, and which therefore have given these other decisions, can be revised so that, at any rate, the amount of feeling which exists on the part of those who are victims of this acknowledged mistake can be relieved, and by that means a great deal of the injustice which exists can be removed? If the right hon. Gentleman, whose excellent circulars really explain the views which should govern the tribunals in giving their decisions, will make those circulars mandatory or codify them and issue them in the form of regulations which must be obeyed by local tribunals, the tribunals would pay more attention to them in the future, which is going to bring tens of thousands of cases probably before him from amongst the married men who are now being conscripted, you will have, at any rate, fewer cases like those which have happened amongst the single men, and by so much you will reduce the difficulty and the danger and the feeling of injustice which is creating so much trouble.
      Mr. KlNG: I should like to enforce what my hon. Friend has just said. The tribunals ought not to be allowed to get away on the plea that they are free and independent authorities. They are trying to get away from the intentions of Parliament and of the Government and from the plain directions which have been given.

      293
      If all the various Orders were codified and issued and the Regulations made mandatory, we should probably save a very great deal of friction, time, and trouble. I hope the suggestion, though made late in the discussion, will be considered.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND)— [EXPENSES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money to be provided by Parliament of all compensation and purchase money payable by a Government Department under any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the possession and acquisition of land occupied or used for the Defence of the Realm in connection with the present War, and of all other Expenses incurred by any Government Department thereunder."
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "money" ["compensation and purchase money"], to insert the words "not exceeding in the whole ten million pounds."
  I object, again on principle, to these unlimited grants of public money which the Government is asking us to give. It is not in the traditions of Parliamentary practice, and it is not in the interests of good finance or financial control. Last week we had a case of giving unlimited money for the purpose of unemployment insurance, and a certain case was made there, inasmuch as the money was limited by the number of men who might be coming upon the funds, and it was also, in the nature of an obligation under the National Insurance Act to pay unemployment insurance in certain cases which might arise, and therefore the money, being in the nature of carrying out a definite personal obligation to workers, might be said to be limited in that way, and therefore, if possible, of being exactly stated beforehand. We have come now to a totally different case. A Bill has been brought forward for the acquisition of land, after the War, which is now used for camps and factories by any Government Department. It extends
  294
  even to docks and public places. Ten million pounds is a large sum, but I am generally in favour of this Bill, and I wish to signalise my support of its principle of State Socialism and State acquisition of land which it involves by giving them an adequate amount. I therefore propose £10,000,000 as a beginning. I think, probably, if they carry the Bill through, it will cost a very great deal more, but we ought to go slowly in these matters and £10,000,000 is quite enough for a start. I do not know whether I shall have the approval of the Committee, but I believe I shall, and in the confident hope that the Committee will accept my Amendment, I beg to move it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: My objection to the form of the Resolution is, I am afraid, different from that of the Mover of the Amendment. The position is this: The Government has introduced a Bill which the Mover of the Amendment has referred to as a Socialistic measure. It is a Bill which has been referred to personally by many Members of the House as a distinct breach of the party truce. But the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it agreed, I think, on the Second Reading to alter every single Clause in it. At any rate he gave up a large amount of the principle of the Bill. Not a single Government Amendment has yet appeared on the Paper, and we have been told that the Bill is likely to be taken on Thursday. We are asked to vote an unlimited sum of money in respect of a Bill as to which the Solicitor—General certainly made very large promises of drastic amendment. I have been asked not to divide the House, and I have consented, I am afraid, on grounds connected with gastronomic considerations, but I strongly protest against this method of treating the House. An extraordinarily important Bill is brought forward and is partly abandoned, and we are then asked, instead of getting the Amendments put down so that we may know what the real Government intention is, to give an un-limited blank cheque to the Government to spend it upon a Bill about which we really know nothing at present. I have frequently protested against this blank cheque being given under any circumstances to any Government. I feel that if we give a blank cheque here for a Bill which we really know nothing about, it is not treating the House fairly. I hope if this is given to the Government to-night we shall get an assurance that we

  295
  shall have these Government Amendments before us, not for twenty-four hours, but for at least time to be able to communicate with our constituents and get an answer by return of post, and that we shall not get the Amendments on the Paper, possibly to-morrow morning, and take the Bill on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman himself has protested against that sort of thing when he sat on these benches, and I hope sincerely that on an important Bill of this kind, which I characterised strongly on the Second Reading—as probably others will on the Committee stage—before this is given to the Government we shall get a definite assurance that the Bill will not be taken this week, and that we shall have the Government Amendments on the Paper to-morrow morning.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not bound by the arrangement which my hon. and learned Friend has entered into. I do not know whether it is worth while challenging a Division, but supposing we allow this Resolution to go through, I think we ought to have an assurance that the Bill will not be taken on Thursday. There are several reasons why it should not be taken. One is that the Government Amendments are not on the Paper. There are ten pages of Amendments which we have to go through, and we must really read the Government Amendments and consider the action we are going to take upon them. If they appear on the Paper to-morrow and the Bill is taken on Thursday, we have not time to do that. The Government Amendments should appear on the Paper, and we ought not to take the Bill before next Tuesday. The Bill ought to be first Order, and we ought to be told when it is going to be taken so that we may have time to consider our action and get up the points and not have it rushed upon us in the way it is being rushed. With regard to the special Amendments before the Committee, I really do not see any reason why £10,000,000 should not be inserted and why there should not be a limited sum, because what it means is that if the Government spend that £10,000,000 they can come to Parliament again and get power to spend a further sum. We are supposed to be the controllers of the purse. I do not often agree with the hon. Member (Mr. King), but I really think there ought to be some limit in the Resolution; but if we can get a satisfactory undertaking that
  296
  the Bill will not be taken on Thursday, and that we shall be given three or four days' notice before it is taken, and that it shall be the first Order, we might let this stage go, and the hon. Member might move a limiting Amendment on the Report stage.
  Mr. BOYTON: The Solicitor-General will remember that it was originally announced that the Committee stage of the Bill was to be taken to-day. That was thought by a section of the House to be unduly rushing it, and now we are told—and it seems to me with equal haste—that it is to be taken on Thursday, and possibly it will be the second Order of the Day. That will hardly be fair in view of the importance of this question, because it is almost certain to take a whole day's Debate. As my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) pointed out, no Government Amendments are before us. I assure the Solicitor-General that this Bill is looked at with great alarm outside, and we are asked to put down all sorts of Amendments. We do not know what the altered conditions of the Bill would be. We do not know what the Bill is likely to be. Therefore, it is no use sitting in the Lobby framing Amendments to an unknown quantity. We ought to be favoured with the revised Bill, and then set our wits to work, assisted by our numerous friends outside. I can assure the Solicitor-General that our friends outside are numerous. I do join in the appeal that the Bill should be postponed so that we can have a fair opportunity of considering the Government Amendments. The right hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) says that we are the custodians of the public purse. If he is referring to the few of us that remain here, I may say that I am almost shocked at the suggestion that £10,000,000 should be put down as the expenditure. I could not vote for such an Amendment.
  Mr. KING: I will reduce the sum from £10,000,000 to £2,000,000, if it will please the Committee.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL(Sir George Cave): I must, in the first place, express my entire dissent from the description which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) gave of the Bill. It is in no sense a Bill to favour the State acquisition of land in the sense in which my hon. Friend understands and favours that process. It is in my view a Defence Bill, intended to deal with land acquired for defence purposes and to promote the future

  297
  defence of the realm. It is, I am afraid, impossible for anyone to give an estimate of the amount of money which may be required. I think the sum named is perfectly absurd, and I should be very sorry to see such a sum inserted in the Resolution. In regard to the point of time for the consideration of the Government Amendments, I may say that I have, as I promised, gone exceedingly carefully into the Bill with the assistance of my colleagues who are responsible with me for the measure, and I have framed Amendments, not many, and quite easy to master within a very short time, which I think will give entire effect to the promises I gave in the Debate on the Second Reading, and will, I feel sure, alter the view which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and others as to the effect of the Bill. I am putting the Amendments down to-night, and they will appear on the Paper to-morrow morning, with the exception of an Amendment which I may be able to put down to-morrow, and which will be entirely in the direction desired. With that exception I propose to put the Amendments down to-night with the object that they may be considered to-morrow by hon. Members who are interested in the Bill and by those associations who are also deeply interested in the Bill, and from whom I have received Amendments, very carefully and very reasonably framed. I have been able to consider the Amendments sent to me, and in many cases I have seen the representatives of the associations who have sent them in. Although I do not say I shall be able to concede them all, I shall be able to deal with all the Amendments proposed and with the suggestions made to me in a reasonable manner, and I am satisfied that if that is done the House will be quite willing to consider the Bill in a reasonable way and to accept any proposals that com-mend themselves to the Committee. In regard to the day on which the Bill should be taken, of course that is not for me to decide, but I think I am entitled to say that when these Amendments of mine, which may be considered in half an hour, have been looked into, I do not think there will be the least objection to the Bill being taken at an early date. I shall be ready on Thursday, and I believe everyone interested in the matter will be ready too. I hope the House will not unduly delay the Bill. I should like to get it through as soon as possible.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: To be quite frank, I think the statement of the Solicitor-General is most unsatisfactory. Supposing we get these Amendments, which he admits himself are going to carry out the very wide alterations indicated, we shall only get them on the Paper to-morrow morning, and it is impossible to send them to the country in order to get a reply back for Thursday, because they will not get them until Thursday. The Amendments will not appear in the news-papers to-morrow morning. Therefore the associations which are interested will only get them on Thursday morning, and the Bill is likely to come on on Thursday, I admit that the associations in London may possibly get them some time to-morrow. I consider that it is a very inadequate time to consider Government Amendments of this magnitude between Wednesday morning and the following day. It means rereading the Bill. To the Solicitor-General that may be easy enough, but for a person not accustomed to reading Acts of Parliament it is not easy to read into it Sections which look quite innocuous and simple, but which do not reveal their full force until you have read them carefully. It is difficult enough for lawyers, but it is exceedingly difficult for a layman to read and understand the meaning of these Amendments when inserted into the Act of Parliament, in the course of half an hour. Any layman who can do that in that time ought to take up some other occupation than that in which he is engaged. I think we are entitled to an assurance that if we have the Government Amendments to-morrow the Committee stage of the Bill should not be taken until we have had time to consider the Amendments.
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): This question is part of the same subject that was raised at Question Time to-day when the right hon. Gentleman questioned the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister then said that he would consider the matter and give an answer to-morrow. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will allow that promise to stand. The Prime Minister will give an answer at Question Time to-morrow. It is rather difficult on the spur of the moment to alter the business of the week. I hope hon. Members will allow this Resolution to be taken to-night, because, as they know, we cannot have the Committee stage of the Bill until

  299
  this Resolution has been passed. I will represent to the Prime Minister very strongly what has passed to-night.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite within our power to stop the Resolution, in which ease you cannot take the Committee stage on Thursday. If we can have an assurance that this matter will be put before the Prime Minister, and that it will be represented to him what our feelings are, I think we might perhaps allow the matter to go forward.
  Mr. HORNE: I think there is no desire on the part of any hon. Member to obstruct the Bill. If the measure could be taken next week I feel sure that the delay would promote an early passage of the Bill, because we should have time to really grasp the meaning of the Amendments. Otherwise, we shall wish to speak about them because we cannot quite understand what they mean at the time. I know that arrangements are being made to try to consider these Amendments, not for the purpose of giving trouble but to try to help on what we believe is the purpose for which the Bill has been introduced.
  Mr. KING: May I ask the Solicitor-General why he considers the sum which I proposed to put in the Resolution
  300
  absurd? He does not say whether it is absurdly small compared with what it should be or absurdly great, and far more than should be demanded. He described the Bill as having for its first object to acquire defensive positions for the Crown.
  Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that.
  Mr. KING: For national defence. That is quite different from the object of the Bill as defined on the memorandum which is to save the State from loss.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to;. Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question,. "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (IRELAND).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (IRELAND).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    MRS. NAYLOR (INQUIRY).
    MRS. NAYLOR (INQUIRY).
    WOUNDED PEISONERS.
    WOUNDED PEISONERS.
    MOURNING REPUBLICAN BADGES.
    MOURNING REPUBLICAN BADGES.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  PRICES COMMITTEE.
  PRICES COMMITTEE.
  ROYAL GUNPOWDER FACTORY (PROMOTION).
  ROYAL GUNPOWDER FACTORY (PROMOTION).
  RAW COTTON EXPORTS FROM INDIA.
  RAW COTTON EXPORTS FROM INDIA.
  DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES IN INDIA.
  DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES IN INDIA.
  Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.
  Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power [H.L.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage (Lilleshall) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1a.
CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to meet forthwith.
GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
HALIFAX CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 65.)
MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Islington). (No. 64.)
NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II) (MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 63.)
POLICE, & c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 66.)
ROYAL MARINES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 67.)
ST. JOHNS CHURCH, KINGSTON-UPON -HULL, BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, & c.
Commercial, No. 1 (1916)—Suez Canal, Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1913, 1914 and 1915 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 1 (1915)" [Cd. 8010]):
Agriculture (Scotland)—Fourth Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1915:
Local Government Board (Scotland)—Twenty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1915:
Mercantile Marine—Report on the Examinations of Candidates for Certificates of Competency in the Mercantile Marine and the Sea-Fishing Service for the year ended 31st December, 1915 (in continuation of [Cd. 7993]):
Presented, (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906 (Dispensing Powers)—Report by the Board of Trade of the cases in which they have exercised their powers under section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1916 (in continuation of H.C. 299 of 1915):
Harwich Harbour—Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of 31st March, 1916:
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915—The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Rules, 1916 (No. 2), dated 26th June, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Act, as amended by the Courts (Emergency Powers) (No. 2) Act, 1915:
Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1916—The County Courts (Emergency Powers) Rules, 1916 (No. 3), dated 26th June, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Acts:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the under-mentioned Local Authorities and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—
Council of County of Essex (Burnham-on-Crouch Urban District);
Council of City of Liverpool:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order (Scotland), 1916, dated 31st May, 1916:
Naval Discipline Act, 1866—Order in Council, dated 7th July, 1916, finally approving revised General Orders for regulating the procedure and practice of Naval Courts Martial:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Order in Council, dated 7th July, 1916, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to the payment of temporary allowances to Seamen, Marines, and Reservists, discharged as medically unfit for further service, pending the settlement of claims for pension:
Army (Territorial Force)—Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of Associations under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, for

The County of Essex;

The County of Devon:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE MESOPOTAMIA PAPERS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I communicated privately with the Secretary of State for India and informed him that we should be glad if we could be told to-day when the Papers with regard to Mesopotamia will be published. I have heard, but not officially, that some difficulty has occurred. I would remind your Lordships that we have now been for months pressing for these Papers, and we were informed on Thursday last by the noble

607
Marquess the Leader of the House that the Papers were, he believed, in a form ready for publication. I hope that we may have some statement as to what the present position is with regard to these Papers, and when they are likely to be published.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Viscount has informed us that he has been in personal communication with the Secretary of State for India on this subject, that Office being primarily concerned with the publication of these Papers, since at the time to which they refer it was the Government of India that was responsible for the conduct of the military operations. I am given to understand that further examination of the Papers which it is proposed to publish has caused it to be thought that the military objections to certain portions are stronger than was at first believed. The delay in publication is due, I understand, to that cause and to that cause alone.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When does the noble Marquess think he will be in a position to inform us of the date on which we may expect these Papers? I am sure that none of your Lordships desire to have published information which may be of advantage to our enemies. That goes without saying. At the same time there is a limit, I think, to the possibility of waiting for these Papers. The noble Marquess promised them to us weeks ago. I do not know whether he will be in a position to-morrow to tell us the date on which we may expect them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I feel that I cannot complain of the pressure which is placed upon us by noble Lords opposite. I think they know that I am as anxious as they are that the publication of these Papers should not be delayed. On the other hand it is, of course, important to make them as full and complete as possible. I have no doubt that some Papers containing a small modicum of information could have been published long since by leaving out most of what the House and the public would consider to be the interesting features in the Papers. I will place myself once more in communication, or my noble friend behind me (Lord Islington) will, with the Secretary of State for India, and, if possible, we will give a categorical answer to-morrow.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I would remind the noble Lord the Under-Secretary that he made a long explanation recently in this House of the difficulty of arranging these Papers between the various Offices. One would have thought that these points of difference, which apparently were not known last Thursday, would have cropped up in the earlier stages during the three months of the preparation of these Papers.

SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to evidence given before the Canadian Munitions Committee, according to which small arms ammunition was sold by Quebec Arsenal to the Vickers Maxim Company and re-sold by that firm to the Admiralty at a profit; whether this ammunition was defective, and what necessity there was for allowing a profit to any private firm or individual in a deal between the Canadian Government and the British Admiralty.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the statements contained in this Question were taken from the evidence given before the Canadian Munitions Committee. His Majesty's Government, however, have informed me that this Committee has not yet reported, and that they consider it inadvisable that the matter should be at present discussed. In those circumstances I do not wish to put the Question.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): I am very much obliged to my noble friend for not pressing his Question at the present moment. It is most desirable that we should have full information on the subject before it is discussed. I hope, however, that at an early date the noble Lord may be able to renew the Question.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have since the commencement of the war sent any sum of money to be spent on the British prisoners in Germany; if so, whether the amount can be stated, and to whom was it sent.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I had intended, in raising this matter, to bring forward some more cases of atrocities and barbarities committed by the Germans on British prisoners. But as there is an important debate coming on this evening, I will merely ask the noble Lord to answer the Question on the Paper.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, since the commencement of the war His Majesty's Government have placed at the disposal of the American Ambassador at Berlin the sum of £107,835 for the use and relief both of the British military and civilian prisoners in Germany. Of this amount £20,000 was furnished in connection with the working of the scheme for the inspection of the military camps in Germany by members of the American Embassy, and a further sum of £1,000 was sent to the Prisoners of War Help Committee in September last for the purchase of clothing for civilians interned at Ruhleben. The balance of the sum which I have quoted, which amounts to between £80,000 and £90,000, has been expended partly in payment of relief to interned civilians at Ruhleben and to their wives and families in certain circumstances, and in meeting the expenses of repatriating them. I might also say that this sum has been expended not only in connection with the civilians interned at Ruhleben, but also on behalf of such British civilians as have not been interned and are still living in Germany. I should like to point out that, wherever it is possible, repayment of these sums will be obtained upon the conclusion of the war from the persons to whom the assistance has been afforded.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER rose to call attention to the Report of Lord Hardinge's Commission on the rebellion in Ireland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hardly think it necessary to offer any apology to your Lordships for having placed this Notice on the Paper. It is true that we had only recently a debate upon the subject on a Motion made by Viscount Midleton, and it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that the Government on that occasion put on the garb of penitence, adopted sackcloth and ashes, accepted the Motion, and practically offered no defence. To-day we are in a
610
better position than we were then, because at the time that Lord Midleton made his Motion all that we could say was a matter of private opinion as to what we imagined the state of affairs to be in Ireland. Now that we have before us the Report of Lord Hardinge's Commission we can speak with a greater certainty of the events which led up to the unfortunate rebellion in Ireland and with much more authority on the question.
There is one thing which I should like to say at the opening of my remarks. The argument occasionally put forward by certain supporters of the Government for their past action, or I should rather say inaction, is that the fault lies with the loyalists in the North of Ireland, and that it was owing to the Ulstermen in the North preparing to resist Home Rule that these troubles came upon Ireland. I consider this a most ignoble argument to use. Whether the Ulstermen were right or wrong in preparing to resist the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, that did not in the least exonerate the Government for not having taken action if they considered that the Ulstermen were engaged in an unlawful movement. After all, the first duty of a Government is to preserve law and order, and if the Government of the day felt that law and order was likely to be broken it was their duty to take what action they thought fit to restore law and order in the country. Much the same argument might be used of a policeman who saw a man preparing to break into a house. If ho stood by and took no action whatever, I feel certain of one thing—he would be dismissed the Force and severely reprimanded. It would be no excuse on his part to say that it was a very wrong thing for the burglar to commit a burglary and to put him to all this trouble. It appears from the Report of the Commission that on the one occasion apparently on which a police officer in Ireland—I am speaking of Mr. W. V. Harrel, the Assistant Commissioner—acted with firmness and attempted to stop the landing of arms at Howth (in the neighbourhood of Dublin), he was for his trouble immediately suspended by the Chief Secretary. On that I should like to read what the Commissioners state in their Report—
"There can be no doubt that Mr. Harrel's dismissal tended to weaken the authority of the Police, as it gave rise to the opinion amongst thee more ignorant classes that in any case of disorder the Government might not support their action."

611
In addition to that, the Government of the day, when Ulster was preparing, thought fit—I suppose it answered the Party game at the time—to make little of the preparations in Ulster. The Government's supporters in the Press, in Parliament, and in speeches throughout the country were constantly trying to pour ridicule on the movement, and we heard of "sham picnic manoeuvres" and "wooden guns." The Government deliberately shut their eyes to what was patent for everybody to see, and their ears to all rumours of trouble on all occasions. I hope the Government will take to heart the lesson that men and nations do not go to the trouble of making military preparations and pouring out vast sums of money unless they have some object in view. The only opinion I can come to is that the Government absolutely failed to appreciate the situation in Ireland as they failed to appreciate the situation in Europe before the outbreak of the war.
To turn more closely to the actual findings of the Report, the first conclusion is that the Government took a very false step when they omitted the Peace Preservation Act—commonly known as the Arms Act—from the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in 1906. Lord Clonbrock raised a very strong protest in your Lordships' House at the time against allowing this measure to lapse; and Lord Ashbourne on that occasion said—
"The responsibility is theirs [the Government's]. It must remain theirs, and they must naturally not be surprised, if it should turn out that they have been mistaken in accepting the responsibility, if those who do not agree with them now should remind them of the fact later on."
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House replied in these words—
"It is perfectly true that it is always a grave matter for an Executive Government to undertake a responsibility of this kind. It is with the Government that the responsibility must rest."
Although the noble Marquess on that occasion accepted the position that the responsibility for this false step rested upon the shoulders of the Government, unfortunately we are told that it is impossible that any penalty should be involved in the absolute failure of the Government's policy at that time. In other days a statesman who adopted a wrong course and accepted responsibility for it paid the penalty by losing the confidence of the country and being turned out of office. But we are now told that it is impossible
612
that there should be any appeal to the electors. Consequently, as I say, although the Government accepted full responsibility for the unwise step then taken, there appears to be no adequate penalty attached to their conduct.
In the House of Commons at the same time Mr. Redmond used these striking words—
"One of the most remarkable things in the whole of the country of Ireland at present is that the gaols are all being shut up. In many cases they are turned to better and more useful purposes. They have not prisoners to go into the gaols."
This was a high tribute after ten years of Unionist government in Ireland. The Liberal Government had only just come into office. This was the state of Ireland, as described by Mr. Redmond in 1906, which was brought forward by him as the chief argument for omitting the Arms Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. What a striking contrast was this picture to the present state of affaire in Ireland after ten years of Liberal government, which we were told was to bring peace and prosperity to that unfortunate country.
In perusing this Report I was a little surprised to read what the Commissioners say on the question of gun licences in Ireland. It came rather as a shock to me to learn that apparently in Ireland it was unnecessary for any one to take out a gun licence. This is another example of a different law being applied to England and to Ireland. Whatever conclusion the Government may come to as a solution of the present disturbed state of the country, I feel perfectly certain that they will have to take some steps either to revive the Arms Act or to enforce some regulations and the taking out of licences for the carrying of arms. The result of allowing anybody who liked to go about armed soon became apparent. Arming began in Ireland. I will not go through the Report of the Royal Commission to show how various corps one after another became fully equipped and armed. Suffice it to say that there were the Citizen Army, the Ulster Volunteers, the Irish National Volunteers, and the Irish Sinn Fein Volunteers, all of which managed to collect arms. The Government looked idly on; no steps were taken to stop it. Neither were any steps taken to check unlawful drilling. Such inaction in time of peace would be wrong and weak, but when we are engaged in the

613
greatest war in history it is, in my opinion, absolutely criminal.
There is another question to which I cannot help referring. After all, no harm can now be done from the military point of view through mentioning it. I may say that I wondered at the time that the Censor allowed certain pictures to appear in a great many of our illustrated papers. During the early months of the war it is well known that there was a considerable shortage of arms for the training of the men who had taken the oath to the King and were willing to serve their King and Country and to do their duty in the Army. Continually one picked up an illustrated paper and saw pictures of large bodies of these men being reviewed or marching through London without a rifle among them; yet perhaps the very next day one took up an illustrated paper and saw a picture of a review of the Nationalist Volunteers in Ireland, all of whom, as far as one could tell, appeared to be excellently armed and equipped. I cannot help feeling that to a large number of the brave and loyal men who had without any pressure being put upon them answered the call of duty it must have been galling indeed to have their training held back for want of arms, while a large number of men in Ireland, whose loyalty, to say the least of it, was not above suspicion, should be paraded and reviewed armed to the teeth.
The Report shows that the same apathy and indecision were displayed by the Government in dealing with the suppression of seditious literature and also with the stopping of anti-recruiting meetings. Apparently the advice of the Nationalist Parliamentary Party was acted upon, and they were averse to any strong and consistent steps being taken. If I may humbly say so to the Nationalist Parliamentary Party, I think they were wrong in the advice which they gave to the Government, and I rather think that by their inaction and the advice they gave to the Government at the time they have lost a great deal of their influence in the country. The policy of the Government during the last few years has been, while loyal men were serving their country, to allow the disloyal men in Ireland to work away unhindered. The consequence is shown in the Report of the Commissioners. The National and Redmonite Volunteers, who were supposed to be the loyal Volunteers in Ireland, gradually declined in numbers,
614
and the Irish Volunteers increased in numbers and in strength. One witness before the Royal Commission said in his evidence—
"The Irish people are easily led, and it is therefore the more incumbent on the Government to nip lawlessness and disorder in the bud. Neglect in this respect has invariably led to things getting out of hand, with the result that strong repressive measures become necessary and much hardship is imposed upon misled but perhaps comparatively inoffensive people."
The first conclusion of the Commissioners is as follows—
"The main cause of the rebellion appears to be that lawlessness was allowed to grow unchecked, and that Ireland for several years past has been administered on the principle that it was safer and more expedient to leave law in abeyance if collision with any faction of the Irish people could thereby be avoided."
When a skilful physician is called in to deal with a patient who is suffering from disease, his whole object is to administer such remedies that the evil organisms of the body may be weakened and destroyed, and the good organisms stimulated and increased. By those means the body of the patient is restored to good health. The same course is needed in dealing with a question like this. Any wise statesman would have used every endeavour to strengthen and support the loyal, the peace-loving, and the law-abiding in Ireland; whereas it is written on every page of the Royal Commission's Report that the Government's policy seemed to be exactly the reverse. The disloyal, those who were all for making trouble and upsetting the country, were allowed to do exactly as they liked. The consequence was that the loyalists had to hide their heads; and, as was to be expected in a country like Ireland, the loyalists gradually got depleted in number, and the people who were anxious for the rebel cause to be a success became stronger and more oppressive to the law-abiding portion of the population.
The Report then goes on to speak of who is to blame for the terrible state in which Ireland is at the present moment, and the Report pretty clearly blames the Home Government. The Commission state that this policy of allowing lawlessness to grow up unchecked is—
"the negation of that cardinal rule of government which demands that the enforcement of law and the preservation of order ought always to be independent of political expediency"

615
There is one member of the Government, and one member only, who appears to have escaped censure by the Commissioners—the Lord Lieutenant. His position in Ireland appears to have been more of an ornamental or social character than one bearing any special responsibility, and apparently he is not in the least censured in the Commission's Report. The member of the Government, of course, who comes in for the greatest degree of blame is the Chief Secretary, and he is held primarily responsible. It is extraordinary that the man who was primarily responsible for bringing about such a serious rebellion in Ireland is, for all we know, apparently to pass entirely without the censure of his fellow-countrymen. Mr. Birrell remains a member of the House of Commons; he remains a Privy Councillor; and apparently he left the House of Commons with sympathetic speeches ringing in his ears when he resigned the position of Chief Secretary. I do not know whether the Government intend to take any action, but it seems an extraordinary thing that the Minister who was in that responsibility and whose policy brought about this rebellion, with the loss of so many hundreds of lives, should go practically unscathed and practically without condemnation.
I will not detain your Lordships further with points connected with the rebellion, except to draw attention to one important matter; and in doing so I shall have to touch upon the Government's proposals which Mr. Asquith outlined in the House of Commons yesterday. We have heard what those proposals are in rough outline. No doubt we shall shortly have them in print and know more fully exactly what they are. But I should like to point out that the sanction of the policy set out in those proposals still rests with Parliament. I have often heard it asked during the last few days, What is the opinion of the country? What are the electors thinking of the Irish rebellion, of the inaction which led up to it, and of the proposals of the Government? I for one am not in the least prepared to state what the feeling in the country may be, but of this I am certain—the people will never forgive those in authority if they take any step which is likely to prejudice the successful prosecution of the war. Every household in this country probably has a dear one at the Front, fighting for the
616
cause which they believe right and just; and unfortunately many thousands in this country mourn the loss of their bravest and best who have laid down their lives in this just cause for England. I feel certain that, whatever proposals the Government may put before Parliament for the future government of Ireland, the people will insist that the law-abiding in Ireland must be protected and the rebels punished.
In a striking paragraph in the Report it is stated—
"It is now a matter of common notoriety that the Irish Volunteers have been in communication with the authorities in Germany, and were for a long time known to be supplied with money through Irish American societies. This was so stated in public by Mr. John McNeill on November 8, 1914. It was suspected long before the outbreak that some of the money came from German sources."
And again—
"It was of paramount importance that after the outbreak of the present war no opportunity should have been given for the drilling and arming of any body of men known to be of seditious tendency, and no other consideration should have interfered with the enforcing of this duty."
I do not for a moment profess to be an expert upon or to be well informed of the position in Ireland, but I feel certain that some strong measures will have to be taken. The Government cannot go on, as they have for the past five years, allowing men in Ireland to arm and drill unlawfully, to attend anti-recruiting meetings, and to pour out seditious literature. The Government now—and immediately—ought to take steps to suppress disloyalty and to encourage the loyal to hold up their heads again. Unless the Government take such action as this, there will be such a wave of popular indignation against them that they must eventually be overwhelmed by that wave. While Britons have been sending their bravest and best to fight the battles of the country, the Government of the day have been openly allowing treachery and sedition to go broadspread throughout Ireland.
We hear a great deal in the London Press after a Zeppelin attack, or some such incident, about the internment of enemy aliens. There are alarmist paragraphs and leading articles to the effect that dangerous enemy aliens should not be allowed in the country uninterned. They signal to the Zepps, it is said, and are a source of danger to the country. It is quite right that those

617
who are considered a danger should be interned. But are the Government sure that there are not in Ireland at the present moment men working against them and against England who are far more dangerous? I say that until every man who is working against our cause is safe under lock and key there cannot be a feeling of security in the country, nor can there be a feeling of security in Ireland.
I firmly believe that the great majority of the Irish Parliamentary Party have throughout been absolutely loyal to England in this war. I believe that the vast majority of them wish for the success of England, and have done their best to aid recruiting and to help England's cause in this great fight. But, unfortunately, like the Chief Secretary, they did not appreciate the situation in Ireland as well as they ought to have done. Not only do I appeal to the Government, but I also appeal to those men who have influence in Ireland, that firm steps should be taken so as to ensure that loyalty shall once more be made to pay and that disloyalty shall not pay. From the bottom of my heart I hope that these tragic events, deplorable as they may be, may at all events lead to some good result, and that this most valuable Report which we have received from Lord Hardinge and his fellow Commissioners will teach the Government—I think it has already taught the country—that when engaged in a great war they must not be guided by any false sentimentality or imaginary ideas or vague dreams, but must deal as practical statesmen with the circumstances as they are; and the first duty which the Government owe to the country is to see that those men who are traitors and who are working against us should have the power taken from their hands.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on May 10 your Lordships were invited by the noble and learned Earl who was formerly Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn) to express your profound dissatisfaction with the administration of affairs in Ireland. On that occasion the noble Marquess the Leader of the House urged delay on the ground that this Commission had been appointed, consisting of men who had no original bias of any kind, to hold an Inquiry into the subject, and he asked your Lordships not to discuss the Motion which had been made, and still less
618
to arrive at a decision about it, until the Commissioners' Report had been received. Your Lordships found yourselves unable to accede to that request. Indeed, how could you? The facts were staring you in the face. Rebellion had broken out, blood had been shed, great quantities of property had been destroyed, and, even more than that, the Chief Secretary had resigned and there were other resignations of officials. What more facts were there to discover? Therefore your Lordships, I think rightly, emphasised what was already patent to every one—that Ireland had been misgoverned for some time.
But now the Commissioners have reported, and their Report is a weighty and grave document. I do not think any of your Lordships have ever read a decision of a Commission which was more simple, more clear, and more emphatic. It is quite impossible that a Report of this magnitude and importance can be passed over in silence, and we are much indebted to the noble Earl for bringing the subject to the notice of the House. I observed that the Prime Minister, in another place yesterday, deprecated any discussion of the Report, I presume because of the difficulty which he is at present experiencing in introducing a Bill for the government of Ireland. But this Report does not deal with the future; it deals with the past, and the few remarks which I intend to make this evening will be directed to the past and not to the future, which we shall have ample opportunities of discussing hereafter.
This Report speaks for itself. It is unnecessary for me to read long extracts from it. You find this conclusion on page 12—
"The general conclusion that we draw from the evidence before us is that the main cause of the rebellion appears to be that lawlessness was allowed to grow up unchecked, and that Ireland for several years past has been administered on the principle that it was safer and more expedient to leave law in abeyance if collision with any faction of the Irish people could thereby be avoided. Such a policy is the negation of that cardinal rule of government which demands that the enforcement of law and the preservation of order should always be independent of political expediency."
What more weighty finding could you have than that? Then the Commissioners proceed to say that for this state of things the Chief Secretary was primarily responsible. With regard to the late Chief

619
Secretary, I only desire to say that I think he is very much to be pitied for his misfortune in ever having been appointed to an office which he was by temperament and in every other way entirely unfitted to fill. He never tried to govern Ireland. Indeed, I do not believe he went there very much. His policy was influenced and dictated to a large extent by the Irish Members of Parliament, and he was deaf to the warnings which he received from every quarter—from the inspectors of police in Ireland and from other officials, and also those warnings which your Lordships have heard repeated again and again in this House by Lord Midleton and other noble Lords.
Your Lordships will have read the Report of Lord Hardinge's Commission and be able to judge of it for yourselves. But there is one question which remains—How far was the Cabinet as a whole responsible for the policy of the Irish Executive? The Commissioners in their Report state—
"It is outside the scope of your Majesty's, instructions to us to inquire how far the policy of the Irish Executive was adopted by the Cabinet as a whole."
Of course, it was not their duty to report directly on that point. But if your Lordships will look at page 1 of their Report, you will see that indirectly they say that the Cabinet as a whole was responsible. Here are their words—
"When the Chief Secretary is in the Cabinet and the Lord Lieutenant is not, all powers and responsibility are in practice vested in the Chief Secretary. His policy is the policy of the British Government as a whole."
As your Lordships know, it is the Chief Secretary who is, or ought to be, the Governor of Ireland; and it is the Chief Secretary who is supported by the Government of the day. The Government have supported Mr. Birrell for something like nine years, and whenever questions have been raised in this House they have always defended his policy. And, pray, how often has Lord Midleton complained in this House? Your Lordships have heard him again and again warn the Government. Not merely has he warned the Government, but he has warned individual members of the Government. He warned the Chief Secretary, the Prime Minister, and the Lord Lieutenant, and he repeated those warnings over and over again What attention was paid to them?
620
Why none. If you look at this Report you will see that all the warnings that were given have been literally fulfilled. As I have said, the Report speaks for itself. Nothing could be more clear; no condemnation of the past policy of the Irish Government could be more grave. I venture to hope that the Government will take warning from the past, and in future endeavour to consult more adequately and better the true interests of Ireland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not know that I can undertake to follow entirely the rule of abstinence entered into by the noble Earl who has just spoken, and devote myself entirely to questions of this Report, because I feel that the Report is connected so closely with practical affairs of to-day that it would be impossible to ignore the new situation in dealing with the facts as presented in the Report. The speech of the Prime Minister in the other House yesterday has changed everything. It is an epilogue, a commentary, and I suppose is intended as the natural and logical sequence of this Report. I speak, of course, on this subject as an Englishman. I lay stress upon that word, because there has been, I think, too great a disposition in this matter to suppose that it can be entirely dealt with by Irishmen among themselves. Through all the years that this question has been discussed it has always been right to maintain that we in this country have just as much interest in any settlement that may be arrived at, from an Imperial point of view, as Irishmen themselves. I feel, therefore, that the Government have taken upon themselves a tremendous responsibility in raising again this whole question of the government of Ireland—a highly controversial subject, about which a pledge was given that these matters should not be dealt with during the war. They are taking advantage, I am afraid, of the loyalty, and also perhaps of the lack of guile, of some of their Unionist colleagues to press this matter upon us. They are taking advantage of the absorption of the people in infinitely vaster problems, and of the absence of a great portion of the electorate from this country. The question is whether this new setting up of a Government in Ireland is going to conduce, or is not going to conduce, to the winning of the war; and I am quite prepared to examine this question, as far as I am able to do so, solely in reference to that test.

621
Having said that, may I be allowed this one observation perhaps of a Party kind? One is, of course, ready in a case like this to sacrifice all one's convictions if it is shown to be necessary, but I think there ought to be a little reciprocity. I will take what is, I admit, a small example which we had the other day of the Land Taxes, which were obviously injurious to this country. They were not defended by the noble Marquess, because he knew they were indefensible. He was far too ingenious a Parliamentarian to attempt a defence; but we were told that action was not taken because a section of the Labour Party would be annoyed if that were done. That will be the only observation I will make of a Party kind, to show that there is not much reciprocity in this sacrifice.
I am bound to say that this Report of Lord Hardinge's Commission makes us rather chary in at once accepting any proposal of the Government for the improvement of the government of Ireland. Their recent failure has been so signal, so tremendous, so overwhelming that I think they might have made their new proposals with a little less of that self-confidence which was exhibited by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday. At first sight, I confess that nothing could be more absurd or paradoxical than the idea that large powers of self-government should be immediately granted to a party which has recently been in open rebellion and has deliberately in time of war joined with our enemies in order to aid in our destruction. It is worth remarking, I think, in that connection that our Government have always very strongly represented that a change in the Ministry or a new Ministry would be highly disadvantageous to this country. But these changes have taken place in France, Russia, and Italy, and they have not there produced these great disadvantages. I will, however, accept the statement as one of those mysteries of Government which I am not privileged to understand. But here you have something far more than that. You have not a change of Ministry; you have the setting up of a wholly new system of government, an exceedingly difficult experiment in time of peace, but one which is not only thrust upon Ireland during a time of war but immediately after a rebellion, and when the country has not nearly recovered from the effects of that rebellion. I should like to ask your Lordships this
622
question. Supposing the Home Rule Act were not on the Statute Book, and supposing that after the war you had to consider whether it should or should not be placed on the Statute Book, what effect do you suppose that this rebellion would have on the minds of the electorate? Would it predispose them more to grant self-government to Ireland, or would it not? I leave the question to your Lordships.
Now what hope is there—because, after all, that is the great point—that this new development will conduce to peace in Ireland? First of all, the insurrection was started by a party suffering from no definite grievance, a party whose motto is "Ourselves alone"—total separation from this country—and who, when we were straining every nerve in our own defence, actually pledged themselves to assist our ruthless enemy. The Report of the Commission bears testimony to the fact that successful recruiting has been prejudiced in Ireland by this party, and that it was owing mainly to their efforts that Ireland was most unjustifiably excluded from the measures establishing compulsory general service. Following directly on this Report the proposals before us are to place all the prestige of government, all the resources of power, into the hands of a party some of whose leaders have recently been executed, whilst others are still undergoing, I believe, sentences of imprisonment.
The Prime Minister, a little while ago, made a rapid and cursory visit to Ireland. He had discussions with various leading Irishmen; he had discussions even with rebels and is reported to have shaken hands with some of them; and after this cursory visit he comes back to this country and announces to simple-minded Englishmen here that the system of government in that country has entirely broken down. The question I want to ask is, What system had broken down? Since the Prime Minister's visit we have had the Report of this Commission consisting of three most distinguished gentlemen, and I challenge anybody who has the keenest nose, as it were, for government, to extract from this Report that any sort or kind of system of government was ever followed out in Ireland. The Report, on the contrary, entirely negatives it. It is far too cynical a suggestion for me to make that Mr. Birrell was sent to Ireland for the purpose of breaking down the system of government, and I would not suggest it;

623
but all I can say is that if that idea had been entertained, this gentleman was exceedingly well qualified to make a system of government break down. Had this been intended, he was the most ideal instrument for the purpose, and one would congratulate those who selected him on their wonderful judgment of men. His calculated indifference, his deliberate supineness, his carefully fortified impermeability to advice and to a whole battery of reports, his studied incapacity to deal with accumulations of evidence—to any one specially trained in sifting facts what does this point to but the complete unfitness of the man to govern a people who are far more subtle than our own in appreciating the mental atmosphere and the tendencies of their rulers? Why, then, abuse the system when you have this condemnation of the man? When I was studying in a more peaceful atmosphere what is called the textual criticism of manuscripts I was told that the simplest explanation is generally the best, and I confess I think this rule applies extremely well to the more important matter of government. Why search, as it were, for an explanation of the breakdown of the system in Ireland when the explanation is before you in this Report?
But I may wrong the Prime Minister. It may be that, having read this Report, he has changed his mind, and that he is now convinced that the breakdown is not in the system but in the man whom he sent over to govern Ireland. What system, if there was a system, would stand the strain of such a government as that? If this gentleman had been sent to the Republic of San Marino there would have been a revolution there in a week. The system spoken of is not a system of government but a system of anarchy, a paralysis of all the wholesome activities of government. Indeed, the only occasion on which this gentleman did bestir himself is most significant of his general attitude. I am not going to dwell upon it, because it has been already referred to. It was the case of an unfortunate Assistant Commissioner of Police in Dublin who had the temerity to try and carry out the law and to prevent the improper bringing in of arms to Dublin. Was that man listened to? Was he supported? Before the Chief Secretary knew anything about the subject this man was suspended and disgraced; his case was never properly presented to the mind of the Chief Secretary, and never
624
did he exercise a judicial consideration of it. His evidence was not heard. I only cite that for this purpose. This was the only occasion when Mr. Birrell awoke from his non-governmental slumbers, and he turned savagely to break the career of a man who had attempted to enforce law and order in Ireland.
I confess one's own conclusion from reading this Report is that a system of anarchy or non-government has broken down, and that it would be well to try a system of governing—an entirely new experiment in so far as the last six or seven years are concerned. I would have thought, if such an outbreak had taken place, if the forces of disorder had grown so strong, that, Home Rule being on the Statute Book, it would have been rather a useful thing to have given the hint that the people of this country would not be very willing to carry out Home Rule unless the turbulent elements in Ireland showed more power of self-restraint. Had this been done, you would have strengthened the Irish Parliamentary Party, who would have been able to point out to the Sinn Fein that it was they who had wrecked the authority of Mr. Redmond and destroyed the opportunity of Ireland obtaining full self-government. But the Government did nothing of the kind. Instead of supporting the Parliamentary Party whom they are going to put in power, they supported the turbulent party, the Sinn Fein party, and enabled them to say, "By our rebellion, by shooting British soldiers and Irish civilians, we have done more in one month than you have done in all your thirty years of tiresome Parliamentary delay." What is the result? If they want any more concessions they only require another German submarine, another disloyal public servant, another rebellion, and that will effect everything they desire.
I want to say a word about a matter which has weighed a good deal with Englishmen in this country. I have found it at least weigh with, I will not say the man in the street, but persons of one's own acquaintance. It is said, "If Sir Edward Carson and Mr. Redmond can agree, why are you Englishmen making a fuss? Is not that enough for you?" Nobody admires more than I do the position which Sir Edward Carson took up as regards Ulster and the fine battle he fought before the war, but in this

625
matter it is no derogation of his position or dignity to say that he was acting as an Ulster leader and not as a British statesman. As for Mr. Redmond, I would be very pleased to speak of him with all respect; but at this moment, as everybody knows, Mr. Redmond must agree to anything and can carry out nothing. He is, to use his own expression in another context, "a foreign body in Ireland." I believe that his life is unsafe there; anyhow, his person is protected in this country. What, then, is the value of an arrangement with a gentleman who is bound to agree, and who, by the facts of the last few months, has had all his powers cut away which might have enabled him to carry it into effect?
I want to ask the Government this, because, after all, we are dealing with a state of war, and in a state of war facts count perhaps more than they do in a state of peace. Do they admit the enormous increase in the Sinn Fein party owing to these events, and what inference do they draw from that? Do they consider that the government of Ireland by the Irish Parliamentary Party is made easier or harder because of that? Perhaps I need hardly ask them the question, because it is obvious what the answer must be from the statement made by the Prime Minister only yesterday. When you set up a new democratic Government you generally have an election, but in this extraordinary system which is going to be set up in Ireland the first point is that you are not to have an election. You are to have a democratic Parliament, and that democratic Parliament is going to be nominated—and who are going to be the nominees? Why, a number of gentlemen who do not now represent anybody, because they sit for Irish constituencies in our House of Commons, which has already exceeded its mandate, which has prolonged its own existence once, and I believe is going to prolong its existence again. The Government are afraid to face an election in Ireland, because that would happen which everybody knows would happen—namely, the Sinn Fein rebels in alliance with Germany would have a large majority in that Parliament. What an unfortunate position for the Irish Parliamentary Party. What are these gentlemen to do? Will they go over to Ireland and sit in the Irish Parliament? It is not my business to advise them, but I should recommend them to stay here. Because what is their
626
position? Either they will have to obey the mandates of the stronger party, the rebel party, or, if they do not, they will have to try and beat that party by some extravagance of their own. And knowing that party in the House of Commons, I know they would regret extremely to commit any such act of extravagance.
The Prime Minister made another remarkable statement about the scheme. He said, I think, that the scheme pleased nobody. Whether that is a recommendation for a scheme I do not know. But I am more concerned to ask whether the scheme will please the dominant party in the South and West of Ireland, the Sinn Fein party themselves. First of all, through their leader—I believe he is in prison at the present time, but I do not think that alters their opinions—they have expressed themselves absolutely opposed to the exclusion of Ulster; and, after all, the exclusion of Ulster is the whole reason for Sir Edward Carson agreeing. Therefore, as they object to the cardinal point in the scheme, it does not look as if they would be very well satisfied with the scheme itself. Can they be satisfied with this travesty of a Parliament if they want a Parliament according to the usual methods of election? In fact, in the conditions now obtaining in Ireland—I do not say they obtained two months ago—if you put the Irish Parliamentary Party in power, and I suppose you will, because the Prime Minister says it is inconceivable that you could have any Executive in Ireland which wished to exceed its powers—if you put the Irish Parliamentary Party in power you absolutely divorce responsibility and power, or technical power, because the people really responsible for the government of Ireland must be and will be the dominant party, the Sinn Feiners. Does it not come back to this, that you must, through the unfortunate issue of events, for the present, in some way or other, openly or by disguise, govern Ireland by military force in the South and West? And the question arises, Must that force be larger or smaller? And here it bears most closely on the war. If in fact you endow a party of this kind with all the prestige and power of government, will it be easier to enforce your military rule in Ireland, or will you have to add to your forces in order to strengthen it?
I only want to allude, in passing, to the question of safeguards. I have no doubt

627
that the Unionist members in the Cabinet will look to that; but I notice with some trepidation that it is the opinion of the Prime Minister that the Home Rule Act, on which this scheme is to be grafted, provides ample securities for the full exertion of the Imperial power. As I have heard my Unionist leaders denounce that Act and prove to my entire satisfaction that it did not do so, I can leave that matter with absolute security in their hands. But let me ask this. In the disputes between the Irish Executive and the Imperial power, will you be assisted by having handed over this power to the Sinn Feiners? Take two very simple questions. There is the question of the disbandment of the Irish Volunteers. If you are to have any government at all in Ireland, of course they must be disbanded. How is this new Government going to do it? First of all, it is through these gentlemen that they have obtained Home Rule. I confess one would be very glad to make a speech in this Irish Parliament proving the monstrosity of taking away arms from the very men who were responsible for the fact that gentlemen were sitting in that Parliament at that particular time. Then, is it a condition of this settlement—I think the Government may fairly tell us this—that there is to be a complete amnesty for rebels? Mr. Devlin has absolutely promised it. But the fact is that so many gentlemen have made promises, with or without authority, to the different parties that the whole of this is wrapped in obscurity. I should like to ask, Has a promise been given that these rebels shall be amnestied? If not, supposing the first act of the new Parliament is, as it must be, to amnesty the rebels, there you have a struggle at once between the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Executive.
I do not say a word about the negotiations of Mr. Lloyd George, because whether he made the same statements to the different parties, or different statements, is too tangled a matter for me to enter upon to-day. But let me mention this last point, because it all comes back to this. With this new power given to these gentlemen, will it be easier or will it be harder, will you want more troops or less troops, to keep order in that country? It is said that in this terrible struggle on the Continent of Europe it is the last division which will count. If the Government persist in their Irish project let them take
628
care lest that last division, instead of smiting the Germans, will be required to quell domestic disturbances in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown) that we never supposed for a moment that the Report of this Commission would not form the subject of a debate here. We fully expected that it would form the subject of some such Notice as has been placed on the Paper by the noble Earl opposite, and I should like to suppose, at any rate, that the main purpose of instituting a debate of this kind was not so much recrimination or the invention of a series of studied personal attacks as an attempt to extract from what has happened some useful lessons for the future.
As regards those who have been the object of attack, or at any rate of notice, and whose part in the whole of this drama is described in the Report, the late Chief Secretary has received hard measure from some of those who have spoken. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Earl who opened the debate—made something like a demand for the impeachment of Mr. Birrell, and noted with regret that his speech of farewell in another place was received, owing to the terms in which it was couched, with no little sympathy from all parts of that House. Also I think the noble Earl suggested that his constituents ought to refuse to be, longer represented by him. I think in all cases this House must leave a member of the House of Commons to settle his own affairs with those who have sent him to Parliament. But I desire to say this, that I do not believe that any Chief Secretary has ever gone to Ireland with a more single-minded devotion for the country which he was to serve than did Mr. Birrell, or with less thought of personal ambition or advancement. And it is only fair to say, whatever conclusions your Lordships may form of his action as described in this Report, that he has obtained, and I venture to say deserved, no small measure of personal regard and trust from many of those whom he served in Ireland. My noble friend the Lord Lieutenant is in his place here, and, if he considers it to be necessary, nobody is more competent than he is to speak in this debate upon the part which he took in the proceedings under notice. The Under-Secretary has

629
not, I think, been mentioned so far in the course of this debate, but of him I should desire to say this by way of a tribute to his personal qualities. He was Governor of Natal when I was Secretary of State for the Colonies, eight or nine years ago; and in circumstances of great difficulty at the time of the Zulu unrest, being compelled to deal with a community where the relations of different races and the conditions of labour caused special difficulty, Sir Matthew Nathan exhibited qualities of judgment and firmness in the highest degree. And at a time when he has been censured and has given up the office in Ireland which he held, I am glad to pay this tribute to the services which he then rendered.
The noble Earl asked whether it was not the case that the Cabinet as a whole ought to be held responsible for what had occurred. We, of course, admit, as every Government must admit in such a case, the general responsibility for the steps that were taken. Nor do I desire to plead by way of excuse the fact—though it is a fact—that the absorbing pre-occupations which, in spite of our large, and as some think excessive, number, perpetually surround us have prevented, as they must prevent in any analogous case that close attention by the whole Cabinet to the work of particular Departments which in more ordinary times might be paid. I do not hesitate to say that if a similar outbreak had occurred in India or in one of the Crown Colonies our previous knowledge of the purely local circumstances would not have been more intimate than that which we were in possession of in regard to Ireland. That is one fact which I think it is reasonable to state. It is also, I think, reasonable to state that it is undoubtedly more difficult for a Coalition Government to keep a perpetual watch on the administration of such a country as ours when questions of administration—
THE EAEL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I did not speak of the Coalition Government. I said from nine years ago—that is to say, the old and original Government who appointed and supported Mr. Birrell.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Precisely. But for the moment I was speaking of the Coalition Government and of the charge which is freely brought against us, quite
630
apart from the charge which is brought by some and which has been made in the course of this debate against the Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and of the present Prime Minister. The existing Government, of course, takes the responsibility
THE EAEL OF CAMPERDOWN: For all that Mr. Birrell has done?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: For everything that has occurred since it came into being; everything that has occurred since June of last year. Before that, of course, the responsibility must be taken by those who were then in power. When the noble Earl intervened I was saying, so far as that particular part of the matter is concerned, that it is clear, where the administration of a country has formed the subject of the most acute controversy that has existed between Parties, that when a Coalition Government is formed less attention is likely to be paid to it than would otherwise have been the case. It is always more or less easy to be wise after the event, but in this particular case I am not sure that wisdom after the event is quite as simple as it often is, certainly not as regards anything but the period immediately preceding the outbreak. It may not be difficult for any critic to say, as regards the month or the month or two preceding the outbreak, that this or that step might have been taken. But as regards a longer period precedent to that it is not, I think, quite so easy when you examine the whole story to decide even now what was the wisest course that could have been taken.
It must not be forgotten that the basis of the whole system of government in Ireland by both Parties for many years past has been not to give an excuse for what I may call the Left Centre Party in Ireland to join with the Extreme Left—to give the more moderate of those who belong to the Nationalist Party a reason or an excuse for gravitating to the extremists; and this has been sought by both Parties, by one as much as the other, in giving reasonable concessions to moderate reformers. That applies both to legislation and to administration. The various Land Acts for which both Parties were responsible—the Land Purchase Acts, the grant of local government, and, last of all, the grant of a measure of self-government—all those have been executed by

631
both Parties as a concession to the more moderate reformers. Every political movement that can be called progressive exhibits its Girondists and its Jacobins. In Ireland the object has always naturally been to favour the former, partly for this reason—that in England all through history the Girondists have always won; it is one of the few countries of which that can be uniformly stated; and we have been perhaps prone, therefore, to believe that what applies to our polity applies to others. May I give an instance? When I was in Ireland—now, I am sorry to say, a great many years ago—the Fenian Society—the "I.R.B.," as it is called—was supposed by the Police to number in toto not less than 60,000 men and youths. Not all probably had taken the "I.R.B." oath, but they were on the list of the society. Of those the Police said there were certainly not 2,000, probably far fewer, who could be described as Fenians in the ordinary sense of the word—that is to say, extremists who were prepared to rise or to use combined violence at any time when opportunity offered. And that applies to other Irish movements of the same kind—that in the nominal membership is included a large number of men who are completely out of sympathy with England, probably anti-British in sentiment, who at the same time are, in thousands of cases, altogether removed from being revolutionaries.
At this point I cannot avoid drawing attention to the fact that of the three speakers who have already risen, all of whom have expressed themselves with natural strength about Sinn Fein, but with, as I venture to think, undue and altogether unfair harshness about the national movement as a whole, not one has drawn attention to the number of Irishmen from the South and West who have joined the King's Forces in one capacity or another. That is a fact which cannot be, and ought not to be forgotten in dealing with this question. It is the cant of the speeches we have heard that the whole of the South and West of Ireland is to be regarded as a nest of rebels and the home of the disloyal.
THE EARL OP CAMPERDOWN: I never said or hinted at anything of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I ought to exclude the noble Earl, but I include the other two noble Lords.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I merely used the phrase "the turbulent elements."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I said at the end that I believed the great majority of the Nationalist Members desired our success and had done their very best to promote the success of the British arms.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am glad to have drawn those explanations, because the speeches otherwise might have been somewhat misunderstood. I have no intention of going back on controversies which, if they are not, as I should hope and believe, altogether closed, are at any rate for the time being absolutely dormant. Therefore I am certainly not going to pursue what I think was first alluded to by the noble Earl opposite—namely, the question of the arming of Ulster and the circumstances that at that time occurred—except to say that then, and also in the Howth case which has been alluded to, and in the case of the institution of that strange body which was called the Citizen Army, the intention of the Irish Government all through has been, as far as possible in its dealings with those bodies, to avoid civil strife. That it has not succeeded we all know, but in all those cases its intention was perfectly clear. The result was, during the time covered by this Report, that administrative inactivity which when it succeeds is called masterly, but when it fails, as it unquestionably failed in this instance, is put down to mere neglect or weakness. But it would not, I think, be fair to charge the Government of Ireland with lack of watchfulness or lack of knowledge in so far as the acquisition of information is concerned. My own recollection goes back to the time when for information on every subject in Ireland, to an extent which I think obtains less now than it did then, we were entirely dependent on the Royal Irish Constabulary. Now I believe the Irish Government has other sources of information at its disposal. But I do not find in the Report, nor do I conclude from what I have heard elsewhere, that there was any blame to be attached to the subordinates, either in Dublin or in the country, in the quality of the information which they supplied to the Government. The fact that more was not done was, as is quite clear from the evidence, entirely deliberate. It was an act of policy, not an act of neglect.
It is not necessary, I think, to say much about the conduct of the authorities during

633
the outbreak, because that has been a subject of far less adverse criticism than their conduct before. I have already expressed the view in this House that the suppression of the rising was carried out, in my opinion, with almost unexampled humanity, and the unhappy fact that for some time after the punishment of certain of the rebels there appeared to be a rising tide of sympathy with them was, as I believe, due to falsification and misrepresentation of the facts. There is reason to suppose that that wave of sympathy is now lower; that the general sympathy with those who suffered, either by their lives or by imprisonment for the part they took in the rising, has somewhat evaporated. It is true, of course, that among those who took part in the rebellion there were some high-minded men permeated by high ideals, but that does not alter the fact that there were others, not a few, who were guilty of deliberate murder and in many cases of plunder; and it is not to be imagined that the relations of those officers and men who were killed or wounded in the suppression of the rising are likely to be favourably affected by the fact that one of the original purposes of the institution of the Sinn Fein Association was the study of Irish literature and the Irish language.
Now we come to what, after all, is the main point—the question of security that there shall be no revival or renewal of what has occurred. I must ask the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Peel) to pardon me if I do not attempt to follow him through the greater part of his speech. The noble Viscount when he rose made the frank announcement that he intended to do what is often done in this House, but not generally quite so candidly announced—namely, that, there being a certain subject for discussion on the Paper, he proposed to talk about something entirely different—and he must excuse me if I do not attempt to follow him through all that mass of careful and elaborate sarcasm with which he entertained the House in replying to the speech which the Prime Minister made yesterday in another place. There will be, as Lord Camperdown pointed out, abundant opportunities of discussing the actual proposals when they come before this House, or, indeed, when they are made known; but in the meantime I do not think that it would be profitable for us here to enter into any attempt to fill in the broad outlines that were drawn by
634
my right hon. friend yesterday in another place. The whole matter is infinitely difficult and complex, and I will ask your Lordships to wait until such time as we are in a position to discuss the details of the measure.
The House is entitled to ask what we propose to do in the interval, until such time as the Amending Bill can be passed into law, in order, as I said just now, to prevent any revival of this revolutionary movement, looking at the matter from the point of view, as noble Lords have desired to look at it, of the efficient conduct of the war. As the House knows, there is a large military force in Ireland, and it is important to remember that this military force is not abstracted from any other place where it might be serving to more purpose in order that it should act as an Irish guard. The facilities for training troops, drafts or others, in Ireland are quite equal to those that can be secured in any part of Great Britain. Therefore the fact that a large force is now there in no way militates against the provision of troops for the main purpose which we have at heart. And then, as the House well knows, the Defence of the Realm Regulations remain in force, and they will continue to be enforced in Ireland so long as they are needed there for the peace and security of the country.
A question may very naturally be asked as to whether it is proposed, until the new Statute can come into play, to continue a purely military, or at any rate a mainly military, or a mainly civil administration in Ireland. So far as the services of Sir John Maxwell are concerned, we are all grateful to him for the part which he has played. Sir John Maxwell came with a great deal of valuable and not altogether dissimilar experience, gained first in South Africa and afterwards in Egypt, of military administration, and we desire to recognise in the fullest degree the services which he has rendered, is rendering, and can well continue to render. On the other hand, it is held by some that there are many arguments in favour of instituting a more civil form of administration, at any rate within a reasonable period of time, by the appointment of a responsible Minister. I am not in a position to tell the House what will be done in that regard, nor do I feel that so far as the efficient government of Ireland during this period is concerned it may be a matter of crucial importance, because I

635
believe that in either case the government would be firmly carried out. For the time being we have to shape a system of government for Ireland which should be workable, fair to all creeds and parties, and ensuring, so far as possible, the preservation of the rights of individuals.
I think it was the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) who expressed astonishment that the Prime Minister should have said anything of a critical kind about the system of government in Ireland when what was really at fault was not so much the system as the people who had administered it. I think the noble Viscount had not, perhaps, read the Report very carefully—which may have accounted for his not desiring to speak about it—because the sentence which no doubt my right hon. friend had in his mind was this on page 4 of the Report—
"If the Irish system of government be regarded as a whole, it is anomalous in quiet times and almost unworkable in times of crisis."
That was an indictment of the system, as well as, in other parts of the Report, of individuals who conducted it. I think I have nothing further to add in reply to those noble Lords who have so far spoken; and I sincerely hope that the House will be content to wait until we can enter into a detailed discussion of the propositions which in due course His Majesty's Government will put forward.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not imagine that the noble Marquess found it a very agreeable task to answer the speeches which were addressed to us by my noble friends behind me, but I must at the outset enter rather a protest against the noble Marquess's method of warfare. He always adopts a sedative tone. He is invariably reasonable, and expresses expectations and aspirations on the part of the Government which are most disarming to his antagonists. But they are almost invariably, at any rate at present, not carried out; the expectations which are held out to us by the noble Marquess are not made good by his colleagues.
Take the debate in which we are now engaged, and compare it with the last debates on this subject on the 10th and 11th of May. What was the noble Marquess's cue then? He argued that the noble and learned Earl opposite (Lord Loreburn) had been premature and unwise
636
in bringing forward a Motion with regard to recent events in Ireland. He proceeded to show that the Government were about to appoint a Commission of high repute, and he urged, on behalf of the Government, that we and everybody should regard all these unfortunate events as sub judice pending the Report of the Commission. We were asked to keep silence; we were hushed from the natural desire to know what was the view which the Government took. But did the Government regard them as sub judice? Not for a moment. They began to settle the whole question without waiting for Lord Hardinge's Report. I defy the noble Marquess to tell us one single incident in the recent negotiations which can have been in any degree influenced by Lord Hardinge's Report. What right have you, after you have set up a standard by which you invite the whole of your fellow-countrymen to approach the matter, to rush forward and yourselves ignore the very tribunal before whom you had elected to go? It is not merely a question of Irish government. What did the noble Marquess say? He said—
"What burden of responsibility may rest on His Majesty's Government as a whole is altogether another matter. That is a matter for Parliament, and clearly cannot be inquired into by the three gentlemen whose names I am going to mention."
We have a right to inquire into the action of His Majesty's Government and those facts by which that action ought to have been weighed and which they elected to ignore.
I particularly feel that we have reason to complain of the action of the Prime Minister in this matter. The Prime Minister, with an almost jaunty air, announced within a week of the appointment of this Commission that he had come to two conclusions. One was that the machinery had broken down. But that was the very point into which the Government appointed the Commission to examine. The Report of the Commission is not that the machinery had broken down, but, as my noble friend Lord Peel put it plainly, the man had broken down. The machinery had not been allowed any play. I say that the Prime Minister has no right to constitute himself, by a flying visit to Ireland, a judge of that which he had appointed three eminent men to decide for him. The Commission called before them witnesses and have arrived at a conclusion which I am certain is regarded as palpably fair by the whole mass of their

637
fellow-countrymen. The Prime Minister said that there was a unique opportunity for agreement. Where do we find that either in Lord Hardinge's Report or in the present condition of things? I am not going to discuss what the Prime Minister has proposed, but I ask your Lordships, as a matter of the actual condition of Ireland, What material do we find for the statement that there is a unique opportunity for agreement?
What was the first thing that occurred after the Prime Minister spoke? Mr. Dillon made a speech in which he expressed his sympathy with and his admiration for the men who had just been shooting His Majesty's troops and a number of civilians, however misguided their action might be. I do complain, and I think your Lordships have a right to complain, that after that speech Mr. Dillon has been the tribunal at whose bar we have been asked to appear to state our case why that part of Ireland which he is supposed to influence should not be handed over to him and his colleagues. I do not want to follow what was said by my noble friend Lord Peel as regards the Prime Minister's action when he went over to Dublin. But if these negotiations were so well timed, if we may regard the moment as having been so happy for bringing all Parties together, I put this question to the Government, Why has that particular moment been accompanied by the great development in the number of the Sinn Fein throughout the three provinces of Ireland outside Ulster?
But I have risen more for the purpose of bringing before your Lordships the present state of the country as depicted, and to see to what extent the Government have dealt with the points which Lord Hardinge's Commission have specially commented upon. I consider this Report the most trenchant exposure of official incapacity ever made by any Commission in the course of the last century. I would ask this question of His Majesty's Government, What is the position of General Maxwell in Ireland? My noble friend the Leader of the House spoke of the Lord Lieutenant a few moments ago. Well, if Lord Wimborne is the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—he is not sitting on the Front Government Bench—or if there is to be a new Lord Lieutenant, I say that the sooner he is allowed to perform his proper functions the better. At this moment General Maxwell is alone in Ireland. What
638
support has he had from His Majesty's Government? A few words have been said expressive of their sense of his conduct. But while he has been there, has he had a free hand? I warn the Government that they had better be careful how they answer that question. The very first thing that happened after the Prime Minister went over to Ireland was, we have every reason to believe, that pressure was brought to bear on the military authorities to restrain their more active intervention in the affairs of the country.
What is the condition with regard to arms? The noble Marquess gave, in reply to me two months ago, an absolute promise that the question of taking the arms from the Sinn Feiners would be dealt with in a drastic manner. I will not trouble your Lordships with the words. The noble Marquess then Tebuked me for bringing up the question of the importation of arms at Howth. It appears that Lord Hardinge's Commission regarded that importation of arms as the kernel of the misgovernment, together with the discouragement of the officials of Ireland in following up those arms. Will the Government tell me that those arms were not found in the hands of the Sinn Feiners? Of course they were. That is well known. How did the Sinn Feiners get them? They got them from some of those who had enrolled themselves as National Volunteers. If we are to avoid a further rising, if we are to have the security of the country from German intrigue, the Government will have to get all the arms in Ireland that are in the hands of unauthorised persons and put them under the control of the Government. It is no use our being told that they belong to the National Volunteers or to persons who, under one authority or another, have acquired arms and say they mean to keep them. I say that you must secure Ireland, and unless you give General Maxwell the power to seize the arms which are held broadcast in the country, and which to our knowledge are passing into improper hands, you cannot claim that you have done your duty in this matter. Another point. General Maxwell has been openly denounced by a high ecclesiastic. What steps have His Majesty's Government taken to vindicate the position of their chief officer in Ireland? Are these things to be allowed? How can you expect a man to carry out the difficult functions laid upon him if he

639
is to be made a cockshy by anybody, no matter how highly placed, who happens to disagree with him?
Let me say, with regard to what my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said on the last occasion on which we debated this subject, and the same applies to what Lord Crewe says, that I know that to every word they utter here they intend to give effect; but I want to show your Lordships that the picture which is given in this House is not a true picture. There are those acting behind their backs who do not hesitate to set at naught what has been said in this House as a pledge given by the Government. I will take a concrete instance. Lord Lansdowne said on May 11—
"We were asked whether we would undertake that for the future no known Sinn Feiner should be employed in Government Offices. We intend to provide that members of the Sinn Fein Society shall not he employed in any Government Department."
I refer your Lordships to the case of Patrick J. Kelly, who was taken prisoner at the fight at Jacob's factory. He was one of the rebels who defended the factory against the military. He was deported to England. At the end of May he was reinstalled in his clerkship in the Land Commission Office. Secondly, there is the case of Patrick Sheehan. He fought in the rebellion, wearing the Sinn Fein Volunteer uniform. He was taken prisoner. His house was searched by an officer—his name can be obtained if required—who found several incriminating documents there. Sheehan was deported to England. He has been released, and about the middle of June, was reinstalled in his clerkship in the Land Commission Office. The third case is that of R. Rooney, a well-known Sinn Feiner before the rebellion, who took a leading part in the organisation. He was arrested, but was liberated as he took no part in the actual fighting. He was reinstalled in the Land Commission Office. With the speech of the noble Marquess before me, I make this demand—not only that these men should be dismissed, but that the official who reinstated them should be dismissed also. And I ask that this should be done as an example. I assure the Government that nothing is needed more, in Ireland now than that the impression should be produced that the Government mean to put the law before political expediency. The whole of the operations of the last few weeks have been dictated, I have not the slightest doubt, on the
640
part of the Cabinet by their highest view of what the needs of the country are, but they are taken universally in Ireland as having been a tribute to the successful intimidation practised by the Sinn Feiners and to the expediency of making good the position of the Nationalist leaders.
In Lord Hardinge's Report it is made clear that there were 1,800 rifles in the hands of known Sinn Feiners, and about 1,800 other weapons. How many of those weapons have been recovered? I know that you cannot recover them without doing unpopular things, but you have to do unpopular things if you do not want another rising. I dare say there may be bloodshed; but if those who spoke at Mr. O'Brien's meeting in Cork are truly reported, the extreme party are determined that there shall be more bloodshed if the proposed sham Parliament is established than if it is denied to the people during the war. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the plea of the Government before has been one of ignorance. They cannot plead ignorance now. They have been amply warned, not merely by this trenchant Report, but also by speeches and writings by all those who know Ireland best. I feel that we have a right to tell them that they are gambling with Imperial safety. I know that what the Prime Minister urged was that it was necessary to take action in order to secure peace at home, but that was not the point on which Mr. Lloyd George based his negotiations. I will undertake to say that if Mr. Redmond, Sir Edward Carson, or any of those who were privileged to interview Mr. Lloyd George, at his request, in connection with these negotiations are examined, they will say that the arguments given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons for this strange change were not the arguments which were pressed upon them when they were asked to come to terms.
My noble friend Lord Peel has asked that the Government should clear up the question of the amnesty which was promised by Mr. Devlin, as we understand, as the price for the Nationalists in the six counties of Ulster not pressing their claims for inclusion in the Irish Parliament. We should like to know whether that amnesty has been definitely refused. The fact that, without the knowledge of those sitting on that Bench [the Front Ministerial Bench], Sinn Feiners—who still retain arms—have been restored to the Government

641
service, makes us very suspicious in this matter. And I think among the many comic elements of the present situation the greatest was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Peel when he pointed out that if there were opponents of the settlement it was Sinn Feiners, who ought to be held up as those who had wreeked the settlement and made it impossible. When Lord Crewe said, almost in terms, that a Coalition Government was the worst possible machinery for dealing with such a crisis as this, I could not help feeling that this perhaps explains why it is that at this supreme moment in the history of Ireland it is not the men who rebelled and into whose hands you are going to plunge the majority of the seats as soon as you dare go to an election in the South and West—it is not they who are accused of wrecking the settlement, but the loyal men in the South and West. It is the one party in Ireland, who are not accused of taking up arms or doing anything except sending every man they have to the Front, who lie helpless before anything you choose to impose upon them, and whom you are now condemning to hew wood and draw water for the very men who have taken up arms against this country and whose attitude to Germany is exposed in the pages of Lord Hardinge's Report. I venture to say that nothing but an overmastering Imperial necessity will justify the course which the Government have taken, and there was not a word in the speech of the noble Marquess to show that such a necessity exists.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, before I say anything in this debate, I would like to make it clear that I am speaking in my private capacity. I say this because there has been some doubt expressed as to my actual position, which is not unnatural. Though I placed my resignation in the hands of the Government, as was announced in this House by my noble friend who leads it some weeks ago, it has not, for a variety of reasons connected with the unusual circumstances that have arisen, even to this day legally taken effect; but I am told it will take effect very shortly. As a matter of fact, ever since I proclaimed Martial Law for the whole of Ireland, on April 28, I have not been responsible for anything that has taken place in Ireland, and therefore I am now, and have been for some time past, totally unconnected with the administration of the country. Perhaps
642
your Lordships will allow me, at the risk of appearing egoistic, to say that I tendered my resignation to the Government, not because I felt that I had been personally responsible for the lamentable occurrences on Easter Monday, but because I concurred with the Government in thinking that any proposals for the better government of Ireland in the future should be unprejudiced and unhampered by the continued existence of any previous institution or Minister—that, in fact, there should be a fair field for the construction of any edifice which seemed adequate to the situation without being hampered by anything in the nature of ancient lights.
The Commission whose Report has been the subject of to-day's debate has, I am glad to think, exculpated me from any blame in what we all regret. But I should not personally be satisfied with such a negative acquittal as they there give me on the ground that I had inadequate authority, nor should I feel personally excused if I could not recall that all last spring I did, in fact, urge action which, had it been followed, would, in my opinion, have averted the catastrophe. If we had had troops in Ireland—and the noble Marquess has just explained how little the transference of troops from England to Ireland affects their main object, which is to carry on the war—or if we had had a better secret service (and there, again, the noble Marquess seemed to indicate more satisfaction than I should have been prepared to express), or if we had proceeded with the policy of the internment of suspects, as I think we ought to have attempted, or, indeed, if we had acted with greater promptitude after the arrest and identification of Sir Roger Casement, in my judgment the rebellion would not have taken place. I say this, not because, as I am sure the House will fully understand, I am trying to ride off at the expense of my colleagues, but because, possessing as I did by virtue of my office much the best opportunities for gauging the general situation, it would have been inexcusable on my part had I not striven by every means in my power to avert what took place. I do not mean to say that I, any more than anybody else, anticipated the rebellion, but it was clear to me several weeks before this actual occurrence that precautionary action had become justifiable and necessary.
I think the main advantage of this debate will be to draw from the misfortunes

643
of the past some lessons with regard to the most desirable conduct for the future. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl who instituted this debate into some of the observations which he made, which appear to me only to hold out the prospect of recrimination. I think it would be very undesirable, indeed I do not think it would be in agreement with the wishes of the majority of your Lordships, were the debate to fall into anything of that kind. But there has been genuine difference of opinion as to whether it was mainly the weakness of the individuals or the character of the Irish Executive which was responsible for what has taken place. It is, perhaps very difficult for me, being one of those concerned, to take an entirely unbiassed view, but I do say this. My experience in Ireland, such as it is, leads me to think that the Irish Executive, as an instrument of government, was weighted with two, at least, fatal defects in its construction. On the one hand, there was division of responsibility; and, on the other, duality of aim.
Consider for a moment the position of the Government of Ireland as it was until quite recently. You have, on the one hand, a Lord Lieutenant, who is popularly supposed by Irish people to govern Ireland, and who has many opportunities for doing so, but who is deprived practically of all authority except that which he can acquire by the exercise of his own personal influence. You have a Chief Secretary possessing that authority, but, from the nature of the duties, unable to reside in the country, which he is supposed to govern. And you have, as a third in this trio, an Under-Secretary who very often, if not generally, has gained his experience in other countries, and who has no great or natural knowledge of Ireland; you have him generally immured in Dublin Castle in the performance of the routine of daily administration. Such an arrangement leads to a lack of proper responsibility, with the result that there is no effective control and no co-ordination.
One may say, "However did this curious system arise?" I think the answer lies in the other main defect of the system—the duality of aim. I venture to suggest that ever since the Union succeeding British Governments have had one eye on Ireland and the other on Westminster. Irishmen do not like British rule, but what they dislike still more is to be governed
644
by the interests of the Parliamentary situation in England, and that is what has happened; with this further result, that the oscillation of Parties from Power to Opposition has been fatal to any consistent policy in Ireland and to any effective government. I venture to say this because I am convinced that if there is to be any improvement in Irish government there must be agreement here in England as to the method to be pursued. You can, of course, conceive of treating Ireland as a Crown Colony, or you can throw upon Ireland the responsibility for governing herself, but between those two extremes I venture to think there is no arrangement which will not be tainted with the defects of the present system, and which will not from time to time result in deplorable occurrences. If Ireland were, as Ulster claims to be, a set of English counties, these difficulties would not have arisen; but Ireland is not a set of English counties—it is a land with very different mentality from what prevails in England. What seems reasonable to us often seems unreasonable to them, and vice versa. That is why Englishmen so seldom understand Ireland, and why they have always failed to govern it; and that is why, too, Orangemen have so far declined to throw in their lot with the rest of Ireland. I venture to claim that since I went to Ireland I have cultivated impartiality as between different sections in Ireland and different parties in the great controversies which have raged round the subject of Irish government.
Turning for a moment to look into the future, I am not at all personally disposed to depreciate or to deride the apprehensions of some noble Lords who have spoken from the other side of the House. I know that noble Lords are sincere in their fears as to what may be the result of a change of the system of government in Ireland, and I am inclined to think, if I may say so respectfully, that their apprehensions are not entirely groundless. The fears of noble Lords seem to me to fall into two categories. They are, on the one hand, Imperial; and, on the other, domestic. I suggest that both set of apprehensions are capable of being safeguarded. If we approach the subject with a desire to come to some settlement, I have no doubt whatever, if only from the fact that the Prime Minister said so yesterday in another place, that any suggestions proceeding from noble Lords representing

645
Unionism in the South and West of Ireland will be received with the most sympathetic consideration. But I agree that self-government in Ireland must in present circumstances be experimental and provisional. The success of the experiment will depend a great deal upon the amount of support which it receives from all sections of opinion in Ireland. Without a certain measure of public confidence the proposal will undoubtedly be still-born, but with it there is, I think, a prospect of healthy growth and development. That, I think, is the answer to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel.
The question is, Will the Sinn Fein party remain in the future what the noble Viscount claims it is at the present moment, the dominant party in Ireland? I was surprised that Lord Peel spoke with so much confidence of Irish affairs. I did not know that he was so well acquainted with them. I noticed that the noble Viscount who has just sat down (Lord Midleton) did not go so far as that. He would not be prepared to say, I think, that there is no chance for the more constitutional elements in Irish national life being able to re-assert their ground which has been very much weakened by recent events. It is clear to my mind that anybody who ventured to predict the result of a General Election in Ireland to-day or six months hence would be a much bolder prophet than many of us would think wise. With fair treatment there is a prospect which we should be unwise to cast hastily aside without due consideration, and it would be unfortunate if, owing to such fears as have been expressed not without moderation, the opportunity which does exist to-day of trying this experiment were definitely abandoned.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am certainly not going to question the force of the indictment which has been founded upon the Report of Lord Hardinge's Commission. It was indeed a grave indictment, and it did not need the forensic skill of some of the noble Lords who have spoken on the other side of the House in order to bring home to us how serious an indictment it is. Nor am I here to deny the responsibility which attaches to every member of the Government for the state of things which that Report has disclosed. That responsibility may vary in degree, but I feel that every one who is or has
646
been a member of the Government cannot avoid that responsibility and must take the consequences of it. It is true that the Report brings out clearly the opinion of its authors that one Minister is much more to blame than any of his colleagues.
I noted an observation that fell from Lord Ancaster early in the debate to the effect that it was hard that the late Chief Secretary should be allowed to escape scathless from the consequences of his administration of Ireland during the last few years. Is my noble friend quite sure that Mr. Birrell has escaped scathless from what has taken place? Here is a man of a high sense of honour and of high character, who has given some of the best years of his life to the task which was imposed upon him, who had a policy of his own in which he believed, who finds that that policy has broken down, with the results described in this document, and who abandons his office in those circumstances. To say that a public man in that position has escaped scathless seems to me to be a misuse of the English language.
I venture to express my agreement with the noble Lord who has just addressed the House with special knowledge of the circumstances when he says that what really is most important at the present moment is that we should consider the lessons to be drawn from this Report in regard to the future administration of Irish affairs. We certainly admit to the full the obligation which lies upon us to prevent a recurrence of these deplorable incidents, and we shall address ourselves to the task without shrinking from it. Some reference has been made to the Amending Bill which is now in course of preparation. It is a Bill which will at some points make structural alterations in the Act of 1914 already on the Statute Book, and which will therefore be permanent and enduring in its character. It is a Bill which, at other points, will contain temporary provisions, such, for example, as those dealing with the House of Commons which it is proposed to set up in the near future and before the end of the war. Some of these provisions may be indirectly connected with the subject which we are discussing to-night, but I think it will be for the general convenience that those provisions should stand over for discussion at another time. What I feel very strongly is that the government of Ireland cannot

647
be allowed to remain for an indefinite time in its present condition.
The Bill which we are pledged to introduce is a Bill which will take some time to prepare, and no doubt some time to pass through both Houses of Parliament, and what it seems to me we have to consider, and what it is urgent to consider, is what is to be the Government which is to administer Irish affairs in the interim, in the immediate future, and before the new Bill can possibly pass into law. I venture to say with a certain amount of confidence that under the system which exists at this moment there ought not to be much fear of the situation in Ireland getting out of hand. You have got Sir John Maxwell responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs, with, I believe, some 40,000 troops to support him, and with the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary in his hands. We have unabated confidence in Sir John Maxwell, and we shall give him the support to which he is entitled. My noble friend Lord Midleton asked me whether he had a free hand. I am certainly not aware of any case in which his hands have been tied by any restrictions calculated to diminish his authority or to interfere with his action. The powers which he is now exercising are the powers which are conferred upon him by the Defence of the Realm Act, and these are powers which we are quite prepared, if necessary, to extend to meet any special emergency which may arise. We, at any rate, realise the gravity of the situation, and we shall take steps, and take them at the earliest possible date, in order to deal with the particular questions which arise out of the Report upon your Lordships' Table.
While Sir John Maxwell enjoys our entire confidence, we feel that we cannot look forward for an indefinite period to leaving the government of Ireland as it stands at this moment. There is no Lord Lieutenant, there is no Chief Secretary, there is no representative of the Irish Government in either House of Parliament, and our hope is—I am unable to suggest a date, but we are addressing ourselves to the question—that we may be, able to appoint an Irish Minister who will be responsible to Parliament, and it will no doubt be necessary that he should have alongside of him a capable military officer with a sufficient force to maintain unquestioned order. We also fully intend that the Defence of the Realm Act should remain
648
in force, and, as I said just now, we are prepared if necessary to strengthen it; and that, of course, is an Act which the Irish Parliament, whenever it is called into existence, will be unable to interfere with at any point.
I answer without hesitation the question put to me by my noble friend Lord Midleton as to the demand which has been made for a general amnesty of the persons who are now undergoing imprisonment in Ireland. There is no intention whatever of granting such an amnesty; indeed, it must have escaped my noble friend's attention that a few days ago the Prime Minister, when questioned upon this subject in the House of Commons, gave a categorical answer to the effect of that which I have just given to my noble friend.
Only a word or two as to the present condition of the country. I quite admit that it continues to require the utmost vigilance on the part of the Imperial Government. I think it is true, as has been said this evening, that for a time there was a great and rapid increase in the number of members of the Sinn Fein Association. I am told that this increase has diminished of late; that although there are still disquieting symptoms, they are less disquieting than they were. Our reports certainly tend to show that there has been some improvement in this respect. What is, perhaps, noteworthy is that there appears to be hardly any ordinary crime in the country at the present time.
I turn for a moment to the question of safeguards against the recurrence of the kind of incidents which are commented upon in this Report. My noble friend Lord Midleton referred to something which I said on this subject, I think two months ago, and told the House that, although he did not question the excellence of our intentions, our announcements on subjects of this kind were of the, nature of aspirations and were not always realised. I shall be able, I hope, to say a word in a moment which will show my noble friend that he is not entirely correct in that respect. Some of the safeguards have already been announced. The Prime Minister made it, I think, abundantly clear in his statement to the House of Commons last night that, in regard to all matters arising out of the war, there would be no encroachment on the undivided power and responsibility of the Government in all that a ppertains

649
directly or indirectly to its successful prosecution. And when we talk of matters connected directly or indirectly with the prosecution of the war we mean a great deal more than such questions as repelling a foreign raid or a landing of the kind which took place the other day. What matters when a great war is proceeding is that the authorities of the country should not have their attention distracted or their hands weakened by organised domestic disturbance, and therefore it will be clearly understood that in regard to all such matters the authority of the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament will be absolutely supreme and unquestionable. Although it is true that there are provisions in the Home Rule Act of 1914 which point in this direction, I am able to say that those provisions will be most carefully examined, and that if there is any doubt as to their operation, or if it can be shown that at any point they require to be strengthened, they will be re-examined with a view to their being so strengthened. There are other questions which will, no doubt, arise when we get to close quarters with the promised Bill.
But I will say a word or two with regard to a class of safeguards in which my noble friend Lord Midleton is, I know, specially interested—I mean the safeguards which ho and others have demanded on various occasions in order to protect the loyal minority in the South and West of Ireland. The Prime Minister stated last night that no demands for safeguards of this kind have yet been put forward on the part of the. Unionists in the South and West. I wish it to be clearly understood that the Prime Minister was then speaking of what, I suppose, may be conveniently called domestic safeguards, and not of the Imperial safeguards of the kind which we are discussing. We understand that as regards domestic safeguards—safeguards against domestic misgovernment—my noble friend and those who act with him are for the moment holding their hands. On the other hand, they have made us aware that there are certain points, some of which have been referred to by my noble friend this evening, to which they attach very great importance.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: As the point is so very important, I hope the noble. Marquess will forgive my interrupting him. He has drawn a distinction between
650
Imperial safeguards, which Unionists of the South and West have already placed before him, and domestic safeguards—that is to say, safeguards against their being maltreated by those who are opposed to them. Is he speaking of domestic safeguards for the period of the war or for the general period which is to come after the war?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understood my noble friend to desire not to enter into the discussion of domestic safeguards at this moment, and the safeguards some of which he has been good enough to mention to me and some of which he referred to this evening come, I think, within the category of Imperial safeguards—safeguards which will become necessary during the continuance of the war and while affairs are in a state of what may be called emergency. I think that is not an unfair account of the way in which my noble friend put it. My noble friend told us this evening—or if he did not, one of the other speakers did—that they attach great importance to the retention of a sufficient garrison in Ireland. I will deal with that by saying unhesitatingly that a sufficient garrison will be maintained in Ireland during the period of transition.
Then my noble friend passed to the immensely important question of the possession and carrying of arms. Now I am going to say a word in order to endeavour to convince my noble friend that when we give him assurances about questions of this kind we are doing rather more than playing with words We should, of course, all gladly resort, if it were possible to do so, to a measure of immediate and general disarmament in Ireland; but my noble friend knows quite well the enormous difficulty of carrying out a measure of general disarmament. It is not, as was suggested during the course of this debate, that the Government is afraid of the unpopularity of the attempt. What is formidable is the practical difficulty of collecting all over Ireland, in every remote corner of that country, arms of which numbers are undoubtedly hidden away in all sorts of ungetatable places. But what can be done is to stop what seems to me, and I said this the other day, the most glaring and urgent abuse—that is, the carrying of arms in the broad light of day in public thoroughfares by people, whether connected with the Sinn

651
Fein movement of others. We propose at once to deal with that part of the question. We propose to issue an Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act—I believe it will be issued to-morrow—enabling the competent military authority to prohibit the carrying of firearms or military arms without a permit. This Order will be applied throughout Ireland, except, of course, as regards the military, naval, and police authorities; and it will be enforced, like other Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, by Court-Martial.
One word as to the Royal Irish Constabulary. As my noble friend is aware, under the express terms of the Home Rule Act this Force is to remain for six years under the Imperial Government. It will, I think, interest my noble friend to know that the Chief of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Sir Neville Chamberlain, some time ago expressed his desire to be relieved of his post, and we hope almost immediately to announce the appointment to the position of a gallant officer whose record inspires us with absolute confidence, and who will, we believe, be regarded favourably by all political parties in Ireland.
Then reference has been made to the question of resident magistrates in Ireland. Anybody who knows that country knows that there are many parts of it in which it is idle to look to an ordinary bench of magistrates to do their duty, or, for the matter of that, to an ordinary Irish jury to do its duty. We propose to have recourse to trial before resident magistrates, and it may interest my noble friend to know that in the two cattle-driving cases of which he has no doubt heard—one of which took place in Roscommon and one in Galway—the persons implicated will be tried under the Crimes Act by two resident magistrates. If the resident magistrates already in the service of the Government are not found sufficient for the work which they will be called upon to perform, we shall be quite ready to ask for permission to increase their number.
One other point which my noble friend mentioned was the case, of which many of us had heard already, of some employees, I think three was the number, of the
652
Irish Land Commission, who, according to my noble friend's information, took an active part in the recent Sinn Fein outbreak. I think he said they wore uniform and were engaged in some of the fighting which took place. These men, according to his information, have lately been restored to their employment in the service of the Land Commission. What I have to say about that is this. The case came to the attention of His Majesty's Government; inquiry was at once made of the Irish authorities, and the reply was that so far as they were aware the facts were not as my noble friend has stated. The divergence of that evidence was so remarkable that we have called for further information, and we are determined to follow the matter up and ascertain whether the complaint which has been made to my noble friend is well founded or not.
I think I have noticed most of the suggestions which my noble friend made this evening. Of course, there are others of which he has informed us unofficially and which I shall be delighted to inquire into. All I can add before I sit down is that noble Lords may rest assured that we have no intention whatever of pigeonholing the Report of this Commission. We mean to try to do what I think Lord Peel suggested was our first duty—to govern Ireland, and to undo, if we can, the mischief which has arisen during the last few years. We have taken some steps already with that object, and we shall certainly not hesitate to take further steps if they should prove to be necessary for this purpose.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether it is proposed to publish the evidence given before Lord Hardinge's Commission so far as that evidence is not likely to be of use to the enemy?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I shall have to make inquiry about that. As my noble friend is aware, some of the evidence was taken with closed doors, and no doubt it could not all be published.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.