Sitting of 25 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
River Glen Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the River Glen Bill [Lords], Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to sit and proceed with the Bill upon Thursday next.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORDINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY COURTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF ST. ANDREWS, GLASGOW, ABERDEEN, AND EDINBURGH, GENERAL No. 4 (REGULATIONS AS TO PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS).
Petition of the General Council of the University of Aberdeen, against enforcement; 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 Merioneth (parish of Dolgelly) [by Act] to lie upon the Table.

NAVY (EXCESSES), 1914–15.
Copy presented of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 108.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee on Royal Aircraft Factory and Report to the War Committee by the Air Board on the subject of the Royal Aircraft Factory [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MILITARY SERVICE.

      BRITISH SUBJECTS OF MILITARY AGE LIVING ABROAD.
      1. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has demanded of the Russian, Japanese, or Portuguese Governments that British subjects of military age resident in their territories should be returned to this country in order to take up military service?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): The answer is in the negative.

      RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
      2. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been received from the Russian Government any request to send back to Russia either any particular person, political refugee or exile, or any Russian subjects of military age, who have not joined the British Army?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative. I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 11th July and to the comprehensive statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the position of Russian subjects in this country.

      OLD SERVICE MEN (PROMOTION).
      18. Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether old Service men who answered the appeal in the earlier period of the War for non-commissioned officers to rejoin, and who have been sent to France and have gained further promotion, are reverted to their previous rank on return to this country for Home service; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It has previously been explained to the House that where a non-commissioned officer or soldier has been given substantive promotion in France, as has probably happened in the case of the noncommissioned officers mentioned by my

      1479
      hon. Friend, no reversion would take place because the man has returned to this country, or as an incident of his having returned to this country. But it has also been stated that where the promotion given has been only to acting rank, the acting rank would cease when the man to whom it has been given ceases to perform the duties of that rank.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      54. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Halliwell, who received notice to appear before the Stoke-on-Trent Tribunal, on 12th July, to appeal as a conscientious objector, and who applied for an adjournment on the grounds that on 10th July he had met with a severe accident, breaking his collarbone, which application was supported by a medical certificate; and, in view of the fact that he was refused exemption, will he take steps to remedy this action on the part of the tribunal?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am in communication with the claimant in this case. The proper course to be taken by a person who is aggrieved by the decision of a local tribunal is to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.
      15. Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the scheme recently outlined by the Prime Minister for dealing with conscientious objectors is now in operation; and whether men who are already undergoing sentences for disobedience to military orders on conscientious grounds are being brought under it?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, the scheme has been put in operation, and men who are already undergoing sentences for disobedience to military orders are in course of being brought under it.
      Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this regulation applies to men who are in detention as well as men who are in prison, and how many have been dealt with?
      Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman Say whether it would not be possible to avoid punishing conscientious objectors any more by sending them to Germany with Lord Haldane as Bear Leader to introduce them to the Kaiser.
      HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that the regulation applies to men in prison only, and not to men in detention.
      Mr. MORRELL: Will any steps be taken to see that men who are now in detention have the same opportunity as men who are in prison, seeing that the difference between the two forms of punishment is really technical?
      Mr. FORSTER: I believe the intention is that it should be fairly administered, and that no conscientious objector shall be damnified.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is there any single case of a person coming under this rule?
      Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say.

      COURT-MARTIAL, CHELSEA BARRACKS.
      16. Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for War if he has made any further inquiry into the circumstances under which the public were excluded from a court-martial held at Chelsea Barracks on 12th July; and whether he will see that in future the Army Regulations are complied with in this respect?
      Mr. FORSTER: My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has received some correspondence from the hon. Member, and he has in consequence caused further inquiry to be made. I can to-day make no further statement on the matter.

    BULGARIA (TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS).
    4. Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Reports have been received from the American Legation in Sofia regarding the recent treatment of British prisoners of war in Bulgaria?
    Lord R. CECIL: Copies of a Report, dated 19th June, by the United States Consul-General-in-Charge at Sofia, have recently been received. It is of a satisfactory character. We have asked the United States Ambassador whether there is any objection to the publication of this Report.

    VENEREAL DISEASES (RUSSIAN ARMIES).
    7. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a speech made by M. Tchenkeli, in the Russian Duma, on 3/16th June, 1916, in which he read an extract from an official circular stating that, from information received at the headquarters of the Imperial Chief of Staff, it has been established that recently cases of venereal diseases, and particularly of syphilis, have become more frequent among the troops, and that there are many indications that a Jewish organisation in Germany is spending considerable amounts of money on the maintenance of syphilitic women who are employed for the purpose of ensnaring Russian officers and infecting them with syphilis; and will he ask the Russian Government for further information on this subject and as to whether there is reason to believe that this organisation confines its operations to the Russian Armies?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have not read the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but I feel that our military authorities in the various theatres of war can well be trusted to take all precautions to guard against this danger.

    HAY (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES IN IRELAND).
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LUNDON:
    10. To ask the Secretary of State for War why the price per ton paid for hay in Ireland is far under that allowed for hay in Great Britain; and will steps be taken to see that for the future the same prices will be allowed to farmers in Ireland for agricultural produce commandeered for war purposes as to farmers in Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: I must apologise for being late. The difference in the maximum prices of English and Irish hay in the later part of the season is only slight. In the earlier part the difference is greater, owing to the fact that new Irish hay contains more moisture than English. I believe that the price for Irish hay is usually lower than that for English.
    Mr. LUNDON: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has expert authority for saying that the difference between Irish hay and English hay is so great as to amount to about £ 2 per ton?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is the advice which was given to me by those who know.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is the price of Irish hay arrived at on the same basis as all other commodities imported into this country?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will consider that.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Irish hay is subjected to a much longer process than English hay, and can he say whether he speaks on the authority of expert information or only official information?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the Department's knowledge of Irish hay comes from Captain Henshaw, an ironmonger?

    NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    11. Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the sum of 10s. 6d. per week is the amount agreed upon to pay a disabled soldier who has lost a leg in the War; and, if so, will the Government consider the advisability of increasing the amount for such disablements?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rate for a soldier whose leg has been amputated below the knee is 10s. 6d. For more severe amputations the higher rates are given.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider 10s. 6d. per week sufficient?
    Mr. FORSTER: It was carefully considered by the Select Committee.
    53. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the difference in the rates of allowances in respect of every child after the third, which shows that to married soldiers 2s. a week are allowed in respect of each child dependant, while to seamen and men of the Royal Naval Division only 1s. is allowed for each such child; and whether the Treasury will allow an equalising of these divergent rates in separation allowances?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The separation allowances of seamen were

    1483
    fixed at a somewhat lower rate than those of privates in the Army, because the higher pay of seamen enables them to make larger allotments?
    Mr. KING: If these two sets of men are serving together, why cannot you consider these differences with a view to equalising them?

    PRISONERS OF WAR (BRITISH AND GERMAN).
    12. Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War how many German military officers and men have been taken prisoners by us; and how many of ours have been captured by the Germans?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend put this question on the Paper for the 20th July, and the answer prepared appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since then it has been possible to obtain somewhat fuller information. The number of German military prisoners of war in this country and in working camps in France is 20,200, of whom 401 are officers. I understand there are also 1,467 naval prisoners, of whom 121 are officers. In addition to the figure just given there are a number of prisoners, estimated at about 4,000, who have been recently captured, but have not yet reached this country. The number of British military officers and soldiers estimated to be still in the hands of the Germans on the 30th June, after those repatriated, transferred to Switzerland, etc., have been deducted, is 25,350, of whom 721 are officers.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (BANDS).
    13. Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at with reference to bands, including pipe bands, of third-line units of the Territorial Force?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has been necessary to obtain further information from commands. No decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I will put the question down again this day week.

    AIR SERVICE (PILOTS).
    14. Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with
    1484
    the supply of pilots; and whether, in view. of the growing demands of the Air Service, he will consider the claims of our public schools as nurseries for the future supply?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am advised that the supply of pilots is at present satisfactory. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that they are quite satisfied with the numbers that they get?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am advised that the supply of pilots at present is satisfactory.
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extraordinary difficulty of getting a transfer from the class of observers into the class of pilots, and ought that to be so?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is obvious that there must be some difficulty in a highly technical occupation such as observing pilots.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PETO:
    21. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the meteorological and geographical advantages of Egypt have been considered for training pilots for the Air Service; and whether he proposes to establish aerodromes there before the coming winter?
    Mr. PETO: Before putting this question, I would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea when the Secretary of State for War is likely to answer questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      PATRICK H. PEARSE.
      17. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War the text of the written message sent by the late Patrick H. Pearse before his surrender on 29th April last to the Commander of the British Forces in Dublin, and the text of the reply?
      Mr. FORSTER: A reference has been made to Ireland on this matter. The reply has not yet been received.

      INTERNED PRISONERS.
      28. Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary if the only charge against Samuel Ruttle, of Adare, county Limerick, is that he was on terms of personal friendship with Austin Stack, of Tralee; is it treason for a man in no way whatever connected with the Sinn Fein movement, but on the contrary, to be a personal friend with men from whom he might differ politically; and will he order this man's release at once and thus prevent his business from being ruined?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Samuel): The grounds for Samuel Ruttle's internment are stated in the notice of the order which has been served upon him. His case has been before the Advisory Committee, and the decision will be announced shortly.
      Mr. LUNDON: Are we to take it that Mr. Ruttle, who happens to be a personal acquaintance of the leader of the Sinn Fein movement, is thereby to be supposed to be guilty of treason?
      Sir W. BYLES: Are not many other businesses in Ireland being ruined owing to this rigid detention of entirely innocent Irish prisoners?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The House is aware of the course that has been pursued. The military authorities recommended the internment of a considerable number of men, and the Advisory Committee has been actively engaged in examining their cases. A very large proportion indeed have already been released, and they are being released now at the rate of many scores every day.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will any compensation be given to men who have been unjustly detained and whose businesses have been ruined thereby?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I cannot say that, although persons were released, they were improperly interned. A very large proportion of those who have been released have taken part in the rebellion, and have been released on the ground that they were not fully aware in respect of the disturbance on Easter Monday on what they were really engaged.
      Mr. NUGENT: Will permission be given to those who took no part in the insurrection to sue the Government or those responsible for having ruined their businesses and having sent their families into starvation?
      Mr. SAMUEL: It is not for the Government to say what proceedings are to be taken. If it is within the law, they can, of course, take proceedings.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it to be assumed that every man who has been interned and taken away from Ireland is guilty?
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Nugent) did not ask his question three months sooner?
      Mr. LUNDON: As the only charge against these men is that—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any further questions.

      FIRING AT POLICE.
      29. Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of innocent men were arrested at Charleville, county Cork, after the recent rebellion because of the alleged firing of revolver shots at a policeman; is he aware that the policeman was uninjured though the bullets, according to appearances and investigations, went through the peak of his cap; whether even the authorities, after due investigation of the case, were doubtful that the bullet holes in the cap could be possibly made without grave injury to the man who wore it at the time the alleged shooting took place if the firing were done by anybody bent on doing harm; is he further aware that many respectable citizens, both Nationalist and Unionist, in the district believe that the whole thing was a plot, and that the policeman put the cap on a hedge and fired through it himself; and, if no steps have been taken to hold an inquiry into the matter so far, will something be done to put the blame on the proper shoulders and not have the memories of Sergeant Sheridan recalled by outrages such as this?
      Mr. SAMUEL: On the evening of the 17th May three shots were fired at a constable of the Royal Irish. Constabulary near Charleville, of which one passed through the top of the cap that he was wearing at the time. A military detachment on the same evening arrested on suspicion fourteen Sinn Feiners, who were discharged next day in the absence of incriminating evidence. The police authorities, having investigated the matter, have no reason to doubt that the constable was deliberately fired at.
      Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public bodies in Ireland as well as local benches of magistrates, consisting of Unionists as well as Nationalists, have condemned the action of the military authorities in interning these men, who are not Sinn Feiners but supporters of the Nationalist party in this House and in full sympathy with the Allies; and will he grant an inquiry into this case, because people in Ireland are absolutely convinced that the policeman referred to put his cap on a hedge and fired three shots through it himself?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of the representations the hon. Member makes. As a matter of fact the men arrested were released next day on the order of the military authorities. As regards the allegation in the last part of the question it is without foundation. The constable's revolver was examined immediately after the occurrence and was found not to have been fired.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
      30. Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary upon whose information Patrick Sheehan has been suspended from the employment of the Land Commission; whether the Estates Commissioners denied the charge preferred against Sheehan immediately after the rebellion; and, if so, why this young man is to be victimised on the strength of the information given possibly through prejudice or hatred because of Sheehan's religion and politics; and, in view of the fact that the Commissioners, who are amongst the chief of the Irish Government officials, believe this man to be innocent of the charge against him, will he be reinstated immediately?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds on the 17th instant, when I stated, after a personal examination of the official papers, that I would suggest to the Land Commission that the case of Patrick Sheehan should be included with those of other civil servants suspected of complicity in the rebellion, which will come under review at an early date. The Land Commission have accordingly suspended Sheehan, who, like other officials similarly situated, will be afforded an opportunity of establishing his innocence at the investigation which will be opened this week.
      Mr. LUNDON: Is it not a fact that the three Land Commissioners sent notice to the Home Secretary stating that this man was absolutely innocent of the charge made against him, and why is it that three Government officials are going to be overridden at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major W. Guinness).
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is mistaken.
      Mr. LUNDON: It was stated in this House on Thursday last.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three men in the Land Commission were dismissed on the day the question was asked by an hon. Member on the opposite benches?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I do not know that that is the case either. There has been a considerable number of questions asked about these three men. Ultimately I suggested that their cases should be reviewed by the Commission of Inquiry, and upon that the Land Commissioners decided that they should be meanwhile suspended.
      Mr. BYRNE: When will the Government cease to pander to hon. Members on the Opposition benches?

      FRONGOCH CAMP.
      32. Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any Report as to the sanitary conditions of Frongoch Camp; if a 6 inch hot pipe is working full pressure day and night in one of the dormitories where 200 Irish prisoners sleep; if the ventilation of this dormitory is insufficient; and if, to safeguard the health of the Irish prisoners, he will send them to more healthy surroundings or order their immediate release?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The sanitary conditions at Frongoch are reported to me to be excellent, as I informed the hon. Member for North Westmeath on the 6th July. There is a warm pipe in one of the dormitories, but the beds are well removed from it, and this dormitory is neither overheated nor ill-ventilated I may add that this camp was previously used for German prisoners, and was then visited on several occasions by representatives of the American Embassy, who not only found no ground for criticism but considered it an ideal camp and one of the best in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. BYRNE: Did not the medical authorities condemn it as unfit for the German prisoners?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. The exact opposite is the case. They reported most favourably upon this camp.

      COMPENSATION TO DEPENDANTS.
      45 and 47. Mr. NUGENTasked the Prime Minister (1) if the Government have decided not to compensate the dependants of those murdered by the military in North King Street, Capel Street, and other districts in the College Green Division of Dublin on the plea that there is no proof by whom these breadwinners met their deaths; why no public inquiry is granted so that the positive proof in the hands of several solicitors in Dublin and the evidence at the inquests may be submitted and tested; whether the Government will publish the whole of the evidence obtained at the secret inquiries, much of which it is alleged was given under threats; whether he will give permission for the printing and publishing of an appeal in Ireland, Great Britain, and neutral countries to relieve the distress of the dependants of the murdered men, such an appeal to include copies of sworn affidavits indicating how and by whom the men were murdered; and (2) whether he will consider the claim for compassionate allowances or compensation for the loss of their breadwinners of the wives and families and dependants of innocent men who met their deaths at the hands of the military during the disturbances in Dublin; whether he had an opportunity during his visit to North King Street, Dublin, of seeing for himself the necessity for some such allowances or compensation and whether, in view of the fact that compensation is to be given to the owners of business concerns injured by the military during the disturbances, he will sympathetically consider the need of the widows and orphans and dependants referred to?
      Mr. SAMUEL: On the subject of compensation, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers to the questions of the hon. Member for the Dublin Harbour Division on the 22nd and 26th June. I think an appeal containing exparte statements of the nature referred to by the hon. Member would be calculated to stir up ill-feeling, and its circulation would not be permitted. As regards the other points mentioned by the hon. Member, I would refer him to the answer given by the
      1490
      Prime Minister to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 17th instant.
      Mr. NUGENT: If the Government refuses to hold an inquiry when people in Dublin are able to identify the actual men who murdered those people, what is to he the remedy?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister made a very full statement on this subject.
      Mr. NUGENT: The Prime Minister said there was no proof as to the identity of those by whom those murders were committed. We hold in our possession, and only want an opportunity of producing, actual evidence and affidavits from several respectable people in the district.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement now and not asking a question.
      Major HUNT: Will the dependants of the soldiers killed by the criminal neglect of the Government in not maintaining law and order be properly provided for?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must give notice of that question.

      ALLEGED MURDER BY SOLDIER.
      46. Mr. NUGENTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick J. Casey, of 83, Capel Street, Dublin, in consequence of communications received from the police, attended on three separate occasions and gave evidence before a military tribunal at Dublin Castle with reference to the murder of Malachy Brennan, of 86, Capel Street, Dublin, who, whilst standing unarmed at his own door, was deliberately shot dead by a soldier on Friday, 29th April last; whether Mr. Casey, on the third day on which he gave evidence, identified in the presence of the tribunal the soldier who shot Brennan; whether the soldier was also identified at the same time and place by several other witnesess; whether sworn affidavits implicating the soldier referred to are in the possession of Messrs. Corrigan and Corrigan, solicitors, Dublin; whether he has received any Report from the military tribunal referred to as to the result of their inquiries into this case, and, if so, what action he proposes to take with regard to it; and, if he has not received any Report on the case from the military authorities, whether he will demand a Report

      1491
      and communicate its contents to the House, or whether he will order an independent public inquiry into all the circumstances of the murder?
      Mr. FORSTER: I cannot confirm or deny the specific statements made in the first part of the question, nor can I accept them. The War Office have, however, ascertained from Ireland that a Report of the circumstances surrounding the death of Malachy Brennan was received and a Court of Inquiry held. The evidence at this showed that he was in the street when fighting was going on, and was accidentally shot. It appears that there were snipers on the roofs of the houses in Henrietta Place. Green Street, and Halston Street, at the time the deceased was shot. It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by a public inquiry.
      Mr. NUGENT: What is the object to be attained by bringing a witness three times to the Castle and bringing up a person to be identified, and are there several people in the district who are able to prove that there was no sniping whatever from this house, and the man was actually shot inside his own home?
      Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make no protest against the term "murder" used in all these questions?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have already stated in answer to the question that I do not accept it.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the verdict of the coroner's jury was one of murder, and that the military were represented at the inquest?

      DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (DUBLIN).
      48. Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the dismissals of employes in Government Departments in Dublin; if he is aware that a number of Government employé s were arrested on suspicion during the rising in Ireland and were afterwards tried, found not guilty, and were released; and if he will say why they are now being dismissed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of yesterday on this subject.

      PRISONERS (GAELIC LITERATURE).
      49. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it is with the sanction of the Government that text books, pamphlets, and other publications for the use of speakers and learners of the Irish language, and having none but a literary purpose and interest, given to Irish prisoners in this country in the various prisons, have all been taken from them at Frongoch, and that no Irish matter or paper containing Irish matter is allowed to reach them; whether the prisoners made any improper use of the Irish language while allowed to use it; whether the proscription of the Gaelic language is found to increase their affection for the Empire; and whether the Government have considered the effect on neutral opinion of proscribing Gaelic and imprisoning and interning without trial officials of the Gaelic League who are not accused of connection with any political organisation, while allowing the free use of German literature to German prisoners and internees?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The censorship of books and letters in the Erse language presents difficulties, but I have arranged that educational books in the Erse language will be passed.
      Mr. HEALY: What is that?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Irish.
      Mr. HEALY: Would you call the Hebrew language Sheenie?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Letters in Irish have been passed, and this will continue, unless the number should increase to such an extent as to cause difficulty in their examination.
      Mr. GINNELL: How is it that Irish literature of the class mentioned in the question has not been delivered, and that the Gaelic League, which sent a parcel of that character there, has been unable either to get it delivered, returned, or even acknowledged?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reason is that the Censorship had difficulty in reading this literature. I have now made such arrangements with the military authorities that the literature can be passed.

      IRISH VOLUNTEERS (DEPENDANTS' FUND).
      50. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it was with the sanction of the Government that the military rulers

      1493
      of Ireland after the insurrection prevented for three weeks the publication in any newspaper or otherwise of. an appeal for subscriptions for the Irish Volunteer Dependants' Fund; what provision was made for obviating the suffering thus caused before any other fund was opened from which those sufferers could consistently accept relief; whether it was consideration for the opinion of neutral countries, especially America, that caused the nominal withdrawal of the military prohibition; and whether the Censor now prevents the fact being communicated to those neutral countries that collections for the Irish Volunteer Dependants' Fund are now being prevented throughout Ireland?
      Mr. FORSTER: A report on the statements and allegations contained in this question have been called for.

    BALKANS (BRITISH CASUALTIES).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the British troops in the Balkans have during the past month taken part in any fighting; and whether there have been any casualties?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, no fighting of importance has taken place between the British Forces and the enemy in the Balkans. There have been a few patrol encounters and some shelling. The British casualties have been very slight.

    FARMING OPERATIONS (ORKNEY).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men in Orkney absolutely essential to the working of farms have received notice to present themselves for service at an early date; and whether, in view of the fact that the services of these men are essential to the gathering of the crops, he will endeavour to arrange that those whose services are so important will obtain a further extension for three months?
    Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware that there had been any avoidable interference with the gathering of the crops in Orkney owing to the cause stated. It has been arranged that if cases such as those alluded to are reported to the War Office by the Scottish Board of Agriculture they shall be considered promptly on their
    1494
    merits, and the calling up of the individuals concerned would if necessary be suspended to enable the crops to be gathered.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say how much, if any, of the National Relief Fund has been expended in connection with the relief of soldiers; and whether it is intended to repay the sum so expended to the National Relief Fund, and, if so, when?
    Mr. FORSTER: The sum to be repaid is the subject of arbitration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this money was contributed for civil purposes? Can he say on what authority the money is allocated to military purposes?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that it has been allocated to military purposes. I must not be taken as admitting that in the answer I have just given.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: For what purpose was the money borrowed?
    Mr. FORSTER: The money was advanced by the executive of the National Relief Fund to provide for the families of soldiers and sailors in times of distress. That is not a military purpose.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are the War Office going to pay interest on the sum that they have had?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will see that is a matter for arrangement
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office has been placing every possible obstacle in the way of repaying the money at all?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that at all, but those who are responsible in the War Office cannot admit every claim that may be made upon them unless the claim is substantiated.

    WOOL PURCHASES (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether, having regard to the special urgency of prompt payment for wool in Ireland, as compared with this country, he is now in a position to say what the price is to be and how soon it will be paid?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Army Council are issuing to-day a notice permitting wool merchants and country dealers to buy wool from farmers in Ireland at certain fixed prices, which have been based upon 1914 prices with the addition of 35 per cent., and subject to the conditions specified in the notice. As transactions are now permitted upon these conditions there should now be no delay in paying the farmer for his wool.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this price is considered to be very much below what it should be?
    Mr. FORSTER: I know that some people consider it so.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will this be a general Order including all wool merchants?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is so.
    Mr. GRAHAM: May I ask when payment will be made for the wool of local buyers commandeered previous to the compulsory Order?
    Mr. FORSTER: It will be paid for as soon as the wool is delivered.
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is already delivered.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Is it the intention of the Government to send any officers to the country districts with the usual buyers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Wool merchants and dealers will be permitted to buy wool, but not to sell it to anybody but the Government.
    Mr. WHITE: Have the Government sent any agents to compete against them in buying?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, that is not done.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wool commandeered by the Government from these buyers is paid for only at the price at which it is bought from the farmers; that they are kept out of their money for a long time; and does he consider that is fair?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that. I think it would be very much better for hon. Members to wait until the scheme is in operation before they form their opinions about it.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: What is the position of these men who have bought wool which is commandeered; how are they paid; is it by commission?
    Mr. FORSTER: When we are dealing with matters of detail of this kind, hon. Members will see that it would be fairer to me if they gave me notice of the questions.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    25. Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury, in paying the sum of £1,001,000 to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, satisfies itself that the money is used only for the specific purposes sanctioned by Parliament; and, if so, what method it adopts in obtaining the necessary information?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The agreement with the company (Clause 3) provides for payment by the Treasury as to one-fourth on application for the shares and as to the remainder as and when required by the company subject to one month's notice. Two ex-officio directors are appointed by the Treasury who watch the interests of His Majesty's Government under the agreement.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how the sum of £1,001,000 paid by the British Government to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has been spent; and whether the policy indicated in the statement made by the then First Lord of the Admiralty on 7th July, 1914, has in any way been departed from?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Government is assured, through its representatives on the board of directors, that the money is being properly expended on the development of the company. It is not desirable, either in the public interest or in that of the company as a commercial concern, to give details of the expenditure at the present stage. The heads of expenditure were given by the First Lord on 15th June, 1914. From these there has been no departure.

    UNCLAIMED SECURITIES.
    26. Mr. C. WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that for generations past banks have had stored in their vaults vast quantities of plate, specie, and jewellery of great value, and that it is beyond possibility that such securities will ever be called for; and if he will appoint an expert Committee to

    1497
    confer with some of the leading banks as to the best method of utilising such securities in the public interest and also to inquire into the probable amount of unclaimed dividends in the hands of accountants employed in winding-up bankrupt estates, etc.?
    Mr. McKENNA: For the reasons stated in my answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal on the 28th June, 1915, I am not prepared to take steps of the nature suggested. Inquiries which have been made from time to time clearly indicate that the popular idea of the amounts involved is very much exaggerated. As regards bankrupt estates, unclaimed dividends are not held by trustees in bankruptcy, but by the Board of Trade.

    NATIVE TROOPS, TROPICAL AFRICA (RECRUITMENT).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether all possible steps are being taken to recruit and train native troops in the British Colonies in East, West, and Central Africa?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): This question has formed the subject of careful consideration, and steps are being taken to make the best military use possible of the natives of tropical Africa.

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether taxi-cab drivers are greatly concerned with regard to the proposed limitation in their supply of petrol; whether licences have been granted for various quantities of petrol varying from 70 gallons for one car to 10 gallons per month, that the drivers assert that 70 gallons per month is the minimum quantity upon which they can continue to run their cabs; and whether he will take prompt action with a view to a reconsideration of the quantity of petrol to be allowed these men?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am afraid that for the present I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave yesterday to the right hon. Member for Deptford.
    Major HUNT: Why has it taken the Government two years to find out the necessity of preventing petrol being wasted by private cars?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think it has taken them as long as that. The necessity has arisen recently.

    MARRIAGE OF ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether the restrictions placed since the War upon the marriage of aliens, either in the case of two aliens or of an alien and a British subject desiring to marry; and whether he will give his reasons for restricting the marriages of British subjects and of friendly aliens in England at this time, especially in view of the need of encouraging marriage in national interests?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No restrictions have been placed on marriages between British subjects and friendly aliens.
    Mr. WATT: You are all right, King!

    ENEMY ALIEN (I. G. W. GRUBAN).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary if I. G. W. Grü ban was an enemy alien on the outbreak of war, why naturalisation was granted; whether the Ministry of Munitions has brought charges against Grü ban that he broke its regulations and made false returns whilst manager of Haigh, Grü ban, and Company, Limited; whether Grü ban, whilst in the service of Kirchener (Prussia), sold German machines as British; whether any communication has been received from the present directors of Haighs, of Oldham, inviting the Home Office to investigate certain matters; and if Grü ban is still at liberty and is making arrangements for a supply of German wood-working machines to be shipped to the Colonies as British machines on peace being restored?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Grü iban, who is of German origin, was naturalised in September, 1914, my predecessor being satisfied at the time that it was a proper case for naturalisation on public grounds. I would suggest that the second part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. I have received communications from the present chairman and managing director of the company with regard to the matter referred to in the third part of the question,

    1499
    and I have brought them to the notice of the Board of Trade. An Order for Grü ban's internment was made and acted upon, but the Advisory Committee recommended his provisional release on sureties, pending a full inquiry, and subsequently, after a prolonged investigation, recommended that he should not be again interned. I am not aware that Grü ban is making any such arrangements as the hon. Member suggests, but should be glad to be furnished with the evidence that he is so engaged.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Engineers Association brought to the notice of the Home Office some months ago their opinion that this man was a spy, and that information has been sent to the Government that in the office of this man a spy box was actually found where a man was taking notes of an interview between this man and a representative of the Ministry of Munitions?
    Mr. SAMUEL: All the facts were laid before the Advisory Committee, which considered this case over a period of no less than three days, with the result I have stated.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department was warned when this man applied for naturalisation papers that he was not a fit and proper person to be naturalised?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That was in September, 1914, long before I was at the Home Office. I think they made pretty full inquiries at the time.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Why should this alien enemy be made a naturalised British subject in spite of the protests of British manufacturers?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think there was any protest at the time. There may have been one in 1914. He was naturalised, I understand, because he was the sole head of a large business employing a considerable number of British workpeople, and it was understood that he had lost his German nationality.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this very same firm by whom he was employed he was changing and putting false name plates on their machines?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That allegation was not made at that time; it was not proved at that time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Who is interesting himself in this person?
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is there no method of cancelling naturalisation certificates afterwards proved to have been obtained fraudulently?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The law only provides for the cancellation of naturalisation certificates that have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
    Mr. HEALY: Why not send him to Frongoch?

    POISONOUS DRUGS (SALE).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether opiates, cocaine, and poisonous drugs are still being sold by unqualified persons to any of the services in connection with the Army and Navy; whether such drugs are now procurable by the public without the presentation of a prescription from a qualified physician or surgeon; and, if so, will he consider the desirability, in view of the continual increase taking place in the use of such dangerous drugs, of taking such steps as may be necessary to prevent their use where not required for medical or surgical purposes?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Plymouth and for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the draft Regulation be submitted to medical bodies, so that they may make representations before it is finally settled?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Royal College of Physicians has been consulted. I am not sure whether the organisation representing the dentists has been consulted. I will take that into consideration.

    ENEMY ALIEN FIRMS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in winding up the business affairs of alien enemy firms and companies, provision is

    1501
    made for paying compensation to British subjects or friendly aliens for loss of employment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Compensation for loss of employment is paid to persons employed in enemy businesses wound up under the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, on the same basis as in an ordinary liquidation.
    Mr. THORNE: Are any steps taken for the purpose of finding those men employment who may be thrown out in consequence of German firms being wound up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I do not think there has been.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the firm of Chavres, Wilson, Peck, and Company, of Fargate and Leopold Street, Sheffield, and of the firms incorporated with them; is he aware that these firms are owned and financed by Bechstein and Company, of Germany, the well-known German piano makers; and if he will make inquiries about these firms with a view to having them wound-up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The cases of Arthur Wilson, Peck, and Company, Limited, and Hopkinson's Successors, Limited, have been considered by the Advisory Committee, who recommended that the shares and debentures held by enemy subjects should be vested in the Public Trustee with a view to their being sold, and he is now negotiating a sale.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a question from me his predecessor stated that the majority of these shares held by Bechstein and Company in Berlin would not be disposed of during the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I am afraid I do not carry in my mind all the answers of my predecessor.
    42. Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Forester Paper Company, of Acton; and whether, in view of the fact that an uninterned Austrian, Egon Friedman, has by far the largest individual proportion of the profits of this company, he will have this alien business wound-up, as it competes with British businesses whose managers have been called up for service with the Army?
    Mr. HARCOURT: A majority of the shares of the Forester Paper Company,
    1502
    Limited, are held by British subjects, but I am asking the Advisory Committee to consider what course should be taken with regard to the shares held by enemy subjects.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manager of this paper company is only thirty-four years of age and has two brothers fighting against us, and is it not very unfair that an alien enemy should remain manager of a company in competition with a company whose managers have been taken away to serve in the Army?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am obliged for the information the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me. I will convey it to the proper quarter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have raised this question half-a-dozen times and can get no satisfaction from the Board of Trade?

    STATUTORY BLACK LIST (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the criticisms in the Press of the United States regarding the publication of the Statutory Black List, and whether he proposes to take any action thereon?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir, I have noticed the criticisms referred to. They appear to be largely based on misapprehension. The action taken by His Majesty's Government is not novel. The Act under which the Statutory List for the United States has recently been issued was passed last December, and lists have already been published referring to most neutral countries since then. Nor are the provisions of the Act unduly stringent. By the French law all persons of enemy nationality, wherever living, are enemies of France, whatever their conduct during the present War, and it is illegal for French subjects to trade with them. By the British law only those persons, whatever be their nationality, who have shown themselves hostile to this country are put upon the list of persons with whom British subjects may not deal. Nor do we seek by this list to affect the freedom of action of neutral citizens. All we have done is to declare that British shipping, British goods, and British credit should not be used for the support and enrichment of those who are actively assisting our enemies. If in the compilation of the list

    1503
    any persons have been unjustly included they will be removed; and, as I have more than once stated, great care will be taken in applying the law to existing contracts to avoid anything in the nature of injustice. I may add that we are informed that the German Government have taken action of a similar character.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not possible for our subjects abroad to be treated as France treats her subjects abroad?
    Lord R. CECIL: That question was very carefully considered and discussed in this House last December. I do not think it would be possible for me within the limits of an answer to explain the reasons why we arrived at the conclusion that the course we adopted was the best and fairest.
    Mr. HOUSTON: As it is very desirable, will the right hon. Gentleman have the matter again brought before the Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: It has been brought before the Government.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Again?
    Lord R. CECIL: It has been brought before them quite recently.

    MUNITIONS.

      WORKMEN'S DWELLINGS.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he will give the reason why the work on the workmen's dwellings at Welling, Lodge Hill, and Well Hall, which has been in progress for from twelve to eighteen months, and which has up to now been done by direct labour, is now being let to a contractor; if he is aware that the work will be completed in five or six weeks' time; that there is a large amount of material on the various jobs will he state whether the contractor takes this material; and whether, with the object of preventing waste of labour and material, he will cancel the contracts and finish the work by employing the workmen direct?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The workmen's dwellings at Welling, Lodge Lane, and Well Hall have been in progress for a little over five months, and not for twelve to eighteen
      1504
      months as stated in the question. The work, from the commencement, has been carried out mainly by direct labour, but certain operations, such as roofing, plumbing, etc., have, in accordance with the usual practice, been done by contract as being the most economical and expeditious method. A considerable number of the houses will be completed very shortly, many of them within from five to six weeks; any surplus material will remain the property of the Government and will be utilised hereafter. To substitute direct labour on those portions of the work at present being carried out by contract would not therefore prevent waste of labour and material but would have the opposite effect.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in changing from direct labour to contract labour there is certainly a very large loss, and is it in the interests of the Department to keep the supervising staff it has there until the contract is completed?
      Dr. ADDISON: There have not been any such changes in this case.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a considerable number of workmen were last Saturday week given a week's notice to terminate their engagement on the job?
      Dr. ADDISON: Yes.

      SHELL MAKERS (BIRMINGHAM).
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a number of shell makers and other machine workers employed at an important firm in Birmingham are standing idle and, in consequence, a number of both men and women are losing a great deal of time; if he is aware that all the young Belgians working at the same firm are found regular employment; if he will make inquiries into the matter; and, if so, will he consult with some of the trade union officials?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am inquiring into this matter, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
      Mr. THORNE: When these inquiries are made is any effort made to consult with the local trade union officials to get both sides of the question, not only from the employers' but the workmen's standpoint?
      Dr. ADDISON: It depends entirely on what the case is.
      Mr. THORNE: It means that a great deal of machinery is standing idle when you are crying out for shells every day.
      Dr. ADDISON: It depends on what kind of shells you are referring to.

      AIR SERVICE.
      Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions if he is satisfied that all the establishments controlled by his Department which manufacture any of the requisites for the Air Service are fully engaged; whether any such establishments have repeatedly asked for further orders and obtained no reply for many weeks, and then of a negative or delaying character; and whether he will consider the establishment of a travelling supervisor of Air Service work, with a view to obtaining the maximum results?
      Major BAIRD(Representing the Air Board): Establishments engaged on aircraft work are as a general rule employed to their full capacity, the object aimed at being to place new orders a sufficient time in advance of the completion of the previous contract to enable all material to be obtained for commencing work on the new order as soon as the old order is completed. It is not, however, practicable in all circumstances to adhere to this rule, as to do so would often involve giving orders for aircraft of types already becoming obsolete in preference to newer types which may be under consideration or trial. I am not aware of any cases such as are suggested in the second part of the question, but if my hon. Friend will bring any such to my notice, inquiry will be made into them. The Admiralty and War Office already have travelling officers to supervise contract work on aircraft, and it is not considered that the creation of an additional travelling officer would serve any useful purpose.

    DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether regard being had to the fact that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh, and Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a traitor in arms with the enemies of these countries against the Sovereign and people of the British Empire, is in the line of succession to the throne under the provisions of the
    1506
    Act of Settlement, any and what steps will be taken to deprive him of his position under these provisions?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): If this could be done by a stroke of the pen I should not hesitate to advise His Majesty to do it, but the Act of Settlement cannot be altered without legislation, and, as the possibility of succession vested in the Duke of Cumberland is so remote as to be virtually non-existent, it does not appear that legislation on the matter would serve any practical purpose.
    Mr. MacNEILL: After ten days meditation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this gentleman is at present in arms against us, that his son is in arms against us, that he has written a letter of congratulation to the German Emperor on the great victory at Jutland, and whether he is to be retained, Act of Parliament or no Act of Parliament, in possession of honours greater than were ever granted to the Duke of Wellington, while humble men on mere suspicion of treason are dismissed from their places?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. I am in entire sympathy with him in this matter; but the question he puts to me has nothing to do with honours. The question is whether the possible succession of this person to the throne of England should be prevented. I agree that it ought to be prevented, but I do not believe that there is any possibility of that occurring.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Having regard to the fact that the Royal Family are seated on the throne by this Act of Parliament is it not a slur upon this Act, upon them and upon us that he should be retained?
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is continually shielding these German adventurers? Is it because they are German and royalties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not shielding them at all. I share entirely the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. MacNeill).
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week he said it would not require legislative measures to deal with these matters?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, no!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Some of them, at all events. Is the right hon. Gentleman

    1507
    aware that there is not the slightest difficulty in bringing in a Bill and passing it through this House in three minutes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite sure there is no probability, and no possibility, of the Duke of Cumberland succeeding to the Throne of this Realm.
    An HON. MEMBER: He is a traitor.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why will not the Prime Minister bring in a Bill when everybody in the House of Commons wants him to do that?
    Mr. MacNEILL: Cannot this man—if I may call him so—be deprived of his knighthoods and other honours by a stroke of the pen? Why is that not done?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. MacNEILL: I will call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

    GREEK TERRITORY OCCUPIED BY BULGARIANS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information to the House as to what Greek territory is now occupied by Bulgarian or other enemy forces?
    Mr. FORSTER: As far as is known the only parts of Greek territory occupied by Bulgarian or other enemy forces are the Rupel Pass and its vicinity to the southern slopes of the Belasica Range north of the railway between Doiran and Demirhissar.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
      Sir H. DALZIEL(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether there is any objection to the House being placed in possession of the heads of agreement approved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in reference to the proposed Irish settlement. And, further, whether the Government propose to provide an opportunity to the House to discuss the breakdown of negotiations?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question the heads of agreement, as I have already promised, will be laid as soon as possible. With regard to the last part of the question, this matter was discussed last night. I am not aware that there is any general desire for a further discussion at this moment. The Government would be glad, if desired, to give facilities for such discussion.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British members have had no opportunity of discussing the matter, and seeing that they have some interest in the matter will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have not given any decision. I am quite ready, if a general desire is expressed, to consider it.

      Middle Age Pension Friendly Society.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Home Secretary if he will ascertain if the ' Middle Age Pension Friendly Society is being run by Mr. William Taverner on the same disastrous lines as the National Old Age Pension Trust; and, if so, if he will take the necessary steps to prevent poor persons being victimised as they were by the National Old Age Pension Trust?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Middle Age Pension Friendly Society is believed to conduct a business similar to that of the National Old Age Pension Trust, the assets of which are in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Court. The Middle Age Pension Friendly Society is registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the powers of the Registry of Friendly Societies in dealing with societies are of a limited character. The Chief Registrar cancelled the registration of the society, but it was restored to the register by the High Court. He is continuing to watch the affairs of the society closely.

      Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary why it is that the Local Government Board have refused to allow the rural district councils in county Limerick the right of reducing the rents of labourers' cottages according to the agreement made between the late Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for East Limerick, and Sir Henry

      1509
      Robinson, Vice-President of the Local Government Board; and, in view of the hardships of the labouring classes in Ireland, will he instruct the Local Government Board to accede to the request of the rural councils and allow them, as they are prepared, the responsibility for the reduction of these rents?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that no such agreement was come to as the hon. Member states, and a temporary reduction of the rents of these cottages was only sanctioned in one case. The burden on the ratepayers in respect of the provision of these cottages is in many rural districts more than 1s. a week per cottage. The rents charged for the cottages are very low, and would not recoup half the annual charge on the loans granted there for and to this deficit must be added the cost of repairs, rent, collection and insurance. The further loss occasioned by a reduction of the cottage rents would, of course, have to be defrayed by the ratepayers, including the tenants of the cottages, as they have to pay rates in respect thereof. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I may point out that it is open to the farmers of Ireland, who have been receiving very high prices for their stock and farm produce, to improve the condition of their labourers by giving them a reasonable addition to the wages which they received before the War.
      Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that one district council is allowed to reduce the rents of labourers' cottages in county Limerick against eight or nine others? I hold the agreement in my hand.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice.

      Transfer of Convicts.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary if men in convict dress being conveyed from place to place in charge of warders, sometimes handcuffed, are often kept waiting on open platforms at stations like Liverpool Street, where they are stared at by crowds; and whether prisoners so conveyed may be clothed in ordinary dress or kept out of sight so as not to excite the curiosity of spectators?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The regulations are so framed as to secure as much privacy as possible for prisoners under escort. The prison officers have strict orders to give effect to these regulations, and the Prison
      1510
      Commissioners have no reason to think they are not carefully observed. If my hon. Friend will give me fuller particulars of the incident to which he refers, I will make inquiry.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment;
Output of Beer (Restriction) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to revoke a codicil to the will of the late Right Honourable Cecil John Rhodes; and for other purposes." [Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords.]

RHODES ESTATE BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
BILL PRESENTED.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL,—"to continue various Expiring Laws," presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
ORDERS Of THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
    Sir E. CARSON: Might I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for to-morrow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow we shall take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and perhaps some other Bills. On Thursday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Acquisition of Land Bill.
    Sir E. CARSON: On what day will the Government take the Committee stage of the Bill for the appointment of a Special Commission with regard to Mesopotamia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had hoped to have got the Bill through all its stages to-day. I do not think the House would like to take the Second Reading until they knew the names of the Commissioners. I had hoped to be able to give those names this afternoon, but some difficulties of communication have disclosed themselves, and, though we have got most of the names, I am not in a position to state the whole of them. If you discuss the Bill before you know the names, you are really discussing it in the dark. Therefore, what I propose to do is to-morrow to give the names immediately after the conclusion of questions, and then to take the Second Reading of the Bill, and, if the House will agree, the other stages.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: Will the Government be prepared to consider suggestions from the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give the explanation of the Paris Economic Conference resolutions, which he said he would make last week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have been rather thrust out of what we intended by unforeseen events. During next week, certainly.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advantage of allowing the House to see the Amendments to the Special Commission Bill on the Paper, so
    1520
    that it may be properly considered, instead of having the Committee stage immediately after the Second Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I understood that the wish of the House was that this Bill should go through with the utmost possible expedition, in order that the Inquiry may be started at once. Of course, if the House desires further time, we will give it.
    Sir E. CARSON: Might I ask an unusual question which has a great deal of public importance—whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted anyone but members of the Government about the names?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can only speak for myself. So far as I am concerned, the answer is, No. Of course, we have consulted among ourselves.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: In view of the importance that is attached to this Inquiry, is it not possible to give a longer interval between the announcement of the names and the Second Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am entirely in the hands of the House, and will give another day if it is desired, but I thought that the House wished to get the Bill through as early as possible. If the House requires extra time it can have it.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking for this Inquiry for twelve months, and we have only just had the announcement of it, so that one day will not make any difference?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the Bill confer any powers which are not possessed by a Select Committee of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it does.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will my right hon. Friend, if possible, announce the names before the rising of the House to-night?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that it cannot be done until to-morrow.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Am I to understand that a day will elapse between the announcement of the names and the House being asked to pass the Bill through all its stages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the House so wishes, certainly.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I take it that the Government will not take more to-day than the requisite Motions with regard to finance—that is, the Report of Ways and Means and the Reports of the Vote of Credit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: And the Reports of Supply.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If we get these various Reports we will take nothing after eleven?
    Mr. WATT: How far do you propose to proceed to-night?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take—but we shall not take the first Order—No. 2 down to 9 (Reports of Supply).
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Including 9?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

  SUPPLY— [24TH JULY.]

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 450,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. HOGGE: There is a point in connection with the Vote of Credit to which I think the House ought to pay some attention, which does not concern itself so much with the military questions which we discussed yesterday, which has definite reference to the needs of the people who are connected with those military forces who are left here at home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee yesterday made some detailed criticism as to what would be of advantage to our fighting forces in the field, and I want, if I can, to do something to-day to direct the attention of the House to what one might call our fighting forces at home, because everybody will agree that the women and children of our soldiers and sailors who have been left at home to get along upon the allowances which the Government has given them are themselves putting up as good a fight in their own way as their male relatives who are in the field, and I think that the House ought to feel that in what we are doing for those dependants we are doing the right thing and doing as much as we can. There is one very broad fact to which, I think, the House ought to pay some attention in connection with these allowances. If Members have looked, as I suppose most of them have done, at the "Board of Trade Gazette" for July, and looked at the figures of percentages, which indicate the rise in the cost of living between the outbreak of the War and the first day of this month, they will find some extraordinary facts. If I may briefly draw the attention of the House to one or two of these facts, I think they will see that the point I wish to make is a perfectly good one. The general increase in prices over these three years has been no less than 61 per cent. That is the broad fact. But if you take, as I think it is only right that you should take, those goods which the average family uses, and deduct a certain percentage in respect of goods which are not ordinarily used by such a family, then the percentage is reduced a little, but not so much as not still to remain a very large amount. The "Board of Trade Gazette" puts it in this way, that if you take the whole country, and make allowance for the relative importance of the various articles of

    1523
    working-class household expenditure, the average in the retail prices of goods since the beginning of the War may be put at 61 per cent., which is reduced to 55 per cent. if the increase in the duties on tea and sugar are deducted. If you include food, rent, clothing, heating, and lighting, then the percentage is reduced to from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent.
    If you take the goods used in these households you will see how extraordinary some of the percentages are. If you take the commodity of flour, which is so much used in each household, you will find that the increase since the 1st July, 1914, and the 1st July of this year has been 48 per cent.—roughly speaking, 50 per cent. increase. There has been an increase of 44 per cent. in the price of bread, 50 per cent. in the price of tea, 158 per cent. in the price of sugar, and in the case of potatoes there has been an increase of 109 per cent. If you put together potatoes, sugar, tea, and bread, which obviously form a very large part of the household expenditure of those in receipt of the separation allowance, you will find that these four percentage increases amount to no less than 90 per cent., inside the period from the 1st July, 1914, to the 1st July of this year. I think the House will agree that these increases must make an extraordinarily serious inroad into the separation allowance which was fixed upon by the Government at the outbreak of War, and, because of these facts, and because of the hardships which these people are suffering, I want to suggest to the Government that it is worth their while now, in view of these startling increases, to consider whether the minimum separation allowance is enough to maintain physical efficiency. I know that on this matter the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) and the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster) are sympathetic Ministers—Ministers who have met this House every time this question has been raised with as much sympathy as we could expect. I am perfectly certain that if they could see their way as individuals to do this, they would agree at once, but their position is based on other reasons. Let the House remember what the Government did. The minimum separation allowance paid to
    1524
    the wife of the soldier was 12s. 6d., and that was increased as she had one, two, or more children. That 12s. 6d. was calculated in this way—4s. for rent, and 8s. 6d. as the proportion which was required for sustenance or subsistence; so that, in considering the increase of prices, you will have to leave out of account altogether the 4s., which was calculated as the proportion for rent, and fix your attention entirely upon the 8s. 6d. which was put down for sustenance. If you bear in mind the figures I have given and the percentage of increase on the most radically required foodstuffs in average households and apply them to your 8s. 6d., you will find at once that that is absolutely insufficient to maintain physical efficiency.
    4.0 P.M.
    I have every sympathy with the Government in trying to protect the Treasury. I see that the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is present, and, as he is a Scotsman, that means that probably there will be more protection of the Treasury than ever; but, at the same time, we must get beyond the Treasury position to the position which will maintain the physical efficiency of the womenfolk of the men fighting for us in the field. That is a position which I think cannot be contested. One of the Ministers the other day—I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman)—was asked a question in this House about the purchasing power of the sovereign, and he replied that the purchasing power of the sovereign was at March, 1916, which was the last figure he had apparently when he gave his answer, was only 15s., as compared with March, 1914. So, roughly speaking, the purchasing power of the sovereign has diminished 25 per cent. over the period of the War; so that the 8s. 6d., which was taken as the payment for subsistence in the separation allowance, obviously also has been diminished by 25 per cent., and is now only equivalent to the sum of 6s. 6d. The Government, therefore, at the present moment are, in fact, offering 6s. 6d. as the subsistence payment to the wife of the soldier or the sailor who is fighting our battles. If my hon. Friends have any difficulty in realising that, I may illustrate the point from the position of the old age pensioner, who draws a pension of 5s. a week, if he can show that he has only 8s. a week from other sources. Twenty-one pounds is the

    1525
    maximum amount which he must have from other sources before he will get 5s. a week. The result of the increased cost of living has been to drive old age pensioners into the workhouse, and all over the country you will find that a large number of these old people—mark you, many of them the grandparents of men who are fighting—have been dragged out of civil life, where they have civil rights, into the workhouse, where they lose their qualification as free British subjects entitled to vote upon our registers. That seems to me to point very vividly to the effects of the increase in prices on the cost of living and upon the social life of these poor people. If the facts are as I have stated, I think the Government must take into consideration an increase in the minimum grants of the separation allowances to our fighting men. I do not ask, although one might ask, for an all-round increase in every case. I do not ask it for cases that do not need it, but I do ask, as in the case of the old age pensioner where the 5s. weekly payment has been reduced in value to a sum which will not buy the necessaries of life, that the minimum amount paid to the wife of the soldier shall be at least an amount to maintain physical efficiency. I should like to deal also with the question of the administration of pensions by the Chelsea Commissioners. When a man is discharged from the Army, where he is suffering from the results of wounds which have disabled him, or from disease which has been aggravated by service in the Army, the amount of his pension is determined by the Chelsea Commissioners. The method of determining that pension is to send the man before a Medical Board at Chelsea, or before what is known as a Medical Invaliding Board, which tours the country to see these men. I think those of us who have had a considerable amount of experience with cases of pensions are rather disturbed in our minds with this fact. I put it quite frankly. Men who are refused pensions naturally and very properly write to Members of this House. Many of them are our own Constituents, and it is the duty of each of us to take up the case of those men, and if the man is entitled to have his case considered or to a pension, to do our level best to secure that pension for that individual. My own personal experience has been this, that I have been able to secure for the bulk of
    1526
    the men whose cases I laid before the Chelsea Commissioners through my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, that is the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whose help again I acknowlege, has always been very sympathetic, pensions for those men who, on their own application, have been refused.
    I have sometimes said when I got letters from either of the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench intimating to me that pensions had been granted, I am glad to know that the men have got the pensions, but I am rather sorry it comes in that way, because I feel this way about it, that that reveals this fact, that there are a great many poor soldiers and sailors perhaps, though not so many sailors as soldiers because of the difference between the two forces, one being organised for a greater time, but that there are a great many soldiers particularly throughout the country who are not getting what they are entitled to because they do not know the way to go about it, or because they do not know a Member of Parliament or somebody else to take up their case and to persuade the authorities that the facts are as they state. I have a case in mind which relates to the Admiralty of a man in Edinburgh who appealed to me on the ground that he had not got his pension. I submitted the matter to the Admiralty. I have never put a faked case in front of them, and I do not think a Member of Parliament is entitled to go either to the Admiralty or the War Office unless he is genuinely convinced there is a case. One turns down the others oneself. I think my hon. Friends will acquit me of bringing any case in which there is evidence of that kind of thing. The case to which I refer was that of a sailor who did not get a pension, and the letter I got finally from the Admiralty, paraphrasing it, was that "we found that A. B. C.'s disease was not attributable to the War, but on looking into it again we find that it is attributable to the War, and you will be glad to know that a pension of 16s. 3d. per week has been awarded." I was glad to know of the result, but I was sorry that it had been got in that way, because it rather persuaded me that there must be a number of men throughout the country who, because they have not the same advantage as others in getting the cases presented before the authorities, are really losing what they deserve to have. I dare

    1527
    say in the rush of this War and the way in which things are being done, that, perhaps, every case is not getting that consideration which it would get in ordinary circumstances. I will acquit both of my hon. Friends at once on that point, but if we were not running under circumstances so abnormal, those cases would receive much closer attention and more than they receive at present. I put a question yesterday to the Financial Secretary for War about the Chelsea Commissioners. I stated that the Commissioners were composed mainly of military men, and that there were no civilians on it. My hon. Friend pointed out to me that one-third of the number were civilians. My hon. Friend is a member himself, but I do not call him a civilian.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I do.
    Mr. HOGGE: I know you do. That is where we differ, because the hon. Gentleman is Financial Secretary for War. I think my hon. Friend does not quite understand what I mean by civilians. By civilian I mean somebody brought in from outside altogether, outside the organisation of the War Office—that is, a non-official element on that Committee. There are twenty-four members on that Committee, and the only member who has not got a military title, apart from my hon. Friend, is a gentleman who was formerly in the War Office. There is no non-official element on that Committee. I submit that that might have been all very well when we had a small Army such as we had before the outbreak of war, but now that we have got an Army which has been described correctly in this House as a Citizen Army, and which is a different Army from ever we had before, I do not think that an entirely military element or official element on the Chelsea Board is the best composition or congregation of men to determine the kind of question arising out of the fact that a Citizen Army is fighting in the field. I do not think my hon. Friends will misunderstand me when I say that all officialdom is the better of being broadened. Men who are concerned from day to day as officials with any organisation are more apt to get into a certain rut than people outside those organisations. I think the Chelsea Commissioners would be enorously improved if a non-official element were added. I should like also to refer
    1528
    to another matter which concerns a large number of people in the country, and that is to ask the Government whether they can see their way, now that we have so many various Committees dealing with the subject of pensions, to try some scheme of co-ordination. There is in existence the Statutory Committee and the Military Service Civil Liabilities Committee, and we have the Scale Pensions from the War Office and from the Admiralty. Thus we have at least four different bodies engaged in the consideration of payment of pensions.
    People are a little mystified as to where they can get the maximum benefit. Let me illustrate. Suppose a soldier's wife is in receipt of a separation allowance of 12s. 6d. per week, as I have explained already, 4s. of that is rent and 8s. 6d. is subsistence. Suppose that the husband applies to the Military Service Civil Liabilities Committee for payment in consideration of rent, rates, taxes, insurance policy, school fees, or any of the objects for which they are entitled to apply, on the standard that that Committee is administering those grants they may not get enough to maintain them in anything like the standard in which they were previously. I have found in my own personal experience that a large number of those people do not know of the existence of a special scale of payments to which they are entitled, because it has now the approval of the Treasury under the Statutory Committee Regulations, known as the supplemental rent allowance—that is to say, if a woman's rent is 5s., 6s., 7s., 8s., 9s., 10s., 11s., up to 12s. per week, she can get as supplementary allowance above the 4s. of from 1s. to 8s. on top of the separation allowance. Thus if she lived in a house at a rent of 10s. per week, or £ 26 per year, she is entitled to get an extra 6s. per week from the Statutory Committee in the form of a supplementary rent allowance. If that were widely known it would be an enormous relief to a large number of very deserving women who are struggling, and honestly struggling, to keep a roof above their heads and their children's heads until the soldier returns home. I am perfectly sure of this, that the House of Commons has no desire in the world to do anything else than to maintain those women while the men are fighting either on land or sea for us.
    That leads me to make this suggestion to my hon. Friend: We have a Press

    1529
    Bureau, which communicates information to the Press. When matters of interest to the general public are discussed in this House it largely depends on the space that is available in the newspapers whether the information gets circulated or not. I am not blaming the Press for one moment, because they do admirably in many ways, but there are little items of information which are most important to many individuals, but which may have no great general interest to those of us who attempt to create public opinion which never gets into the Press in a way which reaches the common households in all our big cities and towns. Therefore, I have often wondered whether the Press Bureau could not be used, as it has been used for other kinds of information, to circulate information now about supplementary rentals. If it were known throughout the length and breadth of the country that people had the right to go to the Statutory Committee, or the Pensions Committee, as it was called locally all over our boroughs and counties in this country, and to get a supplementary rent allowance running up to the sums I have mentioned, it would bring enormous comfort into a great many houses. That is why I make the suggestion.
    Mr. WATT: A widow with a soldier son would also be entitled?
    Mr. HOGGE: If the son of a widow is a soldier she is entitled to a supplementary rent allowance. I again would ask whether the time is not now ripe for a co-ordination of the various schemes? For instance, although I am a member of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee I am perfectly certain that that had much better have been a sub-committee of the Statutory Committee than an independent Committee. I am positive from my correspondence, and from the points raised with me by other Members of this House, that there is great confusion of thought with regard to this matter among the people of the country. This is perhaps a different subject from that discussed yesterday. We are so apt to be filled with the phrase of getting on with the War, and devoting all our energies to that, that sometimes we forget other things which are equally important. I am certain that the men who are asked to fight at the front will fight very much better if they know that their dependants in receipt of separation allowances or their old folk in receipt of old age pensions are being properly cared for by
    1530
    us. It is our solemn duty to make absolutely certain that no old man or woman in receipt of an old age pension is driven into the workhouse by the increased cost of living if we can prevent it, and I think we can. We ought also to prevent any woman in receipt of separation allowance from being reduced by the increased cost of living to such a pitch that she is worried and harassed as to where the next 1d. is to come from to keep herself and her children in physical sustenance. That is a big and important duty and one which demands from the House of Commons as full a House as it had last night to discuss the Irish question. It certainly demands the interest of every intelligent man and woman who has the welfare of the community at heart, and I hope my hon Friend will agree that there is something in the case which we are attempting to make.
    Major WEDGWOOD: I hope the hon Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) will excuse me if I do not pursue the extremely interesting discussion which he has initiated, but deal with one or two other points in connection with the War which have come specially before my notice recently. I have just come back from East Africa, where the campaign under General Smuts is going extremely well, and I have been seeing there a great deal of the South African troops. There are a certain number of troops there—I cannot specify the number—who have done in Europe every bit as well as the troops of the other Dominions. Within a very few weeks, I hope, it will be possible to spare those troops from East Africa for service elsewhere, and I wish to urge upon the Government that as soon as possible an invitation should be sent to those troops, who at present have volunteered only for Colonial service, to serve elsewhere. If the South African troops go back to South Africa, and are partially disbanded or on leave, you will find it far more difficult to get them to come as a body to fight where their fighting would be fare more useful even than in East Africa. Therefore, I would urge most strongly that steps be taken at once to secure that not only the South African troops, but their generals as well, should come for active service in France or Salonika.
    I saw there also a great deal of the fighting of our coloured troops. We raise in East Africa what are, perhaps, the very best coloured troops in the world. The

    1531
    Askaris, whether German or English, are devoted naturally to fighting. It is bred in their bones, and under European guidance they do better than any other coloured troops I have seen fighting. They never leave their officers behind when wounded, they never surrender, and they have proved over and over again that side by side with white troops they are equal to those white troops. These are the men we raise in British East Africa—men of the Nandi, Kavirondo, and Lumbiva tribes, and some from Uganda. Others are raised from the Yao and Angoni in British Central Africa, round Lake Nyassa. These are all admirable fighting troops, and, seeing these troops in East Africa untapped at present for military service elsewhere leads one to wonder why it is that, with the biggest black Empire in the world, we have as yet made so little use of that black Empire to help us in the fighting line. If you see the French Army, you find that a very large proportion are black troops recruited in Algeria, Morocco, or Senegal. Indeed, of recent months they have been raising black troops in the Pacific Islands, and in every French black colony. They are getting the maximum of assistance to their white troops by doing all that is humanly possible to supplement them from their Colonies. We at present have hardly scratched this resource. It is true we have made some use of India, though even there there has not been that constant stream of fresh supplies which one might have expected from the fighting races in India. From the Colonies we have so far drawn practically nothing at all. The Maoris helped us magnificently in Gallipoli, and there are other troops from the West Indies which I believe have done a certain amount of fighting; but, practically speaking, with this great black Empire we have made no use or very little use of it.
    Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend does not call the Indian troops black, I hope.
    Major WEDGWOOD: No, I should have said coloured troops. But whether they are black or coloured they are troops of which we ought to make more use than we do at the present time. The right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) yesterday suggested that they might be more largely recruited for service behind the lines. That also I think is a proposition which ought to be taken into account. At the same time I would remind the House that while the men of tropical Africa would
    1532
    do perfectly well for fighting in Mesopotamia, or for garrisoning Egypt, India, or Aden, they are not very suitable for ordinary manual work in a rainy and temperate climate. As far as the black Colonies are concerned, you will not get as much assistance behind the lines in non-combatant occupations at the docks or on the lines of communication as you may from more temperate Colonies. The Cape boy element in Cape Colony is particularly suitable for work behind the lines, but, having seen the Cape Boy Battalion in active operation in the field, I should say that they were much too good for dock work. I would also say that you would not be able to get Cape boys to join a purely non-combatant corps on the same cheap terms upon which you get them to join a combatant corps. I think they are paid 1s. a day in the combatant corps in the Cape Boys Battalion. I am sure you would not get them for 1s. a day for non-combatant work—which is a very proper reflection upon the spirit with which these men go into our wars. Outside the Cape Boy Battalion I do not think you will get much help behind the lines from many of our Colonies, unless you go to China—Hongkong—and enlist Chinese, a departure which I believe would be thoroughly well timed now, and of which we could not complain in any possible way. You would get cheap efficient labour. No doubt there are far too many non-combatant Englishmen behind the front, men who would do the same magnificent work as their fellows are doing at the front if they could get there.
    But if these men from the tropics are not much use behind the line, just see what enormous resources we have for front line fighting, or at least for forming garrisons in Egypt, India and Aden, thereby releasing the white troops who are there at the present time. We have got first of all in British East Africa some 2,500,000 natives. There is there a certain amount of compulsory service. The natives in East Africa are at the present time compelled to serve in the Carrier Corps. Some 37,000 of them have passed through the corps. They are partially-trained men. In discussing this question with people who have trained native troops, one can get a pretty fair idea as to how long it would take to train these men who have already some training or to train the raw article. I do not propose to give any particulars of that sort now, but the representatives of the Government may take it from me that within a

    1533
    very short time you could raise from British East Africa, Uganda, British Central Africa, and indeed from many of the only too willing tribes in German East Africa, forces which would make a very effective diversion, and set free a very considerable body of British troops. If we turn to West Africa, you find one of the best fighting races in the Hausas of Nigeria. The Gold Coast battalions are well known. In Sierra Leone you can get good men. The Hausas and the Yorubas are perhaps the best fighting men, and are every bit as good as the Sengalese troops. These men could be recruited far more largely than they are at the present time. If you really put before the governments of these various Crown Colonies the responsibility that rests upon them to assist the Mother Country in this hour of trial, if they were dealt with competitively so that one Colony competed with another in its efforts to produce troops to maintain the honour of this country, if they were not perpetually looking at the problem from the point of view of balancing their annual expenditure and revenue, but were to convert themselves into recruiting agencies, you could raise as powerful a body of troops on the West Coast as you can on the East Coast.
    In South Africa, apart from the Cape boys, you have in Zululand and Basutoland absolutely the best recruiting material in the world. I know it will be said that the South African Government would not approve of the use of these troops in European warfare, that they would not approve of their being given rifles or being trained in the use of the rifle. I believe that the South African Government takes this War quite seriously enough. I have talked with their leading men in that country. They know perfectly well that they have got to subordinate these old fears about the black populations rising which used to disturb them, and that we are now face to face with something far more deadly and far more desperate than a black rising. We have got to break the German spirit, or the German spirit will break South Africa just as it will break Europe. Therefore I feel certain that they, too, will put the shoulder to the wheel and do all that is humanly possible. We should allow the Zulus, the Basutos, and the Matabele to come to the help of the Mother Country, and so relieve English troops for service
    1534
    elsewhere, instead of the latter fighting in the tropical and sub-tropical fields of the campaign.
    There are three difficulties in the way of that recruitment. The first is: Are you justified in taking the black man, who knows nothing about the causes of the War, and asking him to fight for you? That is an ethical question which we have to decide for ourselves. To my mind it is absolutely clear that in fighting this War we are not merely fighting for the white man, but for the black man. Anyone who has seen in the German Colonies the way the native there is exploited, where he is not yet set free from an absolute state of slavery—for instance, in the Island of Mafia, which we conquered the other day—anyone who has seen the way in which labour is got for the white planters in German Colonies, and then crosses the border and sees the way in which the British officials, whether it be in Nigeria or in British East Africa, are there the protectors of the native from exploitation, and are there, not exploiting but elevating him gradually to a higher civilisation, will doubt for one moment that the future of the native races of the world, Indian and black, depend on the perpetuation of our civilisation as opposed to German kultur. Therefore I have not the slightest hesitation whatever in saying that these men will be doing right by their own races, as well as doing right by our country, if they come to back us up in this fight.
    The next difficulty, which is not an ethical difficulty, but a very practical difficulty, is that you cannot get the native to fight very long away from home. I think probably six months is the longest period you can take a man out of his own country without his wanting to get back. They can, however, be perfectly well trained in their own country, and then used during the hot season, and sent back again home when their time has expired, whether that time be six months, nine months, or a year. I believe it is perfectly possible for them to be sent home and still to remain efficient. The third difficulty is still a more serious one. It has become the fashion to say that coloured troops do not fight well. I beg the House to remember that the rumours about the troops in the various regiments are extraordinarily apt to get started. We have heard that certain coloured troops behaved badly on certain occasions, but all troops do badly on certain occasions. The difference is that it so

    1535
    happens that we all like to think that they belong to some other nation than our own. It is not fair to black troops to say that they do badly. I have seen them do extremely well. All kinds of troops will break down under very heavy shell fire, of whatever nationality they are, or whether black or white. Under circumstances of the sort any man's morale, whether he be black or white, may go.
    The stories so often spread about the behaviour of coloured troops are very often exaggerations which it is very easy for the white soldier to pick up and spread. It is certainly true, as I can say from what I have seen in East Africa, that the German Askari troops will stand the very heaviest shelling and will not surrender nor desert to the enemy. If the German Askari can stand that, I do not see any reason why British native troops ought not to do the same. The Senegalese in Gallipoli stood any amount of shelling during the night and were quite ready for a bayonet charge in the morning. I have no hesitation in urging that these troops should be raised and trained, and that they should be employed, by actually putting them into the fighting line, to replace the white troops when the scarcity of these gets more pronounced. This source might have been tapped for over a year, but the raising of native troops has been postponed and postponed, because it was thought that the War would be over before their training would be completed. It might be said now that in six months' or a year's time, when they will be available, that the War will be over, and that therefore they will not be wanted. If we are going on that principle, thinking that the War is going to be over in six months' time or so, and that, therefore, there is no need to make preparation for next year, it will be a mistake, and we shall fail next year, and shall not complete the War, either next year, or perhaps the following, in the way we ought to do. Let us make our preparations. Let us spend the necessary money, which will not be much, for these black troops. Fortunately, they do not require the very high pay that some of our troops are getting at the present time. If they are not wanted when they are ready, let us thank our stars that the War is over, and that we have escaped having to carry it on any longer.
    In the black races of the Empire you have first-rate fighting material and you
    1536
    have had that material lying idle and untouched for two years. During the recent fighting the battalions of the King's African Rifles have done well. There are enormous numbers of these men who are only too willing to be enrolled, and they would prefer to go into a fighting corps than into a carrier corps. You have got material which has been lying idle all these years, and it undoubtedly can be fitted in a very short space of time to take the place of the white, either in India or Egypt. You have in East Africa, fortunately, men who can officer these regiments, settlers and Government officials and old officers of the King's African Rifles. You have in the men who have performed admirable service in the white regiments the material for the non-commissioned officer element. If you turn to Nigeria, you have exactly the same thing. You have men who have been all through the Cameroons War who can officer the native regiments. You have in these places all the Hausas and the Yoruba millions. These men would make also a very valuable addition to your Army. The one difficulty is that of the people who live in the Colonies, the secretariat in particular. In their general attitude the Colonial Government always looks at the interests of their own Colony first and allows the interest of the Mother Country to go hang. They regard as of the most importance that they should balance their accounts whilst regarding as a nuisance being called upon to supply additional troops for use out of the Colony. You have what I might call a benevolent neutrality on the part of some of our Crown Colonies directly they are faced with a demand, or a request, for assistance for the Mother Country. Directly it becomes not a nuisance, but a competitive desire to supply the largest possible number of black troops, you would find in almost all these Colonies the energy to raise and the ability to train the men. In my opinion they will be found perfectly fit to stand side by side with our white troops.
    Sir J. D. REES: My hon. and gallant Friend with a comprehensive view surveyed mankind from China to Peru. I would accept him as a very good authority on the fighting quality of various races, because if he is not fighting elsewhere he is fighting here against the anti-land taxers and others. I envy him his recent experiences and welcome his remarks. But he divides the fighting races rather arbitrarily into black

    1537
    and white. If he takes the African troops, by all means let him call them black; it is their colour; they are the Ethiopians of the Bible. But the Asiatics, including the Indians, to which he referred, are the colour of the Twelve Apostles. They are the same colour as the Syrians. They are yellow, brown—anything but black. When he suggests that Africans should command Indians he overlooks the whole difference between the Asiatic and the African, and the fact that no Asiatic serves under an African more than he himself would. I beg him to moderate his zeal for the employment of African troops, and not to dream of putting them in the position he indicates or comparing them with the troops of India, who are, in fact, highly civilised and belong to highly civilised races. We may look better in our country, but they think that we do not look so well as they do in their country, and I honestly believe that that is actually the case. I do not, however, wish to take any exception to what my hon. and gallant Friend says. On the contrary, knowing, not perhaps at first hand, but something of the native races in Nyassaland, I completely confirm what he says, for I believe they make excellent soldiers. If they, however, or other inhabitant of our African territory are to be got hold of to take their part in this War, they must be clothed and armed and transported across the seas. I confess I do not see much hope that in this or any other Vote likely to come before Parliament any such arrangement will be ever made for putting millions of Africans into the field in Europe.
    Major WEDGWOOD: I said nothing about millions; in fact, I avoided numbers.
    Sir J. D. REES: If my hon. and gallant Friend does not want many of them, what difference are they going to make? And if he does want many, how can he get over the problem of arming and equipping them? However, I merely wished to put in a caveat against his narrow division of mankind into black and white which, it is very evident, will not hold water for one moment. Nor, I must confess, can I go with him in his ethics. He talks about the propriety of making these Africans fight for our civilisation. I would make them fight for us because they are our subjects, and what is good enough for the British Army is presumably good enough for them. As to bringing in "civilisation," why it is no more a blessed word now than the once blessed word
    1538
    "Mesopotamia." It has nothing to do with these people. They do not care for our civilisation. I do not believe we are fighting for civilisation in the least. We are fighting for our lives, homes, and property. But I let that pass. My hon. and gallant Friend, in his speech, said that the Colonial Office always considered what was of most good for the Colonies, and never considered what was good for the Empire. In that remark he gave the Colonial Office a magnificent testimonial, which I am sure those concerned will have framed and hung up in every Colonial Office in the British Empire. It is their duty. It is for them to keep each Colony content; to look after its interests. By so doing they will best serve the interests of the British Empire as a whole.
    The reason I rose was with regard to what was said yesterday about the question of the Russian subjects in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary answered in this matter. He said it was not true that the only alternatives in their case was enlistment or repatriation. I do not know why he said that. I should have thought these were the proper alternatives. I do not quite understand whether the Home Secretary deprecated that. He went on to say that applications for exemption could be made as in the case of British subjects. Is that so? I presume it is so. Then he went on to say that only when exemption had been refused, and the alien nevertheless declared he would not serve, would the question of repatriation arise, and if the alien claimed that he was a political refugee that would be taken into consideration. Did the Home Secretary mean into favourable consideration? Is it possible, at a time when we are at war, and our gallant Allies the Russians are fighting with us and giving us splendid assistance, and showing that self-sacrifice they always have displayed, that a political refugee from Russia should receive favourable consideration from the Home Office or the tribunal? If so, I should deeply regret it. I should have thought that a political refugee of all men should be made to serve or be repatriated.
    Whenever this question is raised there is an undercurrent criticism of the treatment of Russian subjects in their own country which I believe has animated the references made in this House and the objections made to their deportation. That, I understand, is a domestic matter which solely concerns the Russian Empire. Those who have lived in that Empire do

    1539
    not believe in this Russian cruelty in this or any other matter, and it seems a pity that any speech of the Home Secretary should give any colouring to that kind of intrusion into the domestic domain of an allied country's administration. If my hon. Friend can give me comfort upon that point I shall be much obliged to him. The Home Secretary said that the idea which seemed to be abroad that these men were being deported to Russia because they were not serving in the British Army was unfounded. I should have thought that they should either be serving in the British Army or deported to their own country to serve, if they are of military age. Although the Home Office deals immediately with this matter, it is a military question, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office will be good enough to explain the position by repudiating the construction which I put upon the Home Secretary's speech—I hope erroneously—but which construction, if it holds good, is open to very serious objection
    Mr. ASHLEY: We are now discussing this very large Vote of £450,000,000, which is £150,000,000 more than we had in the last Vote, and, if the House will permit me, I will bring forward certain instances where, in my opinion, economies could be made, so that so large a Vote should not have to be asked for in the future. There are also certain instances that I would ask Ministers to investigate to see whether economies cannot be made, because when we consider that we are now spending in forty days what we used to spend in one year, I think the House will agree that really the most relevant consideration on this Vote of Credit is not other questions, however important, about Russian subjects, or pensions, or anything else, but it is whether this sum of money ought to be voted, whether we can afford to find it, and, above all, whether we cannot effect economy so that these large sums should not be asked for in the future. I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman who answers for the Minister of Munitions. What I wish to put to him is: Whether his Department is justified, from an economical point of view, in employing direct labour for erecting large buildings? I will not put it more definitely, but he knows to what I refer, near a Southern
    1540
    seaport. I would also ask him whether, if he is justified in using this direct labour, it has up to now been most economically used?
    I should have thought that, whatever were one's views upon municipal trading and direct labour, in contemplating the levelling of ground and erection of buildings on it, one would, first of all, communicate with the local employers of labour and local tradesmen to find out what assistance they could render, what prices they would want for certain building work, and would have made himself acquainted with the facilities in the neighbourhood to help him in the national task before him. If my information is correct, the right hon. Gentleman's Department, when it started those very large works, which, I understand, are expected to cost £ 1,000,000 or £ 1,500,000, if they go on as they have gone on up to the present, did not communicate with the local trade unions or the local employers, but sent down a gentleman, who arrived by train, took his lodgings at the best hotel, went round and commandeered all the bricks, put advertisements in the local papers that he wanted labourers, and generally that he was willing to engage all and sundry who would come and help him in making those big works. In consequence there were six weeks' very serious delay, not in getting to work, because they got to work, but in getting efficiently to work, which is, after all, much more important than getting to work. May I read here a letter which was written by the local employers' association to the right hon. Gentleman's Department? The letter says:
    "The attention of ray association has been drawn to indications of waste occurring in connection with the preparation of the ground for the above proposed buildings, and, in order to satisfy myself as to the accuracy of the suggestions made, a number of members have been appointed by my committee to visit the works, which are open to the public highway, and make observations. This has been done, and there appears to be no doubt that the work is being carried through in such a manner as to probably double the cost of the levelling work in progress. The excessive leisure observed by the labourers is unmistakable, and is such as would never be tolerated in a private undertaking.
    I am also desired to point out that the effect of higher wages paid to the men on these works has been to deplete the staffs of local contractors, some of whom are engaged in works of public importance. No complaint would be made in regard to this latter question but for the belief (which my association contends is well grounded) that a much larger number of men are engaged than are being profitably employed."

    1541
    Here, very shortly, are some observations made by this association as to the manner in which those men were working:
    "Men of all sorts apparently set on, many looking quite unused to work, but others taking same pace."
    Five men (two picks, two shovels, one barrow-man) to a barrow, first four waiting whilst barrow was wheeled to tip and back; no second barrow available. Wages, with extras on overtime, £ 2 12s. per week."
    That seems to me rather excessive wages to pay five men who work one barrow. Then again:
    "New deals (cost now about 4s. 6d. to 5s. per foot cube) laid for barrow runs."
    Why new deals when we have had war economy weeks? Why should new plant be brought down which could have been hired locally, and second-hand plant which could have been obtained locally?
    "A number of bricklayers said to be on at mechanic rates, doing what they can until wanted for brickwork, after foundations in."
    The bricklayers are doing anything and paid mechanic rates. Lastly:
    "While observations were being taken two officers walking past exchanged audible remarks reflecting on the work, one of them saying to the other, 'One man working and three looking on.'"
    That is the case from the employers' association point of view. What is the case from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view? And I must say that, after seeing this letter, I had a far higher opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's Department than I had before, because if a Department takes up the attitude that it may make mistakes, it is much more likely to do better in the future than if it takes up the attitude so prevalent in Departments of being infallible. The right hon. Gentleman's Department wrote:
    "Dear Sir,—I have your letter of the 30th ult. It is a fact that the work on this site has been carried out in a manner open to criticism by your association. The resident engineer had to recruit as much labour as possible at very short notice, and unfortunately he was disappointed in obtaining the immediate services of the managing foreman and other assistants, owing to the fact that they could not leave their late employment as soon as we had hoped. His staff, is now, however, almost complete, and I feel confident you will have already noticed a great improvement, and that before long you will find that this work has been carried out in a manner which will bear comparison with that of any other job of a similar character."
    As I said, signs of repentance promise better things, but it shows almost inexcusable business oversight to engage your labourers before you have foremen and gangers to look after them and set them to work, because, from the letter of this association, we know that those men were set to work with nobody to look after
    1542
    them, working as easily as, they liked, resulting in a general waste of public money. There is only one other point. Personally, I entirely disagree with direct labour. Surely it is much better to try and get local men to do contracts. After all, there is nothing to prevent local men levelling ground. You knew in the Department in December you were going to do this work. You did not begin work until the end of April, and, therefore, the contention that you had not time to ask for a contract falls to the ground altogether, and seems to show that the Government prefers direct labour. But I put that on one side. There are many other more important subjects to discuss, and it is not in order to discuss, whether you should have municipal enterprise or not. But knowing, as you did in December, that you were going to do this work, and not starting it until the end of April, surely, better preparation could have been made for this very important job. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman later on will give me an answer, if, as I understand, he wishes to get away at present to deal with some very important deputations he has waiting for him.
    I will go to another subject, to which, I hope, the Secretary to the Treasury will give his attention. He will. no doubt, remember that in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published at the end of May of this year, a very stinging paragraph appeared on page 3 pointing out gross negligence on the part of the authorities in Ireland in permitting certain witnesses to remain in Dublin at the public expense when they were never brought up as witnesses at the trial after all. They remained there for five months, enjoying themselves in Dublin, at an expense of £ 550 to the public. The sum of money involved is a very small matter. I asked a question three weeks ago on this point, and I got an unsatisfactory answer. I want to know, in this time of need—
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not relevant to the Vote of Credit. I understand the hon. Member is referring to the cost of certain witnesses who were kept in Dublin in respect of a certain trial, but that has nothing to do with the War.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to inquire into the manner in which advertisements are being placed. An enormously

    1543
    increased number of advertisements are being placed at the public expense, and I am informed that they are still being placed with the same firm on the same terms as before the War. It did not matter so much then, because the number was very small. I am told that if local contracts were made with local people a considerable saving would probably be made in the public service, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will investigate that matter. I would also like to know if the Government cannot see their way to reduce the number of retired officers employed and use half-pay officers instead. I am sure that would result in a very considerable saving. Let me give an illustration of how public money is being wasted in this way at the present moment. You have now a large number of half-pay officers unemployed, and if you employ them instead of retired pay officers you would save a considerable sum. I would put a concrete case. Take two lieutenant-colonels, one on half-pay and the other on retired pay. The half-pay colonel gets £300 per year while unemployed and the retired pay officer who has done his work gets £ 420 a year. Suppose there is a brigadiership going at £l,000 a year. If you give that job to the retired pay officer it will be costing the country £1,720. A lieutenant-colonel costs £420 and a half-pay lieutenant-colonel only £300, and the brigadier will be costing the country £1,720 a year. Supposing you appoint the half-pay man, who is generally the best because he is younger, you save the £300 unemployed pay and you will only have to find £1,000 for the brigadier or £l,420 in all, and therefore there is a sum of £300 a year saved. I have met at least half a dozen officers who could very usefully be retrenched, and the retrenched men only given their retired pay.
    I dealt with the next point I am going to raise on the last Vote of Credit, and the hon. Gentleman made an investigation into the matter. It is the case of ammunition boxes. On that occasion I told the story, which I said I would not vouch for, that ammunition boxes have been made at 13s. each at the beginning of the War, whereas the second lot have cost only 3s. each, and a competent business man has said that they should be made at 1s. 2d. each. The hon. Gentleman very kindly inquired, as he always does most promptly and thoroughly, and he wrote me a long letter saying he presumed I referred to eighteen
    1544
    pounder shell cases. I did not refer to them, but the explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave about eighteen-pounder shell cases I think revealed a want of foresight on the part of the War Office, because they had provided such boxes at 13s. at the outbreak of war and they have now been able to provide them at 6s. Perhaps some other means of economising has been brought out.
    I want, in defence of myself, to say that here in the Appropriation Account published in February of this year, on page 83, there is a long paragraph showing that although my figures were inaccurate yet ammunition boxes were made at the beginning of the War at 10s. each, while the second lot obtained by contract were got at 5s. each, or exactly half the cost at the beginning of the War. The explanation given is that the War Office list was so restricted that they could not get a sufficient field of contractors, and therefore the price was put up, and the accounting officer hopes that the field of contractors has been widened. I want to know if the hon. Gentleman has got more contractors, and whether he has widened the basis of contracting not only with regard to ammunition boxes but generally, because obviously the more contractors you have the more likely you are to get a low price, and one more satisfactory to the nation. I am afraid that these may be considered small points, but a private Member who tries to economise must work on small points, and he cannot be expected to save millions. Here is a very interesting communication which I have received from an hon. Member of this House, and I will give the name to the hon. Gentleman in private I ask him to pursue his inquiries into the case if he thinks proper. The hon. Member who has given me the facts has asked me to keep the name of the firm private. Here is the letter which the hon. Member wrote to me:
    "A. B. and Co. were asked by the War Office to quote for 30,000 packages of tapioca, which they did. A few days subsequently they were asked by a firm of grocers in a large town to quote for 10,000 packages of the same article, and suspecting the purpose of the inquiry they quoted a price higher than they quoted for the Government. Subsequently they received an inquiry from a firm of ironmongers to quote for another 10,000 packages, and in reply to this second inquiry they quoted the same figure as they had done to the grocer. In the result they received three separate orders for 10,000 packages, making 30,000 in all—one from the Government at the lower price, and the other two from the grocer and ronmonger at the higher figure, proving that instead of the Government accepting the offer for the whole lot at the lower price they had favoured the two middle men at the higher figure."

    1545
    Of course, I am not responsible for this statement, but I will give the representative of the War Office the name.
    Mr. FORSTER: Is it suggested that the Government was placing an order for tapioca through an ironmonger?
    Mr. ASHLEY: I admit it seems incredible, but I will give the name of the hon. Member who sent me the letter. It is the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), who is a very able accountant and can no doubt substantiate his statement. I think if these facts are as stated the hon. Member will agree that there has been gross carelessness, or something worse if the facts are as stated in that letter. I now wish to refer to what I consider to be another great waste on the part of the War Office, and it is a matter which I raised on the last Vote of Credit, when I received what I consider was an unsatisfactory answer. I wish to know why it was necessary to take such a very large office for the Eastern Command in Pall Mall. The hon. Gentleman said it was necessary that this office should be in Pall Mall, very close to the War Office, so that messengers would be able to go backwards and forwards quickly to keep up communication with the War Office. If that is so how do they get on in the Southern and Western Commands and at York. They cannot have messengers always running up and down to the War Office. It seems to me that either you must have them all in London, close to the War Office, or else the hon. Gentleman's contention does not hold water. The Eastern Command has no greater responsibility than the others. The special commands on the East Coast are provided for in other towns and the Eastern Command have no more reason to communicate constantly and directly with the War Office than the Western Command at Salisbury. I would also like the hon. Gentleman to investigate whether it is absolutely necessary to employ so many people in the Army Finance Department, the Army Pay Department, and the Army Pay Corps.
    In answer to a question of mine, the hon. Member informed me that he had in the Pay Office at Woolwich 1,572 people, and in the Army Pay Finance Department, the Army Pay Department, and the Army Pay Corps no less than 17,531 individuals, or almost a division of the British Army in the field. That is an enormous number,
    1546
    and, although I do not want to press the point unduly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why this is necessary, because it seems to the outsider to be an enormous number of men to employ for those purposes. It is not as if these people paid the soldiers, because they only supervise and revise the accounts, so far as I understand. It seems to us, on the figures given by the Prime Minister, that we have one individual to supervise the pay of 157 people and their dependants. I am sure no railway company employs as many as that on their supervising staff. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us an answer to this point, if not now on some other occasion. I have met business men who are quite willing to be convinced who seem to think there is an undue number of people employed in those Departments. Could not the hon. Gentleman hand over some of this work to the local authorities. I know, if he did, he would have to increase their staffs and would have to pay them, but surely there are organisations in the localities who might take this work on at less expense to the public than is now being incurred by the War Office. I throw that out as a suggestion.
    Certain friends of mine are colonels in the third line draft supplying units of the Territorial Force. Those are units to train the men which fill up the depleted ranks abroad. It is almost incredible the amount of office work that is imposed upon them, involving much waste of time and energy. They have to fill up a large number of returns, 75 per cent. of which I am sure are never looked at. Their duty is to train men, and that is the duty they want to perform. They do not want to be in an office filling up forms. One commanding officer one month had to fill up 206 returns. It took him and his staff two days. Another had to fill up 122 permanent and fifty-one individual returns. It is not a matter, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate in answer to a question, of simply answering some inquiry. They are solid returns on printed sheets of paper. They have to be sent in every month, and they are recognised as Army returns. Another commanding officer had to send in 200: They go to all sorts of people. They go to the Records, to the Territorial Force, to the recruiting authorities, to the pay office, and to the headquarters of the commands, and apparently only eight out of this 200 ever reached the War Office.

    1547
    I admit that some of them are no doubt compiled and sent in by the commands to the War Office, but I am sure, if the hon. Gentleman will inquire, he will see that it is a physical impossibility for the command to read all these returns. You have 200 a month, which is 2,400 every year, from each battalion, and that is about 10,000 to each brigade. Do you suppose that they are ever read? Of course they are not. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would save thousands of pounds of public money and an infinite amount of waste time in training our recruits if he would allow the commanding officers to deal with these things on a more sensible and broadminded principle.
    Shall we to-day have any answer about the hutting contracts? There are some £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 worth of hutting contracts, and we are anxious to know what percentage now is to be paid to the contractors. I raised this question some three months ago, and we were then told that the hon. Gentleman was in negotiation with the contractors to see if they could not take less. That shows that the percentage agreed upon with the contractors must have been scandalously high or the contractors would not have gone so far as to have met the hon. Gentleman in negotiation with a view to disgorging some of their ill-gotten gains. When shall we hear something about this matter? I shall not feel satisfied to go away for the Recess and leave this question drifting on until October or November. It is a very big business involving many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether there is any prospect of his being able to inform the House anything about these negotiations.
    The next point to which I want to draw the attention of the House is one of which I have some personal experience. It is not a matter involving large sums of money, but I suppose some three or four thousand pounds a year could perfectly well be saved. It seems to me the only reason it is not saved is because one Department of the War Office could not possibly submit to having any of its returns sent in by another Department. I refer to the Military Embarkation Officers at the various ports of England where stores only are embarked. The present Secretary for Scotland went into the matter, but I got no satisfaction out of him. There are five of these ports alto-
    1548
    gether in the United Kingdom. There is a naval staff to supervise the stores and to give sailing orders to the ships. There is a large and competent supply staff under a lieutenant-colonel belonging to one of the branches of the Quartermaster-General at the War Office to supervise the unloading of the stores from the railway trucks or vans and see that they are put on board, and then their responsibility ceases. Would not the House think that a lieutenant-colonel or the man in command of the supply staff would be considered to be sufficiently intelligent and of sufficient importance to be allowed to report to the naval officer on the quarterdeck that the stores had been handed over into his charge and to write two or three letters every day to the War Office to state what had been done at the port? No, the Executive Department of the War Office, or whatever they are called, would sooner die than allow the Department of the Quartermaster-General to perform this duty. They therefore keep at each port an officer of field rank whose only duty is to report to the naval people that the stores have been put on board and to write one or two reports to the War Office. In times like this, when we are told that every penny is of importance and when we cannot get to the railway stations because we are not allowed to have a gallon of petrol, it is absurd and childish that these Departments should be allowed to fight one against the other. I have been down to one of these ports, and I have seen a respectable officer of uncertain age performing this duty. I feel almost ashamed to bring it up in the House, because I should be very sorry that this very old gentleman should lose an easy-going and soft job; but if the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter with an impartial mind and go to one of these ports himself, I am perfectly willing to abide by his decision, because I know that he would say that these officers are redundant and that they are only put there to give somebody in the War Office a soft job.
    There are three small points I want to put to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that some saving of public money may result. Probably the hon. Gentleman does not know—I did not know until I was told—that garrison gunners when they join the Army are always given a pair of slippers. It sounds a small point, but the garrison gunners are a very large number of men. This was a peace regulation. The

    1549
    slippers cost 5s. 9d. They were given in order that the men should not slip when they were on the gun carriage. Now only about 10 per cent. of the gunners have anything to do with garrison batteries. They are out in the field doing active work. I understand, however, that the hon. Gentleman's Department all the time has been and is still issuing these slippers to these men who have ceased to be garrison gunners and who have ceased to need these articles of clothing. I would ask him to inquire whether this waste of money could not be stopped. It must have amounted to thousands of pounds during the War. Then there is the question of the money given to master-tailors for changing the tunics of the men. It was a most excellent provision in time of peace. The tunics were given out in stock sizes, and 10d. was allowed the master-tailor for altering them and making them fit so that the men might do credit to His Majesty's uniform. I understand that in many cases—I certainly know of two Commands—this 10d. has been paid to the master-tailor, although there has been no alteration of the tunics, for the simple reason that there has not been time and the men have gone abroad. We do not want a beautifully fitting tunic to fight the Germans; we want one that is serviceable and will keep out the wet. I know of one draft of 600 men who went out without any alteration to their tunics, though the master-tailor was paid 10d. each tunic. A rapid calculation will show that £ 25 was paid to this master-tailor for work which he never performed, and, being a sensible man, I am quite sure that he never returned the money.
    There is another point on the same lines. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I must not neglect these small economies. There was in my own county a Cyclist battalion. Everybody wanted to get into it. One of my own employes wanted to get into it. An unsympathetic War Office has turned it into an Infantry battalion. When they were cyclists they were provided with breeches at a substantially bigger cost than trousers, and now that they are an Infantry battalion they are still supplied with these breeches instead of trousers, and there is, therefore, an appreciable and unnecessary cost to the country. I feel almost ashamed to bring these things up in the House, but unless you save a penny you will not save a pound. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I do not bring them up in any carping
    1550
    spirit, but simply with a view to helping him to save money, which I know he is just as anxious to do as I am. There is another point which, perhaps, it is not quite so pleasant to bring up, but I think it is my duty to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to it. I do not know whether he is responsible or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. It is the apparently unnecessary number of doctors and orderlies on board the hospital ships which go to France.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I should think it is a matter for the War Office.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I know it is not a very palatable thing to do, because you may be thought to be trying to stint the wounded, which, of course, is the last thing I should wish to do. The voyage from Havre to Southampton, or wherever they come, only lasts about seven hours. It is quite right to have a surgeon and a certain number of medical officers on board, but these ships are different from those which go on long voyages. Very few operations or dressings can be performed on the ships, and the minor dressings might be done by the efficient nurses on board. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to inquire as to the number of medical officers on board, because if my information is correct there are more than are really needed. Sometimes the ships are in port doing nothing for a week. I would also ask him to inquire into the number of orderlies on board who are of military age and fitness. I do think they would be much more usefully employed in fighting in the trenches, many of them, and that some men who have been invalided out of the Service, should be employed in their stead.
    I turn to a rather bigger subject with which I dealt once before, namely, the case of the London General Omnibus Company, which the hon. Gentleman knew I was going to raise. For the information of the hon. Members who were not here when I raised the case of the omnibus company and the requisitioning of vehicles on the last Vote of Credit, may I say that what I complain of is that the War Office let slip an opportunity of saving a very large sum of money for the nation by treating the London General Omnibus Company practically in the same way as they treated the railways, when

    1551
    they did not take over the control of the omnibus company and guarantee their dividends. At the beginning of the War, the House will remember, the Government requisitioned a very large number of motor buses. They had to do so for transport in France, and for transport in other places. The Admiralty also requisitioned a large number of motor omnibuses, and the London General Omnibus Company were in a very unpleasant position, because they thought their position in London would be jeopardised, and that someone might come and take their place; and, to make a long story short, they were perfectly willing, and they were anxious, to be treated as the railway companies were treated, and to be taken under control with their dividends guaranteed on the basis of the last year before the War, namely, 1913. The Quartermaster-General's Department of the War Office, that is the Quartermaster-General, the Director of Supplies and Transport, and the Assistant-Director of Supplies and Transport, recommended and urged that this course should be taken in the interests of economy, and in the interests of efficiency too, I submit to the House that the people who had to work the omnibuses, and who had to requisition and to run the whole thing, were more likely to know what was most economical, and how the thing ought to be done than the finance branch of a public office, however distinguished, such as the Finance Branch of the War Office. It was objected to, however, by the Finance Department. Then it was urged again that the matter should be considered by an expert Committee, and that was turned down. That is the short history.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Why? Did they give any reason?
    Mr. ASHLEY: My information does not go as far as that. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give the reasons which, after all, are very germane. Before I give the result of the refusal I want rather to disagree with one statement the hon. Gentleman made last time I raised this question, because he said on 30th May, with reference to the London General Omnibus Company proposal—
    "Those who recommended this course—"
    that is to say, the taking over of the omnibus company—
    "contemplated that it would cost us between £ 1,000,000 and £ 1,500,000." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1916, col. 2628,VoI. LXXXII.]
    1552
    I cannot make out where the hon. Gentleman got that statement from. I cannot help thinking that he was rather mixing up the statement of those who were recommending this course, that, unless their plan was adopted, it would cost one-and-a-half millions, and that is very nearly what it has cost. Surely no one who has recommended a course would go to the people who are opposing it and say, "You adopt our recommendations, and if you do, it will cost one-and-a-half millions." That is hardly the way you would get your proposals accepted. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed. Let us analyse what the result has been. There might be a chance of making this arrangement now; at any rate, with another company. The dividend paid by the London General Omnibus Company in 1913 amounted to £207,000. That is the datum line. The Government would have guaranteed the dividend of the omnibus company as in 1913, namely, £207,000. In 1914 a dividend was paid, on an increased capital—you must remember that—of £256,000. In 1915 a dividend, with the same increased capital, was paid amounting to £222,000. Therefore, to bring up 1914 and 1915 to the level of 1913 on the increased capital, £288,000 should have been paid. Let the House understand that, as a fair comparison, instead of paying £ 256,000, and £ 222,000, the Government ought to have paid £ 288,000 in dividends. The public, therefore, if this proposal had been carried out in 1914, would have paid £32,000, and in 1915 would have paid £66,000, or a total of £98,000 in all. That would have been the liabilities of the country up to the 31st December last if this proposal had been carried out, as was urged by the Quartermaster-General's Department.
    Mr. FORSTER: That is payment of dividends only?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes, I admit there would have been a sum, not considerable, to be paid for putting the chassis into the position they were in before the War. You must add that in fairness.
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman does not know what that amount is? He cannot say what that is?
    Mr. ASHLEY: No, I cannot. I admit that must be taken into account, and I accept the interpolation of the hon. Gentleman. What has been paid? Up to

    1553
    June of this year, the Admiralty paid to the London General Omnibus Company £ 46,000. The War Office paid three-quarters of a million, £750,000. In all, the Admiralty and War Office, up to June of this year, paid £796,000 to the London General Omnibus Company. The Admiralty still owes £3,000, and not half the claims have come in, so I put it down as £6,000, and I do not think that is stating it too highly against the Admiralty. The War Office still owes £15,000, so that, in all, they have either paid or owe £817,000, which means, deducting £98,000 from £817,000, that the country by the turning down, in my opinion, of this proposal by the Finance Department of the War Office, for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible, has lost so far £719,000 minus, I admit, the cost of putting back the chassis into the state in which they were when they were taken over.
    Mr. FORSTER: I interrupt my hon. Friend with great reluctance, but as he. quotes statements I have made with regard to this matter, and as he seems to throw the whole of the onus of rejecting this proposal on the Finance Department, I think he ought to remember what I have already told him, that the Quartermaster-General assented.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Of course, the Quartermaster-General assented. The Quartermaster-General is under the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor, and if they say "I decline to agree to this," he has to assent.
    Mr. FORSTER: Oh, no!
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do not think he had much option. At any rate, the scheme was put forward by the Quartermaster General's Department, and it was turned down by superior authority, and the nation has to find £719,000. But we have not finished yet, and our liabilities are not by any means at an end. I wish they were. Payments are still going on, and I suppose they will go on until the end of the War. The taxpayer has to pay for the use of garages at Clapham, Catford, Camberwell, and Hounslow—£1,500 a year each, which makes £6,000 a year, and this will continue to go on to the end of the War. Then there is the call on omnibuses on the streets—£5,200 a year; and the training of men as drivers, for which we have to pay 49s. a week, I understand—an unknown quantity. First and last,
    1554
    it seems to me that this transaction will cost the country not less than £750,000 in the end, certainly £700,000. The hon. Gentleman only came to the War Office after this was all over, but that does not help us. What we want to know is why, when the practical men who have the requisitioning to do, put forward a proposition, the dropping of which indisputably has cost, whether it be £700,000 or £750,000, an enormous sum which has been lost to the country, why was it turned down, and the practical men told that they did not understand what was going on. I am afraid I am detaining the House for a long period, but all these things are of importance in varying degree. Here, again, I think I must come back to the soldier for a moment.
    Would the hon. Gentleman investigate the question of the food on the hospital ships, not for the sick and wounded, but the food provided for the doctors and staff, and generally for those on board the hospital ships when they are not being used, when they are lying by when nothing is being done? I do not grudge them excellent food, food as good as we get in this House, and no one could want any better, but what I do grudge, if my information is correct, is that they should have food as if those liners were being used as passenger liners on oversea voyages. Such dinners are notoriously six and seven course dinners, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman that when we are all told to economise, and when we are cutting down our food and drink bills, he should investigate as to whether an excessive amount of food is not consumed on those liners.
    I have one or two matters to put before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Can he tell us what has been the result of his deliberations about those table knives regarding which he was questioned in the House? Did he buy the ivory-handled ones or the humble bone ones?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Metal.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I am very glad to hear that the newspaper paragraphs and questions in this House have brought more economy to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but he showed want of supervision of his Department that tenders should have been put out for ivory-handled knives at all.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They may be more economical.
    Mr. ASHLEY: If they are more economical, why does the right hon. Gentleman say he has taken the bone-handled knives?
    Dr. MACNAMARAmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that economy is practised in the Navy. I do not think that these knives, after they had been through one commission, would have been much use for reblading at the end. Here is a much more important matter, when we are told that ships are so necessary to bring our foodstuffs and petrol here. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate in May, two ships under his control were being used at Havre for housing dock labourers? Can he tell us if that is going on still? I consider that an entire misuse of a ship. Havre is a big town, and we want ships very badly. Why use two tramp steamers for housing dock labourers at Havre when they could have been perfectly well put into billets, or tents, or when even the building of huts would have been cheaper than keeping these two ships in Havre Harbour for housing these dock labourers? Is that still going on? I want the right hon. Gentleman to give me some little hint as to why the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Mr. Houston) received no answer to his question about ten tank steamers which he raised in the Debate on 17th February. In view of the terrible shortage of petrol, the way in which these steamers were used is a scandal.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Used for what?
    Mr. ASHLEY: They were used as transports. There were ten steamers, whose names I have here. They were: the "Clam," the "T. A. Tamplin," the "Delaware," the" Cuspahoga," the "Massasoit," the "Patella," the "Barneson," the "San Silvestre," the "Nosconoma," and the "Mira." These ten steamers were taken by the Government. They were turned into transports and kept for several months at Southampton.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes. I will give you the history of one of them, if the right hon. Gentleman likes.
    Mr. ROCH: Were they all tank steamers?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes. This vessel remained at Southampton and only did a single voyage. That was from Southampton to a port in France. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why these tankers were turned into transports, why they were never used, and what they cost the country? I should put the cost at, at least, £750,000. The Government paid 11s. on dead-weight, finding everything but the stores and provisions, and they also took the war risks. On a dead-weight of 70,000 tons the monthly freight alone would be £38,500, in addition to the cost of alterations, maintenance, insurance, and war risks. In all, I should say the cost was from £600,000 to £700,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why that has happened? If the facts I have mentioned may be said to be ancient history, or something that is not happening now, what about the following information? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this? The Government have taken over I understand, within the last six weeks, in the early stages of their construction, eleven large ships being built as tramps, in order that the construction should be carried out to make them meet the Government requirements as tankers. That is a very excellent idea and one that would commend itself to the House. The firms from whom the ships have been taken over—I will give the right hon. Gentleman all the information I have—are Messrs. G. M. Patterson, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Pymans, Limited, of Hartlepool, Chambers, Limited, of Liverpool, and Mathias, of Cardiff. These ships although intended to be used as store ships for oil have been fitted with engines and boilers. In the interests of economy it is urged that the engines and boilers should not have been installed, but that the ships should have been constructed for use as store ships only and towed to the ports on the coast where tankers ready to trade at once are and have been for months as store ships. In the view of practical shipbuilders all the machinery necessary for these ships should be donkey engines and pumps. If you have to have a certain number of ships in ports for use as hulks for stores, why in the name of common sense should you

    1557
    build eleven ships as if they were oceangoing ships and use them as store ships, when they would have been just as useful as hulks, with donkey engines and boilers? What is the cost of this manœuvre? I do not know if I am right, the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, will correct me, but I estimate the cost of putting engines and boilers into each one of these ships at £20,000, making £220,000 for the eleven steamers. In addition to that you have to recollect the cost to the nation of the delay in the completion of these steamers, because it will take at least three months to put in engines and boilers. You have a cost of £220,000, plus the delay of three months, yet we are told we cannot have petrol for our motor cars and must economise with every penny. If only the Government would economise a little, I am sure we should have enough petrol.
    Finally, I want to bring up what I consider to be by far the worst instance of waste on the part of the Admiralty which has occurred since the beginning of the War, namely, the handling of the "Aqui-tania," the "Britannic," and the "Mauretania." As the House well knows, the "Mauretania" and "Aquitania," under an old agreement, which may have been perfectly right at the time—I am not going into that at present—were taken over by the Government at the beginning of the War and turned into armed cruisers. The Government, for reasons we need not go into, apparently thought it would not be a good thing to keep the "Aquitania" as an. armed cruiser. She is a big ship of 38,000 tons. Let me give her history. In August, 1914, she was a passenger ship. At the outbreak of War she was taken over and turned into an armed cruiser and used for a few months. In December, 1914, and January of last year she was turned back into a passenger ship. I know that because I went over her at Liverpool. That was her third change since the outbreak of War. She was then handed back to her owners. Then the Admiralty—it is a most extraordinary story—requisitioned her again and turned her into a transport. After she had done one or two voyages they turned her into a hospital ship, and I believe she did three voyages to the Mediterranean.
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPSmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I am not complaining of her being used as a hospital ship or as a transport or as a cruiser, but I do say it can-
    1558
    not possibly be right to take a big ship of 38,000 tons and in less than two years make her fill seven rôles. The expense is enormous. It shows vacillation and no direct line of policy. You cannot keep changing her backwards and forwards. The hon. Gentleman (Captain Sir Owen Philipps) knows better than anybody else how much it costs to change a ship from one of these rôles into another. After being turned into a hospital ship she did nothing for three months, and laid in the Solent at a cost of £400 a day maintenance money. In the beginning of May the Admiralty made up their minds—I do not know what Department it was, at any rate, the naval authorities made up their minds—that she should be handed back to her owners again. They turned her into a passenger ship again. That makes seven changes. What has that cost the country? I understand that each time she is turned into a liner it costs £40,000. One can well believe it, because you have to take out all her enormous fittings. In the case of the "Britannic" it is just the same. I am quite sure that on these three ships the cost to the country will be £600,000 or £700,000. The "Mauretania" and the "Aquitania "are the laughing-stock of the South of England. How can the Government expect the people in Southampton and round there to go in for war saving when they see this lavish waste of money—£400 a day for maintenance—and when they see her lying in the Solent for three months doing nothing? It is very difficult to speak in measured terms of the way in which these ships have been handled. I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but it is only by little efforts of a humble Back-Bench Member that something can be done.
    6.0 P.M.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have naturally listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) with great interest. He gave to the House a great many details about the expenditure on the part of the Admiralty and the War Office. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, looked on admiringly. I will only say, in regard to his criticisms, that there are certain facts in connection with this expenditure which were naturally not open or available to him, but which, I hope, will put a very different complexion on what he described to the House in that rather overworked word, "scandal," more than once. With

    1559
    regard to the "Aquitania," the agreement was dated 30th July, 1903, and it gave the Admiralty the call on, the ships of the Cunard Line to be taken up as armed merchant cruisers in the event of war. The rate of hire was fixed in the agreement of 1903. It might be a fair criticism on that agreement, which is thirteen years old, to say that in view of the possible great expansion of tonnage there ought to have been some sort of provision, putting it in popular language, for a reduction on taking a quantity. That is a fair criticism, but there is the agreement. And it was under that agreement that we took the "Aquitania "in August, 1914. Very early en she collided with the "Canadian," and was brought back to Liverpool, where the damage done by the collision was repaired. Then, looking at the whole matter, and bearing in mind the cost of running her, she is a very fast ship and, under certain circumstances, would have been a very valuable ship; but as the War eventuated that justification for her continuance had not arisen or did not continue to arise, and therefore, looking at the whole matter, and because, under the actual conditions of the War as they then emerged, she did not appear to be so useful as she otherwise might have been, she was reinstated. I justify that proceeding, and will do so when the Controller and Auditor-General in due course places the matter, if he does—and he is fully commissioned to do so—before the Public Accounts Committee. In the circumstances, we did right to reinstate her and give her back to the owners. Later military necessities called for the transportation rapidly of large numbers of troops. War is waste. Does my hon. Friend object to that? There we get the next chapter in the history of the ship.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Did she go?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. She was used with the "Mauretania" for that transportation.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: She was stuck for weeks in the Mersey.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope my hon. Friend will take it from me that I am giving a correct history of what happened. Having sent her back and reinstated her for the reasons I have given, we were suddenly confronted with the necessity for a rapid transportation of large numbers of troops. She was taken over for that pur-
    1560
    pose and served with the "Mauretania." I cannot go into the matter in great detail, not because I desire not to place it before the House, not because I am anxious to screen the Department. Not at all. But there are details of military and naval transactions which we cannot discuss here. The whole matter will be the subject of discussion by the Controller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee if he sees fit to report upon it. Then will be the time for the closest details with all figures. After the use which I have mentioned, she and the "Mauretania "and the "Britannic" were turned into hospital ships to bring large numbers of sick and wounded men home. They were so used. Then the situation changed, and there being no further use for them in that capacity they were reconditioned and were returned to their owners. Beyond that I cannot carry it. I have said the whole of the facts will be before the Controller and Auditor-General and it will be his business if he thinks the matter requires further examination.
    Mr. ASHLEYWe are not to have anything about the last change?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I will explain quite fully why not, and I am quite sure when I do the hon. Member will accept it. We have to be instantly ready for any emergency. We have been. We have used these ships in that capacity for that purpose. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. I do not know that he wants to, but there are some who do. You cannot blame us for lack of foresight and energy in one case and then blame us for the cost of energy and foresight, because that is what it really comes to in regard to this transaction.
    Leaving that, I turn to the oilers which were fitted up for transport service. That has been mentioned in the House at least once by the hon. Member (Mr. Houston), and I was blamed for not dealing with it then. There was no reason why I should not. I did not, because I had a good many other things to deal with, but I will deal with it now. He put it before the House as a sort of gross piece of carelessness, lack of foresight and stupidity on our part in taking up oilers which were intended to carry oil, fitting them with decks and making them into transports. There was nothing of the sort. That is all. This is the story of the oilers which were turned into transports. I have heard the criticism passed many times

    1561
    that it was a very stupid thing to do. As a matter of fact, it was not. The idea was to see whether oilers specially fitted for transport purposes might not be used for that work, the theory being—this is what they thought—that their extra buoyancy—this was pretty early on in the War—would render them less liable to sink after submarine attack. It was not a case of a stupid Department taking up oilers and turning them into transports without knowing or caring what their proper purpose was. It was a deliberate proceeding that as they were constructed, and as they were to be adapted, they might give the soldier a greater chance of immunity from drowning as the result of submarine attack. Ten of them were so fitted up, and one was actually used. It did not turn out very well. That is all. War is War! War is waste! You cannot wage war except by very often adopting expedients, which do not come off.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Why could you not have experimented with one?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a perfectly fair comment. We might have experimented upon one. But to say that because you tried this idea and it was not successful, therefore you were wrong in trying it is wrong. There was no opportunity of testing the question of their remaining afloat, happily, after submarine attack. Other and better and more expedient means were promptly adopted for enhancing the safety of transportation, and therefore they were no longer used for transport purposes, and three months later—my hon. Friend spoke of a longer period——
    Mr. Ashley: In one case, the "Myra," from February to August.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised in June, there being a special demand for these oilers, they were reinstated as oilers, and they are now being so used. That will be a comfort to my hon. Friend, anyhow. He was rather anxious to know whether they were not still standing by as transports. They have reverted to their original purpose. The experiment was not successful, and they are now oilers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What have we lost by that?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not the precise figures by me. I dare say we have lost a lot of money. That is war.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Germans had nothing to do with it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am bound to say I think that is an unfair criticism. The right hon. Baronet did not hear the reason which I gave for trying the experiment; otherwise he would not have made that remark. You try an expedient. It does not prove successful. That is waste, but it is not failure. Failure lies in incapacity and inability to seize every means that seems to promise a prospect of success. As regards the figures, I will get them out if the right hon. Baronet likes. But in any case they will come before the Controller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee in due course. With regard to the eleven tankers which were converted I think my hon. Friend is quite wrong, but I have taken a note of his comment. I shall be very glad to give him the whole of the facts, but I think he has got the wrong end of the story there.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I got it from one of the men who owned the ship.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be, but he may not be fully seised of the purpose for which we desire to use the ships. But I will give him the whole of the facts with regard to these eleven converted tankers. I was asked whether there are two ships used for housing labourers. Yes, two ships were so used for a long time. In one case, I am glad to say, it is now possible to make arrangements to house the men on shore, and in the other case there is no accommodation available on shore, and it is necessary for the purpose of the work which goes on in port to keep the men together and not distribute them. Therefore in that case they are still on the ship. We have returned one of the ships which is no longer used to the owners, and the other remains. It is a small railway steamer mainly of a passenger type, with very limited cargo accommodation, and I am very much disposed to think, if it is put on the ground of reducing tonnage available to the merchant service, although she certainly ought to be released as soon as we can find accommodation, when she is released she will probably be laid up for the rest of the War because of her character and of her accommodation. Therefore, this is not a case of reducing the merchant tonnage. With regard to the ivory-handled knives, we ought not to be blamed. There was a paragraph in a

    1563
    newspaper last March, and my hon. Friend put a question arising out of it. Are we to be blamed because directly we read a paragraph someone says, "What about that?" I am assured to this day that they are economical. Indeed, those who are responsible tell me that the handles wear a long time and stand knocking about on board ship, and the blades can be rebladed again and again before the handles are worn out. It was put to me, "You do not want an immediate large expenditure of public money even though in the long run you think matters might be more economical, and you must look at it from the point of view of immediate capital expenditure." We first of all tried to get a suitable substitute for ivory. In that we failed. Then we tried to see whether any suitable patent plated handle could be obtained at a price lower than the standard pattern, and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that we have now effected a saving on this year's purchases of about £900 on what would have been expended in all human probability if the paragraph had not appeared in the newspaper. Are we to be blamed for that?
    Mr. ASHLEY: No. Praise the paper.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Praise the paper if you like, but the moment the point was made we looked at it to see whether we could fairly depart from the established custom. The Government even now may be buying in a way which in the long run may not be so economical, but, at any rate, the capital outlay is small.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Could you not have bone handles?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have had the matter fully examined, and we find that we cannot get any material for the purpose of ordinary use on board ship that would be a permanent substitute for ivory. If there is any other aspect of this particular question which has not been fully surveyed it shall be surveyed. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a very interesting speech on the question of separation allowances, and the necessity, as he says, of increasing the amount, because of the increased cost of living. I would like to say that I have watched with great interest and sympathy the tireless way in which the hon. Member has always kept in touch with this question of State allow-
    1564
    ances for our fighting men and their dependants. He could not be better employed, neither could any of us. No duty, as the hon. Member said, is more solemn and more direct than to see that the men and their wives and children, and the widows and orphans if the men do not come back, are sympathetically treated. I dissent from one thing which the hon. Member said, and that was that the soldiers and sailors, I understood him, are dependent on the good offices of Members of Parliament for getting fair play. I dissent from that entirely. That is, in effect, a criticism upon those of us whose duty, to say nothing of our pleasure, lies in seeing that these men get fair play. What other interests have we but to see that they get fair play? I think it is going too far for the hon. Member to say that the soldier and the sailor, their wives, children, fathers, mother, or other dependants cannot get fair play and justice without getting it through the good offices of a Member of Parliament. Those of us at the War Office and at the Admiralty who are concerned with the carrying on of this work have no other interests but to see that these men and their dependants get fully what is due to them, and get it promptly and sympathetically. Of course, we are glad to get representations from those who may know the facts more intimately than we can do, and we are very glad indeed to have an opportunity of examining them. But do not let anyone imagine, because I think it would be unfair, that fair play must wait upon the representations of Members of Parliament. I could not allow such a statement to go forth without challenging it.
    I would like the House fairly and squarely to look at the provision which is made. I have stated the facts before, and I make no apology for stating them again. I say that the provision which is made by the State to-day for the soldier's wife and the sailor's wife and their children, and the soldiers and the sailors themselves if they are disabled, or their widows and orphans if they do not return, is equitable and adequate. I say more, and that is that it is out of all proportion to anything that this country has ever done in any previous war. It is not correct to say that we have been niggardly, and that we have been wanting in sympathy. That is quite incorrect, and it gives a false impression as to how far we have been ready and able to carry out our duties. I would like to take a little wider survey of the question

    1565
    than my hon. Friend took, because he referred only to separation allowances. I have listened, not so much in this House, but out of it, to criticisms and comments upon what we have done. For instance, we appointed a Statutory Committee and we granted a certain amount of State aid to that Committee. We also suggest that it may get assistance from other sources to supplement the awards that are made from State funds, awards that may, almost certainly will, in the wide range of social circumstances which presents itself in the rank and file of an Army constituted like our present Army is constituted make any flat rate not universally satisfactory and sufficient. Because we have done that, in relation to this Statutory Committee, some people seem to forget altogether the State provision which is a precedent to that, and of which this is merely a supplement, and we are told that it is a scandal that the State should not itself do its duty.
    I was never on surer ground in my life than I am at this moment when I say that the State is fully and amply doing its duty to the soldiers' and sailors' wives and children, and other dependant relatives, to the widows and orphans, and to the men themselves if they return broken by sickness, wounds, or hard campaigning. Let me remind the House of the provisions we have made and compare them with the provisions of the past, if they can be compared at all. I deal mainly with the naval regulations, because of my association with the Admiralty, but the provision for the soldiers and their dependants is upon similar lines. In the case of the soldier, the separation allowance to the wife is higher in consideration of the fact that the soldier's pay generally is lower than that of the sailor, and because he has not such opportunity for promotion as the sailor has. As the House knows, a man of the lower rank totally incapacitated gets 25s. a week and 2s. 6d. for each child under sixteen. If he is partially incapacitated he will get such pension as, together with what he may be deemed to be capable of earning, will make 25s. a week, with a rum up to 2s. 6d. for each child.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is where the difficulty comes in. These men are not aware that they can get, with what they earn, up to 25s. a week. Information to that effect should be given to the local committees.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It may be that all information that can be given should be given, but the failure to give information does not constitute a criticism of the main scheme itself. Let my hon. Friend bear that in mind. If the information has not been properly circulated, we must do what we can to circulate it. Of course the ordinary additions made to these Service pensions are also made to disablement pensions for rank in the Army, and for badges, service as petty officers, and so on, in the Navy. What was the allowance before the War as compared with the 25s.? Before the War, the highest rate of injury pension, even for total blindness, so far as the Navy was concerned, was only 15s. 9d. per week. There was no allowance of any kind for children, compared with the 2s. 6d. now for each child in cases of total disablement, or up to 2s. 6d. for each child in the case of partial disablement. Take the question of separation allowances. The State has made a provision for the wives and children of soldiers and sailors, which, certainly as regards sailors, is entirely new. There never was a separation allowance in the Navy before. The separation allowance to-day is entirely new and in addition to the payments formerly made for their services. The allowance to the wife varies from 6s. to 9s., according to the husband's rating. Then comes the sailor's allotment, which has to be added to the separation allowance. The allowances for children are 4s., 3s., 2s., and 1s. a week for the first, second, third, and any subsequent children, and 5s. a week for each motherless child.
    The Army separation allowance is dispensed on a scale above anything contemplated before. Before the War a soldier, in order to get a separation allowance for his wife, had to be married on the strength, and very few were. Now the separation allowance is given to all. This is the scale which my hon. Friend wishes to be increased. I will take the rank of a corporal or private—there are additions for higher grades. The soldier allots 3s. 6d. per week; to such allowance the State adds 9s., which makes 12s. 6d. If the wife is living in London, an additional 3s. 6d. is allowed, which brings the amount up to 16s. a week for the woman alone, without children. If there is one child, the allowance and the allotment come to 17s. 6d. a week, and if in London 21s. a week. If there are two children, the allowance and allotment amount to 21s. a week,

    1567
    or in London 24s. 6d. a week. If there are three children the allowance and allotment amount to 23s. per week, or in London to 26s. 6d. per week. In the case of a wife and four children the amount is 25s., and in London 28s. 6d. These are cases of the lower rank, the wife and children of a private or corporal. Will anyone tell me that the allowance is ungenerous? It is not ungenerous. As regards dependent fathers and mothers, sisters, and other relatives, the provision we have made now is quite new. There never was an allowance in the old days for these relative dependants, no matter what the dependence has been before the man joined the Colours. The minimum pension for a widow is now 10s. a week. Again I am taking the rank of a private or corporal, and there are additions for higher rank, with corresponding additions, for rating in the Navy. That 10s. a week is increased to 12s. 6d. a week in the case of a widow who is over thirty-five years of age and under forty-five, and to 15s. a week when she exceeds the age of forty-five. What was it before? It was 5s. a week, regardless of age, as against the 10s., 12s., or 15s. at the present time. Take the allowances for orphans. These amount to 5s. for the first child, 3s. 6d. for the second child, and 2s. for the third and subsequent children as against 1s. 6d. a week in the pre-War period. Motherless children get 5s. a week as against 3s. a week before the War.
    I am sorry, and, indeed, we are all sorry, that these poor people, in common with the whole community, have to face the increased cost of living, but I am afraid I cannot hold out on behalf of the Government any prospect of increased allowances. Here I speak quite strongly personally. Of course, we are all full of sympathy and anxious to meet our obligations to the dependants of our soldiers and sailors, but I cannot hold out any prospect of increased allowances beyond that scale.
    Sir H. CRAIKmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I mean from State funds. I cannot hold out any prospect of an increase beyond that scale from State funds. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his reminders. If the Statutory Committee with a hard case before them, in the wide social range with which we are confronted in our present Army, thinks that it is a proper case for an addition to
    1568
    the gratuity, pension, or other State allowance, of course it is within their power to add to it. But, so far as the scale is concerned, I cannot hold out any prospect of increase, and I cannot say that, having regard to the relative claims upon the public purse at the present time, that such an increase would be justified on the ground of fair play and equity. I was very much interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh at the close of his speech refer to the question of co-ordination of effort. I most cordially concur, although for a reason additional to that which he gave. What has been a very great shortcoming in all these grants and allowances to dependants of soldiers and sailors in the past has been the number of authorities, central and local, which dispensed them, and the amount of overlapping and waste which occurred, and if one thing is necessary it is this: Whatever money is to be dispensed, do for goodness rake let it be dispensed by one authority. If that is a counsel of perfection, then do let the various authorities which are going to give assistance to these people be closely informed as to each other's operations. Otherwise you will have what has so often been the case in the past with the very best intentions possible—a great deal of overlapping and waste and in some cases money which is wanted in other directions misapplied by the multiplicity of effort, central and local, among the various authorities charged with the administration of these matters.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I want to refer to one point specially which I hope will receive the attention of the Financial Seccertary to the War Office in connection with a subject with which the right hon. Gentleman has just been dealing, which was introduced by the hon Member for East Edinburgh, with regard to the question of pensions and the dependants getting fair play. I do not suppose that the hon. Member is—and certainly I myself am not—afraid of these deserving persons not getting fair play if they get before the right quarter. I have had the feeling myself when I have written to either the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Financial Secretary that if I write about the case it does get priority and does get attended to, and if I have not sent my letter to the proper place it is forwarded somewhere, while poor humble individuals sometimes write to me and say that they have written several letters without

    1569
    result. I scarcely like to feel that because someone applies to me I can get his case attended to when his letters are not attended to. I think that however humble the individual and however careless or indifferently expressed his letter may be, it ought to be forwarded to the proper quarter and some kind of an answer should be given to the individual concerned. The cost of living to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh referred affects everyone, every one of these cases, in a way which has an indirect bearing on the case to which I wish to refer—that is, to the weeks which follow the return of the sick or disabled soldier. I do not quarrel with the allowance on the basis that has been given. It is a vast advance on anything that has been given before. But it does not allow any margin. There is no margin for any one of these families to make a little saving for the time when the father comes home and is not immediately able to get work. When a man is discharged medically or physically unfit he is frequently left without resources for many weeks together. It is not any want of sympathy on the part of my hon. Friend to which I refer, but there is a weak place in the system.
    Take one case—that of a soldier in the Lancashire Fusiliers. He was discharged from the Army on the 11th of March last as physically unfit. Among other injuries he had been shot in the right buttock and is lame. He had previously served twelve years in the Fusiliers and was discharged in 1893. He rejoined in the early days of September, 1914. In civil life he was a bricklayer's labourer and has since—this was at the end of June—been unable to resume work. It is quite evident that an injury such as he has received is just the kind of injury which, though he may not be sick, disables him from the employment to which he was accustomed. He has a wife and five children under sixteen years of age. He is not only a soldier himself, but he is the father of soldiers. One son is also in the Fusiliers and has just been awarded the D.C.M. He has another son in the Fusiliers 5th (Reserve) Battalion. This man was for weeks, when he came back, without any allowance of any kind, and of course as soon as ever he got back the allowance to the wife and children was stopped. It is an amazingly perfect organisation, the organisation of the Army which stops these allowances, and really I should like the organisation
    1570
    which sees to the payment being made to these men to be as perfect as the organisation which stops the allowance to the wives. When the father was discharged in March he did not get either his insurance or his medical card. At a later date his approved society, the Liverpool Victoria, communicated with him. He filled up the form which they sent. There was further delay. He only received his medical certificate, according to the information supplied to me, early in June, and he did not receive the first payment which he ought to have had from his approved society for some time. Eventually he was awarded a pension of 18s. 9d. per week.
    The consequence is that this man who was dismissed from the Army as unfit for work, never received a payment of any kind for some weeks after his discharge. That is a grievous matter. It is grievous to everyone about the town who hears of such cases—and I have them almost every week. I admit that it is difficult to know how to meet these cases. It does occur to me that before a man is discharged and his wife's separation allowance or its equivalent is stopped, his pension should be settled and he should be furnished with his necessary insurance papers. The two things ought to be simultaneous. When his allowance is stopped, then whatever he is to receive should begin. I will make a suggestion in a moment in regard to that. I am not sufficiently aware of the arrangements which the War Office make to know whether my suggestion is a practicable one, but if it is not I hope that the hon. Member will try to make a practicable suggestion. We all know that we get sympathetic answers from my hon. Friend in regard to these questions. My hon. Friend has given me a number of them and everyone knows that he himself personally feels sympathetic. He does not quite accept the details as to dates, but he does admit that there has been a sufficient interval to cause much anxiety and distress. He says that the man who was discharged on 11th March was on 13th April awarded a pension of 12s. 6d. per week for six months, conditionally, with effect from the date of his discharge, but he had been four weeks without anything at all. Twelve shillings and sixpence is rather meagre for this father of a family coming home from the War, seeing that he was not in a position to follow his previous employment. He was also granted an additional 1s. 3d. for each of his five children,

    1571
    which makes 18s. 9d. We do not consider 1s. 3d. quite enough for a child, while there was nothing for the mother. Those are the details connected with this individual case, and I am only using it as typical of the interval which takes place, and I wish specially to draw attention to the suffering which takes place on account of that.
    I asked in regard to that case whether the separation allowance could not go on until the pension was payable. I was told that the separation allowance is not issuable in respect of a discharged soldier, and our present system is that a temporary allowance is issued to the soldier between the date of discharge and the commencement of his pension. If there is to be a temporary allowance, let the same order which goes to stop the separation allowance embody an order for the payment of these temporary allowances, with the proviso that the two orders should take effect in the same week. That is what is designed to happen. I am sorry that it does not always happen. The system of my hon. Friend was unfortunately not in force at the time of this man's discharge. His insurance card was sent two or three weeks after he left. I would like to know why cannot each soldier be allowed home on leave, for instance, for a time, and let the other payments go on until the payment which he is eventually to receive begins? I consider that this is a point that stings a man coming home, that his homecoming means that there is less in that house to eat than there was even when he was away, and less far than when he was earning the wage that some of these men have been able to earn. I trust that this defect will receive the attention of my hon. Friend, and I am quite sure that he will have the support of every Member in the House if he can devise some scheme which will prevent such things occurring.
    Sir A. MOND: The point which was made by the hon. Member, who spoke last, is one which has been brought home to a great many of us. In fact, in spite of Parliament having endeavoured, both directly and by Committees, to elaborate a system of generous scales of pension, there is growing a large amount of anxiety and discontent among those who are coming home, having been discharged from the Army, both with these pensions and the way in which these pensions are being administered I am constantly getting
    1572
    letters of the character to which the hon. Member has just referred, and being in a position myself, perhaps to an exceptional extent, of coming into contact a great deal with men who are about to be discharged from the Army, I find that a profound ignorance prevails among soldiers in hospitals who are about to be discharged as to what they are to look forward to, and as to what their lives are going to be. Great anxiety prevails among them as to what is to become of them, and no effort is taken to allay that anxiety by informing these soldiers, who are about to be discharged, upon this point. The thing can be done by issuing a little pamphlet explaining what the position will be. As far as I understand the matter, they seem to be in a position to some extent of interregnum. That is to say, soldiers' and sailors' associations which have existed in most of our large towns and all over the country have wound up their affairs, and the local Statutory Committee has not yet come into existence. The result is that nobody knows where to go to look for help or advice. That is a very serious state of things. I do not know why it has ever been allowed to arise. It ought to be made absolutely impossible for the position which we have now to exist—that there is no one in a big town who is charged with looking after the affairs of widows of deceased soldiers or of soldiers who come home wounded and are discharged. I have had large numbers of letters from people in that position in my Constituency, which are most pathetic, saying that they do not know how to go on even while their cases are being considered. Of course a great many people dealing with these things never seem to realise that a workman and his family live on what they get every week, and cannot afford to wait for three weeks until some support is forthcoming. In some way this hiatus ought to be filled up.
    The hon. Member's suggestion which he has just made is not at all an impracticable one. Why should not in some way a man be kept on furlough at home until his pension question has been settled? But there is another point to which I desire to call attention: There seems to be a suspicion about that these pensions are temporary. I personally know of a case where the pension has been granted for twelve months, and the man is under the impression that at the end of twelve months his pension will come to an end,

    1573
    and he will get no more. I am quite sure that is not the case, and I do not know why the pension papers are issued in that form. Were they issued in that form in order to enable the pensions to be revised? I do not know why it should not be made clear on the pension paper that this man is going to have his pension all his life for the injury he has received; at any rate, if the man cannot earn a full income because of that injury. If a clear statement were made upon the pension paper, it would remove an enormous amount of anxiety. A man who has lost his foot should know that his pension will not last only twelve months, and that at the end of that time he is going to keep it in the future. Then there is the question of artificial limbs for soldiers and sailors who have lost their limbs in the course of the War. I do not know whether my information is correct, but I have been informed that at present the possession of really good limbs, such as are provided at the Oakhampton Hospital, depends very largely on private endeavours. The hon. Gentleman dissents. I am very glad that is not the case, and I hope he will contradict that very wide and prevalent idea. I gather from him that every man who loses an arm or leg will have one substituted of the best kind, at the cost of the State. That is what we all want to see.
    I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was correct to some extent about the separation allowances. I have always felt, and I think that many will agree with me, that a great mistake was made, in connection with the separation allowance, when we went in for a flat rate all over the country. The result, apparently, has been that in our large industrial towns the separation allowance is felt to be deficient in a way which has not been experienced in the agricultural districts. When this matter was first discussed, I suggested that the separation allowance should be modified according to the cost of living in different districts. The only place where that has been adopted is in London, although the cost of living in my Constituency, according to the Board of Trade figures, is just about as high as in London. That is really where the difficulty comes in. Although the separation allowance of 12s. 6d. and the allowance for children may be looked upon as very generous in a district where the people make 15s. a week, it is not very large in industrial districts where people earn £2 or £3 a week. When you deduct
    1574
    40 per cent. or 50 per cent. from that allowance, owing to the increased cost of living, it only comes to between 6s. and 7s.—not very much for an industrial town. I am not certain that we shall not have to revise these allowances if we really want to treat generously the populations in districts where the cost of living has gone up and up. You should have some regard to that, and that undoubtedly is a question that ought to be further considered. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) made a very spirited defence of his Department, and I am sure his Department must be very much obliged to him for the great ability he displayed. He did not go back to the case of the ship which broke down when on its first voyage and was brought back; which ran into a sandbank, and was then taken back again, and then, finally, was handed over to the owners; transferred again on several occasions, but never was really utilised to the best advantage, for the cost would always have been out of proportion to her utility. I do not say she has not rendered some very useful service, but if the full proceedings had to be gone over again, I doubt if the same procedure would be followed now. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that war is waste. We all know what war is, but that is not an excuse for all the waste that takes place, and I think some waste could now be avoided if that principle were not laid down so axiomatically as the right hon. Gentleman laid it down. We ought to waste as little in war as possible.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree.
    Sir A. MOND: However we may be impressed by the generosity of the nation, and anxious as we naturally are to do the best for everyone, still there is no reason why there should be no regard paid to economy. I think we should, perhaps, have succeeded in saving a certain amount of money which has been spent if we had not had so many steamers lying about in different parts of the world, waiting to do nothing. A steamer full of cargo has been commandeered, and the cargo taken out, while another steamer, practically a sister ship, was lying alongside, and, of course, she could have been commandeered and substituted, and because she had not been commandeered she could not be substituted. I have heard some of these things on very reliable authority, and they are

    1575
    really incomprehensible. There seems to be somewhere a hiatus in organisation. Ship X is commandeered, and nobody seems to be authorised to take Ship Y, or to get the order changed, although Ship Y would do quite as well. It depends upon the internal organisation of the Department, and the people who know about the details have not got authority to make any change, while the people who have originally given the order have not time to look at the details. There ought to be some possibility of improvement there. These things have happened more than once, and they are not to the advantage of the Admiralty or to the advantage of the owner of the ship. There seems to be some cast-iron sort of rule that no change is possible, inconvenient or expensive as the original order may have proved to be. The right hon. Gentleman is a very common-sense and businesslike man, and I think if these matters were investigated he would find some link missing in the organisation, which, if it could be established, might often save not merely money to the Admiralty, but would assist the very serious question of the transportation of goods to this country.
    The holding up of any ship not required is, of course, as we all know, a loss of freight which we badly want. To clear out a ship which is already loaded when you could have a ship lying empty, practically at the same berth, is again a loss. These cases do occur, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that they are not altogether uncommon. I have often thought there must be some way of dealing with these matters, so as to avoid what is not only not an advantage to the conduct of the War but a serious disadvantage, from the point of view of expenditure and from the point of view of commercial service. The whole question of our shipping has been subject to a great deal of criticism, and I hope that a considerable improvement has been made by various eminent experts, who, I know, have been employed in order to report on a great many of these matters. I have never found anybody practically engaged in shipping who could not show that great improvement is possible, particularly in the case where far distant expeditions are concerned, such as that to the Dardanelles. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is looking into these matters. Whilst this House and country is anxious to give the utmost
    1576
    latitude for the efficient conduct of the War, they cannot be satisfied merely with the idea that we cannot help waste of money in war, and that we must go in for costly and sometimes unsuccessful experiments. Of course we must make experiments; it would be very foolish not to do so. On the other hand, I cannot help thinking that in regard to some of the experiments you could have told before; hand whether they would be successful or not. The right hon. Gentleman himself had to admit that a very important steamer was held up for some time in connection with oil tanks, and in view of the fact of the shortage of petrol from which we are now suffering in this country, I cannot help asking why the experiment in regard to oil tanks was not made on one ship, and why ten ships were held up when they might have been employed in bringing this most necessary commodity to this country, and we should not have been put in the position in which we are now. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into these points, and I trust that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will be able to tell us something more about the acceleration of the pension matters which have been referred to, and about which there is a considerable amount of anxiety throughout the country.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: The House is always ready to grant all the necessaries of life to those who are fighting our battles and to their dependants, and at this moment we have heartfelt gratitude to the brave men who are fighting for the very existence of our country with a heroism that was never surpassed in the history of the world. At a moment like this, we are, indeed, more than ready to spare money either to make their dependants comfortable at home while they are away, or to take care that they themselves shall not lack in equipment or provision, or in any other way, by reason of our being niggardly in our expenditure. But the expenditure is enormous. We have a further Vote of Credit for £450,000,000, and we have had two previous Votes of Credit this year, amounting to £600,000,000. When we bring our minds to bear on the fact that already in this War Votes of Credit have been proposed in this House to the total amount of 2,832 millions of money, it does at any rate cause one to ask oneself the question, "Are we getting any approach

    1577
    to value for our money? "That is a matter to which it is the duty of this House to give the most serious attention. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) that some separation of accounts ought to take place. The putting of loans to Allies, or to the Dominions, and the purchase of certain commodities on to the total and to call it all expenditure is misleading. If in some way a separation of these matters could take place it would make things much more satisfactory and much clearer. We are not allowed on this occasion to ask the Government how they propose to raise this money, but perhaps we may be allowed to recall the fact that we have a deficit in the two years ending March next of £1,700,000,000 sterling still to be arranged for permanently. This gigantic figure ought to give us pause as to whether or not everything is being done in every Department to reduce expenditure and to prevent waste of money. We have had several Retrenchment Committees appointed to try to effect economy. There is one in connection with the Army, and one in connection with the Navy, and one in connection with the Ministry of Munitions, and one in connection with the Civil Service Departments, but we have no Report given to this House as to what results those various Retrenchment Committees have achieved in the way of saving and of cutting down unnecessary expenditure. There is no doubt whatever that millions of money are being spent wastefully. Reference has been made to our shipping, and it is alarming to know that the commandeering of the shipping of this country has mounted up at the present time to 11,000,000 tons, or more than half the mercantile marine of the country; yet freights are still soaring, and the cost of food and the necessaries of life keeps going up and thus increasing the financial stringency, by adding to the expenditure of the country, because it is not only in public expenditure that we ought to have economy practised. It ought also to prevail in private expenditure, but that is made much less possible, unless the cost of living can be kept down. Personally, I do not know that I feel certain that all is being done in that direction that might be done.
    The Board of Trade was specially active early in the War in making efforts to keep down the price of food supplies, but so far as I can judge they seem to have
    1578
    ceased their efforts to a large extent, and we no longer have those weekly or monthly statements in the papers, giving the maximum prices consumers ought to pay for the necessaries of life. I hope that even before this night's proceedings are over we may have some statement from the Government in regard to the work that has been accomplished by the Retrenchment Committees. I think that is due to the House. Various instances of extravagance and waste have been brought before the House repeatedly, and these Committees have been appointed for the express purpose of stopping that, and why then is the House denied all information? The Prime Minister did not say one word in moving the Vote of Credit about getting better value for our money and as to the prevention of waste and the practice of economy. It is all very well to say that we are a rich nation, but we are living on our capital largely, and this War is being financed out of the prewar accumulated savings of the nation, and if it goes on month by month and year by year the financial stringency will grow greater and greater. I do not know why, for instance, the Admiralty have not undertaken the insurance of total loss of all the shipping they have commandeered and have under their control. They might easily have saved a million or two by doing that. They say they do not do it because of the difficulty of working the business; but the same machinery which undertakes war risks could simply add the total loss risks, and thus receive the premiums that the insurance companies are receiving.
    With regard to Army expenditure, we never seem to have an opportunity of discussing this matter thoroughly. Take the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General issued for the year ending the 31st of March, 1915. So far as I am aware this House has never had any opportunity of discussing that most serious Report, which has been termed a Report on muddle and waste. The Comptroller and Auditor-General said that, up to 12th February, 1916, no accounts of transport vehicles had been lodged, and the accounting for horses was extremely unsatisfactory. He points out that horses arrive by rail at night with no document to show who sent them or the station from which they come. One unit failed to keep accounts, and no record could be found either of the receipt or the disposal of animals. The results

    1579
    of investigation showed an apparent surplus of 5,000 horses. That is an extraordinary result. Large quantities of clothing, the Auditor-General tells us, were written off or destroyed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now referring to matters relating to 1914. This Vote of Credit is with regard to the forthcoming months. I think he can hardly consider as relevant to this Vote matters which occurred in 1914.
    Sir J. WALTON: My only desire is to try and ascertain if drastic steps are being taken by the Government to prevent the continuance of the waste disclosed to us by the Auditor-General, and by referring to his Report I hoped to draw forth a more complete defence on the part of the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: All I say to that is that I think there ought to be some time limit on Members going back into matters of this kind.
    Sir J. WALTON: This is the last Report of the Auditor-General, issued, I suppose, jn the autumn of last year. If hon. Members will look at that Report they will see, on the authority of the Auditor-General, that there is very serious waste in various Departments of expenditure in the War Office which ought not to take place. I do think I ought to press for some statement of the work accomplished by the Retrenchment Committees. The Retrenchment Committee on the Civil Service reduced the expenditure of £96,000,000 by 4 per cent. I say that that was simply playing with the matter, and I want to know how much better they have done in connection with the Army and Navy and Munitions Department. With regard to the Ministry of Munitions, we really have a representative of the Department present to whom we can put questions. I find in the "New York Times" the statement that orders have been given out in the United States for £600,000,000 sterling worth of munitions of war. They state that the Dupont Powder Company has taken contracts for £40,000,000 sterling for powder at the price of 4s. 6d. per lb. which cost them 1s. 3d. per lb. to produce. Naturally I ask myself, "What is the Ministry of Munitions doing, and what steps have they taken in two years to increase the output of powder, instead of getting those enormous supplies at 4s. 6d. the lb. from
    1580
    the United States?" What progress is being made in the matter of increasing the output of munitions at home, and especially the output of powder, to enable us before long to reduce our orders to America, which hit us absolutely in every way financially. Though during six months the surplus imports over exports have gone down by £178,000,000, if we add another £178,000,000 to the second half and take half of the £600,000,000 in the two years for munitions, we still have a huge surplus of some hundreds of millions of imports over exports. That can be reduced if the Ministry of Munitions are able to lessen their demands upon America. I know that no matter what the munitions cost, we must have all the munitions we want, but I do not think that one ought to disregard some recognition of the fact that it is most urgently necessary that we should increase the output at home and reduce our imports from America at the earliest possible date.
    There is a question which I addressed to the Financial Secretary several times and that is as to when they are going to cease employing a multitude of unnecessary officers at the bases in France and on all the lines of communication? There is the instance of twenty-six commandants, when one or two might well do the work, and those men are paid £650 per year each, and most of them with retired pay as well. I would also ask whether any decision has been arrived at as to whether the payment of service pay and retired pay should cease, and that one or other ought only to be paid. There are many other questions to which I might refer, but some of them would almost be a repetition of points that have been brought forward by other hon. Members in the course of the Debate. There is no question whatever but that we ought to take a survey of our financial situation in connection with the Votes of Credit. We are not allowed to discuss how the money is to be raised. What we want is that economies should be practised so that the amount of Votes of Credit will be less in the future, and we can only do that in one way, namely, by restricting imports. I would press again upon the Government that they ought not to allow the importation into this country during the War of anything but what is necessary for the national life and the conduct of the War. In that way we can approach a nearer balance of imports and exports and relieve the financial pressure. But vigorous and

    1581
    drastic steps do not appear to be taken—at least not to a sufficient extent. It was a, great misfortune that the President of the Board of Trade broke down in health because he certainly was doing most valuable work in that direction. We shall welcome him back again, and we shall hope that further steps may be taken to bring about a greater balance between imports and exports. We rejoice at the magnificent success of our troops in the field. We are prepared to supply everything they need; but we do say that having regard to the future economic condition of this country, that the Government ought to use every possible means to get us value for our money now, so that our resources may not be too much taken from us by reason of the War, otherwise we shall not have sufficient capital to make those necessary developments after the War which will be needed for the economic restoration of the country.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to say one or two words with regard to a matter that was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond) and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) with respect to the delay in the payment of pensions, and, in some cases, of separation allowances. I think we are all indebted for the admirable speech which we heard from the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in which he gave us a mass of information that is very essential to the country. I certainly agree with the statement of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that anyone who has had any experience in coming in contact with either of the Financial Secretaries of the present Government and the late Government or with the officials in the War Office will acknowledge that they have been met by them in every possible way, and promptly, when information has been brought before them. The most essential thing now is that information with regard to delays should be brought to the notice of the War Office. When such information is brought to their notice I have found personally that they attend to it with dispatch and with a certain degree of satisfaction. But we are in this position now: We have a very large number of troops coming back wounded, and we have a very much larger number of men coming under the claim for pensions week by week, and there is certainly great delay in the treatment of these men. I believe that is partly due to the congestion at the Chelsea Hospital,
    1582
    and I should like to press upon the Government the necessity of either widening the scope of the Commissions who deal with pensions or bring in, as they partly promised last year, a Bill to constitute a new Pensions Committee to deal with the whole questions of pensions. I think the suggestion which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea was a very good one, and that is that some information should be given to the men when they are in the hospitals as to what powers they have now under the pension scheme. These men come back into their localities, they have no information, they do not know who to apply to, and I have found in many cases that they have had to wait a week, and in some cases months, before their pension is awarded, and in the meantime they are suffering. We have now set up in those localities which have put the Act into operation local committees under the Statutory Committee, and I believe that if these local committees—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to come within the scope of this proposal. The local committees are under the Statutory Committee, and there is a special Vote for that Committee's work.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The point was raised and mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was permitted to point out in his speech that there were now supplementary pensions coming under statutory committees, and I was simply going to point out that there is a defect in the system, because I personally have received letters from the Financial Secretary pointing out that where there is a deficiency, or where the pension has been reduced or is a small one, he has advised the applicant to apply to the local committee of the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension, and it is in that sense I desired in a few words to point out where the defect is. I have been informed that the local committees of the Statutory Committee are not aware of these powers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not come within the scope of this Vote of Credit. There is a special Vote for the Statutory Committee. These local committees are all under the Statutory Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to bring forward, the time to do it is when that particular Vote is being discussed.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I quite agree. I was led on, perhaps, by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned it. I did not come in with the intention of speaking upon it because I know we are expecting the Vote of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee to be placed on the Table so that we can debate these points. I was led away by the mention of the powers that are now possessed by the Statutory Committee to supplement these pensions, and I thought of suggesting that some acceleration should be made in this respect so that the men in each locality should know that there are such powers in existence, and that such pensions can be obtained. The fact is that all our trouble arises because these men have not the information. They do not know where to apply to, and if this information is spread throughout the country I am quite certain it will mitigate to a large extent the suffering that is now going on up and down the country. There was one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) which I hope the Minister in charge of the Munitions Department will not reply to. I think it is a very grave error for anybody in this country to supply information to our enemy as to the progress of the manufacture of munitions in this country. It is a very grave error, because Germany is in a position to multiply her production of munitions very much faster than we are in a position to do. Therefore if we in this House or in the Press from time to time give information in this way we are, I think, only multiplying the activities of our enemies and increasing their production to meet our production. In all these things it would be wiser if the country had confidence in the men at the head of affairs so that they could go on increasing the production of munitions without divulging to the country, as my hon. Friend required, whether we are increasing the manufacture of powder or not. I think the information we supply from time to time ought not to be supplied. I read articles this last week which surprised me very much. We talk about spying and men coming over to this country to glean information as to what we are doing, but they can glean all the information in some of our public Press and sometimes in the House of Commons. In the midst of this great War, when our brothers and members of our families are fighting, suffering and dying for this country, we should be careful not to give information which can be utilised by our enemies and
    1584
    be of service to them. On these grounds I think it would be a danger for the Minister of Munitions to give information about the quantities of munitions that we import from America or foreign countries, or information as to the growth of our production of munitions. I believe that growth should be kept as far as possible a secret in the nation and not given world-wide publicity so that it can be read by our enemies.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am not at all sure that the Germans do not already know all that we know, and more than the ordinary Member of Parliament knows. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that only yesterday, I think it was, the Secretary of State for War told us that we were making in one month twelve times as many heavy guns as we had in the Army before the War. That is an important piece of information. I was glad to hear it. I do not think it did us any harm in the eyes of the Germans, or that the Germans could make more heavy guns because we are making them. You may be quite certain that the Germans will make as many heavy guns and as much ammunition as they possibly can quite regardless of what we are doing. I was considerably cheered and went to dinner quite happy when I thought there was something being done by the Ministry of Munitions which deserved very great credit. I do think that we ought to be told a little bit more as to what is going on, and given a little more explicit information when these Votes of Credit are brought forward instead of merely being told, "Oh, we are spending on irrecoverable services £3,500,000 a day, and we are advancing £1,500,000 to the Allies, and we are doing something else, I forget now the exact sum, for this, that, and the other purpose." Really, that is very little information. We can easily divide it into three or four amounts. But that is not what we want to know. We want to know something on the lines outlined by the hon. Baronet who spoke a few moments ago (Sir Joseph Walton). The hon. Baronet did not wish, I am sure, to prevent the Government from getting all the money that is necessary for carrying on the War. I will make any sacrifice, and I am sure everybody else would, to give the Government all the money that is necessary for carrying on the War. But I do not quite take the view of the hon.

    1585
    Member who has just sat down that we are to trust the Government in everything.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I did not say that. So far as munitions are concerned, I think we ought to have confidence and not divulge secrets.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If we do not divulge matters we must have confidence. It is rather like the confidence trick. If you do not know what is going on it is blind confidence. I am very sorry, but I am not quite certain I have. There are some points on which no doubt the Government are indispensable; but there are other points on which I think somebody might have done—shall I say—slightly better? I do not want to put it, for the moment, at more than that. I do think it is necessary to have economy, because the money in this country is not unlimited. Hon. Members, especially those below the Gangway, talk as if all one had to do was to vote a certain sum of money for it to come from somewhere. It does not come from somewhere! You cannot dig it up out of the ground! It is very necessary that we should understand what is the sum of money that we have to spend, that it is a large sum, and that it may be a great deal more later. It is very necessary that we should get value for our money, and that if we spend a sovereign we should at least get 20s. value for it. I am very much afraid that has not been done lately, or, in fact, at any time during the War, though I am quite prepared to admit that at the commencement of a big War like this it was impossible to obtain the various things that were required as economically as you would have done in ordinary times. Still, I think that there has been a great deal of extravagance.
    Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not always receive the criticisms which are made upon their conduct quite in the right spirit. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is not here. When he was making his speech about what he called the oilers, and the necessity that there was for a considerable loss of money he offered to obtain the figures for me, while at the same time he said that they would appear in the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General. I do not want to give the Admiralty or any other Department unnecessary work in the preparation of figures. I quite agree that possibly these
    1586
    figures will appear in the Report referred to. I believe myself, from what I have been told, that the loss is something like £700,000 or £800,000. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that if these figures appeared in the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, and were commented upon by the Public Accounts Committee, that then they will be dealt with in this House, because we can by no manner of means always obtain a day upon which the Report of the Public Accounts Committee can be discussed.
    Sir J. WALTON: There has not been one since the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Now that we have had that statement from a member of the Government—and it is very unfortunate that he is not here—I hope it will be remembered that we may possibly require a day, and have it given, for the consideration of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was an experiment. When I interposed a remark, he said it was an unfair interjection, and that we were at war, and that it was necessary to make experiments. I do not object to our making experiments. But why, when you are going to make an experiment, is it necessary to take the whole of ten ships? Why not try whether the experiment is successful upon the one ship, and if it is successful, go on with the others? If the experiment is a failure—very well, you have done your best and have failed, but, at any rate, you have not, for the purpose of your experiment, held up ten ships which were absolutely necessary in order to obtain the supply of oil which could not otherwise be sent to this country. That is what I object to. It is no answer to say to us that there has been a failure because of the War. The War ought to make the Government do everything they can to avoid failures. In ordinary times a failure is not very important, but in war a failure may be a very important matter. The result of this experiment ending in failure has been that we have been—I do not know for how long—short of a considerable amount of oil which we need not] have been short of if ordinary business methods had been introduced into this matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend opposite will ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what has happened to the originator of this experiment? What has happened to the gentleman who took the ten ships by way of experiment when, as everyone knows,

    1587
    we were short of shipping? Is he still at the Admiralty, and is he still making experiments in this or other directions?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes, he is still there.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If he is, I hope he has been, or will be, admonished. I do not think it is sufficient for him to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow that a very able attack was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool, and that all the reply that we obtained from the Financial Secretary was that it was the War. We all know that we are at war. That is no answer. Every single question, every single failure on the part of the Government, every single commission or omission, is always defended on the ground that we are at war. I am getting tired of that excuse. I should like to hear some other reason—some good reason—advanced why these things occur. There is another question I should like to have raised in regard to the statement that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to the "Aquatania." We got no answer to that. It was complained that the "Aquatania" had been changed into a different vessel seven times at a cost of £40,000 each time. What she is doing now I do not know. My right hon. Friend beside me said that she was on a sandbank.
    Sir A. MOND: Not now!
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not now; but the last that was heard of her was that she was on a sandbank. We ought to have an explanation of these matters, and not merely the statement that we are at war. I took the trouble to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary that I proposed to raise, quite shortly, the question that I have just raised, and the answer he made across the floor of the House was to accuse me of making an unfair attack upon him. I really do think that he ought to have been here. I am quite aware that he could not have spoken again: on the other hand, he might have listened to what I had to say. It is really because we have so many hon. Members of the House who have such blind confidence in the Government.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have not!
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member says he has not, and I am glad he has not, and that he will support the view
    1588
    that Ministers should be here and should answer our questions. At the present time a majority of Ministers think that they can do what they like with the House of Commons, which is disposed to be subservient. They think they ought not to be here, and go away to dinner, and to other pleasant functions, and do not stay and listen to the speeches. I hope that on the occasion of another Vote of Credit we shall have a little more explanation, and a little clearer assurance given to us of what is really being done; what steps are being taken to ensure that economy is arrived at. Otherwise, I am very much afraid that we shall find we have spent enormous sums of money, and that the prosperity in the country, which is going on now, may be very much altered. After all, I really speak in the interests of the Government itself—certainly in the interests of hon. Members below the Gangway, because if all our capital goes I do not see where employment is coming from for the labouring classes. Therefore it is very essential, not only for the conduct of the War, but for what is going to happen after the War, that due economy should be had with regard to the expenditure which is now going on.
    Mr. FORSTER: I have taken note of my right hon. Friend's observations on the Admiralty case, and I will duly convey them to the proper quarter. He criticised some of those sitting on this bench for putting forward as an excuse for all their shortcomings that we are at war. I am not going to offer any excuse of that kind upon my own behalf. Everybody knows we are at war. Everybody knows we are working under great pressure—though I do not want to labour that point unduly. Neither do I complain in the least of criticism which is constructive and offered with a view to effecting economies. Nobody is more keen on economy than I am. If useful criticism can be offered against my Department I hope it will be received and be fruitful. I must make some fragmentary and disjointed observations in reply to the various points raised. Perhaps it will be simplest if I go backwards, and deal with each point in turn—I hope very shortly. The hon. Member for Stockton complains of the delay in fixing pensions, and suggested that it might be due to the congestion of work at the Royal Hospital at Chelsea. Nobody regrets that delay more than I do. I admit it exists, and I am doing everything

    1589
    I can to find a remedy for it. The cause of it is partly—but only partly, and not mainly—due to the congestion at Chelsea. I might say a word or two later as to the enormous volume of work that falls upon those responsible. I am hunting out and pursuing the various causes which lead to the delay, and which exist between the time of a man's discharge and the date on which his pension is fixed. I hope materially to reduce the delay.
    Meanwhile, in order to see that such a man is not left without funds—and this raises the point of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite—an allowance has been arranged since the beginning of May of 10s. a week for the single man and 20s. per week for the man against whom separation allowance is being drawn. I remember once saying 20s. a week for the married man. I should like the House to realise this allowance is not confined to married men, but the 20s. per week is given to men in respect of whom separation allowance is granted. The hon. Member for Barnsley commented once more upon the numerous officers at bases, and asked if any reduction could be made? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question of these officers, the provision of personnel and material of all kind has been subject to close scrutiny on more than one occasion during the past two or three months, and the views which he has expressed have been borne in mind by the Army Council. Steps have been taken to reduce any redundancy of officers to the lowest possible point. Then my hon. Friend asked me whether a decision has yet been reached with regard to the question of officers drawing pension as well as pay. I think the House may take it that the present arrangement will not be disturbed before the end of the War. There are various reasons why that is so—reasons into which, I think, I need not enter at the present moment. We are doing—and this, I think, touches a point to which the hon. Member for Blackpool referred—a good deal in the way of replacing retired officers who came forward when their services were urgently needed, and who have drawn retired pay as well as service pay. We are doing a good deal to replace those officers by officers on half-pay, officers who have been wounded, officers who are no longer able to go abroad.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) asked about the provision of artificial limbs. It is a most
    1590
    interesting question to find which is really the best artificial limb for general requirements. We have been looking closely into the matter recently, and I hope we may be able to find, and to standardise, a limb which will be most useful for general requirements, if it can be found. I should like to reassure him that, with the exception of one of the most elaborate of the artificial limbs, we do provide at public expense artificial limbs for those who have lost either an arm or a leg. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin), and I think my right hon. Friend also, touched upon the ignorance as to what soldiers are entitled to when they leave hospital as constituting a hardship on the soldier. If there is still an ignorance of what they are entitled to, I will see if we can take further steps. We have written in the plainest, simplest possible language pamphlets we have sent an abundant supply to all the hospitals, and we have directed that the position is to be explained to men before they are discharged, so that they may know what the pension regulations are, where to apply to, how to get their pension, and so forth. But if there is still a shortcoming in that direction, I will have it looked into again, and see what further steps can be taken.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool raised a good many points, some of which he himself admitted were points of subsidiary importance, but others that were substantial. He raised the question of the cost of advertisements, and asked whether it was the fact that the advertisements had been placed through the agency of the firm of advertising agents who have always served the War Office in time of peace. That is so, and I admit at once that I am not wholly satisfied with what has taken place. I do not think there has been any real extravagance. I do not think there has been any real waste of money, but I am bound to say I think that possibly some more economical arrangement might have been arrived at, and the whole question is being examined to see that, at any rate for the future, the most economical arrangement will be made. Then he referred to the question of ammunition boxes, presumably for small arm ammunition, and he asked if anything bad been done to widen the area, or rather to increase the number of the contractors with a view to cheapening the price. Yes, I understand that the number of contracting

    1591
    firms has been largely increased, and the price has been lowered from 10s. to 6s. a box. I am not quite able to trace the 3s. to which my hon. Friend referred
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I explain? I freely acknowledge that, when I raised it before, I was misinformed as to the figures. I said 13s. and 3s., and it turned out to be 10s. down to 5s.
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot find that, but what we have been able to do is to reduce the price from 10s. to 7s. 6d., on one occasion to 5s. 10d., and now to 6s. I think that is a substantial, and, I hope, my hon. and gallant Friend will admit, a satisfactory reduction. I am bound to admit that with regard to the purchase of tapioca my hon. and gallant Friend has got me out of my depth. I do not really for the life of me understand, if this story is true, why we should buy tapioca through an ironmonger, but I will have inquiries made and see what the facts are. Then my hon. and gallant Friend asked why there is so large a staff in the Pay Department, and I should like, without I hope trespassing unduly on the time of the House, to give one or two figures, which, I hope, will interest the House, and show why a large staff is unavoidable. My hon. Friend has quoted figures which I gave recently, showing that in the Army Pay Department there is a staff of something like 17,000 individuals. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that a great many of those are women.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Forty-five per cent.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think, possibly, rather more now. A large number are women. Of course, we are increasing the number of women employed as quickly as we can, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, and the House generally, that it is exceedingly difficult to replace men trained to this special kind of work by clerks, whether male or female, who are wholly untrained. I should like to remind the House that we are at present dealing with 1,198,000 wives every week, and 1,310,100 dependants. I should like to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in some of the pay offices the number of soldiers and their families dealt with is one and a half times as much as the whole of the original British Expeditionary Force. I do not think it is realised how the growth of various corps and regiments has increased. For instance, the Army Service
    1592
    Corps, which is dealt with at one pay office, numbers 213,000 men; the Royal Regiment of Artillery, 225,000 men. In the pay office at Preston, which is the largest pay office, no less than 266,000 men are dealt with. Where you are dealing with numbers of that kind, you have an enormous number of men of the same name—possibly half a dozen or a dozen common names in a regiment. You may have hundreds and hundreds of men of the same name, and the difficulty, the delay, in dealing with many individual cases occurs from the fact that it is so difficult to wed the particular dependant to the particular man. We are doing all we can to get a simple and satisfactory device which will enable us always to bring the two together, but where you are dealing with enormous numbers of men of the same name it is really exceedingly difficult. I offer that as an explanation, not as an excuse. Then my hon. and gallant Friend referred to the number of returns that have to be filled up by commanding officers. I do not know, but I expect he himself has had to fill up a good many. He will know that a great many of those returns are absolutely essential. The commanding officer of the battalion has to make returns to the pay office, the Record Office, the various offices of the command, and so forth, giving detailed financial and military history of all the men under his command. I am not a soldier myself, unhappily, and therefore I am not so familiar as my hon. and gallant Friend with these returns.
    Mr. ASHLEY: The point I tried to make about these returns is that, owing to the number of battalions in a certain command, we will say, it is physically impossible for the command to read and digest anything but a small proportion, and, therefore, though the returns in theory may be excellent, in practice they may be waste paper.
    Mr. FORSTER: I will certainly represent my hon. and gallant Friend's view to my military colleagues, and I am sure they will not want to impose any unnecessary burden upon commanding officers. Then my hon. and gallant Friend asked whether I could say anything yet about the remuneration paid to the hut-building agents. I am very sorry to be so long about the negotiations with these agents. They are really exceedingly difficult, and difficult negotiations are often protracted, but I have been able to make a substantial advance, I hope, within the last few days, and I

    1593
    trust before the House rises I may be able to say that some definite arrangement has been reached. If I cannot do that, at any rate, before the House rises I can say exactly where we stand, what we have done, and why we have not been able to do more. Then my hon. Friend referred to the question of the military embarkation officers at various ports. I understand the position is this: The Army Service Corps is responsible for the collection of the goods to the ship; the Admiralty are responsible for the stowing of the goods on the ship.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Under the Army Service Corps?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that is not so. I am informed that the Admiralty work through the stevedores, that the stevedores are responsible to the Admiralty, and that the embarkation officers, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers, are the representatives of the Director of the Quartermaster-General's branch who is responsible for the whole transactions. The Director of Movements is responsible for the movement of goods from ships, and it is his representative to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
    8.0 P.M.
    I know the case which the hon. Member has in mind, and where everything is going smoothly the duties of the officers are light. I know the work is being admirably discharged. There may occur circumstances when the duties of these officers are far from light, but I am informed that it is absolutely essential that these appointments should be maintained. I will look into the question that has been raised about the master tailors, but I am not able to deal with this matter at present. I will also inquire into the question of the medical officers on hospital ships on short voyages. I wish to refer to my hon. Friend's criticism of the arrangement made with the London General Omnibus Company. I should like, first of all, to say that I think it is a pity that my hon. Friend should make an attempt to fasten responsibility for what has been done upon any particular branch of the War Office administration. I do not think it is quite fair for my hon. Friend to use what, after all, must be private information in order to indicate that one branch of the War Office were in favour of one course, while another branch prevented those recommendations being carried out. I should
    1594
    not have referred to the question of the Quartermaster-General had not the hon. Member thought it right to mention this matter. My hon. Friend thinks that it is within the power of the Finance Department actually to prevent the policy which is recommended by any of this officer's colleagues from being carried out, but I should like to say that that is not so. If one of my military colleagues differs from me on a question of policy, naturally and properly the matter is settled by the Army Council, and it is not fair that anyone should say that the responsibility for having blocked or prevented the execution of some advantageous proposal rests with one branch of the Department.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that the Quartermaster-General is subject to the hon. Member's ruling?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; we are colleagues, and a settlement in these cases is reached by reference to the Army Council. We must deal with the War Office as a whole, and we cannot fasten responsibility upon individual officers. Having said so much I think I may say that the Quartermaster-General was in favour of this proposal when it was first put forward, but after it had been examined from the legal, financial, and every point of view, he agreed with the then Financial Secretary that the arrangement which had been suggested was not so advantageous as it was thought, and that some other arrangement should be made. I wish to make one or two very general observations. My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ashley) says that if we had taken over the London General Omnibus Company in the early days of the War on the same lines as we took over the railway companies, that we should have only incurred an expenditure of something like £98,000, making up the difference between the post-war and the pre-war rates of dividend We should have still been under the liability of replacing what we have taken. One of the conditions on which the London General Omnibus Company were willing to make this arrangement was that we were to guarantee them against any loss they might sustain by rival and competing companies. If we withdrew their 'buses from any particular route we must guarantee them against any loss they might suffer. That was a wholly unknown liability, and the House must remember that we are dealing with a situation which arose in 1914, and in those days it was not quite so easy to foretell what was going to happen.

    1595
    There is very great difference between the position of the London General Omnibus Company and the railways. When we took over the control of the railways we did so, not because we wanted to commandeer their railway stock, but because we wanted to control their traffic and be able to send trains from one system to another without let or hindrance. Here we are not concerned about the traffic of the London General Omnibus Company. We wanted their rolling stock and personnel in order to send them to France, and that was what was done. Therefore I do not think that there is any real analogy between this omnibus company and the railway companies. My hon. Friend commented upon the fact that instead of spending £98,000 to make up the dividends of the London General Omnibus Company, we had spent something like £750,000, but I would like to remind him what we have got for our money. We have paid for and bought the buses that we took. It is true that the company are buying back some of them, but they are doing so at a price which will appear in due course, and which I think even my hon. and gallant Friend will consider is comparatively satisfactory. At any rate, we know where we stand. It was then thought advisable to limit our liabilities rather than face the unknown risk of guaranteeing the company against loss of business.
    I have only one further word to add in reference to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) with regard to the administration of pensions by Chelsea Hospital. I very much regretted to hear him express the view that it is necessary to secure a successful revision of the original case to get some Member of Parliament to take it up. I do not think that is true. I think it is a mistake. Certainly, from my own experience, I do not care whether the appeal comes from a Member of Parliament or anybody else. What really matters is that there should be advanced some ground on which revision or reconsideration can take place. It very often happens that Members of Parliament are able to secure successful appeals because they have taken great pains themselves to go into the cases,-and they have consequently been able to put them very much better than ordinary people and often they are able to show a loophole for reconsideration. Whatever the hon. Member for East Edinburgh may think about the constitution of the
    1596
    Board of Chelsea Hospital being too military or official in character, I can assure my hon. Friend, and I speak with considerable experience of their work, that wherever it is possible to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt, or to give him the advantage of the higher rather than the lower scale, the Commissioners are invariably anxious to do so.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Would the hon. Member look into the case where a man is desirable of making an appeal? Instead of making it through the Member of Parliament for the Division, would he allow that man to make the appeal to the local committee which is now constituted in most of the towns, and which would be able to assist this man very considerably?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not care in the least who helps the man to make his appeal. That is what I want the House to understand. It may be a Member of Parliament, the local committee, the Nonconformist minister, or the parson. If there is a legitimate ground for reconsidering a case, it will be reconsidered no matter who makes the appeal. I want the House to remember that Chelsea Hospital is not responsible for making the Regulations. They are only responsible for carrying those Regulations out, and their hands are tied by the terms of the Royal Warrant, which, as I have explained before, is, after all, only the expression of the intentions of the Government. It does not matter who administers the Regulations, or how many civilians you have on the Board of Chelsea Hospital, as long as you have any regulations at all I am afraid you will inevitably have a certain number of hard cases. It is these hard cases that naturally and very properly move hon. Members of the House of Commons. I can only say that I have listened with great sympathy to what my hon. Friend has said. I recognise the very genuine interest he has taken in all these pension problems, and I am always glad to have the assistance of his criticism and advice. I have, however, to remember that I have to administer soldiers' pensions according to the definite scale in relation to the circumstances of their military service, and on the lines laid down by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Some people may think those lines are too narrow, the limits too rigid, and the rates inadequate. But the Government anticipated that criticism, and provided a desirable and necessary element of elasticity by the creation of the Statutory

    1597
    Committee. In criticising the War Office and the Government it is not fair to leave the Statutory Committee out of account. Within the last few days the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given them a very substantial Grant out of the public fund, and at any rate they are no longer open to the suggestion that they can only deal with cases on charitable lines. The House ought to judge the pension scheme of the Government as a whole, and I am sure if they do they will come to the conclusion that the provision which is made is on a scale which has been unattempted and even undreamed of in any other country in the world.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): There are a few points which have been touched upon in this discussion which relate to the Ministry of Munitions, and perhaps I may for a moment occupy the time of the House in replying to them. I understand that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has commented on the absence of some of us who are connected with the spending Departments, and that the House sympathises with what the hon. Baronet has said and expects us to be here. I am sure that I need not tell the House that one's absence is not due to any lack of respect for the House, and as a matter of fact my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions has always been here when we have ever known that any subject affecting the Ministry was likely to come up. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) was good enough to notify me to-day that he was going to raise some questions. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of assuring the hon. Baronet that if we do not happen to be here it is not because we are slacking. I am sure that just now those of us who are connected with the great spending Departments—the War Office, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Munitions—have no time to waste, and I think we are patriotic enough not to want to waste any time. I can assure him that it is not because we are out to dinner or anything of that kind. I do not think that I have dined at home once a week for the last twelve months. The work of one's office often keeps one there until nine and ten o'clock at night. It is not from any desire to shirk the proper performance of one's duty. I am sure that the House will accept that explanation.
    1598
    The hon. Member for Blackpool raised a very important question as to the desirability of our employing direct labour in connection with a very large undertaking at a place in the South of England to which he referred. I am glad he also said that when the Ministry became aware that certain waste was being incurred they were quite prepared to look into the matter and try to prevent its continuance. I know in this particular case that, apparently, there was for the first three or four weeks some waste of effort. Our attention was called to it, and we got rid of a number of individuals who were concerned with that waste, as I am sure the hon. Member would expect us to do. Since that time there has been a very commendable improvement. The hon. Member knows very well, however, that when you have an enormous undertaking in hand—and this is a gigantic undertaking—you cannot in these days simply rely on local contractors. Some of them, no doubt, are competent men, but they may be without the experience and the staff to carry out a very big job. We also just now suffer from this very serious difficulty. In some of these complicated establishments—and in some respects this is a very complicated establishment—it is impossible to get contractors to quote except on a time and line basis. We have found by experience that in matters of this kind it is almost impossible to get quotations from reliable contractors except on a time and line basis. I know that the House has more than once indicated its dislike to contracts of this kind, if they can properly be avoided; but it is not always possible.
    It so happened that we had at our command a very large staff of men of the highest standing and experience—mostly, I am glad to say, volunteers—who were prepared to work and assist us in seeing this undertaking through—an undertaking in which time was the essence of the contract. We, therefore, decided that we had better do the job ourselves. We did not decide that lightly. We decided it after going into the whole matter, and I am quite sure that decision was a right one. We are doing the work ourselves, and if the hon. Member goes there now he will not have much fault to find with the way in which it is being done. I do not care to mention names, but I should be glad to give the hon. Member the names of the men who are seeing this business through, and he will see that they are engineers

    1599
    and experts of the very highest standing. They are, with one or two exceptions, doing the work voluntarily. I am satisfied myself that we have done our best to correct the initial faults which always arise in a great undertaking, and the work is now being carried out exceedingly economically and with unprecedented speed. When you have complicated machinery, all the work, as the hon. Member knows, is not done on the spot. There are places all over the country which are now getting ready their contributions—machinery and other things—which will be installed hereafter. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) referred to our contracts with the United States of America. I do not know from where the hon. Member got his information.
    Sir J. WALTON: From the "New York Times."
    Dr. ADDISON: All I can say is that he is certainly out in his figures. I am not prepared to give the correct figures, but he is very largely out in his figures as to the cost of the munitions contract in the United States. That, however, is a mere detail. The hon. Baronet's main contention was that it was our duty to reduce our purchases abroad as much as possible, and to make things at home as much as we can. I need not assure the hon. Baronet that not only are we anxious to do that for munition reasons, but that the Treasury are seeing to it that we are constantly reminded of our duties in that respect. We have made great strides, and we have made strides, I think, in connection with the particular class of explosives to which he was referring almost more than in any other direction. If the hon. Member were to go to some parts of the country he would see that we have undertaken the equipment and construction of factories for the provision of explosives on an undreamed of scale. We have done this apart from the fact that we want to make as much as we can at home, because it also avoids those exchanges and other difficulties which arise from purchases abroad; and also, I am glad to say, we are producing the stuff at a very much less cost. There is in one of our explosive factories an enormous plant adapted to the production of sulphuric acid, which is turning out at the present time double the output of the whole country before the War, and although our prices for this particular
    1600
    commodity for foreign purchases were fixed several months ago, we are now getting material for this plant at one-fourth the cost of those prices, which is very much less than one-fourth of the present market price. As a matter of fact, in one of the factories we are turning out the stuff at such a pace that we shall have paid for the whole plant, lock, stock, and barrel, in nine months from the commencement of operations. I only mention these facts, although as a matter of fact I could go on for two hours on that subject, in order to reassure the hon. Baronet on these points, and that we are alive to the necessity of getting as much done at home as we can, and of reducing our foreign purchases as much as possible. That policy is being very vigorously pursued.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I am sorry I had not an opportunity while the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster) was here to draw attention to a small matter in connection with Army contracts in Ireland. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Munitions Department (Dr. Addison) to convey to him the few observations I have to make on this subject, and to ask him to inquire into them. Last month there was an Officers' Training Corps formed at the Curragh Camp, in Ireland, and, in accordance with the practice that prevails elsewhere, it was decided to provide a distinctive uniform for the members of this Training Corps. I think a grant of £8 per head was advanced to the members of the corps, which was later to be deducted from the amount given to them when they obtained their commissions. In connection with these uniforms it was decided, very properly, by the War Office to give the contract in Ireland, and the contract was given to a firm in Dublin. I am sorry to say that there seems to be a great lack of supervision in connection with matters of this kind in Ireland. I do not know whether the War Office has no suitable representative there. I am sure it does not come within the purview of General Maxwell. But although Ireland has had every reason to complain up to the present of the fact that she has not had what she considers to be her fair share of munition work, or her fair share of contracts given either by the Admiralty or by the War Office, there has been no proper supervision, and the result is that in this particular case to which I refer, while the contract was given to a tailoring firm in

    1601
    Dublin, the tailoring in connection with, it is being done here in London. I would like the hon. Gentleman to convey the facts to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I can give him full information, the name of the firm in question, and the name of the places where the tailoring is being done in London. The amount involved in wages, of course, compared with war expenditure, is a very small one, amounting only to a little over £1,000. I think, however, that even for a small amount like that, Dublin and Ireland are entitled to see that it should be spent in the country.
    I understand that the reason for giving the contract away out of the country has been a complaint that there is a shortage of labour. I am in a position to deny that, and I think that if the matter is inquired into it will be found that there is no justification for it whatever, and that, moreover, the War Office has only to make inquiry and it will find that there are a great many firms in the city of Dublin who would be only too glad to help in connection with the contract of this kind. My information is that, for some reason which has not been explained, only one or two firms were asked to tender for this contract. That is an entire departure from what is done in the case of Oxford, Berkhamstead, and a large number of other places where similar corps have been started, and where similar conditions prevail. I am told that in most of those places either the members of the Officers' Training Corps are allowed a very wise discretion as to where they should go for their uniform—a large number of firms are on the Government list—or else they have absolute freedom altogether. In this Irish case, however, for what reason I do not know, only one or two firms were asked to tender. This is a small matter, but I hope, as I said, that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will look into and remedy this grievance, because there is no doubt whatever that the labour can be forthcoming at Dublin, and that there is a large number of firms ready and anxious to do work of this kind if they are allowed to do so by the War Office. It is a question, I believe, for supervision, and there should be no reason at all why contracts that were meant to be carried out in Ireland should not be carried out there, where the conditions, certainly as regards labour, are ample and sufficient for work of this kind. I merely want to draw attention to this small matter in the hope that it will be looked into.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I will only detain the House a few moments, and, in fact, I feel inclined to apologise to the representatives of the War Office for keeping them here any longer. I should like, however, to call attention to a matter in regard to which I do not expect to get an answer to-day, but which has been brought forward once or twice before. It is a matter of the highest importance, and I shall be glad if I can hear from them that we shall have a definite statement from the War Office shortly as to what they mean to do. I refer to the uniforms, rifles, and accoutrements for the Volunteer Corps which are now being established all over the country. I am sorry to say that, as the House knows, it is the fact that when the Volunteer Corps first started at the beginning of the War they did not receive anything in the shape of recognition on behalf of the War Office, and in consequence the numbers during the last eight months very largely fell away. I am pleased to say that the movement now has the support, acknowledgment, and approval not only of His Majesty, but of the War Office also, and in addition it may now be said to be on an acknowledged, practical, footing. We can, however, get no information from the Department, and although in many cases large sums of money have been supplied and extremely good offers have been made to help in the clothing of the men, we have received no information from the War Office in response to numerous inquiries to questions asked here and otherwise as to what uniforms the Volunteers may buy. The only reply we get is that they may buy a green-grey cloth if they like, but that at any moment the War Office may alter it into khaki. It is possible that Volunteers may be ordered into khaki. Of course, I should think they would prefer khaki and silver buttons, or something of that kind, on the same lines upon which the old Volunteers were allowed to wear scarlet and silver buttons. The Volunteers ask for a definite answer. They have made all the arrangements they can and money has been subscribed to supply them with uniforms. All they are waiting for is a definite statement from the War Office as to the sort of uniform they should get.
    With regard to accoutrements and arms, unless the Volunteers have them they would not be of much use when called out. They do not ask for arms for the whole of their members, because a good many of them being engaged in civil occupations each man would only be able to serve a

    1603
    part of his time, so that they would serve on alternative days or in relays. The War Office might fairly go to the extent of supplying one-fourth of the number of men with arms so that they could be used in rotation by the men. The question of accoutrements could be easily settled by their being supplied either direct from the War Office or the Army contractors. We want every step to be taken to turn the Volunteers into a practical, useful body. They are now being called upon by the Defence officers and other officials to assist in finding guards for railways, munition works and other places and also, which is very important, to assist in extinguishing fires which would be almost certain to occur if we were to have anything like a bombardment from aeroplanes. The Volunteers are quite prepared to assist the police and local authorities by going wherever they are wanted. The House should not forget that the more the duties connected with the defence of the realm are carried out by Volunteers the more Regular soldiers can be released either for service abroad or in Home defence. The House will realise the enormous help that can be given by these men. The more you give them to do the better they will be pleased. Anybody who has read the re ports in the newspapers, anybody who saw the fine show of Volunteers in this City a short time ago and who read the report of what Lord French said at the inspection of the Volunteers, knows what a fine force they are, and how useful they might be made for the defence of the country, and to release men for service abroad or Home defence. Every day in the papers we see an increasing and a continuous demand upon the country from the field, therefore it is of importance that the Volunteers should receive every assistance from the War Office so as to enable them to take the place of those men who can be sent abroad to assist in the War. I cannot expect that anyone on the Front Bench now will be able to give me an answer to-day, but I shall be extremely glad to hear from anybody who can speak with authority that the War Office is occupied with the question, and that we shall have an answer, upon which the Volunteers will be able to act.
    Mr. LUNDON: I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, whether it would be possible under the heading of this Vote to raise the
    1604
    question of martial law in Ireland, and the attitude adopted there by Sir John Maxwell and the troops under his command?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not think that would come under this Vote.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is not the Question before the House the Voting of £450,000,000 for the upkeep of the Army, and included in that is the maintenance of the 40,000 troops in Ireland? On that are we not entitled to raise the whole question as to the conduct of those troops, of the Government, and of Sir John Maxwell and the officers?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is the civil authority that is responsible for the institution and the prolongation of martial law in Ireland, therefore it must be on a Civil Vote that that question must be raised. Soldiers only act under orders.
    Mr. LUNDON: Do we not understand that at this moment, I am speaking on the authority of Lord Lansdowne, who said in the House of Lords that Ireland was at this moment under the control of Sir John Maxwell and of the troops there? That has not been denied by the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government. Having no Civil Court in Ireland, we are ruled by Maxwell and the gentlemen under him. Therefore I submit that we are entitled under this Vote to raise the question.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that can be permitted. Clearly the military authorities are answered for at present by the Home Secretary representing the Government of Ireland, and it is upon some Vote upon which he, or the Prime Minister, as the head of the Cabinet, can reply that this matter must be raised.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will not the expenses of these 40,000 troops, and the salary of Sir John Maxwell be paid out of this Vote?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That may be so, but we have to discuss questions v here the Minister who is responsible to this House can make his answer. It is quite clear that it is not this particular general or soldier that is answerable, but the Cabinet or the Minister who is responsible to this House.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHAN: Cannot the question be raised in this way: There is a certain number of troops in Ireland which, under martial law, and the system of government obtaining there, are kept

    1605
    there whereas they could be better employed either at the front in Flanders or some other place. Are we not at liberty to discuss that point on this Vote?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I think not, because, as I have explained, the Cabinet, for which the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary answers, is the present Government of Ireland, and the matter must be raised on some occasion upon which they can reply.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Are not the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet responsible for the conduct of the War, and is it not the conduct of the War that we are discussing here to-day on a Vote of this kind, and cannot a matter affecting the troops kept unnecessarily and provocatively in Ireland be debated upon an occasion of this kind?
    Mr. KING: On that point may I call your attention to the fact that there was a considerable discussion, lasting, I think, three quarters of an hour, yesterday, upon the question of the deportation of aliens. That is a matter which was not only raised by arrangement with the proper authorities but replied to at considerable length by the Home Secretary. It was entirely a matter under his purview, and if the Home Secretary can reply upon one matter on this Vote of Credit yesterday, why cannot a similar matter be raised upon this Vote of Credit to-day?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I am right, but I have not had any notice that this question was to be raised. I certainly think I am right, but if the hon. Member likes to raise it to-morrow with Mr. Speaker he will be quite entitled to do so. I will not say anything to prejudge that matter. Of course, if it is in order now it is equally in order tomorrow. But I still hold to my opinion on the spur of the moment that it is a decision of the Civil Government, and, therefore, not open to discussion on this occasion.
    Mr. KING: I am so surprised by the ruling, which I have no doubt has many reasons, that I shall consult with my Friends, and, if possible, raise it with Mr. Speaker to-morrow.
    Mr. LUNDON: I do not blame you, Sir, in the least if in raising this question I am breaking the Rules of the House and breaking even the order of Debate, but it is most extraordinary that we in Ireland have to live under the tyranny of Sir John
    1606
    Maxwell and you will not allow us to discuss his tyranny, while you deny us a Parliament in our own country.
    Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."

  SUPPLY [30TH MARCH].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      Class I.
      Resolution reported,
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,700, 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 Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. KING: Is it in order for Orders to be read out from the Table so inaudibly that one cannot hear them?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has the Agenda Paper in front of him he can see what the matter is.
      Mr. KING: There are so many items in the agenda that it is impossible to know which is being read. May I respectfully appeal that this Order may be read out again?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member can follow.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions reported,
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,100, 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 Expenditure in respect of Osborne."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,000, 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 Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,600, 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 Houses of Parliament Buildings."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, 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 Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £43,200, 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 Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,900, 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 Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
      8. "That a sum, not exceeding £350,600, 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 Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding £91,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment
      1608
      during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, in respect of Insurance and Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain."
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £141,400, 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, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."

      Class II.
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding £88,700, 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 Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [22ND MAY].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      Class II.
      Resolutions reported,
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £135, 160, 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 Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

      Class I.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,030, 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 Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [31ST MAY].

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

    1609
    Expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [20TH JUNE].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      Class VII.
      Resolutions reported,
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £148,709, 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 National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants-in-Aid)."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,167,239, 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 Insurance Commission (England), and for sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1915 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £204,923, 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 Insurance Commission (Wales), and for sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1915 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £426,902, 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 Insurance Commission (Scotland), and for sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration
      1610
      under the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1915 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
      Resolutions agreed to.
      Resolution reported,
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £273,475, 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 Insurance Commission (Ireland), and for sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of the Cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1915 (including certain Grants-in-Aid)."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. HAZLETONrose——
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to move an Amendment?
      Mr. HAZLETON: No.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then he must put a question.
      Mr. HAZLETON: I desire to put a question to the Government. The Irish Members had no notice that this matter in connection with the Irish Insurance Commissioners was going to be raised or passed by the Government this evening. I would like to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether he gave any notice to the Whips of the Irish party that this Vote was to be taken to-night? I think it is correct to say that he did not, and in view of that fact I would ask the Government to postpone the taking of this Vote until another day.
      Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): This Vote was passed in Committee of Supply, I think, without any discussion at all. Last night I sent the Whips of the Irish party, as I always do, the business of the following day, and certainly on that list it was stated that the Report of Votes already granted would be taken. In the House this afternoon the Prime Minister distinctly said that we would take to-night the Reports of Supply, so that I think the fullest notice has been given in this matter.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. LUNDON: There is one question we are anxious to discuss on this Vote, and that is the action of the Insurance Commissioners in Ireland in refusing to reinstate men who were employed by the Insurance Commissioners, and who were arrested on suspicion, and have been released by the Advisory Committee as being innocent men. The Insurance Commissioners have, in one or two cases, certainly in one case especially, refused to reinstate a man. Some of us are very anxious, therefore, for an opportunity of raising the question on this Vote.
      Mr. KING: I hope that attention will be paid to what apparently is a grave matter. If there is any difficulty about furnishing a reply on this matter, may I appeal to the Government not to take this Vote, but to postpone it. They have plenty of other Votes to go on with. Plenty of money is being voted for them to carry on the Government.
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I am afraid that I cannot give information as to the particular cases that the hon. Member has referred to. He has not given me any notice that this point was going to be raised.
      Mr. HAZLETON: We did not know until the Prime Minister's statement today that this Vote was going to be taken.
      Mr. P. MEEHAN: I suppose it is on the initiative of the Home Secretary that the men who were clerks in the employment of the Insurance Commissioners of Ireland and those in the employment of other Government Offices in Ireland have been suspended or dismissed because of the supposed part they took in the rebellion. The Home Secretary is here, and the chief officials who have to do with the Irish Insurance Commissioners are well aware that some officials have been suspended. So far as I am concerned, I will put this matter to the vote if those who are responsible for it do not see their way to postpone it, and to give us some definite explanation as to why these men are being suspended and dismissed, in spite of the fact that the officials who are over them know, and the Government know, that the men charged were innocent of the charge against them.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I should be glad if the hon. Member could tell me whether his complaint is in reference to the employés
      1612
      of the Commission itself, or to the secretaries of approved societies who may have been suspected of being implicated in the rebellion. Is it in reference to the officials of the Commission that he raised objection, or not?
      Mr. MEEHAN: The officials of the Commission. During the week there has been a question addressed to the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for College Green, who asked whether certain officials in Ireland were refused reinstatement on their being proved innocent. The case he had in mind was this particular case of an official employed by the Insurance Commissioners. He is an official of the Commission, and not a secretary of an approved society.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Samuel): I am not acquainted with the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, of an official of the Insurance Commission who has been dismissed as he suggests. So far as my information goes, no officials of the Irish Government have been dismissed. Some have been suspended pending investigation. Persons who were under suspicion in connection with the rebellion were suspended until investigation could be held. I have heard of no particular case of an Insurance Commission official. Taking the whole of Dublin—and indeed the whole of Ireland—I think there are altogether about twenty men who are in that position. A very small proportion, I am happy to think, of the whole body of Civil servants in Ireland. As hon. Members are aware, we intended that these cases should be investigated by the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey. That Committee contains an Irish judge and an Irish Member of Parliament, and other gentlemen who would give careful and exhaustive inquiry into the facts of these cases. It must be obvious to hon. Members that where there is suspicion and men have been arrested the matter must be investigated. It cannot be put aside as of no importance. It is of importance if members of the Civil Service have been engaged in a movement of this character. If they have not been, they will have the fullest opportunities of stating their case and having it investigated. The Committee of which I speak found that, owing to pressure of work and other circumstances, they were unable to undertake this task. Hence the delay, which I greatly regret. As I

      1613
      pointed out in the House on a previous occasion, two very distinguished Civil servants, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson and Sir William Byrne, have accepted the duty of investigating carefully these cases. They cross to Ireland to-morrow night for this purpose, and I hope that in a very few days the matter will be satisfactorily settled.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: I think that the best possible case which could be made for postponing this Vote has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. He has told the House that he knows nothing whatever about these cases. It is notorious in this House and notorious in Ireland that a good many of these Government officials who have been suspected have been suspected largely through the action of an hon. Member of this House, representing a South of England constituency, who, most valiant men would think, ought not to be in this House, but in another place defending his country. He has apparently diverted the attention and the energy that might be given to the defence of the country, owing to the fact that he is a military man, by parading about this House in military uniform—sometimes only—and devoting his time to putting questions about the rebellion in Ireland and getting officials in the employment of the Irish Government suspected. We all know that if the right hon. Gentleman gets this Vote, if there is any investigation afterwards and it is not satisfactory, we shall have no remedy whatever.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out that no general consideration of this character can be raised on this Vote. The hon. Member who first rose asked questions about persons employed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners. Of course that is in order, but it might assist hon. Members if I point out that if this Vote is taken now it will be included in the Bill which comes on for Second Reading tomorrow, and they will have then the opportunity of presenting the precise details on which they require information, and that both on the Second and the Third Reading of that Bill there will be that opportunity.
      Sir W. BYLES: On a point of Order. When you put a Vote to the House from the Chair is it not competent to an hon. Member to challenge that Vote?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have just stated that it was in order with regard to
      1614
      the Insurance, Commissioners, but on the particular Vote you cannot raise the general question. You can only discuss here some act alleged to be done by those Insurance Commissioners in Ireland.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: That is exactly the case that we make as to these officials of the Irish Insurance Commission who have been under suspicion and have lost their positions—so far, at any rate—and have lost their positions largely at the instigation of an hon. Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he knows nothing whatever about these cases. Surely it must be obvious to every Member that, if your suggestion is adopted and we raise this matter on the Second Reading or the Third Reading of a Bill which is coming on, that will not remedy our grievance. Everybody knows that once a Minister of this House gets the money our protests are absolutely futile. They will be wholly ineffective, and the only real remedy is to postpone the Vote. You know this very well. I remember former days when there was no better authority in this House on these matters than yourself, and with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction I often supported you when you raised these very important points with regard to the inadvisability of allowing Ministers to get the money they wanted for their Departments. I assure you that I am only following your excellent programme when you were sitting on these benches. We do not intend to allow this Vote to pass. No doubt we may be in a minority in the Lobby, but we have a real grievance on this question, and until the Minister who wants this Vote is in a position, from knowledge, to give us a satisfactory answer we cannot allow it to pass without challenge.
      This is not a question of obstruction on our part. It is a question of ignorance on the part of the Minister who wants the money. He has told us that he does not know one single thing about these questions which we have raised. I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last Gentleman in this House who would try to conceal anything. He is the Home Secretary, and we know the anomalous position in which he is placed. He has an enormous amount of work; he has to try as best he may to look after the Irish Office, and of course we all know that there is nobody else here who knows anything about Ireland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Roberts) need not shake his head. Of course it would be

      1615
      no reflection, and I do not mean it as a reflection, on him to say that so far as Ireland is concerned he is about as ignorant as the general Members of the House of Commons, or as the other members of the Front Bench I hope that the Home Secretary will not press this and that he will postpone the Vote until we have the information which we think we ought to have. If he does not do so, the right hon. Gentleman in his dual capacity as Home Secretary and looking after Irish affairs is opening up for himself a situation that will not facilitate the getting of Votes in this House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must agree that the Minister who wants Votes for a Department ought to know something about the grievances which are raised in connection with that particular Department. He has just told us that he knows nothing whatever about them. We want to give him further time to know. He will not know to-morrow when the other Bill comes up for Second Reading. He will not then be in possession of the information. It is no satisfaction to us to know that the Minister in charge of the Bill to-morrow will be as ignorant to-morrow as he is to-night. Our object in having this Vote postponed is to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of informing himself as to the facts. These people have a real grievance. They are under suspicion. We all know what reasonable suspicion means in Ireland—that somebody has a grudge against an official and goes to the Castle and gives information against him, and the man is immediately suspended. I do not think that I need say anything more to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will see the reason for postponing this Vote and for not wasting time in a Division.
      Mr. ROBERTS: As I am the Chairman of the Committee on National Health Insurance I have to deal with the particular point raised by the criticism of the Irish Commission in connection with these gentlemen of whose cases the hon. Gentleman has been speaking, and, candidly, I, though I do not know the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers—I am afraid it is impossible for me to know every detail—I have made myself acquainted with the conditions of Ireland as the result of the rising. I am not without knowledge of the conditions of the work in Ireland, but I cannot give the hon. Member the information he
      1616
      requires, because he has not even given me the name of the man to whom he is referring. I cannot possibly know the actual details of the particular case he-has brought to my attention, but I can give him the details if he will furnish me the actual name. I can get a report, or can get it later on; there would be no difficulty whatever about that. The hon. Member is really, I think, not quite fair to me in not having given me the name.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: We want the report before you get the money.
      Mr. REDDY: How can you expect us to know?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I think it is quite an extreme case to ask me to give information at a moment's notice when I have received no information from the hon. Member, and no warning that he intended to ask me to give him the particulars which he requires. I cannot be expected to give information about a gentleman whose name he does not mention, nor can he expect me to have all the facts at my fingers' ends without giving me even five minutes' notice.
      Mr. LUNDON: We do not want to prevent the Vote from being carried through, but many of us on these benches have kept quiet while the Government have been suspending Government officials in Ireland; and for keeping quiet and supporting the Government, they have shown us by the attitude the Cabinet adopted towards us last night, and for that attitude we are going to adopt an attitude towards them——
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member rose to ask a question. The hon. Gentleman can only make one speech, and he has already spoken.
      Mr. LUNDON: I only put a question.
      Mr. HAZLETON: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question. We are anxious for information with regard to these cases which come before the Advisory Committee here in London, and the Home Secretary, in connection with Government officials in Ireland, has appointed a special Commission of two gentlemen to investigate each particular case. Is the Home Secretary in a position to tell us that there is no information from the Advisory Committee in London, or no report from that Committee which deals with such cases, that would enable him

      1617
      to say in answer to the hon. Member whether the papers show that the official charged with complicity in the rebellion is absolutely innocent? The Advisory Committee go into these matters very carefully, we are told, and surely they send papers and documents in connection with these cases to the Home Office, because we are informed that it is the Home Office that has to carry out the recommendations of this Advisory Committee.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that we are only

  SUPPLY [20TH JUNE].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      Class VII.
      Resolutions reported,
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete
      1618
      concerned with the particular case of the Irish Insurance Commissioners.
      Mr. HAZLETON: That is the case I am asking about.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had already spoken, and I thought he only now rose to ask a question.
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 23.

      Division No. 41.]

      AYES.

      [9.20 p.m.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Radford, Sir George Heynes

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Haslam, Lewis

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Holme, Sir Norval Watson

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Higham, John Sharp

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Hodge, John

      Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

      Brace, William

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Rowlands, James

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Carew, C. R. S.

      Illingworth, Albert H.

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Tickler, T. G.

      Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

      Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

      Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Macmaster, Donald

      William, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Young, William (Perthshire, East)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Younger, Sir George

      Fell, Arthur

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      NOES.

      Boland, John Pius

      Ffrench, Peter

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Field, William

      Molloy, Michael

      Byrne, Alfred

      Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

      Reddy, Michael

      Cosgrave, James

      Hackett, John

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hazleton, Richard

      Whitty, Patrick Joseph

      Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Kilbride, Denis

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Dillon, John

      King, Joseph

      Mr. P. Meehan and Mr. Lundon.

      Duffy, William J.

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      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 Audit Staff under the National Insurance Act, 1911."
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding £275,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

      1619
      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 Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [3RD JULY].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      REVENUE DEPAETMENTS.
      Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,537,145, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
      Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [11TH JULY].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      Class II.
      Resolution reported, "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."
      Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [24TH JULY].
  Resolution reported, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £470,262,480 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. KING: This seems an opportunity on which the Financial Secretary to the
  1620
  Treasury can give a reply to some questions which were put in the House yesterday.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is the Report of Ways and Means.
  Mr. KING: It is just because the questions were raised on Supply that they could not be answered yesterday. We are now on Ways and Means, and I understand we are therefore entitled to ask whether the Government is going to raise this money by way of loan or Treasury Bills or War Certificates, or by any other means.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Resolution.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. McKinnon Wood.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL,
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen"; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBT).
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."
  Mr. WATT: We got a definite promise from the Prime Minister this afternoon that only nine of the Orders on the Paper would be taken to-night. I was specially commissioned to ask that question of the Prime Minister. A number of my Friends were interested in some of the measures following upon No. 9, and on that promise of the Prime Minister they have unfortunately gone away under the impression that those measures would not be gone into. Is not this another breach of promise?
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I think the House will remember quite distinctly what the Prime Minister said. It was that he would not use the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to go further than No. 9. There was no promise, and, in fact, at the request of the hon. Member, he repeated what he had said.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WATT: I desire to ask my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether this Bill makes the taxes in the Isle of Man precisely the same as those which are prevalent over Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The fact is that the taxation of the Isle of Man is imposed by the local Legislature, and this Bill is introduced every year for the purpose of confirming their legislation. The figures of the taxes are not in all cases the same as they are in this country, they are decided, of course, by the local Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 19th July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board to Promote Cooperation in Connection with Small Holdings Colonies.)
    With the consent of, and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may promote the formation or extension of societies on a co-operative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the profitable working of holdings provided under this Act, whether
    1622
    in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may assist any such society by making grants or advances to the society, or guaranteeing advances made to the society, upon terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment or otherwise, and on such security, as the Board think fit.
    Mr. L. SCOTT Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "and the Board where they think fit may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony of small holdings provided under this Act upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit."
    This is a corollary of the Amendments which were accepted by the Government when the Bill was last under consideration. I do not think it necessary to detain the Committee by explaining the matter again.
    Mr. HIGHAM: I do not think that the hon. Member has done justice to his Amendment. This Amendment, with other parts of the Bill, may simply substitute one landlord for another. It says that a colony or any portion of one may be transferred to one of these societies. I think the hon. Member should explain exactly the result of the Amendment. We do not want to bring in a new landlord to inflict all the evils and exercise all the powers of the old landlord.
    Mr. SCOTT: I explained the proposal at some little length at the last sitting of the Committee. It simply enables public utility societies, at the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, to run colonies of this kind on a partnership or co-operative basis. It is only for that very limited purpose—a purpose which has been recognised in the Small Holdings Act of 1908.
    Mr. HIGHAM, Does it mean that a colony of over 2,000 acres may be transferred to one of these societies, and that that society shall then become the landlord, able to fix its own terms in dealing with the tenants on that holding?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): It seems to me that under present circumstances it might be a useful power to be able to make use of one of these public utility societies, possibly a society formed for the purpose of developing an agricultural experiment of this kind, and to hand over to them, say, a portion of

    1623
    one of the colonies to develop as a model hamlet or village, or something of that kind, in their own way. The power of considering something of that kind will, I think, be a useful addition to the Bill.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it the intention of the Government under this proposal to purchase the land for a colony and then to hand it over to a public company? Because in the following Amendment there is power to appoint directors of the Board to manage the company.
    Mr. SCOTT: The next Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment now before the Committee. It relates solely to the question of the powers of the Board with regard to the management of the colonies kept in their own hands. It is quite a different subject.
    Mr. SAMUEL: We will discuss that when we come to it. If the Government are going to experiment upon these colonies, it is very much better that they should supervise the work themselves. In an earlier discussion to-night it was shown what an enormous saving had been effected when the Ministry of Munitions took over the manufacture of munitions. The Parliamentary Secretary was able to give figures which startled the House. Is it not possible for able men at the head of the Board of Agriculture, who take a great interest in this matter, to devise a scheme such as this and spend public money upon it, instead of handing the whole thing over to a public utility company? Under the Small Holdings Act we have schemes now being worked and managed by the county councils. Does any Member say that those schemes are not well managed, or that they are not well developed? The county councils now undertake the purchase of land for the purpose of allotments and small holdings. Do I understand that such a power should be given to the county councils to hand those schemes over to a company to work? This is certainly, in my view, a retrograde measure. I understood that the Government were going to purchase the land right out, manage the scheme, and develop a new principle so as to bring wounded men upon the land, and that these men would be under the care and attention of a Government Department. If that is so, I ask with all seriousness: What is the use of taking the power to hand over the whole of this work to a public utility company? We shall very likely find pressure put upon the
    1624
    Government hereafter. When a Bill was brought forward for the improvement of the dwellings of the poor, we had the same principle argued upstairs. When a corporation, council, or other public body had acquired the right to build houses, it was suggested that a public utility company should come in or should have power to borrow money to carry out the schemes.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I believe that if the local authority is going to work this they ought to work it with their own money. Then I also believe that if the Board of Agriculture is going to develop this scheme of colonies for wounded men that, as a matter of principle, the Government should work it. I note the hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I do not know whether he is one of the public utility men?
    Sir W. ESSEX: All Members of Parliament are.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not in the sense that the hon. Member means. I am also under the impression that the hon. Member for Wiltshire believes in this scheme, and is, in fact, one of the founders of it. At all events, that he is one of its supporters. If so, it is a very doubtful scheme. Consequently, I think, with all deference to the suggestion that this Clause should be passed as a new Clause——
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is not aware of what happened previously. This Amendment is only consequential on what we have already inserted in the Clause. This is only carrying out the third part of the same Amendment. Therefore, I think the hon. Member cannot at this stage review the whole position.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I quite admit I was not here on the last occasion. It would appear that some of us can attend too regularly. I myself am a very regular attender. There is a complaint sometimes that we attend too much, and if we do not attend on the occasion of a certain Debate then we are charged with being more or less ignorant of what has transpired. I think that this discussion is a very useful one. Certainly I believe the Member for Liverpool ought to have explained more fully what is meant by this Amendment. I certainly think if the Government is going in for this great scheme——
    An HON. MEMBER: Great scheme!
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I really believe it is only the initiation of a great scheme, and

    1625
    I believe that the Government, or the Department, should themselves work the scheme without having anything to do with any utility company.
    Mr. BARNES: I hope that this Amendment will be adopted. I say that as a Socialist. I am not going to be guided by mere doctrinaire principles in regard to a matter of this sort. I understand that this is an entirely experimental Bill. If it were otherwise it would not be worth talking about. It would be merely a pill to cure an earthquake. We expect to have to deal with hundreds of thousands of men, and this Bill will only deal with 300 or 400. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton spoke a good deal about the public utility companies. Where is there any reference in the Bill to them? I do not see any.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Co-operative societies.
    Mr. BARNES: We know what a cooperative society is. I take it that this is a practical effort, after years and years of talk, to do something to help agriculturists to paddle their own canoe, much in the same way as workmen in the past have so successfully paddled theirs.
    Mr. SCOTT: Precisely!
    Mr. BARNES: If anything of the character suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton were possible under this Bill, I do not think I should have supported it. As he says, the Debate may be very useful in a way, to elucidate information from somewhere or another. I should say that the Amendment would enable the Board of Agriculture, if they thought proper, to transfer certain parcels of land to properly constituted co-operative societies. I see no reason why an experiment of this sort should not go forward, why societies of the sort referred to, as well as the Board, should not experiment on their respective lines. I suppose about ten or twelve years ago I should have said that if a public body got hold of land that that public body should retain hold of the land, and under no circumstances let go of it. I have had some experience of public bodies since then. I live and learn. I hope I shall continue to live and learn. My confidence in public Departments has been very severely shaken during the last ten years. Therefore I am in favour of experiments being carried out by agriculturists being brought together and working co-operatively for
    1626
    their own good, and by so doing also working for the good of the whole community. For that reason I shall give my vote for the Amendment, unless I hear something very much to the contrary.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: In view of what has been said about this being consequential to the Amendment which we passed last time—I was here last time, and one of my hon. Friends reminds me of the fact that the Amendment last incorporated in the Bill was a manuscript Amendment that we had not seen before, and in addition to that, that we had never seen this Amendment at the time because it also was consequential, and in manuscript—I do submit that the Committee is hardly bound by what it did before, and is, and ought to be, in a position to consider the whole subject de novo. I sympathise a good deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars has said. At the same time it may be my conservative tendency, but my view is that if the State acquires the land the State should take hold of the land, and that it should not hand it over to any kind of company. I would like to remind the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite spoke of a public utility company. In his Amendment there is no reference to a public utility company. The words in the Amendment refer to "such society." It may be a public utility company, a cooperative society, or it may be any other society. For practical purposes, however, all the societies have this in common, that they do not carry on business at a loss, and they want to carry it on at a profit. This Amendment also says, any other land "upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit." There is one thing very noticeable, and that is that various societies, with influential people upon them, get hold of Government Departments and get favourable terms; at least, there is a suspicion that they may get them. I want to make sure that the public money which we vote out of the taxpayer's pocket by this Bill is not going into the pockets of any of the societies. I do not lay down such an absolute rule as my right hon. Friend, but the rule I would like to lay down is this: that if the Board, having acquired land and having spent money, it is to hand it over to a public utility society, there should be a statutory requirement that, as a condition precedent to that,

    1627
    before the public utility society or any other society gets the land, it should repay to the Board all the expenses which the Board have incurred in acquiring and improving the land. That seems to me an essential fact. I say frankly this is an instance of the danger of accepting offhand manuscript Amendments, against which I protested when this Bill was last before the Committee. The Committee had not the least idea—they had not the means of ascertaining—what they were landing themselves in. Here we have a Bill which is introduced to set up small-holding colonies to be under the Board of Agriculture, to be under the general direction of a right hon. and gallant Member of this House who is a special authority on agriculture, and then we find, all of a sudden, that the Board is to have the power to turn over the land it acquires to any society it likes, on any terms that may seem fit. I am sure that is not what the House had in view in giving a Second Beading to the Bill. I do not know if I am in order in suggesting now an Amendment at the end of the Clause.
    Mr. M. BARLOW: A manuscript Amendment?
    Mr. WHITE: Yes, certainly. If my hon. and learned Friend introduces a Clause on a manuscript Amendment, I propose to amend it by a manuscript Amendment. If this Clause had been on the Paper first, I should certainly have put my Amendment on the Paper. As it is, an hon. Member who proposes a manuscript Amendment cannot object to a manuscript Amendment to that Amendment. I do not know if this is the correct moment for proposing it, but what I would propose is to add at the end of the manuscript Amendment the words, "Provided that the Board shall not make such transference except upon full repayment of all expenses incurred by them."
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will hand that in. Of course it could be moved after the insertion of these words.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I do not think my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat has given to this Bill and the Amendments on the Paper the care and attention that he usually devotes to the business of this House, because if he had done so he would have observed on
    1628
    the last page of the Amendments a new Clause standing in the names of two or three hon. Members, of which the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division is merely a paraphrase. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment was introduced into this place on the best advice, this being thought to be the best place for bringing in this principle, and not resorting to the device of a new Clause, and I do not think my hon. Friend opposite exhibited towards this Amendment quite the same enlightenment that he devotes to most of the questions of land reform in this House. Surely it is most desirable when we are attempting an experiment—and it is surely one of the smallest experiments to which this House has ever devoted legislation—that, in addition to the activities of the Board of Agriculture, the Government should call to its assistance some of those admirable public utility societies, one of which, at least, has already some experience of the establishment of groups of small holdings. I do not think my hon. Friend opposite need alarm himself about this Amendment or, indeed, about any part of this extremely diminutive measure. All that those who are interested in public utility societies plead for is that when this experiment is being made they should be given a chance of taking a hand in the proposed experiment.
    Mr. WHITE: On condition of reimbursing the payments?
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As to that, I am not in charge of the Bill, but really the matter is so microscopic that my hon. Friend need not trouble himself, but it is a valuable principle that the public utility societies should have a chance in connection with this experiment of showing what they can do, and from what I have seen of at least one of them, they will acquit themselves admirably in a branch of public reform which, we hope, will be very much larger when the result of this experiment is known and proved.
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Member who spoke last from the other side prided himself on having been present when the Bill was last before the Committee on 19th July. Quite apart from that, it appears to me quite obvious that before he made his speech he did not take the trouble to read the earlier words of the Clause on which

    1629
    this Amendment is based. If he had done so he would have found that the only society—not, as he put it, any society which might contain rich and plutocratic persons, who could bring influence to bear on the Board of Agriculture and the like; but the only society contemplated in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division is a society on a co-operative and, we added, a co-partnership basis, having for its object, or one of its objects, the profitable working of holdings under this Act. It must be a society engaged in working the holdings, and, therefore, the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is perfectly right in his cursory reading of the Bill in supporting this Amendment, because it is definitely to give to the people who are going to work these holdings a chance, if the Board of Agriculture so decide as a part of this experiment, of doing it on land which will be transferred to them by the Board of Agriculture for that purpose. I cannot imagine what hon. Members opposite can find to object to in that. If we are going to try an experiment of putting soldiers and sailors upon the land, surely it is right to give to the Board of Agriculture the right to permit co-operative or co-partnership societies to work those holdings, and, if they are to work those holdings, to transfer to them the land which naturally forms the basis and the main asset of the experimental undertaking. Therefore I do hope hon. Members will withdraw their, as I consider, ill-conceived objection to this not only harmless but hopeful Amendment.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do think, in spite of what has just been said, that the matter has been left rather vague by the governing words in the Clause itself and the subsequent Amendment. I want to ask, for instance, what is meant by "the society on a co-operative basis "? Does that mean, as I think the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division intends it should mean, a society made up of all those holdings on co-operative lines? It does not necessarily mean that. It may mean a society on some co-operative basis for the purpose of running an experiment, apart altogether from small holdings.
    Mr. PETO: Working the holdings.
    Mr. ANDERSON: That does not matter, and therefore, first of all, we want
    1630
    to be quite sure as to what is intended by this society on a co-operative basis, and that, I submit, may mean a great many things. It may mean something that is good, and it can also mean something that is very objectionable. Consequently, I think we want greater precision in regard to that point. To hear some hon. Members speak as to the various experiments that ought to be undertaken under this scheme, one would imagine that the Government was going to start about twenty or thirty different colonies and experiments, when, in point of fact, the Government is only going to start three colonies altogether.
    In all these colonies public money quite obviously is going to be very largely invested for the purpose of helping those who have been wounded and disabled in the War. If that is so, I say that the larger amount of public control we retain the better it will be from every point of view. It will be far easier for us to raise questions here if anything wrong is done to these soldiers if the land and the conditions are directly controlled, than if we let them out to some public utility company. If that is done, the care of the soldiers leaves Parliament of the nation, and enters some public utility company run on the basis of, perhaps, a limited 5 per cent. profit. From these points of view, and in view of the limited nature of this experiment, you cannot possibly go ranging all over the place. In regard to the treatment of various land experiments, I do not want to be tied up too rigidly to one method I should like to see various methods tried, but in view of all the circumstances, I do think, first of all, that we want a much clearer definition as to what is really intended, and, secondly, I believe that since we are, to a large extent, going to deal with the wounded and disabled in the War, this experiment should be retained under public control, so that we can bring the Department to book if anything goes wrong.
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain what was in my mind when I said, in the last Debate, that I thought this series of Amentments might be useful in carrying out this experiment. Of course, if the Committee disagrees with me, and thinks it is inadvisable, it has a perfect right to say so. I have had some discussion with people who are interested in all sorts of social experiments in agricultural districts, and who would like to try to help our colonies'

    1631
    scheme by getting an opportunity of carrying out some of the things they want to do. For instance, it is quite undeniable, I think, that this sort of colony might do better if there were attached to it, practically as part of it, a small factory or factories engaged in some rural industries such as wood or metal working. Woodworking industries would be a very valuable adjunct to a colony, and if a public utility society or a co-operative society on a co-partnership basis would undertake to provide the factory and staff for teaching the people in the colony to do wood or metal work or some other rural industry which can be combined with agriculture that might be a really helpful thing, and it seemed to me not unreasonable in that case that the Board might transfer a part of the colony. [An HON. MEMBER: "The freehold?"] No, not the freehold. I hope we shall not have to purchase any of these experimental colonies, but obtain the leasehold. We do not contemplate transferring any part of the freehold under any circumstances away from the State, and I do not think that would be fair or right. I think anything we do would have to be strictly under the control of the Government. Considering the extraordinary limited scope of the Bill, I am bound to say I think it would not be contemplated by any Government to transfer any of these colonies to any society, and the experiment will have to be kept quite definitely under the control of the Board of Agriculture. It seemed to me that these were not unreasonable words to accept, having in view the possibility of giving one of these societies the opportunity of starting one of these rural industries attached to the main experiment of the colony. I do not anticipate that we should go any further than that. It does not seem to me that these words are unnecessarily wide for that purpose, and I hope the Committee may now let us get on with the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Mr. DILLON: It seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion as to the object of this Bill. Hon Members who have spoken have given inconsistent accounts as to the purpose and intention of the Amendment. The hon. Member below me is evidently under the impression that the object of the Amendment is to transfer the whole or part of one of these colonies to soldiers or sailors who are made landowners, and to assist them to work their colonies by farms on a co-operative plan. The hon. Member
    1632
    who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench apparently has in his mind the idea of transferring an entire colony to some institution called a public utility company, a term which I am wholly unable to understand, because such companies do not exist in Ireland, but that is a wholly different plan to what is proposed in the Bill. Another hon. Member said this was a project to encourage the holding of land by small holders, but the Minister representing the Board of Agriculture informed us that it is neither the one nor the other, but simply a measure to transfer a small corner of the colony to some society which would introduce the wood industry or some other subsidiary industry. I come from an agricultural country, and I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman who is conducting this Bill that, in my mind, that is an absurd idea with which to start agricultural farms. It may be that in future, if you succeed in raising a peasant population in this country, that wood and other industries may gradually develop, but that is not the problem you have to face. These people you are going to put on the land are not going to live by making dolls to take the German trade, and if they are going to live at all it is out of the cultivation of the land. That is what this experiment is based upon. Therefore I would recommend the Minister of Agriculture to postpone to some future occasion until he has tried the experiment this idea of rural industries, and put these men on the land under normal conditions.
    With regard to the question of co-operation, I understand that you have large cooperative societies in this country who have that matter well in hand, and I take it that these people who are going to start on the land will have the same opportunity of availing themselves of the co-operative society which is under the presidency of an ex-Member of this House, and which offers its assistance and its guidance to all the men who cultivate land in England. I would suggest in connection with this Amendment that the Committee should really make up their minds what it is that is proposed, because, judging from the Debate, nobody knows what the Government are really after. The Committee are certainly not agreed upon it. I would suggest in a small microscopic experiment of this character that you should not cloud it or confuse it by these fads. The question is: Are you going to succeed in making peasant proprietors in England a success? It is a great experiment.
    Mr. CHANCELLORmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. DILLON: The fact that they will be wounded soldiers makes it more difficult. They are peasants, at all events, let them be proprietors or tenants.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They are proprietors in Ireland.
    Mr. DILLON: Yes, I am in favour of proprietors, but that does not touch the question of success. The point is that they are to be small holders. Believe me, as one who has lived among small holders all his life and who has been intimately familiar with their methods and their way of looking at life, all these new-fangled fads will not solve the question. What you have got to test is whether they can make their living out of the land. I do not know whether the co-operative society will assist them or not, but it is only a very small experiment and it ought to be watched closely and kept under the control of the State in all its details. Why propose to hand it over to some society? When you say a "society run on co-operative or co-partnership principles," let me say that there are societies in this City run on co-operative principles that are making 200 per cent. A name will not settle matters. A co-operative society may be making 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent., or 100 per cent. I object to the introduction of an Amendment which would invite the Government to divest themselves of their responsibility to watch over the infancy of this experiment and to hand it over either to a co-operative society or to a public utility society—whatever that may be—or to set up wood industries or any other fad, which, in my opinion, would only serve to confuse and to injure the value of the experiment.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken of co-operative societies in this City making 200 per cent. It is well known by those who have followed the co-operative movement that there are societies, originally cooperative and still retaining the co-operative name, which are making large profits, but they are not recognised as co-operative societies at the present time. Unfortunately there is no law in this country to prevent anybody using the word "cooperative." This Bill does not speak of co-operative societies; it speaks of
    1634
    societies on a co-operative basis. Nobody would say that these societies making 200 per cent. are on a co-operative basis. Moreover, we have heard of public utility societies. A public utility society is necessarily limited to 5 per cent. I do not think anybody who has had any experience of these societies on a co-operative or co-partnership basis can have any real doubt about their extreme utility in educating men in the art of helping themselves and one another on a mutual basis. If you are going to establish these small-holding colonies, it will be most objectionable to look forward to a condition in which the State is to spoon-feed all the people in the colony, everything to be done on a centralised basis, drawing its supplies from the Treasury and looking to a Vote from this House to put everything right if there is anything wrong. What you have to do, if you are going to have these colonies and to make a success of them, is as quickly as possible to train the colonists to combine among themselves to help themselves, and to help one another. In doing that, I venture to say that these societies, cooperative and co-partnership, will be of the greatest possible value. You will have societies for the men to supply themselves with the things they need for their small holdings. You will have societies for the disposal of their produce in common. The hon. Member for Mayo spoke of the small peasant proprietors in Ireland. He must know far better than most of us the enormous advantages which the small peasants in Ireland have derived from banding together and carrying on their industries.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that if anybody proposed to hand the whole of these men over to a co-operative society—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is very easy to make any proposal ridiculous by supposing that the powers which are given under a Bill of this sort are going to be used for the purpose of rendering the whole experiment futile, and of making everyone in it ridiculous. It is not to be supposed, however, that the Board of Agriculture, or whoever controls this experiment, will want to destroy its own experiment under the powers in this Bill. Moreover, it can do nothing without the consent of the Treasury, and it is not to be supposed for one minute that the Treasury is going to consent to give away, as has been suggested, all the money that has been expended upon these settlements. No! I

    1635
    venture to think that this is a most valuable power in order to enable the workers in these colonies to link themselves together for the purposes which they cannot properly carry out working as individuals, and which it would be hopelessly enervating and demoralising for the State to attempt to carry out for them, working as a great central authority with public money. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Sir W. ESSEX: This little Bill, this very little Bill, is a sign, it seems to me, of the new spirit that is coming over the country as one of the beneficial by-products of the War. Somebody makes an ingenuous remark on hearing that statement, but I want to point out to the House briefly how much many of us who sat for sixteen days on the old Small Holdings Bill in 1908 would have enjoyed it if we could have had the little bit of elastic which this Bill proposes to provide. The temper of this House, the temper of both Houses, in those days, great and beneficial as that measure was, prevented the addition of any such Clause to the Bill as is now proposed. I do earnestly ask my Friends who, like myself, have had in front of them all their life an earnest desire for the liberation of the land of this country, for the greater benefit and profit of those who live on it and by it, to give this little experimental Bill their help and a hearing. This is an endeavour to do, not something in addition to the Small Holdings Act only, but what that iron-bound Bill, beneficial as it has been, cannot do.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): We have not quite reached the Third Beading yet. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Clause, and the hon. Gentleman must keep narrowly to the purposes of that.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I thought I was rather helping on to that. I do want to lay emphasis on this. Those who know country life, know full well how this Clause will work out to its advantage in either of the three cases which are put forward as proposals for the experiment. You will be able to do what you cannot do with existing legislation, and I assure my Friends that as I read it in conjunction with the previous Act this will give elasticity to the operation of small-holding colonies and small land holdings and will enable the people not to make wooden
    1636
    dolls—although, if that were a profitable investment, why should they not do so?—but to engage in rural industries which are now made needlessly difficult. Finally, let us remember that a large number of these men who will come back to these colonies—I hope this Bill is only the seedling plant of a very much larger measure—will be men who could not work on ordinary small holdings, digging, hoeing, and all the rest. Some of them will be crippled, but under the pleasant conditions of rural life they will be able to do something to help those who can mow, sow and reap, and so the whole thing will grow and widen and country life will be made more truly helpful in the future than it is at present.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I have been expecting to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what attitude the Government intend to take on this Amendment. Do they intend to accept it?
    Mr. SCOTT: Yes, they have said so.
    Mr. DAVIES: I was present, and I should be very sorry to assume that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill meant that. He confined himself to pressing the provision for the transfer to such society of a portion of the land. He went further and stated that it was not the policy of the Board of Agriculture to transfer the control of the land to one of these societies, but that, on the other hand, they intended to retain control with the Board. The Amendment says:
    "The Board … may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony."
    Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the Government contemplate asking the House to pass this measure at a cost of £2,000,000 and then transfer the whole of the land that has been acquired to a society over whom, apparently, neither the Board nor the public have any control? Is that the policy of the Board? If so, we are entitled to know it from the right hon. Gentleman before we go to a Division. I have a good deal of sympathy with the object of the Mover of the Amendment and some other speakers, and agree that it is desirable to give every assistance of co-operation to those who will be on these small holdings. There will be no objection to that; in fact, it is already in the Bill, because Clause 2

    1637
    provides for the promotion of the formation of societies having for their object the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance. Those things are not only desirable but essential, if the scheme is to be a success. Obviously the object of the Mover of the Amendment is neither to establish credit societies nor to facilitate the sale of produce or otherwise, but to get the transfer of the colony itself.
    Mr. SCOTT: No, no!
    Mr. DAVIES: I suggest that the hon. Member should once again read his own Amendment, which distinctly says:
    "May transfer to such society the whole. … of any colony."
    That is the power that is going to be given to the Board. I, for one, most strongly object to placing this power in the hands of any body not answerable to this House. The House has been asked to make an experiment. I have expressed the opinion before, and I repeat it now, that I think the experiment will be a failure; but anything that is essential to that experiment should be done under the best possible conditions. I object, for instance, to a scheme for a compound, or something of that nature, being provided for men who are fighting for us, but I still more strongly object to the idea that when these men return, and when they are going to be put upon the land, they are going to be under the control and under the direction and under the limitations of a society which is answerable to no one and particularly not answerable to this House, and if the Amendment is moved I shall vote against it.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Those who are opposing this Amendment cannot be accused of opposing the principle of co-operation. The very fullest opportunities of co-operation are provided by the Clause as it already stands. Everything that is asked for, co-operation for the purpose of purchasing supplies, co-operation for the purpose of marketing, co-operation for the purpose of credit, all these things are possible under the Bill as it stands, and this Amendment can be required for no purpose except this: either that the colony as a whole may be transferred to the society or that a considerable portion of the colony is to be carved up and handed over to the co-operative society, leaving the rest to be worked independently as part of the scheme. I am extremely sur-
    1638
    prised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been a member of the Committee which has submitted this Report, who has taken a great deal of interest, and who has prepared, as he and his colleagues think, a scheme every part of which is dependent upon the other, should suggest that you should carve that scheme into bits, because, if you take out a considerable portion of the colony, and hand it over to the company your whole scheme goes to pieces. It is utterly impossible in a particular colony to carry out the scheme of the Committee of which he was a member. The scheme falls entirely to the ground in that colony. Or it is, of course, possible that the co-operative society may take over the whole colony, but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill tells us that he would never countenance any proposal of that kind. As I understand it he would not advise the Committee to take action which would enable that to be done. But the words of the Amendment allow it to be done.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I do not know whether it will meet the views of those who are opposed to the Amendment in its present form if I were to ask leave to withdraw two or three words from it. It provides that
    "The Board where they think fit may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony of small holdings provided under this Act upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit."
    I should be prepared to omit the words "the whole or," in order to meet the views of those who are objecting. I, of course, was a member of the Departmental Committee that considered the whole question of these colonies and their internal organisation, with a view to obtaining a maximum of success, and I did not in the least contemplate by proposing this Amendment that any of these various conditions of success which I regard as all essential, none of which in my opinion can be omitted, co-operation or otherwise, were to be dropped, and that is the reason why I put it in those words, "upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit," leaving to the Board the complete control to lay down any conditions they thought fit, knowing that among the conditions would be strict provisions to ensure the continuance of the whole colony in accordance with the scheme which we indicated in our Departmental Report.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I do not know what my hon. Friends think, but so far as I am concerned, while the suggested Amendment meets part of the case, it does not meet the whole case. I am now at an entire loss to know the object of the Amendment or what is hoped to be gained by it. Every form of co-operation can be carried out under the Clause as it stands. All that is achieved by the transference of a portion of the colony to a co-operative society is that in future, instead of paying rent to the Government which is carrying on this scheme, they now deal directly with the landowner and pay the rent to him. Does anyone suggest that it is in the interests of any scheme of co-operation that that should be done? Does anybody suggest that instead of paying rent to the Government the rent should be paid to the landowner, and that that is promoting co-operation in any shape or form? There is nothing achieved. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) wishes to do to encourage village industries could be quite well done under the Bill as it stands. The Bill gives him power to let land on such terms as he thinks best, so long as it is to encourage the success of the experiment. That he can do. It is quite unnecessary for him to have an Amendment of this character for the purpose of enabling him to achieve that object. In my view, the Amendment is designed to secure something which cannot be secured in this form and, I conceive, cannot be secured under this Bill. An experiment by public utility companies or by co-operative societies in settling people on the land would be a very interesting experiment, no doubt, and we would all wish well to an experiment of that character; but that is not facilitated in the slightest by this Amendment, either as it appears on the Paper or as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leslie Scott) proposes to amend it. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is going to safeguard himself. He is going to keep intact all the features of his scheme, because the Board of Agriculture may dictate terms to the co-operative society upon which they will transfer the land; but it is conceivable that you may have an unfriendly Board of Agriculture. You may, in time to come, have a Board of Agriculture which does not look with favour on an experiment of this kind, and they might hand over a portion of these colonies unconditionally. When that is done, what happens?
    Mr. BARNES: That would tell against your argument in regard to the Board of Agriculture obtaining the land.
    Mr. RAFFAN: At any rate, if this Amendment is not adopted, it would be impossible for them to decimate the scheme. Either the scheme would run with the chance of success which the scheme would have or the scheme would entirely go to pieces, and these holdings would be separated The worst thing of all surely would be to have half the scheme running on the lines laid down by the Committee of which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leslie Scott) was so distinguished a member, and the other half of the scheme run by a co-operative society on such lines as it thinks proper. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he will consider the matter he will see that he achieves nothing by this Amendment, but he introduces an element which would tell against that success of the scheme which I am sure he desires. I hope he will not press the Amendment. If he does, so far as I am concerned, I shall with my Friends go into the Lobby against it.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: When I first read this Amendment I was rather inclined to vote for it, but when I look into it more closely I see certain dangers in it. The object of this Bill is to settle as independant settlers on the land working for themselves for their own profit, small holders. If any portion of the land is withdrawn from the actual settlers, and cannot be worked individually by them, and is transferred to a co-operative society which may consist of members who have nothing whatever to do with the business, you reduce instead of increasing the number of persons settled upon the land and defeat the purpose for which this scheme has been brought forward, or if they remain on the land they do not remain as independent holders working for themselves, but merely as workmen employed by a co-operative society, even though they be members of that society. I think that that is not the purpose, but that might very well grow out of this Amendment. Therefore, personally, I shall vote against the Amendment if a Division is called.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the Clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Cecil Harms-worth). Under this Clause as it stands the Government, if the Department thinks fit,

    1641
    can hand over any portion of a colony to a public utility company. If the colony is a success, what right has the Government or a Department to sell any portion of it to any company? If the colony is a success it is very much better for the men to allow the colony to go on developing. If it is not a success will any utility company purchase it under the Clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth)?
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I do not think that my hon. Friend was present at the Debate at the last sitting when my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it quite clear that there was no means of enlarging the scope of this Bill, that the Government had made up its mind not to devote a larger acreage than 8,000 acres altogether to the purposes of this Bill, and therefore the Amendment which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members becomes impossible of achievement.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I accept the explanation, but I understood that the right hon. Gentleman did refer to certain Amendments further on on the Paper, and I understood that he was referring to these Amendments. If the Government does not intend to accept any one of these Amendments, my argument at once falls to the ground; but, after the explanation given by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, that he has modified this Clause so as to admit only a portion of the colony to be sold to a utility company, I think that the whole argument on this Clause falls to the ground. It is infinitely better, in my opinion, for the Government to work this scheme as an experiment and to treat these men in a kindly manner, and if the experiment is a success it can be extended in other directions.
    Mr. MORTON: This seems to be a most extraordinary Amendment. No two Members of the House seem to interpret or to understand it alike, and one would think altogether that it is promoted with the view of starting some other scheme rather than of dealing with these poor soldiers for whom we propose to find a very little land when they come back from fighting our battles. As far as I can understand the Amendment—I do not say that I understand it properly—it is a proposal to give the Board of Agriculture power to scrap the undertaking and to sell it to a co-operative society, or what is called a
    1642
    public utility company—what sort' of a company that is I do not know. It is a curious proposal. We are seeking to provide this little bit of land to afford a home for soldiers who have been damaged in the War, and whose position we are anxious to improve. In any case this is a bad Bill. For goodness sake do not make it worse than it is.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I must say that I have heard no argument advanced why we should accept an Amendment of this kind in Scotland. It is regarded in that country with the utmost alarm, to hand over the whole body of small holders to any kind of persons outside. I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Sir LUKE WHITE: There appears to be a great deal of misconception about this Amendment. If it were carried it would allow even the Board of Agriculture to hand over a colony, or part of a colony, to some outside body or independent society. The Clause itself enables the Board of Agriculture to promote cooperative societies for the purposes mentioned in Clause 2—that is, to enable the tenants to co-operate together in order to purchase and to sell. and to act in various other ways. That is the object of Clause 2, in my opinion. Then we have this Amendment before the Committee, and all that it does is to say that in addition to the Board of Agriculture promoting or assisting to promote co-operation amongst the tenants, the Board of Agriculture may, also, when that society is established—not an independent society, but the same society which has been formed—transfer to that society, for the objects put forward in this proposed Act of Parliament. I certainly support the Amendment. I believe that it will materially assist the tenants under the provisions of Clause 2, if, having tried the experiment of co-operation, they come to the conclusion that it will be better for them to have the ownership. Then they could apply to the Board of Agriculture, and the Department could hand the matter over to them to manage in their own way, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned. I hope the Amendment will be carried.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I hope the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) will hot definitely oppose the Amendment, and that he does not think that a large number of Scottish Members agree with him. The hon. Member who

    1643
    has just spoken (Sir Luke White) has got hold of the right end of the stick, and I cannot conceive why there has been such a very long Debate on this matter. In Scotland we have had many discussions about it, and I think they are very well satisfied that small holders in many cases should have a co-operative company.
    Mr. MORTON: What about the public utility companies?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I can only deal with one subject at a time. In holdings of this character co-operation is most desirable and necessary, and the object of the Amendment is merely to give to these individuals greater power than they possess. Under the Clause as it now stands the powers will be given for a certain control over members of co-operative societies, and nobody can suppose for a moment that
    any Board of Agriculture would ever think of giving up this power to outside societies altogether.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I hope the hon. Member will not force this Amendment to a Division, for he cannot gain anything. The hon. and learned Member is thinking in the terms of 60,000 acres, and if he had that quantity it would be a different matter. You have only got three colonies altogether, and Wales has got one of these, which she can manage in her own way. You have only got two left. For the sake of two colonies, you do not want to bring in tinkering things like this. I appeal to the hon. Member not to force a Division.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 46.

    Division No. 42.]

    AYES.

    [10.53 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

    Gulland, John William

    Rea, Walter Russel (Scarborough)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Haslam, Lewis

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Robinson, Sidney

    Brace, William

    Hodge, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brookes, Warwick

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Illingworth, Herbert H.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Cator, John

    King, Joseph

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clynes, John R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Younger, Sir George

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Millar, James Duncan

    Mr. Leslie Scott and Sir Luke White.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    NOES.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Reddy, Michael

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rowlands, James

    Byrne, Alfred

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    McGhee, Richard

    Sutton, John E.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dillon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Galbraith, Samuel

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pratt, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Mr. Higham and Mr. Anderson.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Mr. ACLAND: I think it was understood that we should not continue the Debate on the later Orders after Eleven o'clock. I therefore beg to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  EDUCATION (FEE GRANT).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in respect of children of the age of fifteen years and upwards of the fee grant payable under the Elementary Education Act, 1891 (King's Recommendation signified) (To-morrow).—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now Adjourn."

  GERMANS HOLDING BRITISH HONOURS.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I desire to call the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory answer given this afternoon by the Prime Minister in connection with the Germans holding British titles who are fighting against us. The Prime Minister has power to take steps to advise His Majesty to deprive these traitors, who at the present time are engaged in hostilities to this country, of these titles. No step has yet been taken by the Prime Minister. I called attention to the fact a week ago that the Prime Minister had power to deal with this matter, and I asked if it required legislation. The Prime Minister said "No, it could be dealt with without legislation." I therefore desire to ask the Government why it is that the Prime Minister does not try, at all events, to deprive these men of their titles? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to deprive them of their honours? The Government must be
  1646
  fully aware that the people of the country regard the action of these men with the greatest repugnance, and it is really a perfect scandal that these men should continue to hold these titles, whilst, at the same time, the Government take no steps in the matter. Are these titles of no value to them? Is that the view of the Government? If it is not, why do they not act? The truth is that the Prime Minister never acts at all until forced by public opinion to do so. In view of public opinion, I ask that the Prime Minister should at once deprive these men, who are traitors to their country, of the honours that have been conferred upon them by the State.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: We are engaged in a life and death struggle. There is scarcely one of us in this House who has not to mourn the loss of relatives and friends, and in the midst of that, when this country is making appalling sacrifices both of blood and treasure, every man in the field is confronted with the knowledge of German princes having the highest honours which it is in the position of the Crown to give. It is an insult to those who are fighting for us; it is an insult to this House; and it is an insult to every man who owns an honour that these gentlemen should take precedence, as they do, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, and the Archbishop of York. You, Sir, with your usual kindness and consideration, warned me I could not raise the question, which could only be decided by legislation on the Adjournment Motion. I know that, and, therefore, in reference to the peerages held by those gentlemen, which the Prime Minister said could only be taken away by legislation, let me say, with all respect to him and the Law Officers, that I entirely differ from them. Those persons could be deprived by the prerogative of the Crown, simply by the revocation of the Letters Patent. Likewise those peers in open arms against the Crown could be expelled from the House of Lords without any difficulty whatever. All men in open arms against the Crown in 1745, without any Act of Parliament, without any trial—the thing was notorious—were publicly expelled from this House. Then as regards the titles, ranks, and dignities, the title of Royal Highness is a title conferred by the Crown, and it can be revoked by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister in the exercise of that prerogative. So also is the

  1647
  title of Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Both these gentlemen in arms against us, leading men against us, murdering us or inciting to murder us, are Princes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. What an argument that is in favour of the union of the two countries! They have got various Orders, such as the Victorian Order. All these things can be removed without legislation at all. Simply by a stroke of the pen the holders can be deprived of them, just as Sir Roger Casement, a less traitor and treasonable person than they, was deprived by a stroke of the pen. What the people of England will consider is this: Is there one law and one administration for people in humble ranks of life, and another law and another administration for highly-placed and highly influential individuals? Are there to be wars and rumours of wars, are people to bleed and die, are their treasures to be destroyed, and are there to be a privileged few? I think the time has come when this kind of thing should cease. I said to-day at Question Time, and I said perfectly rightly, that these persons have more honours than were ever won with the full approval of the nation by Wellington, Roberts, and Kitchener combined. I do not think the people should bear this much longer. The duty of a Prime Minister has been laid down by Mr. Glad-
  1648
  stone in clear and express terms. He stated he has two duties to perform—first of all the duty to the Crown, and then a duty to the House of Commons and the people at large, who are represented by the House of Commons. It is the Prime Minister's absolute duty to recommend to the King, having regard to the public opinion raised on this subject, having regard to the disgust as to the holding of privileges by these people, to relieve them from the Orders of the Peerage just as in the case of ordinary felons and traitors.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that the short notice given has afforded me no opportunity of consulting the Prime Minister further as to his views upon this subject. Evidently it is a matter which provokes no small feeling amongst a considerable section of the House who desire that the matter should be taken into earnest consideration by the Government. It is naturally a question which appeals to the sentiment of patriotism in no small degree. With every respect to hon. Members who have spoken, it is impossible for me to do more than to promise to convey the views they have expressed, evidently with the approval of many hon. Members of this House, to the Prime Minister.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACT (NORTH LONGFORD).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACT (NORTH LONGFORD).
  MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (COMMISSION).
  MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (COMMISSION).
  WOOL PRICES.
  WOOL PRICES.
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (EQUIPMENT).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (EQUIPMENT).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ALIEN COMPANY (PURCHASES IN CROWN COLONIES).
  ALIEN COMPANY (PURCHASES IN CROWN COLONIES).
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (NATURALISATION).
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (NATURALISATION).
  TEDDINGTON TRADER (GERMAN ORIGIN).
  TEDDINGTON TRADER (GERMAN ORIGIN).
  FILAMENT LAMPS.
  FILAMENT LAMPS.
  ARMORDUCT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
  ARMORDUCT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  MEAT SUPPLIES.
  GUN EMPLACEMENTS (UNFOUNDED RUMOURS).
  GUN EMPLACEMENTS (UNFOUNDED RUMOURS).

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

E. Ancaster;

L. Lamington;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 23 (1916)—Note addressed to the United States Ambassador regarding the examination of parcels and letter mails (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 20 (1916) [Cd. 8261])":
European War—Papers relating to German atrocities and breaches of the rules of war in Africa:
Local Government Board—Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1915–1916. Part II. Housing and Town Planning:
Navy (1914–1915, Statement of Excess)—Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Army—Report of the Committee on Royal Aircraft Factory and Report to the War Committee by the Air Board on the subject of the Royal Aircraft Factory:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Punjab Legislative Council)—Amendment in the Regulations for the nomination and selection of Members of the Punjab Legislative Council:
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 Merioneth (Dolgelly);

Council of City of Kingston-upon-Hull:

Lunacy—Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients detained under the provisions of the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, seen by the several Commissioners during the six months ended 30th June 1916:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Board—Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway for the year ended 31st March 1916: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE (FELTWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Wigan (E. Crawford)).

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.

PETITION.
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889 (Ordinance of University Courts of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, General No. 4 (Regulations as to Preliminary Examinations))—Petition that this House will present an Address praying His Majesty to withhold His Assent from the above-named Ordinance; of the General Council of the University of Aberdeen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Regulation of street collections.
5.—(1) A police authority may make regulations with respect to the places where and the conditions under which persons may be permitted in any street or public place, within the police area to collect money or sell articles for the benefit of charitable or other purposes, and any person who acts in contravention of any such regulation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings or in the case of a second or subsequent offence not exceeding five pounds.
Provided that—

(a) regulations made under this section shall not come into operation until they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State, and published for such time and in such manner as the Secretary of Stale may direct; and

(b) regulations made under this section shall not apply to the selling of articles in any street or public place when the articles are sold in the ordinary course of trade, and for the purpose of earning a livelihood, and no representation is made by or on behalf of the seller that any part of the proceeds of sale will be devoted to any charitable purpose.

(2) This section shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(a) references to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Lord Lieutenant; and

(b) references to a police authority shall as respects streets and public places within the Dublin Metropolitan police district be construed as references to the Chief Commissioner of Police for that district; and as respects streets and public places not within that district, be construed as references to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

(3) In this section—
the expression "street" includes any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not.
LORD ROTHERHAM LORD ROTHERHAM moved to omit "police" [the second word of the clause] and to insert "local." The noble Lord said: It is not of my own motion that I move this Amendment. I do so at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which, of course, speaks on a matter of this kind with the highest possible authority. This Association has for many years had the honour of having as its President the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, who therefore knows well the great authority which attaches to the views expressed from time to time by this body on questions relating to local government. I may say that the Association heartily approve of the principle of Clause 5 of this Bill; indeed, they have for some time past urged the Government to legislate on this particular subject. But by the Amendment which I am moving they suggest that the body which should have power to make the regulations in question should be the authority having power to make by-laws for good rule and government. The alteration proposed by this Amendment will make very little difference in those boroughs which maintain their own police; the only alteration would be the substitution of the town

881
council in place of the watch committee. The main object of the Amendment is, in the case of those boroughs which are policed by the county, to substitute the town council for the county authority. In view of the importance of the body from whom this Amendment emanates, I trust your Lordships will recognise that the suggestion is entitled to careful and favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("police") and insert ("local").—(Lord Rotherham.)
LORD SANDHURST: I do not, of course, underrate the importance of the Association on whose behalf the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, but I desire to point out certain inconveniences which would arise from its adoption. Under the Bill as it stands the police authority is, in the metropolitan police district, the Secretary of State; in a county, the standing joint committee; and in a borough maintaining a separate police force, the watch committee. If this Amendment were adopted the authority in counties would be the county council, and in all boroughs the city or town council. As the Bill stands, the regulations will be made in each case by the authority directly controlling the police, but if the Amendment were accepted they would be made by authorities without direct control of the police; and in the case of boroughs which have not a separate police force the regulations would be made by the borough council and enforced by the county police.
The noble Lord has several Amendments on the Paper which are consequential and hang together. The objection which I have stated applies still more strongly to the proposal appearing in my noble friend's Amendment defining the local authority—
"the expression ' local authority ' means in the county of London the police authority and elsewhere the authority who have power to make byelaws for good rule and government under section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1838."
This definition, if adopted, would break up the metropolitan police district—a matter of extreme inconvenience—and establish separate authorities in the several counties and boroughs which compose it, The Commissioner of Police already possesses power to make regulations as to street collections extending beyond the county of London, and if a separate power were
882
given, as proposed in the Amendment, to the county and borough authorities a conflict of jurisdiction would follow. The metropolitan police district includes all Middlesex, parts of Essex, Surrey, Kent, and Hertfordshire, together with the boroughs of East Ham, West Ham, Croydon, Richmond, Kingston, Ealing, Bromley, Hornsey, and Wimbledon. Therefore while the Commissioner of Police would make one set of regulations it is quite possible that one of these boroughs might make other regulations for their borough, with the result that there would be considerable confusion; and it might also be the case that the street sellers, the people for whom these regulations are to be made, would be in some difficulty to know what the regulations were. Uniformity, which is very desirable in such matters, not only for the protection of the public but for ease of administration, would be imperilled by increasing the number of authorities with power to make regulations. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ROTHERHAM: While I have received instructions to move this Amendment, I have not been instructed to press it to a division; so I must accept, though with great regret, the decision of my noble friend in charge of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("This section") insert ("except subsection (3) thereof").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST: The next Amendment extends to county councils in Scotland a power which was given to burghs in Scotland last year.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(3) The power to make byelaws conferred upon the council of a county in Scotland by section fifty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall include a power to make byelaws regulating the conditions under which persons may be permitted in any street, road, or public place within the comity to collect money or sell articles for the benefit of charitable or other purposes, provided that such byelaws shall not apply to the selling of articles in any street, road, or public place when the articles sold are sold in the ordinary course of trade and for the purpose of earning a livelihood."—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
PART II.
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Provisions for securing welfare of workers in factories and workshops.
7. (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the processes carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require special provision to be made at the factory or workshops for securing the welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in relation to the matters to which this section applies, he may by Order require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may be specified in the order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the requirements of the order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
(2) The following shall be the matters to which this section applies:—
Arrangements for preparing or heating, and taking, meals; the supply of drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first aid arrangements; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities for washing; accommodation for clothing; arrangements for supervision of workers.
(3) Orders may—

(a) be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for factories or workshops of any class or group or description;

(b) be made contingent in respect of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained;

(c) provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of the arrangements, accommodation or other facilities for which provision is made, in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers; but no contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent.

(4 If, in the case of any order proposed to be made for a particular factory or workshop, the occupier, or, in the case of an order for factories or workshops of a particular class or group or description, the majority of the occupiers of factories or workshops of that class or group or description, dispute the reasonableness of the requirements in the proposed order or any of them, the objection shall be referred for settlement to a referee selected in accordance with rules made under this section, but the Secretary of State may so refer any objection though not made by a majority of the occupiers if he thinks desirable.
(5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the order, the occupier of a factory or workshop shall not make any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by him to any workman or receive any payment from any workman in respect of any provision made in pursuance of an order under this section, and if he makes any such deduction or receives any such payment, he shall be guilty of an offence against the Truck Act, 1831, and shall be liable to the penalties imposed by section nine of that Act as if the offence were an offence mentioned in that section.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the time within which and the manner in which notice of objection to any order may be made, and as to the selection of, and the procedure before, a referee and the cost of the proceedings before a referee (including the remuneration of the referee)
(7) Any order made under this section may be revoked at any time in whole or in part by the Secretary of State, without prejudice to the making of a further order.
(8) This section shall not apply to domestic factories or workshops.
(9) The Secretary of State may by a special order made in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-six of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extend the matters to which this section applies to matters other than those mentioned in this section.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after subsection (3), the insertion of the following new subsection—
(4) No contribution shall be required for such purposes from the workers in any factory or workshop whose earnings amount to less than twenty-five shillings a week, or from any worker for arrangements for supervision of the workers.
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I want to make it quite clear that, so far as the main provisions of this clause are concerned, I think it one of the most important in the Bill. In most respects it is quite admirable. It contains provisions which are urgently required in many of the works that were the subject of an Inquiry which I held in the autumn in Scotland, and I am very glad to see the clause in the Bill. But it seems to me that there are one or two points in regard to it to which the attention of the House and of the Home Office should be directed. I hold very strongly that some of the things mentioned in the clause ought not to be charged to the workers; certainly they ought not to be managed at the workers' expense unless those who are to pay for them are going to use them. I think it very improbable that all of the workers in any large factory would use these provisions; certainly that would not be so in the case of some of the poorer workers, those who are paid the smallest wages. I have in my Amendment inserted

885
a limit of 25 s. a week, but that figure is purely arbitrary. It does not concern me whether the wage is fixed at 25 s. or 23 s. or 20 s., as long as the principle is accepted that those getting almost less than a living wage should not have these deductions made from their earnings.
Some of the matters included in the clause are undoubtedly a fair subject of charge. But if the noble Lord will look at the last three lines of subsection (3) he will see there a provision that the charge is not to be made "unless two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, on their views being ascertained in the prescribed manner, assent." Supposing the majority is of the well-paid workers, are they to commit the poorer ones to a payment which they can ill afford and perhaps for benefits of which they do not make use? Again, if one lot of workers assent, and then the workers are changed, is the resolution once taken to be binding for all time? For example, in some of our munition factories work is now being done by women which was formerly done by men, and it will be more largely done by women in the near future, perhaps, than it is at the present time. Supposing a vote is taken in a factory, and the men say "Yes," they are quite willing to pay for these things, is that to bind all subsequent employees in that factory; and, if not, at what intervals is another poll to be taken or opportunity to be given for the determination, on the part of those who are to be charged, whether they will or will not pay? It must be obvious to everybody that it is not fair that workers should pay for such a thing as a canteen if they do not use it, or if they go home to their meals; and I cannot think that compulsion should be used. If they do not use it, the subscription towards it is an undue tax on their wages. If I understand the matter rightly, with regard to some of the other items referred to in the same subsection it is not proposed that the workers should pay anything to their cost unless they do actually use them, but I do not see anything in the clause to confine payment to those who so use them.
There are other matters to which the clause applies, such as arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals, the supply of drinking water, the supply of protective clothing, ambulance and first aid arrangements, the supply and use of
886
seats in workrooms, facilities for washing, and accommodation for keeping workers' clothing, such as overcoats, hats, and so on, while they are at work. I believe that the Home Secretary has long had power to demand that in all well-equipped factories these things should be provided, and there should be no question of a charge to the workers for providing them. It does not seem to me fair or reasonable that, without some limitation, these charges should suddenly be brought in. Let me call the attention of the House to one other point, that of the supervision of workers. I do not think this a fair charge on the employees. The factory owner should pay for supervision and not the workpeople. My last point is this. The wages of some of the women workers are far too low already; they are largely whittled down by insurance and other payments, and we should not allow an extension of this principle of charges to the poorer classes of the workers without very grave consideration. It seems to me that I have made out a strong prima facie case, at any rate, for not extending the charge in these matters below a certain limit of weekly wage.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 3, insert as a new subsection:
(4) No contribution shall be required for such purposes from the workers in any factory or workshop whose earnings amount to less than twenty-five shillings a week, or from any worker for arrangements for supervision of the workers.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SANDHURST: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, who is so thoroughly acquainted with these matters, speak so well of this clause, and I am rather surprised that the clause has not attracted more attention. The danger is that if a restriction is placed in the clause such as that suggested by the noble Lord, it might end in no Orders being made at all, because it would not be reasonable to expect that the more highly paid workers should contribute the whole cost. It must be borne in mind that these payments would be the exception rather than the rule. The whole object of the clause is to benefit the worker. Payments have to be subject to an Order of the Secretary of State, and where it was a question of the cost falling upon the low-waged workers, that would certainly be carefully considered by the Secretary of State in framing his Order. As to payment for supervision, the danger there is that if

887
it were specifically inserted in the clause that there was to be no payment for supervision, it might lead to a notion that payment was to be exacted for a number of matters mentioned in the clause, whereas, as I have said, these payments would be required in only special cases. There is no intention whatever to require a contribution for supervision or for the majority of the matters referred to in the subsection. The position of these factories and workshops has changed very much lately owing to circumstances which it is fair to say are due to the war. Women have been employed in very large numbers, and other accommodation and so on is now required. What was in the mind of the Secretary of State was simply a desire to bring up all industrial factories and workshops to a high level, and in the Munitions Ministry there is a department which deals with these things. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is one point upon which the noble Lord did not touch, and that is how long a vote amongst the employees in a factory is to be binding upon their successors. This does seem to me an important point. The noble Lord, as I understand, says that there is no intention to make any charge in respect of supervision, but that it is necessary to put all these things into the clause to give power to the Secretary of State to make Orders respecting them. Would it not be possible to make some distinction between those particular services for which a charge may be made and those for which no charge could be made?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I put it to my noble friend whether a distinction of that kind is one which could conveniently find a place in an Act of Parliament, and whether it is not a matter to be dealt with administratively by the responsible Department.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have not received an answer with regard to the vote of the workers affecting succeeding generations of workmen.
LORD SANDHURST: Perhaps my noble friend will be so good as to raise that question again on Report. In the meantime I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Abolition of investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons.
8.—(1) After the expiration of one month from the passing of this Act it shall cease to be the duty of certifying surgeons to investigate the nature and cause of death or injury caused by accidents in factories and workshops or in premises to which the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, relating to accidents, are applied, or to send to the inspector of the district reports thereof:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect subsection (3) of section seventy-three of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the investigation by certifying surgeons of diseases occurring in factories and workshops.
Provided also that it shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances or due to any other special cause specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of injury to which this provision is to apply and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him. It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the inspector of the district in pursuance of any general or special instructions of the Secretary of State may refer to him for that purpose. The certifying surgeon shall have, for the purpose of the investigation in any such case, the same powers and shall be entitled to receive the same fee as he would if the case had been a case to which section seventy-three applies.
(2) As from the same date the enactments-mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after the words "or other noxious substances" in the last proviso to subsection (1), to insert "or, in case of children and young persons, by machinery in motion by mechanical power."
The noble Lord said: This is the question of the alteration of the position of the certifying surgeon. The proposal which I venture to put before the House is an alternative one. Personally I am bound to say that I do not like this clause at all, and I see that other noble Lords have given notice to move its exclusion from the Bill. But if it is sought to make any amendment of a clause, the proper time to do it is before the question for the exclusion of the clause is put. Therefore I have drafted the Amendment which stands in my name. I have read with all the care I can bestow upon it all that has been said on these points in another place, and I read with great interest the statement of the Home Secretary.

889
He founds the abolition of these investigations by certifying surgeons to some extent upon the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1908–11. I have looked at the terms of reference to that Committee, and I do not find in them the slightest reference to the subject. The terms of reference were—
"To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the increase in the number of reported accidents in certain classes of factories and workshops and other premises under the Factory Acts, and to report what additional precautionary measures are, in their opinion, necessary or desirable."
They were to report only as to the additional precautionary measures which in their opinion were necessary or desirable, and not as to the exclusion of those which already existed. That strengthens my opinion, as also does the whole tone of the arguments in another place, that opportunity is really being taken of the emergency in which we are situated, under the plea of economy, to decide in favour of the Home Office a controversy of many years standing between them and the certifying surgeons.
The whole point here is the possible saving of £12,500 a year; but even that will not all be saved, because it is distinctly promised that if this change is made other things will be done which will cause additional expense. Further I say that if the country is so poor that it wants to save this £12,500 a year during the period of the war, why do you not put a limit into the Bill that the saving is to be only during the period of the war? There is nothing of the kind in the Bill. Then there is a rather unworthy insinuation made, that the certifying surgeons were opposing this clause because they would get a certain reduction in fees. That is not worth discussing, because there are, I think, about 2,000 certifying surgeons, and even if they received an equal division of the sum which is to be saved it would not make any material difference to them. If the Report of this Departmental Committee is to be laid stress on, I have to point out that there was no medical man upon it, that the certifying surgeons were not represented, and that there was not a single one called to give evidence. The whole thing was done behind their backs or over their heads.
It does not seem to me that any practical purpose will be served by this clause. I hold very strongly that the visits of these certifying surgeons give them experience,
890
and their certificates are consequently of more value in the special case of boys and young people whom they were certifying to be fit for work. The certifying surgeon has also the opportunity, as a sympathetic outsider, of seeing the workman and hearing his story of how the accident happened. If this clause remains as it is in the Bill, the result will be that the workpeople will have to depend upon the report of the occupier or owner of the factory and on that of the factory inspector. One of them is distinctly interested; the other is a pure official. It seems to me that a sympathetic friend like the certifying surgeon, who is known to the people concerned and who is accustomed to look into these things, would be a much better guarantee for the safety of those involved than if they were left only to the reports of the occupier and of the factory inspector. I do not go so far as to say that an employer's notice is absolutely unreliable, but I do think it would be a safeguard that a man in the position of the certifying surgeon should be called in. Parliament I think I may say, through all the history of factory laws, has always recognised the right of the injured person to throw as much light on the cause of the accident as he can, and I hold very strongly that with the disappearance of the doctor from this inquiry the privilege and advantage hitherto enjoyed by the workman in this respect will become to a large extent a dead letter. At any rate, in the modified form in which the clause would stand were my Amendment agreed to, the change might be made. Of course, other noble Lords will still have the right to move the rejection of this clause, but it would to a large extent modify my view if the Amendment which I am now moving were inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, after ("substances") insert ("or, in case of children and young persons, by machinery in motion by mechanical power)".—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SANDHURST: In replying to my noble friend on this Amendment, it seems to me that I must to some extent anticipate what I shall have to say when the Amendment is moved to delete the clause, because the reasons which apply in the one case apply in the other. With regard to the Departmental Committee of 1908–11, it is not my business to say why they recommended a proposal which, according to my noble friend, would seem to be rather

891
beyond the reference with which they were furnished; but it does strike me as being a point worth making, that in face of the fact that they were directed to inquire into how the increase of accidents could be prevented, and so on, they suggest the withdrawal of a certain class of report which some people think is for the safety of the workers, but which they, many of them experts, considered might be abolished without reducing the standard of safety.
My noble friend mentioned that this was an old controversy between the factory inspectors and the certifying surgeons. Of the history of that I am not cognisant. But perhaps I might remind my noble friend of this, that it is true that the certifying surgeon dates from 1844, and in those days the inspectorate was extremely weak. There were then only fifteen inspectors; now there are, I understand, upwards of 200. With regard to the certifying surgeons themselves, my noble friend may trust me not to make any insinuations of the kind he suggested—namely, that they might be actuated by a desire to retain their fees. I have seen a good deal of doctors in regard to institutions with which I have had to do, and I know that there is no more public-spirited body of men; and, what is more, I know that much of their work is done without fee for their poorer brethren. The doctor is, indeed, as my noble friend described, a sympathetic friend.
The names of the members of the Departmental Committee on whose recommendation this clause is based are well known to people who have had to do with these matters. I may point out that there were two of the regular Labour Party on the Committee, and a third member, Mr. Vivian, who is recognised as a gentleman of a most sympathetic nature towards Labour, and also one with a great knowledge of the bearings of all Labour questions. And in the House of Commons the Leader of the Labour Party, who was one of the Committee, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, spoke strongly in favour of the proposal in this Bill.
The noble Lord said the other day that if these certifying surgeons were able to continue to make these reports it would give them a sort of general knowledge of machinery which would be of great use in determining the aptitude of young persons in connection with certain machinery at
892
which they might be called upon to work. Without troubling your Lordships with many figures, I have two or three which bear on the subject. The number of cases in which any condition such as the noble Lord suggests is made is, in fact, extremely small. I believe it is the fact that only about 1 per cent. of the half million who go through the hands of these certifying surgeons have any condition attached to their certificate. The certifying surgeon, in these examinations, looks to certain main points in regard to the young persons concerned—general physique, sight, and so on; and I may add that out of 15,000 rejections, 4,137 were rejected on account of age or other non-medical grounds; 4,675 for want of cleanliness, 758 for infections, 536 for debility, and 290 for deafness. In none of those cases could it be said that a specialised knowledge of machinery was required; and if there is in particular cases any doubt as to whether a child could be properly employed, the examination takes place in the factory and the inspector is usually available and can be consulted. It is with great reluctance that I am unable to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will not press the Amendment to a Division, but if any noble Lord moves the omission of the clause I shall certainly support him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATYMER: In rising to move that Clause 8 be omitted from the Bill, I must express a little surprise that the noble Lord who has just spoken did not go the length of moving the rejection of the clause altogether, because it seemed to me that the whole of his arguments went in the direction of the deletion of the clause. This clause was brought forward for adoption by Parliament on the strength of a recommendation of the Committee on Retrenchment in Public Expenditure, and it is evident that the recommendation was made for the purpose of economy. I am inclined to think that this is the only thing that can be said in its favour. Well, what is the amount which will be saved annually by the abolition of the investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons? The sum is £12,500 a year. This is a very small retrenchment, and the British Medical Association believe that such a saving, if effected, would be a false economy and a retrograde step.

893
The British Medical Association met the Home Secretary on May 5 in deputation on the subject, and protested to him, unsuccessfully, against the abolition of these investigations by certifying surgeons. The grounds on which they based their protest were as follows:—(1) It is wrong to abolish any of the safeguards that the factory worker has against accidents. It is especially wrong and short-sighted to do it at the present, time, when there is a great influx of unskilled labour into the factories, and therefore a greater liability to accident. (2) The report of the certifying surgeon is a safeguard to the worker. At present the employer sends a report of each accident; to the factory surgeon and to the factory inspector. The former visits the factory in all cases, interviews the injured person, and reports to the inspector. The latter only investigates the more serious accidents, and he is guided materially by the surgeon's report in deciding which cases require his intervention and which he may safely ignore. If the surgeon's report is abolished, the inspector will be dependent entirely upon the employer's report, which experience shows is often misleading and which cannot be regarded as impartial, Furthermore, the insured person's version of the case will no longer be available. (3) The factory inspector could not possibly investigate all the accidents reported. Even in normal times his staff would be quite insufficient for this work, and at present the staff is seriously depleted. If it is said that it is not necessary to investigate all the accidents on the ground that many of them are trivial, the answer is that without the report of the surgeon, or some impartial person, the inspector is bound to miss many cases that ought to be investigated.
The Home Secretary, in defending the proposal to abolish these reports by certifying surgeons, has relied upon the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1908–11 on Accidents in Factories. But this Committee was appointed in view of the increasing number of such accidents; and the British Medical Association point out that the Committee, while expressing the opinion that much of the work of the certifying surgeons could be dispensed with, had hardly placed itself in a position to form an impartial judgment, inasmuch as it took the evidence of only one of the 2,000 certifying surgeons.
894
I have also in my hand the Memorial of the Incorporated Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons. Doubtless these gentlemen can very well take care of their own reputation. At the same time it must be recognised that they are here representing a grievance, as I believe it to be, on behalf of those who cannot themselves represent it to Parliament. This Memorial points out that the Departmental Committee did not recommend that surgeons' reports should be dispensed with. The finding was limited to "much of this work" and had no reference to poisonings, the actual recommendation being the same as that made by the Departmental Committee responsible for the defunct Accidents (Mines and Factories) Bill, 1905—namely, that the local inspector should decide on the accidents requiring investigation by the surgeon. Clause 8 of this Bill aims at saving the whole £12,500, which, as the Incorporated Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons points out, obviously means the total abolition of every class of accident and poisoning investigation. The Incorporated Association adds—
"It is our firm conviction that if certifying surgeons of large experience had been invited to give evidence before the Departmental Committee, the findings would have been totally different. Only one certifying surgeon attended, and he was not asked for an opinion on any of the points subsequently put forward in favour of the change."
Unless your Lordships can be convinced that there is some real use to workers in our factories in the carrying of this clause, beyond the paltry saving of £12,500 a year, I think I am justified, if I can get supporters enough, in asking your Lordships to decide not to accept the clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Latymer.)
LORD SANDHURST: I cannot help thinking that there is considerable misapprehension abroad as to the fate of the certifying surgeon under Clause 8 of this Bill. I think it arises in some measure from the marginal note to the clause, which runs "Abolition of investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons." The word "abolition" seems to have impressed a good many people with the idea that the certifying surgeon is going to be abolished altogether. I can assure the noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause that this is not at all the case. The sole object of the provision in the Bill is that there should

895
cease to be a series of reports which, in the opinion of the Departmental Committee, may be considered as duplicates, as unnecessary, and as almost identical in many cases with those furnished by the occupier. That is all that is proposed. I have referred to the Departmental Committee and its composition, and to the great increase that has taken place in the inspectorate. It is now considered that the investigation by certifying surgeons is in most cases superfluous; and I may add that, even as it is, the certifying surgeon deals with only one-third of the accidents that occur. He is not really an expert in machinery, whereas the inspector and his staff have passed their lives in the study of machinery accidents and the steps that should be taken with a view to their prevention. Moreover, the certifying surgeon has no power to give any instruction to an occupier. The only duty that is withdrawn from the certifying surgeon is that of making these reports, which, in the opinion of a great many people well qualified to judge, represent a repetition of work which is well done by other people. Every other duty except this will still remain with the certifying surgeon. Except in this respect, he will stand exactly where he did.
The certifying surgeon will still have within his responsibility (1) the certification of children and young persons, (2), cases of industrial poisoning, and (3) the periodical examination of workers; and a good deal comes within the last-named heading with regard to lead poisoning. A further proviso was inserted in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State to the effect that the certifying surgeon should investigate and report upon outlying eases, or cases of injury when, pursuant to the direction of the Secretary of State, the inspector shall ask him to do so. So that as a matter of fact, with the exception of the reports to which I have alluded and which, as I have said, are done by the occupiers, the duties of the certifying surgeons remain the same. I do not think there is likely to be any risk of these certifying surgeons being put to inconvenience if this clause is carried. As we all know, doctors are at a great premium just now, and I am sure that the services of these gentlemen will be most acceptable in other directions. I hope that the House, if the noble Lord goes to a Division, will see fit to support the clause as it stands.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps my noble friend would explain how it is proposed that this clause can be carried out without reducing the standard of safety. He told your Lordships that this clause would not reduce that standard in any way, but it seems obvious that if you take away one of the safeguards to the worker in case of accident you necessarily reduce the standard of safety. Then my noble friend informed us that originally there were only 15 inspectors, and that the number had grown to 200. But he did not tell us that out of the 52,000 accidents that were inquired into by the certifying surgeons, only 10,000 come to the hands of the inspectors to be investigated—that is to say, the large number of 42,000 cases never come before the inspectors at all. In other words, the cases are passed through a sieve, with the effect that the inspectors were saved the trouble of investigating 42,000 eases. It is obvious that if, by abolishing the certifying surgeon, you throw upon these inspectors an additional 42,000 cases in the future it will be necessary considerably to increase the number of inspectors. I cannot help thinking that as this is a Home Office clause it is the object of the Home Office to increase their patronage, and to have more inspectors. Therefore instead of a saving of £12,500, there will probably be a large increase. We know very well that the late Government were very fond of appointing a large number of inspectors, and no doubt the present Government have inherited their love of doing that. It has been said in the past that there have been too many factory inspectors and too little work to do. I do not believe that. I believe that they are very hard working indeed, and it is clear that if you throw on them an additional 42,000 cases the result will be that you will have to increase the number of inspectors. Therefore instead of a saving in the future this clause will involve a heavy increase in expenditure.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I shall not repeat what I have already said, but there were two points mentioned by the noble Lord to which I want to call the attention of the House. The proposal in this clause is put forward as a matter of retrenchment. The Retrenchment Committee were to recommend only economies which could be brought into force without detriment to the interests of the State. I submit that this particular clause is to the detriment of the interests of the

897
State, because it takes away a safeguard, in my opinion, from the workers. If your Lordships will look at the paragraph in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Accidents in Factories I can give you a very good illustration of what I mean. The recommendation in the Report of the Committee, which, as I have already said, had no charter to go into this matter at all, is in these words—
"An inspector can judge from the occupiers report whether the accident should be investigated by him, and the report which ho receives from the Certifying surgeon seldom adds anything which it is necessary for him to know."
And in the last sentence of the same paragraph—
"It is only occasionally that the certifying surgeon's report contains details not given by the occupier of such a kind as to save the inspector a visit."
That is all very well, as far as it goes. But the occupier knows that the certifying surgeon is going to make a report, and the fact that he has that knowledge is a cheek upon him to go fully into matters and make sure nothing is omitted. It is not that necessarily every occupier is going to omit anything from his report. I do not charge that. But I do say that the fact that there is an additional report is a security to the worker, and one which ought not lightly to be got rid of. If my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sorry Lord Midleton is not in the House, because, as Lord Balfour has told us, this was one of the economies which the noble Viscount's Retrenchment Committee recommended, and I certainly would not brush a recommendation of that sort on one side merely because the sum to be saved was a comparatively modest one. But I say most emphatically that if it could be shown that this economy, or indeed, any economy which might be suggested, could only be accomplished by increasing the extent of risk to life and limb of the people employed in these factories and workshops, were it £120,000 instead of £12,500, I should not raise my voice in support of the retrenchment of that sum. But I think there is a great consensus of authority to show that these reports are really not worth the money which they cost.
Let me here insist upon what was said just now by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst when he told your Lordships that this was
898
not part of a proposal for ousting these certifying surgeons altogether from their activities. On the contrary, they will continue to discharge the greater part, and the more important part, of the duties which now belong to them. So far as those duties require them to concern themselves with the health of the workers, they will continue to perform those duties. Let me again point out that they will continue to examine young children and persons whom it is proposed to employ in factories to certify their fitness; they will still deal with the important question of industrial poisoning; they will still deal with the question of dangerous trades. It is only in regard to accidents, and only to a comparatively small part of the total number of accidents, that they will cease to be called upon to perform their present duties.
It has been suggested that this change would lead to what was called a reduction in the standard of safety. I do not think there will be any such reduction, because it is not the case that the accidents which are reported upon by these certifying surgeons are a different category of accidents from those which are reported upon by the inspectors. All the accidents are reported upon by the inspectors, and we are advised that the report of the certifying surgeon involves something very like duplication of the inspector's report. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, dwelling upon the importance which he attached to the certifying surgeon's report, used these words. He said, "These reports give us the certifying surgeon's story as to how the accident happened." I think my noble friend is under a misapprehension. I do not think that this is what the certifying surgeon has to report. What he has to report upon is not how the accident happened, the cause of the injury, but as to the extent of the injury from the surgical point of view.
This question, as my noble friend told the House, was very thoroughly dealt with by two Committees, and I think we have a right to be influenced in our judgment by those Reports, and more especially by the striking expression of opinion uttered in the House of Commons by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who was then, I believe, Chairman of the Labour Party, which went to show that these reports of the certifying surgeons were not only useless, but, if anything, worse than useless. I cannot pretend to any expert knowledge of this

899
subject; but so far as I have been able to study the documents which have been produced in connection with this case, it does seem to me that it has been adequately proved that your Lordships may safely authorise this change without running any risk so far as the workers in these factories are concerned.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I understand that my noble friend referred, in my temporary absence, to the Committee on which I sat with regard to retrenchment, and I might, perhaps, say a word. The palace which was built up by that Committee has, under the influence of the Departments and the operations of the Cabinet, crumbled to a very exiguous hovel. The point under discussion is one on which, like the noble Marquess opposite, I do not profess to be an expert, although I have a clear recollection
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment negatived accordingly.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment of 4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58. s. 3.
12. Section three of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the reduction of imprisonment imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of non-payment of sums of money), shall apply in all cases, whether or not the sum of money is adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction, and accordingly in that section the words "adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a court of summary jurisdiction" shall be repealed, and for the words "the sum adjudged to be paid" there shall be substituted the words "the sum in respect of non-payment of which the imprisonment is imposed."
of these facts—first, that this was one of the rare points on which the Department concerned was convinced that an economy was desirable and could be carried out without the slightest detriment to the service; secondly, that it was one of the rare points on which, so far as my recollection goes, the whole Committee were at one; and thirdly, which is a still rarer thing, that it was an economy in which the Radical members of the Committee were willing to assist. Therefore it would ill become me not to say a word in support of this clause, in the hope that your Lordships will retain it in the Bill.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.

Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Leicester, E.

Glenconner, L.

Crewe, M. (L. President.)

Lichfield, E.

Harris, L.

Carzon of Kedleston, E. (L. Priry Seal.)

Mayo, E.

Hylton, L.

Islington, L.

Allendale, V.

Joicey, L.

Devonshire, D.

Falmouth, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Knollys, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lansilowne, M.

Revelstoke, L.

Salislrary, M.

Rotherham, L.

Farquhar, L. (L. Steward.)

Sanderson, L.

Sandhurst, (L. Chamberlain)

Saye and Sele, L.

Camperdown, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Southwark, L.

Cramer, E.

Chaming of Wellingborough, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Eldon, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Sumner, L.

Fortescue, E.

Digby, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lauderdale, E.

Templetown, V.

Latymer, L. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

LORD SANDHURST: The Amendment to this clause is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("a") and insert ("that or any other").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 77.)

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Heading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Standard barrelage.
2.—(1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners in the case of each brewery and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard barrelage as denned in this section with the addition as respects any quarter after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined.
(2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this section shall be—

(a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corresponding quarter in the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixteen, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and

(b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corresponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to be reasonable having regard to the average number of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has been working; and

(c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other change in the circumstances of the brewery taking place after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and fifteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions does not afford a proper standard of comparison or affords no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to the special circumstances of the case

reduced in each case by fifteen per cent.:
Provided that if a brewer gives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of August nineteen hundred and sixteen that he desires that the foregoing provisions of this section should be applied to his brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and fourteen for the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and sixteen and of thirty per cent. for fifteen per cent., those provisions shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege as from a subsequent date to be fixed by the Order in Council or to substitute any higher percentages pro rata if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the first day of April nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate of the total Output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to below a rate of twenty-six million barrels a year.
(3) If any licensed premises shall after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and I fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply to the licensed premises the same quantity (less fifteen per cent.) of beer as has previously been supplied to those premises, and if the beer has previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maximum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of licensed premises within this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section the surplus barrelage shall be, as respects any quarter, the number (if any) of barrels by which the aggregate number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from paragraph (c) of subsection (2) the words "thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and fifteen," and to insert" thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and fourteen."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment applies to only a small number of cases, but I think in those cases it does remove an injustice. I may remind your Lordships that to attain the object of the Bill—the restriction of the output of beer—a certain year is taken, namely, 1915–1916. The number of barrels brewed by different breweries is ascertained, and the brewers are allowed to brew up to 15 per cent. less than the amount then brewed; but they have a choice of taking the year 1913–1914 as their standard in certain cases of hardship, but in that case they are only allowed to brew up to within 30 per cent. of the standard of that year. In order to meet hard cases there is a provision in the Bill that certain adjustments may be considered as regards those who take the standard of 1915–1916 The effect of this Amendment is to give an opportunity for the Commissioners to take these matters into consideration and effect these adjustments in the case of those breweries which take the year 1913–1914. It would work injustice in certain cases were this liberty only given to the Commissioners in the case of the year 1915–1916 and not in the case of the year 1913–1914. It may be said, Why not take the year 1915–1910 and then the matter can be looked into. But there are a certain number of brewers—I do not pretend that, there are a great many—in whose case for various reasons that is not possible, and they are bound to take the

903
year 1913–1914 as their standard. If the labour involved is small, and if, as I say, the number of breweries affected is also small, surely there can be no objection on the part of the noble Lord to accepting my Amendment. The object of this clause is to make this very drastic Bill inflict as little hardship as possible, and there seems no reason why in these few cases this act of justice should not be done. There is not much risk of a great number of breweries taking 1913–1914 as the standard, because, the reduction in that case being 30 per cent. on the total, it is less favourable, in spite of more brewing being done in that year, than the year 1915–1916. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will do his best to remedy what might be an injustice in a certain number of cases, and accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and fifteen") and insert ("thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and fourteen")—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD STANMORE: I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. The intention of the Bill is to regard the year 1915–1916 as a standard for all ordinary purposes, and only to give brewers the right of choice of an earlier year if they like to take it with all the attendant disadvantages. I would also point out to the noble Viscount that any concession made under this Bill will reduce the amount of tonnage which it is intended that the Bill should set free to help in the importation of articles that are absolutely necessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Viscount withdraw his Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: If I cannot persuade the noble Lord to amend the Bill. I do not wish to press the Amendment further. I only desire to state that his argument as to the amount of tonnage which would be affected by accepting my Amendment has not much weight in it. The Amendment would give a little more trouble to the officials concerned, and that is, I dare say, the reason why it is opposed, but it would have practically no effect on the question of tonnage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Supply of beer to free licensed house.
5.—(1) Any licence-holder in so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled on giving not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to obtain from such brewer or brewers particulars of the number of bulk barrels of each description of beer supplied and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.
(2) The licence-holder shall after forwarding any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain during any corresponding quarter to which this Act applies the same number of standard barrels (reduced by fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence-holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply: Provided that where the licence-holder is himself a brewer for sale the certificate shall not be used to obtain a transfer of barrelage to himself, and that where a certificate forwarded under this section relates to any quarter in which the licence-holder is supplied with beer by the brewer from whom he obtained the certificate, the number of barrels which he is entitled to obtain from another brewer, and which are transferred accordingly, shall be reduced by the quantity with which he is so supplied.
(3) In this section the expression "licence-holder" means the holder of an Excise licence authorising the sale of beer whether wholesale or by retail; and includes, where any licensed premises have changed hands the licence-Holder for the time being; and where any premises on which beer is sold are under the management of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the Central Control Board, and where the holder of the licence is a manager managing the licensed premises on behalf of any other person or a tenant of any other person who controls the ordering of beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer.
(4) This section shall apply to registered clubs as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club for the licence-holder.
LORD STANMORE: Since this Bill was in Committee the matter has been further considered by the military authorities, and they have now come to the conclusion that there would be some advantage if they were able to transfer from one brewer to another the right to brew beer for the purpose of military supply. It is not administratively convenient to put individual canteens on the same basis as licence-holders, as was proposed by the

905
Bill in the shape in which it came up from the Commons. The new subsection which I now move to add to Clause 5 will practically treat military canteens as a whole and give them as a whole the same privileges which are accorded by the Bill to individual licence-holders. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 38, at end insert as a new subsection:
(5) Where during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, beer has been supplied by any brewer to a canteen held under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Admiralty, the same rights as are conferred under this section upon a licence-holder shall be exercisable in respect of that beer by the Secretary of State or the Admiralty, as the case may be.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RATIONS OF THE TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at as to the additional ration allowance to the troops in Mesopotamia.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this question as to rations was referred to in the discussion which we had the other night on the Mesopotamian Expedition. The noble Lord was then unable to go into this matter, and agreed to a Question being put down for to-day. The first point is whether the rations which are now being provided for the troops in Mesopotamia are the equivalent—the actual money is entirely unimportant—of the rations supplied in France. The second point is whether the scale laid down is one which at this moment it is possible to adhere to; in other words, whether the supplies get up country and reach the troops. But the third point—and it was on this that I endeavoured on Thursday last to draw some; information from my noble friend the Under-Secretary—is as to the extraordinary statement, made to me on high authority, that a correspondence has been going on for many weeks between the authorities at Simla and Force D in Mesopotamia regarding the rations for British troops there. I asked the noble
906
Lord to explain that. It appears that, even if the supplies are there, the General Officer Commanding Force D is unable to do anything in the way of rations or clothing without the consent of the authorities at Simla. As the case was put to me, the authorities at Simla were quite aware that in the very severe climate of Mesopotamia, with the great divergence of heat and cold, the ordinary ration was insufficient; they were prepared to increase it; but Departmental correspondence had apparently been going on for a long period, and in the meantime the troops were suffering. We have had some ground for thinking that, with regard to this campaign, there is not the smooth working in the departments in India which we have always been accustomed to associate with the conduct of affairs in which India has been concerned. I would venture to ask my noble friend, first, whether he can reassure us as to the present conditions. If he is unable to do so, I would ask whether he would undertake to obtain from India and lay upon the Table the correspondence which has gone on between the authorities at Simla and the General Officer Commanding Force D with regard to this question, in order that your Lordships and the country may have an opportunity of considering whether these delays, in a matter on which apparently all authorities were agreed, could not have been obviated in this very severe campaign.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, the question raised by the noble Viscount has only lately become the duty of the War Office at home to deal with, and I am afraid I cannot give any thoroughly satisfactory answer even at the present moment. My best course is, I think, to read to the House the various telegrams that have passed, and they will show that we are endeavouring to get as much information as will allow us to do what we all wish to do—namely, to give the equivalent (as the noble Viscount says, not in money but in value) of the rations provided in France This telegram was sent to Expeditionary Force D—
"Question in House of Lords asks whether decision has been arrived at as to additional allowance to troops in Mesopotamia. This is intended to mean either that the ration—not any allowance—is not up to standard in France, or that it is below some other desirable standard. Is the ration equivalent to that given in France? In any case do you want more, and, if so, what?"

907
The answer to that was—
"Sanctioned scale of rations only differs from that in Franco as regards following items. Issue of sugar here is
½ oz. less, jam 1oz. less, meat 4ozs. loss; but 4ozs. oatmeal and 2ozs. condensed milk are authorised twice a week, but not in France."
They then referred to a certain telegram which they had sent with regard to supplies they had in stock, in which it appeared there was a shortage in oatmeal and condensed milk; but we were not able to make out from that telegram whether there was a shortage in reserve or an actual shortage at the present moment. So another telegram was sent, which I hope will clear up the situation. It ran—
"Please telegraph fully the scale of rations which is now in force, and state whether the troops are receiving to-day the actual full scale; and if this is not the case, state in what particulars the issues are short."
I hope that when we get an answer to this telegram we shall be able to deal satisfactorily and immediately with the question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, in reply to the request addressed to me by the noble Viscount, I can only say at the present moment that I will represent his desire to the Secretary of State. If my right, hon. friend considers that he can do so with propriety, I have no doubt he will take what steps he can to furnish the information asked for by Lord Midleton. I understand that the main subject of that information is to be the correspondence that took place, during the time that the India Office was responsible for the campaign, between the Government of India and the General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia with regard to the requisitions which it is alleged that the General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia made for adequate rations, and which became the subject of question and correspondence on the part of the Government of India.

DOMINIONS AND ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government why no representatives of the Dominions are included in the Committee appointed to consider the commercial and industrial policy to be adopted after the war, with especial reference to the conclusions reached by the Economic Conference of the Allies.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I do not know whether there are many people who take the view which has apparently inspired the Question of the noble Viscount opposite—namely, that an omission has occurred in not asking representatives of the Dominions to sit on this particular Committee; but if that is so, I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining how the matter really stands. This Committee was preluded by a telegram which was sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the different Dominions on May 8, in the following terms—
"His Majesty's Government desire as soon as practicable to convene a Conference representative of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and India to consider the commercial policy to be adopted after the war. In view of past fiscal controversies ill this country, we consider it of essential importance as a prior step, in order that the Conference may have a practical result, to set up a Committee here with a view to discovering how far agreement among ourselves may be possible under the changed conditions brought about by the war; but we wish to make it clear that in our judgment the appointment of this Committee, whatever may be its result, will not, as we hope, unduly delay the holding of the larger Conference, or interfere in any way with the free and unprejudiced discussion of the problems with the Dominions' representatives. I trust that this method of procedure will meet with the assent of your Ministers."
Assent was received from the Dominions to this plan of proceeding; and a similar intimation was sent to the Viceroy of India at the same time. It will therefore be clear that the Committee which is being set up here, and the members of which were announced in the newspapers on July 19, is of a purely preliminary nature. Its purpose is set out in the telegram which I have just read; and I think the noble Viscount and the House will see that there really would be no object for this particular purpose, as the main Conference is to be held later, in including representatives of other parts of the Empire in this Committee.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am glad to have given the noble Marquess the opportunity of making this explanation. I think it is a great pity it was not made at the time of the announcement of the appointment of this Committee.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES AND VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is necessary for men to elect to serve either

909
the Special Constabulary or the Volunteer Training Corps.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Question, which I admit I had some difficulty in knowing how to frame, is to bring before your Lordships an important point with reference to the Special Constabulary and the Volunteer Training Corps. What happened about those two bodies seemed to be this. First it was understood that if there was any clash in the duties, the Constabulary took precedence. Then it was announced that men could belong to both, it being understood that if military law was proclaimed military duties would have first place. Now it has been announced that men must choose to which they wish to belong, but must not belong to both. The result of this will be, so it is pointed out to me, that a number of the keenest men who now belong to both forces will give up the police, reducing that force in many districts to dimensions too small to provide proper patrol; and on days when there is no Volunteer Training Corps drill many of them will have nothing to do, although they are willing and anxious to be at the service of the country.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the question whether a special constable might enrol in the Volunteer Force was discussed at a Conference on June 28, at which the Home and Scottish Offices, as well as the G.H.Q. Home Forces, were represented. There was a general consensus of opinion that special constables should be not only permitted but encouraged to enrol in Volunteer Corps, and this view has been officially accepted by the Army Council and notified to the Home Office, from which Department we now await official confirmation of the view expressed by their representative (Sir Edward Troup) at the Conference. As soon as the Home and Scottish Offices inform us of their acceptance of this policy, an announcement will be made. The question of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary was expressly reserved by the Conference for further consideration, and this is now proceeding. It is understood that Sir Edward Ward has informed special constables in the metropolitan areas that they must choose between the two forces, but we do not quite know what led him so to decide, and will take the matter up with him. It is contrary to the general view, which is that a man can perform very useful duties in both capacities, and that, provided there is some clear inter-Departmental
910
arrangement designed to prevent clashing of duties and to obviate the counting twice over of persons available for duty on emergency, no difficulty should occur.

MR. HUGHES AND THE INNER WAR COUNCIL.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would consider the advisability of immediately inviting the Right Hon. W. M. Hughes to return to this country that he may take his share in the management of the war as a member of the Inner War Council of the Empire. My excuse for asking this—if any were needed—would be found in the great feeling which exists in this country that Mr. Hughes ought to be invited to return. There is evidence from all parts of the country indicating that the one man people are asking for is Mr. Hughes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it will be remembered that in the first instance Mr. Hughes came over here from Australia to discuss certain questions which particularly concerned both countries, principally questions of shipping, and some relating to the supply of metals and of grain. We all know how numerous and important the activities of Mr. Hughes were while he was in this country; and having been a fellow member with him of the British representation on the Economic Conference at Paris, I am, of course, specially qualified to bear witness to the importance and value of his services. On the other hand, it must, of course, be remembered that Mr. Hughes has his duty to his own people. I understand that in sections of the Australian Press some resentment was expressed even at the postponement of Mr. Hughes's return, which took place in order to enable him to attend the Conference at Paris. There were points connected with recruiting and a number of financial questions in Australia on which it was held that his presence there was required. I am afraid, in those circumstances, that it would not be possible or desirable for us to attempt to put fresh pressure upon Mr. Hughes in order to induce him to return once more to this country.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am disappointed, I must say, at the noble Marquess's answer; and I will draw attention to the matter again on some future occasion.

DEATH OF TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information as to the loss of life caused by the restricted accommodation and want of preparation in a troop train recently despatched from Karachi, and whether any official has been made responsible for the neglect of duty which resulted in this disaster.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the incident referred to in my Question has been the subject of statements in the Press, and has aroused a certain amount of public indignation. I should hardly have ventured to put down the Question but for the fact that I have heard personal corroboration from an officer who was present when this particular train started. As your Lordships know, the sending of young soldiers about India at this time of the year—especially from Karachi, one of the hottest parts of India—is an operation which is always attended with some risk. I do not gather, as no doubt is the ease on active service, that there was here any special reason why better precautions could not have been taken. If the account given is correct, it does seem inconceivable that a body of young soldiers should have been sent for a three days' and three nights' journey at the worst moment of the summer in a train which was insufficient in accommodation, which was unsuitable for European troops, which had on board practically very little ice (though I was informed that a large amount of ice was got at the last moment and put on board by somebody), and no medical comforts. And on top of all that, the train was so insufficiently equipped with engines that the pace was slower than that of the ordinary slowest train used for natives. If these facts are correct, I am sure the India Office will feel as much as anybody that somebody has blundered. These questions are not brought forward in the slightest degree with the intention of trying to prove that the India Government makes a mess of what it undertakes. But to whatever this is due—whether to the fact that India has been too much stripped of responsible officials, or to anything else—it is incumbent on the India Office and the India Government to see that mistakes of this kind are dealt with in a manner which will prevent their
912
recurrence. And that can only be by discovering what officer is in fault, and, if necessary, removing him. I see sitting by my noble friend two ex-Viceroys and an ex-Secretary of State for India, and I am certain that if the facts as stated are correct I shall have from all of them full sympathy in the course which I have ventured to suggest.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words in strong support of what has fallen from the noble Viscount? It must sometimes happen that a too-rigid adherence to regulations with insufficient intelligence and discrimination may lead to trouble, but this case was quite different. The disaster occurred from a breach of well understood routine based upon long experience of climatic conditions in India. In peace time, as we all know, drafts are never sent out so as to arrive in June, nor is it usual to move British troops about the plains of India by railway until the monsoon has completely established itself. To meet military emergency, as the noble Viscount has said, one must take risks with the lives of men, but, so far as I know, there was no emergency which called for those men to be sent up by that route and at that time. Assuming it was necessary that a ship with drafts should arrive in India at that time—in June—surely it should have been sent at once to Bombay instead of Karachi. When the ship arrived the monsoon had broken in the Bombay Deccan, and the drafts might safely have been sent there. At Deolali, Poona, Belgaum, or Ahmednagar, the climate, when once the monsoon has broken, is, as everybody knows who has been there, quite pleasant; and besides, there was ample barrack accommodation in those places which had been left by the troops who are now at the Front. It is amazing to think that that step was not thought of by somebody. When the drafts arrived at Karachi surely there ought to have been somebody in authority there with a knowledge of the conditions of Sind at that time and able to say, "This train shall not proceed." Again, when the train arrived at Rohri and discharged some of its stricken freight, surely there ought to have been some doctor to say, "These men must be taken out; they cannot go further in the state they are in." I know what the plains of India are like before the monsoon has broken.

913
It is trying to travel even with a great block of ice at one's side and every appliance of science to keep one cool. But what must have been the condition of these men packed close in their third-class carriages, without any sufficiency of ice, and subject to the scorching heat and suffocating dust of the Indian plains? I am sure my noble friend the Under-Secretary will say that a most searching inquiry will be made into these matters. It is not safe to leave those whose neglect has brought about this terrible tragedy with any responsibility for the lives and welfare of our soldiers.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, the deplorable episode which forms the subject of the noble Viscount's Question has been under long and continuous correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India since this occurrence on June 15. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India was asked a Question last week in another place, and in reply he read out the telegrams that had been received up to then from the Government of India. I do not know that it is necessary for me to read all of them, but perhaps it might be of interest to noble Lords who did not follow the answer given in another place if I give one or two of the most important.
The first telegram from the Viceroy on June 15, in which he informed the Secretary of State of this unfortunate episode, was as follows—
"We regret to report fifty cases with twelve deaths from heat strokes occurred amongst drafts ex hired transport ' Ballarat ' on the railway journey between Karachi and Lahore. Troop train left Karachi 5th June with thirteen officers and 1,013 men. On reaching Rohri thirty-two men were removed to Civil Hospital, Sukkur, suffering from heat stroke, of whom twelve died, and eighteen more eases occurred before train reached Lahore. Train carried three medical officers, had two second class carriages fitted up as hospitals with fans and was provided with coffee shop and good supply of ice; no overcrowding, thirty men in four-wheelers and sixty in bogies—
I would explain that 30 men in a four wheeler would mean that there would be five men in a compartment, three on one side and two on the other. There would thus be one man in the centre on one side who would not be near the window and it would prevent the men on his side from lying down.
"normal carrying capacity for troops is thirty-six, and seventy-two respectively. Arrangements
914
have been made to send to hill depôts all men who have been suffering from the rail journey. Orders have been issued stopping all further movement of troops by rail from Karachi to Northern India. A complete report of the occurrence will be furnished at an early date."
Then a further telegram, on June 19, gave the total number of deaths as 15, and those suffering from heat stroke as 136, and all sick were reported as doing well. Then on July 20, the day on which my right hon. friend made his reply in another place, he received this telegram—
"With reference to the inquiries in your telegram dated 14th July, the case is being investigated by a Senior Officer from Army Headquarters and a specially selected medical officer. They left for Karachi on the 7th instant with instructions to visit all stations along the line where fatalities occurred, collecting evidence and submitting a full report as soon as possible after their return to Simla about the 28th instant."
That was in reply to a telegram from the Secretary of State instructing the Government of India to prosecute a most drastic inquiry into the whole conditions surrounding this catastrophe.
Since then further telegrams have been sent. A telegram was despatched asking for replies to and explanations of the various allegations that have been made outside—allegations such as that the officer in command had no Indian experience, that the ice supply was limited to 1 lb. per man. and that men were placed in the commonest form of third-class carriage with corrugated iron roof; all those kind of questions and others have been put for categorical answers. In addition, a telegram has been sent by the Secretary of State asking why the "Ballarat" could not have gone direct to Bombay, the draffs being detained in Deccan stations until the monsoon broke in Northern India, and whether there was any urgent necessity for going to Karachi at this season of the year, when it is well known that a journey across the Sind desert is fraught with the gravest possible danger, especially in the case of new troops unseasoned to Indian conditions. We are awaiting a reply to all these questions. We hope, that in the next few days the two officers who have been sent to report on the route will have formulated their Report, and that in addition there will be answers to the questions that have been subsequently put by the Secretary of State which I have outlined.
I may say, in conclusion, that I desire to express the deepest sympathy—a sympathy

915
which I am sure is shared by all noble Lords in this House—for the families who have suffered this sad loss, through what, on the information that is available to us at present, would seem to be a lamentable instance of the most culpable negligence and utter want of consideration. I will only add that the Secretary of State for India—and he has asked me to impress this on the House—takes the most serious view of this matter, and is determined to probe it in every quarter and with complete thoroughness. He desires me also to repeat here what he said in another place—that when the responsibility has been assigned to the officer or officers concerned, he will
916
hold them, or see that the Government of India at any rate holds them, to strict account.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his statement. Perhaps he will confer with me, and I will put another question on the Paper when he is in a position to give a full reply.
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.