Sitting of 27 June 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords].
Yeadon Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords]. (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, he has certified that no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Rhodes Estate [Lords].
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Canada Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Colchester Gas Bill [Lords],
Ferndale Gas Bill [Lords],
Hornsey Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

REBELLION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland [by Command]; 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 Surrey (parish of Merton) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland in 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
Copy presented of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1916, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1909 (PROCEEDINGS).
Order [26th June, 1916] that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ALLIED SHIPS IN AMERICAN PORTS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in

    699
    view of the full protection from acts of war to which Allied merchant vessels are entitled in American ports, whether the attempts made to blow up Allied ships by bombs placed in the cargo by German sympathisers have now been brought to an end; and whether any representations have been made to the American Government in this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): As regards the first part of the question I cannot undertake to say that no further attempts will be made, but all possible precautions are being taken. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

    BELGIUM (GERMAN OCCUPATION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether it is proposed to issue a translation of the recent French official report, dealing with the German exploitation of Belgian food and other supplies, as well as factories, mines, works, slaughterhouses, and means of communication; and whether, in view of more recent evidence at their disposal, the Government are still satisfied that the supplies sent through Mr. Hoover are not contributing to the German rule and exploitation of the country?
    Sir E. GREY: I do not know to what report the hon. and gallant Member refers. I know of no published official report on the subject issued by the French Government; but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will inform me in private what is the document to which he refers.
    Commander BELLAIRS: There have been extracts in the Press.

    COMMERCIAL REPRISALS.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether all British Ministers in neutral countries have been instructed to notify British traders in those countries that the Government's policy of commercial reprisals against alien enemies in neutral countries, as formulated in the Trading with the Enemy (Extension) Act, is to be regarded as continuous and will not terminate on the declaration of peace?
    Sir E. GREY: This question will receive careful consideration in connection with the recommendations of the Paris Conference.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Government still deny the authenticity of the secret circular of instructions for the capture or slaughter of the Irish Volunteers; will he explain for what purpose large quantities of rifles, ammunition, explosives, and other warlike requisites were stored in the College of Surgeons and in Trinity College, Dublin, before the insurrection?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have no information about any secret circular of instructions such as the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I will make inquiries, though I have little doubt that the hon. Member has discovered a mare's nest.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been aware of this document of secret instructions since last April? Is he not aware that it was read at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation before the insurrection?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; I am wholly unaware of that.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is he not aware that these facts are within public knowledge, and that it cannot be described as my mare's nest?

    LOCAL SHOWS (PROHIBITION OF COMPETITIONS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked by whose orders and under what Act the school children were prevented from holding their usual dancing and singing competition in connection with the local show at Coachford, county Cork; whether it was done with the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, has any intimation been given of disapproval?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no information that the children were prevented from dancing at the local show at Coachford, county Cork, but inquiry will be made.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment all these musical accompaniments of local

    701
    shows are being prevented by the military authorities? Will that prohibition be withdrawn?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that inquiry will be made. I cannot do more.

    CASES UNDER INVESTIGATION.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War who is responsible for having left Messrs. Lemas and Manning lying wounded in a court yard in the Custom House, Dublin, for three days of the insurrection, thereby complicating their neglected wounds with other sickness, and prolonging their time in hospital; whether he is aware that one of them is dying from pneumonia then contracted; and what the intention of the Government is with regard to these cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am making inquiry about this matter, and that mentioned in the next question:—
    8. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the military authorities administering martial law in Ireland have yet allowed any civil investigation of the looting done in houses under pretext of searching them, the picking of the pockets of prisoners, and of the persons shot and buried surreptitiously; whether property so acquired is deemed to belong to the individual soldier taking it; and whether any inquiry will be made or allowed to be made into the disposal of such of this property as soldiers do not use, as table linen, for example?
    Mr. GINNELL: With reference to Question No. 8, which has been dismissed in this manner, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that claims for property taken by soldiers from houses that they have been searching will be heard by a Civil Court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    REPARATION FOR Loss OF PROPERTY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister what in the nature, of reparation has been, or will be, made to the widow of Thomas J. Clarke, executed, for the watch and large sum of money on his person at the time of surrender; for the private property taken from her house after her husband's execution; for the shop goods, worth £300, appropriated or destroyed by the military who made the house a mili-
    702
    tary station; whether any articles not destroyed will be restored and the rest paid for; and whether any civil tribunal will be set up to investigate such cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am inquiring whether the facts are as they have been communicated to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, Whether any civil tribunal will be set up to investigate such cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: It must depend entirely on the answer which I receive to my inquiries.

    PRISONERS IN PENAL SERVITITDE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister how many prisoners are now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland; whether any but those are undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial; and whether, having regard to the character of the Courts and to the circumstances, the Government have considered the advisability of treating them all as prisoners of war, subject to effective security of detention?
    Mr. TENNANT: According to the latest returns received from the Home Office 125 prisoners are now in penal servitude. This is an inclusive total. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has given an answer which is totally unintelligible. Will he say how many Irish prisoners are in penal servitude under sentence of court-martial?

    EAST AFRICA OPERATIONS (DISPATCHES).
    Colonel YATEasked when it is proposed to publish the dispatches relating to the operations in East Africa from the commencement of hostilities in 1914 up to 12th February, 1916, the date from which Lieutenant-General Smuts assumed command?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not proposed to publish the dispatches in question, but due consideration has been given to the names of officers mentioned for distinguished service by the commanders concerned.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why these operations should not have a dispatch?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not considered in the public interest that they should be given to the public just now. A time will arrive, no doubt.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that time will arrive?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should say at the termination of the War.

    1ST BATTALION CHESHIRE REGIMENT (SUICIDE OF PRIVATE).
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the circumstances which caused Private Albert Ellis Brook, of the 1st Battalion Cheshire Regiment, to take his own life, consequent upon his discharge from hospital as unfit for further service and the taunts which he experienced from those who, not knowing the facts, treated him as a shirker; whether he is aware that Private Brook was badly wounded at Mons, where he was captured by the enemy, and for a year was imprisoned in Germany, where he suffered much ill-treatment by the German authorities, being afterwards exchanged; and whether, in view of these circumstances and to prevent other discharged wounded men being similarly treated, the War Office will cause a badge, armlet, or some such distinctive device to be supplied to every man who has been rendered permanently unfit for further service on their discharge from hospital which shall indicate that they have been injured in the defence of the Empire and have not escaped from service under the plea of a conscientious objection?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unaware of the circumstances which led to Private Brook taking his own life. He was wounded in the arm and captured in August, 1914, and was exchanged as a prisoner of war and admitted to the 3rd London General Hospital on the 25th August, 1915, and was discharged as no longer physically fit for war service in December, 1915. He was awarded a pension. It has been ascertained that, through an oversight, Private Brook did not have an armlet issued to him. Upon the general question of the issue of armlets, I would ask the hon. Member to await my reply to the next question on the Paper.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MEDALS, DECORATIONS, AND BADGES.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the badges which are to be issued for men discharged from the Army on medical grounds are now ready for issue; and whether he can state fully the steps which are to be taken with regard to the award of the medal for bravery and other medals and decorations for special war service.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause it to be announced at all battalion headquarters, in the United Kingdom that upon discharge of a soldier as no longer physically fit for war service he will be entitled to an armlet indicating the fact of service and of the reason of discharge; and will he cause a specimen of the armlet used for the purpose to be exhibited in the Tea Room.
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. Manufacture will necessarily take a little time, but I hope that the badges will be available shortly. Every effort is being made to expedite matters. The hon. Member will have seen in the newspapers a statement of the medals, etc., which a man may earn by war service. A sample of the new badge can be placed in the Tea Room.
    Mr. PETO: May we take it that the badge will not take the form of a brassard or armlet, but that it will be a badge of some other form?
    Mr. TENNANT: As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter does not rest entirely with us; therefore I do not want to give any pledge. My personal idea is that it will not take the form of an armlet. I may be wrong.
    Mr. R. MacNEILL: I do not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that men in such cases as that mentioned in my question do receive any badge which will protect them against the danger of being mistaken for so-called conscientious objectors, who are very properly regarded with loathing and contempt.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman raises controversial matters of that kind in a question, he cannot expect to get an answer.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man residing in Isleworth was taken into the Army on the 18th instant, although his own medical doctor certified that he was suffering from very serious kidney disease, and that the case was brought to the notice of the authorities at Hounslow Barracks without avail; and whether any consideration is given to the report of a man's own private doctor?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of the facts stated, but if particulars are furnished to me immediate inquiry will be made.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the treatment received by Ithel Davies, of the 4th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, at the military detention barracks, Mold, while serving his sentence for refusing for conscientious reasons to obey military orders; whether, on the first day of his detention, he was knocked and dragged about for ten or fifteen minutes by two or three officials so that he was bruised and sore all over; that he was then handcuffed for hours; whether he was given any dinner; whether the same treatment was meted out to him the second day with the addition that shovelfuls of mud and stones were thrown over him, and that he was placed in irons and a straight-jacket until bed-time; that on the third day one of the officials brutally ill-treated him and hit him in the face and broke his nose; whether, while in that condition, a sergeant tried to drill him by himself and on his refusal dealt him many blows; whether Ithel Davies was released on 7th June and returned to the camp at Whittington, near Oswestry; whether he has been court-martialled again for disobedience to military orders; what sentence has been passed upon him; and what is proposed to be done to him after such sentence has been served?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have caused full inquiry to be made into this case, and, as a result, I can give my hon. Friend this information: All those who had Private Ithel Davies under their charge deny that he was ill-used. The statements of the N.C.O.'s in question on this matter were taken by the visiting officer. No complaint was made to the visiting officer by this man.
    706
    Private Davies was examined by the medical officer on 24th May, 25th May, and again on 7th June. On each occasion he was found to be fit; he never complained of sickness, nor called attention to any marks of violence from ill-treatment or injury of any description. He was also asked on the day of his release by the medical officer whether he had any complaint to make, and he answered "No." I think this question shows the desirability of treating these allegations of ill-treatment with great caution; otherwise I fear there is some danger of hon. Gentlemen being imposed upon, or at all events placed in a false position. I have no information as to whether this man has been again court-martialled.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: In view of the discrepancy of the statements on both sides, will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent inquiry into half-a-dozen of these cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: What I meant was that the answer I gave yesterday might give rise to some misapprehension on the part of hon. Members. We have appointed an investigator who is independent in the sense, with no party to serve, and as he has no previous knowledge of these cases he goes down with a perfectly open mind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman's investigator see Private Davies himself and ask if he has the letter containing these allegations?
    Mr. TENNANT: The statements were made, first of all, by a non-commissioned officer to the visiting officer. No complaint was made by the man to the visiting officer.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer this part of the question: Whether the investigator, who, I understand, has been sent down by the War Office, has seen Private Davies, and asked him the specific questions?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the cases in which conscientious objectors, while in detention barracks, have been deprived of their bibles; whether he is aware that this has been especially the case at Horfield Barracks, Bristol; whether this has been done on War Office instructions; and

    707
    whether a general order will now be given that bibles are not to be taken from prisoners under any circumstances?
    Mr. TENNANT: Inquiry is already being made into this allegation.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Lance-Corporal Barker at Pries Heath Camp, Whitchurch, in kicking, hitting, and bullying the conscientious objectors placed under his charge; and whether he will have an inquiry made into their ill-treatment from headquarters and prevent any repetition of such conduct?
    Mr. TENNANT: A report on these allegations has been called for, but has not yet been received, but in the meantime I must not be taken as in any way accepting the correctness of these allegations.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the fact that there is evidence to show that the military authorities in many instances are testing the bona fides of the conscientious objector by subjecting him to physical violence, he will take steps either to prohibit this procedure or to promote legislation to provide a scale of punishments to test conscientious objection and so secure uniformity of treatment; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that some officers appear to consider that they are entitled to test the bona fides of a conscientious objector by subjecting him to treatment of the nature of torture; and can he say whether any steps have been taken to correct this impression?
    Mr. TENNANT: The bona or the mala fides of an insubordinate soldier does not concern the officer whose duty it may be to punish him under the Army Act or "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that these men are being subjected to ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling them to forego their conscientious objections?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; I do not think that is so.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when the parents, wife, or near relative of a
    708
    conscientious objector has reason to believe that he has been subjected to physical violence, he will permit an examination of the man to be made by a doctor instructed by the person so informed, in order that the truth as to grave allegations of ill-treatment may be established?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; such an examination cannot be permitted. A soldier possesses a statutory remedy under Section 43 of the Army Act for bringing to light any grievance under which he deems himself to be suffering.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday asked hon. Members to make individual inquiries before putting down questions, how can they arrive at the facts unless some opportunity is given them of getting an independent examination of a man who says he has been subjected to ill-treatment?
    Mr. TENNANT: All I suggested to hon. Members was that they should themselves ascertain the facts if they possibly could. If my hon. Friend tells me they cannot do it, I must bow to that, but I should have thought there were methods which could be employed to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case, supposing any ill-treatment occurred, to justify an inquiry.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest any method by which such an investigation can be made?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can suggest many.
    An HON. MEMBER: Let us have one.
    Mr. TENNANT: An one in the district would surely be cognisant more or less of the facts. My hon. Friend has many acquaintances in and around those places, and he can easily ascertain from them.
    Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is it not a recognised fact that any soldier has the right to appeal to a higher officer if he thinks he is ill-treated?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, and I have just stated that fact in answer to the question.

    SOLDIERS' GRIEVANCES
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will take means to draw the attention of Members of Parliament to Army Council Instruction No. 897, which forbids officers

    709
    and men of the Army from bringing forward grievances through the medium of solicitors or of Members of Parliament; and does this instruction apply to officers on half pay or in the Reserve of Officers, and to men in the Army Reserve not yet called up for service?
    Mr. TENNANT: The instructions in question were addressed to persons who are subject to the Army Act, and, in these circumstances, I have no doubt where soldiers disobey the King's Regulations and are dealt with accordingly, they will, themselves, bring the matter to the attention of third parties who have interested themselves on their behalf, with a view to interventions by third parties ceasing. The answer to the last part of the question is that if and when the officers and men mentioned are subject to the Army Act, the instructions in question will apply to them.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that no soldier will ever be put in a worse position by bringing forward his grievance through the medium of a Member of this House?
    Mr. TENNANT: Well, Sir, I cannot give any such undertaking, but, of course, such is not intended. If, however, a soldier were to continue to do what is laid down as a contravention of the Regulations, then I cannot say that he would not deserve some punishment.
    Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of that, can my right hon. Friend tell us why soldiers who are also Members of this House can do this kind of thing in the House, and our constituents cannot do it through us?

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether (1) in the form of field punishment known as crucifixion the fixing of the limbs is sometimes so tight as to allow of no mobility at all; whether any instructions have been issued to safeguard against this occurring; and (2) whether all soldiers sentenced to the form of field punishment known as crucifixion are examined by a medical officer before undergoing punishment?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether, under the French Military Code, soldiers can be subjected to any punishment of the nature of field punishment No. 1, commonly known as "crucifixion"?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware whether, under the French Military Code, there is any punishment similar to the nature of field punishment No. 1. The expression "crucifixion" is one not known to military law, and is one which I have not heard except in questions put by, and speeches made by, hon. Members. The instructions for field punishment have been laid before Parliament, and I am not aware that, prisoners have been subjected to any greater restraint than is allowed by these instructions. Soldiers are not examined before undergoing punishment, but a medical officer is available should his services be required.
    Mr. HARVEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken medical evidence as to the very serious effects that may sometimes be produced by this punishment on men who have not a strong physique?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will read that part of the Army Rules relating to field punishment which bears on the point:
    "Every portion of field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of the field punishment must, be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender's health."
    Mr. MORRELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perfectly well known that this punishment is known as crucifixion in the ranks of the Army?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just now contradicted that statement.
    An HON. MEMBER: Call it a "joy ride."
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The officers call it that.

    RECRUITING (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked whether the increase in recruiting record in Ireland has stimulated the flow of recruits; and whether the War Office are satisfied with the present and future prospects of recruiting on the voluntary basis in Ireland?
    Mr. TENNANT: The circumstances of the moment in relation to recruiting and affairs generally in Ireland do not seem propitious for making a statement of the kind suggested in the question.

    SUBALTERNS (CIVIL OBLIGATIONS).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in

    711
    cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the Line serving at home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the Line serving at home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I regret I am not yet in a position to inform the hon. Member of the decision in this matter, but I expect to be able to do so in a few days.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I will put my question down on this day week.

    RETAIL GROCERY TRADE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether any understanding has been arrived at that married men over thirty years of age employed in the retail grocery trade are to be exempted from military service; and whether this understanding extends to proprietors or managing sales men over the age of thirty employed in the retail butchers' trade?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any understanding of the kind mentioned.

    SOLE HEADS OF BUSINESSES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, in regard to an application for exemption from the sole head of a business which would be ruined if he was called up for military service, and who has dependants, he has advised the tribunals to have regard to any allowances and other assistance which may be available; whether the tribunals are also to consider the fact that these allowances will not be continued after the War, and that, owing to the business being lost and the man having no capital to start afresh, he and his dependants may be permantly reduced in status and deprived of their means of earning their livelihood?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is for the tribunals to deal with each case on its merits, taking account of all relevant considerations, including such matters as are referred to in the question.

    CASES OF SERIOUS HARDSHIP.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked with regard to the recent regulations for
    712
    tribunals under the Military Service Acts, whether he has observed that in Section 17 of the accompanying circular he has stated that among the cases of serious hardship in respect of which exemptions may be granted is that of a man whose future business or career would be ruined and the fruits of much effort and expenditure probably lost, whereas in the regulations, Section II. (1), the references to such cases are apparently limited to men having families; whether the circular properly indicates his recommendation; and whether the tribunals are to understand that among the cases in which they are authorised to grant exemption is that of a man, without family or dependants, whose business would be ruined and the fruits of much effort and expenditure lost?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Instruction in the Regulations was inserted in order to redeem the promise given in the course of the discussions on the recent Bill that the case of married men with dependants who were the sole heads of businesses should be specially referred to. Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the circular deal with a variety of cases of serious hardship with which the tribunals may have to deal. The circular expressly indicates that not all cases of serious hardship are covered by the words of the Instruction.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will see that, where one member of a family joins the Royal Naval Reserve in terms of the Military Service Act, 1916, and has not yet been called up, no injury is thereby done to another member of the same family by any tribunal to which he may be appealing refusing to recognise the first member as effectively transferred to-the Naval Reserve, and will issue instructions to that effect?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to issue special instructions on this matter. It is for the tribunal to take due account of all facts relevant to a case.

    ANTI-CONSCRIPTIONIST MOVEMENT.
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary by many of the leaders of the Anti-Conscriptionist movement who have been sentenced by courts-martial to terms of

    713
    imprisonment have since been released; whether these men of military age have restarted their efforts to break down the Military Service Act immediately on release; whether he is aware that Clifford Allen, the chairman of the "No-Conscription Fellowship," urged men of military age at a meeting at 186, Bishopsgate, on 8th April, to defy the Military Service Act, and promised assistance to all who were absentees, and that Clifford Allen was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; will he say whether he is now at liberty; and will he say whether he addressed a meeting at the offices of the National Council against Conscription, at 22, Bride Lane, E.C., on Tuesday evening, the 20th instant, at six o'clock?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first past of the question is that there have been no releases, so far as I am aware, and the second part does not therefore arise. I am informed that Mr. Clifford Allen did urge men to defy the Military Service Act, and that he promised assistance as stated. Mr. Clifford Allen has not been sentenced. He is still at liberty, but is due to report for service on the 30th June. The meeting of the executive committee took place from 4.30 to 6.0 on the date mentioned.

    DONINGTON HALL.
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether Donington Hall has been given up as a place of internment for prisoners of war, or whether it is proposed to give it up; whether there is any, and, if so, what limit to the supply of wines and spirits and beer for German officers interned there so long as they pay for them; and whether an American bar has been arranged there for their use?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no intention of giving up Donington Hall as a place of internment for prisoners of war. The consumption of light wines and beers, which alone are permitted, is strictly limited by the Commandant. There is no American bar. I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have given the administration credit for being more sensible than appears from his question.
    Mr. FABER: What is the amount of wines and spirits allowed?
    Mr. TENNANT: The amount is a question which involves figures, and the hon. Gentleman did not ask me that I cannot give the figures at the moment
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Are the prisoners allowed to buy wines and spirits at a time when we are not allowed to buy them in our own clubs?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is another question of detail which I cannot answer on the spur of the moment. I should think it doubtful that any such privilege was granted.
    Mr. FABER: Is it not time that this treatment ceased in view of the treatment received by our prisoners in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: I had hoped that my answer conveyed to the hon. Member the impression that no such privileges do exist. If I am not able to convince the hon. Member that is not my fault.
    Mr. FABER: I wish the right hon. Gentleman could.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.
    Sir R. COOPERasked what was the total cost of the maintenance of Donington Hall during the year 1915?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I regret that the figures are not available for the period prior to 1st May. Apart from capital outlay and the original cost of furnishing, the cost of maintenance for the last eight months of 1915 amounted to £2,250.

    1ST/10TH LONDON BATTALION (TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether about twenty non-commissioned officers and men of the 1st/10th London battalion were promoted temporarily while on active service in Gallipoli, and since their return to this country have been paid according to the new rank given to them while overseas; whether he is aware that recently new orders were issued reverting these men to the rank they held before proceeding overseas, which order in effect makes them liable to refund Service money paid to them by their battalion on the higher rank scale, in one case amounting to as

    715
    much as £35; and whether he will at once issue instructions which will prevent any financial liability falling upon these men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will have inquiry made.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put this question down a week ago, so as to give him time to make inquiries?

    SCOTTISH RECRUITING OFFICES (EMPLOYES' WAGES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men are employed in certain Scottish recruiting offices at 24s. a week, or 3s. 5d. a day for seven days; and whether he will inquire into this scale of payments, with a view to increasing them?
    Mr. FORSTER: The minimum was recently raised to 26s. a week.

    TREBITSCH LINCOLN.
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether, after the outbreak of War, Trebitsch Lincoln acted as a censor in the War Office; and, if so, when, and for how long, and what duties he performed, and on whose recommendation and on "whose appointment he became a censor?
    Mr. TENNANT: Trebitsch Lincoln was employed in the Postal Censorship for about a month, from the 20th August, 1914, to read Hungarian letters. His work was unsatisfactory, and shortly after being reprimanded for annotating letters, he expressed a wish to retire, and his resignation was accepted. As regards the last part, the usual references were aked for and given.
    Mr. FABER: Whose references were they?
    Mr. TENNANT: They were references from persons who believed in him.
    Mr. FABER: Who?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot say.
    Mr. FABER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir!
    Mr. FABER: If I ask, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I will.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (OFFICERS).
    Major WALTER GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the Territorial Force and New Armies field companies of Royal Engineers are invariably commanded by majors, whereas in the Royal Engineers of the Regular Army, although the establishment equally provides for a major to command such companies, no captains are promoted even to temporary rank while holding such appointment; and will he say why, if it is necessary for an officer commanding a field company to have the rank of field officer in the case of the Territorial Force and the New Armies, there is an equal case to give Regular officers the same temporary standing?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. and gallant Member correctly states in the first part of his question the usual practice, although it is not invariable. The answer to the second part of the question is that promotion in the Royal Engineers (Regular) is carreid out regimentally as a whole and not by individual units.
    Major W. GUINNESS: Is it not time to recognise that we have only one Army for the purposes of the War, and to do away with the preference which is now given to the Territorial Forces over the old Armies in the matter of temporary promotion?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is a very difficult problem which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises. I am unaware that undue preference has been given to the Territorial Forces.
    Major GUINNESS: Could the right hon. Gentleman in this matter of temporary—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That scarcely arises; it is more a matter for Debate.

    ARMY CONTRACTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the names of the firms to whom contracts have been given for making fur coats for the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: The names of firms with whom such contracts are placed are published monthly in the "Labour Gazette" issued by the Board of Trade.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of these firms

    717
    are English firms; that they are either German or Austrian, or firms with German or Austrian names?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I was not aware of that. But there is a difference between a German or an Austrian firm's name, and a German or an Austrian firm.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is one English firm in this matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly give notice of these questions? They are not on the Paper.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what, if any, arrangements have been made on and after 30th June for carrying on the work hitherto carried on by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society in respect to the advancement of money in the matter of soldiers' pensions; and whether if new bodies are to be brought into existence they will be charged with the duty of giving advice where advice is needed, a duty which has been carried out by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Regulations (Part II.) made by the Statutory Committee under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, provide for the advancement of funds in respect of the pensions of discharged sailors and soldiers. In reply to the latter part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that local committees are charged by Section 4 (d) of the Act with the function of giving information and advice to applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they do give this advice?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: They have instructions to give adequate advice, and no doubt they will give it.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a soldier refused an increase of pension by the Chelsea Commissioners can thereafter apply to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is, no doubt, competent for a soldier to make an application to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension in the circumstances mentioned j but the Committee would think it undesirable, without full communication with the Chelsea Commissioners, in effect to revise the decision of the Chelsea Hospital Medical Boards. The Committee have, in fact, communicated with the Commissioners in cases of this kind, and when they have been able to supply fresh evidence the Commissioners have shown themselves very ready to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that would prejudice the case of an applicant or not?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, Sir; it would not be at all prejudicial.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL WARDKKS (OVERTIME).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the chief warders employed at Woolwich Arsenal are now paid for overtime worked up to twelve hours in any one week, but that the ordinary warders receive no pay for overtime whatever; whether he is aware that three warders worked 130 hours, 120 hours, and sixty hours, respectively, during the first twelve months of the War; and whether he will undertake to see that the ordinary warder receives similar treatment, as far as overtime is concerned, to the chief warder?
    The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Colonel Lee): The chief warders at Woolwich Arsenal have to attend for very long hours and are not paid for the first three hours of overtime on any day. The ordinary warders work in shifts of about eight hours, and are paid at a consolidated rate, which was fixed to cover overtime. Though it has not been possible in the time available to verify the statement of the number of hours overtime actually worked, I understand that they show weekly averages greatly below those which prevailed when the consolidated rate was adopted.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions how the licences in Annan

    719
    stand with regard to the operation of the Local Veto Act in Scotland; and whether the Board of Control is to take out what has been paid for them prior to the operation of that Act, or is the scheme a temporary one?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): It does not appear to me that the operation of the Local Veto Act in Scotland will be prejudiced by the action taken by the Central Control Board at Annan.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that the licences in Annan will be subject to the veto of the people in 1921?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I think that is so.
    Mr. WING: Is it a fact that the licences in Annan are free from the inspection of the police and are outside the power of the licensing authority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Control Board has achieved any reduction in the consumption of alcohol; whether they have instituted any counter-attractions; and, if so, where and of what nature?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will refer to the recently published Second Report of the Control Board (Cd. 8243) he will find a full account of the work of the Board, both upon its restrictive and upon its constructive side.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has my right hon. Friend read that himself and does he know that it does not deal with the question of the restriction of consumption?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions what is the nature of the agreement made by the Board of Control at Carlisle; whether the arrangements with the breweries include their tied houses outside the area; what is the nature of the Redemption Scheme, or whether this department is one of a Permanent Board?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Control Board have decided to acquire the licensed trade interest, including the breweries, in the city of Carlisle and the immediate neighbourhood. The precise extent of the area and other details are now under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the Act and Regulations
    720
    under which the Control Board was constituted, namely, the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, and the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the tied houses belonging to the brewers which will be even outside the area of consideration will be dealt with in the Carlisle experiment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any estimate of the cost of this operation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I have received an estimate.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state anything like the sum?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That would certainly be very undesirable before the valuation.
    Mr. G. FABER: Will the arrangement continue after the War?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope so.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions when the Report of the Treasury Advisory Committee on certain proposals for the State purchase of the licensed liquor trade, the issue of which as a Parliamentary Paper was promised on 6th April last, will be published?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the Treasury are now taking steps to issue the Report as a Parliamentary Paper.
    Mr. GRETTON: May I ask what that answer means? Will it be issued within a few days or week?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In about a week's time.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions the result of the inquiry which has been held into the working of the orders of the Central Control Board for the County of Wilts; whether at some of the principal towns no evidence* has been called for from anyone but the police; and whether he has received any information as to how the Order affects home-trade brewers and the agricultural population generally?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that as the result of an inquiry by one of their own officers into the operation of the

    721
    Order for the Southern Military and Transport Area (including the county of Wilts), in the course of which large numbers, of persons in responsible and representative positions were interviewed, in addition to the police, the Control Board have come to the conclusion that the Order is working satisfactorily and that the particular complaints which have been made regarding it cannot be met without interfering with the main object of the Order.

    SHELLS AND GUNS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of Munitions if he can now make a statement, without risk of conveying any useful information to the enemy, on the reserves of shells and guns at the outbreak of the War, and the explanation of so many lost months in organising the resources of the country for the maximum production of shrapnel, high explosives, and guns?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that it is in the public interest that such a statement should be made.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will an inquiry be made into this matter at the end of the War?

    SOLDIER SONS (SUPPORT OF PARENTS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any provision has been made or is proposed to be made for the parent of a soldier who was not actually dependent on him before he joined the Army, but who, through age, or illness, or bereavement, has been deprived of the means of support, and would naturally have been expected to be supported by the son who has been called up for military service?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Regulations issued by the Statutory Committee provide that a local committee may, subject to certain limits and conditions, grant a special separation allowance equivalent to the amount which in the committee's opinion the soldier or sailor might presumably have been expected to give if he were living at home.

    WAR OFFICE TENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. YEOasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether an order for 150,000 tents has been placed with a
    722
    firm who are not tent makers; and, if so, were the tent manufacturers given the usual opportunity to tender for the contract, and were the prices of some of the contractors below those of the successful firm of non-tent makers; was a maximum price paid to this firm; and, if so, will he explain why this was done; and is he aware that, against the general recommendation of the Home Office, the firm in question being so favoured with contracts is employing workwomen on night work and advertising for further women to work at night, whilst the workers in the same trades in the east and south-east districts of London are out of employment?
    Mr. FORSTER: An order for 150,000 tents was placed in June, 1915, with a certain firm after they had satisfactorily executed orders for smaller quantities. The contract has now been completed. Two hundred and nineteen other firms were invited to tender at the same time, and every suitable offer lower in price and some higher in price were accepted to meet the Army requirements. The point regarding the employment of women at night should apparently be addressed to the Home Office.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that all the tenders that were sent in were accepted irrespective of price?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not say all were accepted, but I say 219 other firms were invited to tender, and, speaking from memory, I do not think it is going too far to say that everybody who could make satisfactory tents at a satisfactory price was given an opportunity of doing it.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Irrespective of price?

    OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why there is such continued delay in paying in officers' field, lodging, fuel, and light allowances; whether he is aware that many allowances for February were not paid to the bankers till 25th March and that those for March were only credited on 3rd May; and, in view of the fact that many officers now live on their pay and allowances, he will take steps to expedite payment?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that there has been any general delay in these

    723
    payments, but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have details of the cases which he has in mind I will make inquiries.

    HEAD KENT (CITY RESTAURANT OWNER'S PAYMENT).
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether the owner of a restaurant in the City, who pays £800 head rent, and whose total income under restricted hours, excluding any salary to himself, is £500, has any right of recovery against his landlord; or, if the Government has decided that licence holders must suffer losses by the action of a Government Department, should these losses be shared by all those having a revenue from the property instead of being confined to the actual man who carries on the business?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): These would seem to be legal questions to be settled between the various persons interested in the property, and I do not think that any Government Department would be in a position to offer advice.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to relieve cases of this kind from excessive taxation to which they are subjected?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think I must have notice of that question.

    WAR LOAN (INCOME TAX DEDUCTION).
    Mr. NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why deductions from the interest paid upon the 4½ per cent. War Loan on 2nd June last was made at the rate of 5s. in the £ for the whole period of six months, whereas during four months of that period the authorised rate of tax was 3s. only; and upon what principle does he justify this excess and unauthorised taxation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, as under the law Income Tax was deductible at the rate in force when the interest in question became payable, namely, 5s. in the £.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

    (BANDS IN PARKS.)
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Customs and Excise Departments are insisting that persons attending band performances in our public parks, and paying 1d. for the use of the chairs placed together round a bandstand, must also pay the Entertainments Tax; and whether this is in accord with his statement that there would be no duty on charges made for programmes or for seats at such performances?
    Mr. McKENNA: In the case of band performances in public parks, the Entertainments Tax is not leviable on any payment made merely for the use of a chair provided such payment is not in any sense made, directly or indirectly, for admission to an enclosure. But when the arrangement of the chairs is such as to constitute an area reserved for the occupants of the chairs, the payment must be held to be a payment for admission to an entertainment and is subject to tax accordingly.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received and submitted to His Majesty's Government a resolution passed by the corporation of the city of Glasgow urging that the liquor traffic be prohibited in Scotland during the continuation of the War, and that equitable provision be made for those who are affected thereby; and whether the Government proposes to take any action in this respect?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, which I understand has also been sent to other members of the Government. I am not in a position to make any statement in answer to the last part of the question.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    (CROWN FARM TENANT'S CONVICTION.)
    Sir R. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent conviction of a tenant of a Crown farm named Sydney Worth for

    725
    continued offences under the National Health Insurance Act; and whether, seeing that this unmarried man and his father and brother own and occupy several thousands of acres of other agricultural land, he will consider the advisability of the Crown resuming possession of this most suitable farm in order that it may be available for use under the provisions of the Small Holdings Colonies Bill now before Parliament?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): As I understand that the farm in question is held under a lease which has still several years to run, the question of the resumption of possession by the Commissioners of Woods, and of the suitability of the farm for a small holding colony do not arise.

    GAME PRESERVING
    Sir R. WINFREYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the Game Laws until after the War, so as to release for national service, both military and civil, all those men who are still being employed as game-keepers, also to relieve the police who, in game-preserving districts, are still devoting time in putting the Game Laws into operation; and further to prevent the damage to growing crops, and consequent wastage of food?
    Mr. ACLAND: I fear that the action which I understand my hon. Friend to suggest might be regarded as controversial in view of the fact that game preserving has been very largely decreased, if not wholly abandoned. I shall be glad to hear of any cases in which this may not be the case, so that action may be taken through the War Agricultural Committees, which would, I believe, be likely to be more practicable and effective than legislation. It should, I think, be remembered in this connection that no keepers of military age are in any way entitled to exemption from military service on account of their occupation, and that the older men who now alone remain are doing good work in helping to keep down rats and rabbits. They have also in many cases, which are worthy of general imitation, been lent for the purpose of helping farmers at the times of year when they most need help.

    ECONOMIC CONFERENCE IN PARIS.
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the resolutions adopted by the Economic Conference of the Allies at Paris?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how hon. Members who wish to discuss those resolutions can do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Through the usual channel.

    BANK HOLIDAY (EXCURSION TRAINS).
    Mr. BIRDasked whether the Government will approach the railway companies with a view to their running excursion trains at cheaper fares during 6th, 8th, and 9th August, Saturday Monday and Tuesday, for the two Bank Holidays, subject to military exigencies, in order to provide those engaged upon Government work with the necessary change of air and environment to enable them to recover health and strength after their prolonged labours at high pressure during the past few months?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am informed by the railway companies that they think that with their depleted staffs it will be as much as they can do to handle the traffic which is expected on their lines on the occasion of the August holidays, and that it will not therefore be practicable for them to run excursion trains at reduced fares, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Board will publish the evidence upon which were based the Introduction and Part I. of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the settlement and employment on the land of discharged sailors and soldiers.
    Mr. ACLAND: The Committee did not consider it necessary that the evidence

    727
    referred to should be published, and for this reason and for the sake of economy this view is also that of the Board.
    Mr. PETO: Can any hon. Member who particularly wishes to make use of this evidence have a copy for his private use?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes; we would do our best to make it available. Copies exist, and by permission of the person giving evidence I should think it might be made use of.

    SOLDIERS' PARCELS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether parcels up to 11 pounds weight can now be sent to soldiers at the front for the ordinary charge for postage; and, if not, whether he can see his way to restore the ordinary rates and conditions for sending parcels to men who are serving their country abroad?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): The reason for the reduction in the maximum weight of parcels for the Expeditionary Forces is the necessity of keeping within reasonable limits the number and bulk of the parcels sent overseas. Nearly 100,000 parcels a day are dispatched to France—a number which heavily taxes the resources both of the cross-Channel steamships and the military transport overseas. The step was taken after full discussion with the military authorities, and I fear that I can hold out no hope under existing conditions of a return to the former maximum weight of 11 pounds.
    Mr. WILSON: Was not the reason given for reducing the weight of parcels owing to the very large number at Christmas and the New Year?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, that is so, but the number of troops sent overseas has been increased since that date.

    RUBBER-TAPPING TOOLS.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether rubber-tapping tools made in Germany are permitted to be sent in Dutch or neutral vessels to the Dutch East Indies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No specific consignments of such articles can be traced.

    WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the prohibition of the sale of wool will press hardly on many sheep farmers; and if, while the prohibition exists, suitable arrangements will be made for farmers to obtain an adequate advance without interest on their crops?
    Mr. FORSTER: The necessary organisation for purchasing wool from the farmer is now being set up, and as soon as arrangements can be made to take delivery it is proposed to pay the farmer 75 per cent, of the estimated value of his clip, the balance being paid as soon as the wool has been inspected. Interest at 5 per cent, will be credited to farmers who are required to retain their wool after a certain period.
    Mr. PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all the wool will be bought on the premises of the farmer or whether it will be delivered at the usual place of sale?
    Mr. FORSTER: That depends upon circumstances.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the rules here laid down are applied to Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Are the Government going to resell that which they do not want?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; we sell all the wool which is not found suitable for military requirements.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Then will the profits be given over to the farmers?
    Colonel YATE: Will the price of the wool be paid at once?
    Mr. FORSTER: Seventy-five per cent, will be paid by way of advance, and the balance of 25 per cent, will be paid as soon as the wool has been inspected.
    Mr. G. FABER: Who fixes the price?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope that it will be done by agreement. As I have already said in answer to a question, our proposal is that we should take the pre-war price and add a suitable percentage to meet the extra cost the farmer now has to bear.

    KNITTING AND HOSIERY INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the knitting and hosiery industry is of importance to many districts in Scotland; and if he will relax the conditions under which the sale of wool is prohibited in such districts?
    Mr. FORSTER: The bulk of the 1916 clip of British and Irish wool will be reserved for military purposes, and in arranging distribution regard will be had to the capacity of Scottish firms to undertake military orders. Such portion of the 1916 clip of British and Irish wool as is unsuitable for military purposes will be sold in the open market.
    Mr. WASON: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on this matter with reference to the special circumstances of the knitting industry and the deprivation of those people of their means of living?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes: I will be very glad to receive a deputation.

    NURSERIES AND MARKET GARDENS (ALIEN LABOUR).
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the number of aliens who are now being engaged to take the place of men working in nursery and market gardens who have been called to the Colours; and whether it is proposed or is possible to ensure reinstatement of these men on the termination of hostilities should they desire it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware that a certain number of aliens have been engaged for this purpose, but I understand that the total number is not great. The market gardeners who have increased the number of aliens in their employ have, I am informed, given assurances that the additional labour so obtained will only be retained while the Englishmen so replaced are away. The whole question of the reinstatement of sailors and soldiers upon their return to civil life is at present under careful consideration by the Government.

    RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS (PAPER).
    Mr. PRATTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the Returns of the first three months' working under the recent restrictions of imports into this country of paper and paper-making material by 33 per cent, and to the fact that these Returns show that the quantity of imported paper-making materials corresponds to this figure, whilst on the other hand the imports of paper only show a decrease of 11 per cent.; and if he can explain this discrepancy?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The full effect of the restrictions on the importation of paper was not felt until some time after their imposition owing to the fact that large supplies were already en route and had to be admitted. Certain descriptions of paper and board have moreover been imported in increased quantities owing to Government requirements for war purposes. In the case of paper-making materials, the effect of the restriction has been enhanced by the prohibition imposed in Sweden on the exportation of chemical pulp.

    MINERAL WATERS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the importation of British mineral waters into France is prohibited, whilst the importation of French mineral waters are permitted free import into the United Kingdom; and will he say what steps the Board of Trade intend to take to protect British mineral water manufacturers from the damage that is being done to this British industry?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The importation into France of medicinal mineral waters is prohibited. I understand that the French authorities will be prepared to give favourable consideration +o applications for licences to import such waters from the United Kingdom, and if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which licences have been refused I will have inquiry made.
    Sir R. COOPER: Are not the mineral water manufacturers under the belief that

    731
    under the regulations that have been issued they are prohibited at the present time from exporting entirely?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot speak for the belief of the mineral water manufacturers.

    NATURALISED GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of Germans and Austrians who were naturalised in the United Kingdom in each year from 1910 to 1914?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Excluding readmissions of British-born subjects, the figures for the five years are: Germans, 347, 334, 397, 409, and 262; Austrians and Hungarians, 84, 135, 111, 141, and 85. As regards the figures for 1914, I would refer my hon. Friend to my predecessor's answer to the hon. Member for York on the 27th April, 1915.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of naturalised Germans and Austrians resident in the Metropolitan Police area?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I can only give the figures for the County of London, and for 1911, the year of the last census. They are: Naturalised Germans, 1,925 males, 850 females; naturalised Austrians and Hungarians, 497 males, 275 females.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the present number of registered German and Austrian enemies residing in the Metropolitan Police area who are not interned; the number of males and females; and if all the males are over military age?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The total number of persons of German and Austrian nationality at present residing in the Metropolitan Police area, excluding British-born wives, is as follows:—

    Germans: males, 4,931; females, 4,418.

    Austrians: males, 3,796; females, 2,654.

    Of the males, 2,018 Germans and 3,012 Austrians are of military age. As I have frequently pointed out, the alien enemies
    732
    still at liberty are all persons whose cases have been considered by the Advisory Committees and recommended for exemption from internment or repatriation for special reasons. They are mainly composed of persons of friendly race or sympathies, e.g., Czechs, Poles, Slavs, natives of Alsace-Lorraine, who are only technically of Gorman or Austrian nationality, or else the special ground for their exemption is that they are over seventy years of age, or of thirty or forty years' residence here, or some similar reason.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the case that in the Metropolitan area there were over 5,000 trained enemy aliens of military age?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Baron von Bissing has recently been enjoying a state of liberty in London; and what special privileges of leave are granted to him seeing that he is interned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware that Baron von Bissing has recently been enjoying a state of liberty in London, and it is not the fact. He has not been at liberty at any time since he was interned on 20th September, 1915.
    Mr. G. FABERasked why all enemy aliens now at large in this country are not either interned or deported?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will make a statement on this subject on the Home Office Vote on Thursday.

    LOSS OF H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
    Mr. C. WASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the precedent set up at the instance of Queen Victoria, when a medal was struck to commemorate the loss of the "Drummond Castle," he will consider whether it would be appropriate to issue a medal to commemorate the loss of the "Hampshire" and the tragic death of Lord Kitchener?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have inquired into the case of the "Drummond Castle," and find that this is not a precedent for the proposal made by my hon. Friend. The medal approved by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria was

    733
    given, not to commemorate the loss of the vessel, but as a token of gratitude to French fishermen for the services they rendered on the occasion of the wreck. It is not proposed to adopt the suggestion made in the question.
    Sir R. COOPERasked whether the sea on the West Coast of the Orkneys was swept for mines previous to the passage of the "Hampshire"; and, if so, what time elapsed between the sweeping of the sea for mines at the spot where the "Hampshire" sank and the accident to the vessel?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend will see, on reflection, that it is clearly impossible in naval interests to make any statement about the precautions taken by the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, for the protection of the ships in his command.
    Sir R. COOPERasked where the inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire" took place; and who conducted the inquiry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The inquiry was held at a naval base under the presidency of a captain of the Royal Navy.

    JUTLAND NAVAL BATTLE.
    Mr. GRANTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the desirability of recognising by means of an honours list without further delay the gallantry and heroism of officers and men of all ranks in the recent victory at Horn Reef?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The desirability of recognising the gallantry and heroism of officers and men of the Royal Navy will be considered on this as on all occasions.

    NATIONAL TREASURES (SALES IN IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked under what law the sale and use of national pictures, albums, and badges are now, without Proclamation, prevented by the police in some parts of Ireland and not in other parts; and whether the House will be informed of any uniform practice in this matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Any publication or printed matter likely to cause disaffection is prohibited under the Regulations for the Defence of the Realm; and it is
    734
    also an offence under these Regulations to attempt by any means to cause disaffection among the civilian population. It will be for the competent military authority to decide upon the facts in each particular case whether the sale or use of the matters referred to by the hon. Member comes within the Regulations and calls for prosecution. Beyond this no uniform practice can be prescribed.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said what is the uniform practice and why it is followed in one place and not in another?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Probably because the circumstances are different in the two places.
    Mr. GINNELL: But they are not different: they are the same.

    OPERATIONS IN SOUTHERN PEKSIA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the expedition under Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, in Southern Persia, is being carried out under Brigadier-General Sir Percy Sykes, Foreign Office, or the Government of India?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): Sir Percy Sykes is acting under the orders of the Government of India.

    MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS (SURGEON-GENERAL SIR W. BABTIE).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India for what length of time Surgeon-General Sir W. Babtie, the Director of Medical Services in India, and the officer stated to have been responsible in regard to medical provision for the expedition to Mesopotamia, was absent from his post during certain months of 1915; and who was appointed to officiate for him during his absence?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Surgeon-General Sir W. Babtie left India for a short time early in 1915 to carry out certain work entrusted to him by the War Office. He was not replaced during his temporary absence. He vacated the appointment of Director of Medical Services in India in June, 1915, when he was succeeded by Surgeon-General MacNeece. I am not aware by what authority General Babtie is stated to

    735
    have been responsible for the medical arrangements in Mesopotamia, and I would deprecate any such assertion.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire who was responsible?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That question shall be conveyed to the Secretary of State.

    Treasury Payments to Clergy of Established Church of Scotland.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the Treasury payments to the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland on l5th May and on 29th September, whether the payment on 29th September represents the sum due for the half-year ending on the Scottish term of Martinmas, 11th November; and, if so, whether any steps are taken to prevent misunderstanding on this subject at the time of paying?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 11 of the Act 60, Geo. III., cap. 84, which provides that the sums in question "shall be payable by two half-yearly payments at the terms of Whitsunday and Michaelmas in each year." There is no mention of Martinmas. The forms of receipt signed by the ministers to whom payment is made each September are in respect of payment "for the half-year to Michaelmas"
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are these, in fact, half-years, or are they not half-years?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think substantially they are half-years.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Six months?
    Mr. McKENNA: Substantially six months.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that mean five months?

    Colonial Office Vote.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Vote in Committee of Supply for the Colonial Office being taken at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether and when he will give the House of Commons the opportunity of discussing the change in our Colonial
    736
    policy inaugurated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his dispatch of 1st June to the Governors of our West African Colonies directing the imposition of taxation for our benefit and not for theirs; and, in view of the consequences of the action taken, he will undertake that this new policy shall not be put in operation without the express sanction of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think this matter can best be discussed on the Colonial Office Vote.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister (1) if his attention has been called to the correspondence between Sir John Ross and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which the former declared that his resignation of the post of Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan. Police in 1914 was a protest against an act of tyranny and of unfair dealing on the part of the Chief Secretary in dismissing the assistant commissioner, Mr. Harrel, for conduct which was approved by Sir John Ross, his superior officer, and for which the latter accepted full responsibility; whether, in view of Sir John Ross's statement that Mr. Harrel had always discharged his duties most faithfully and most efficiently and that the action for which Mr. Harrel was dismissed was taken with the concurrence of the Under-Secretary for Ireland, who later changed his mind and censured Mr. Harrel, and having regard to the vindication of Mr. Harrel's conduct by recent occurrences in Dublin, he proposes to reinstate Mr. Harrel or to compensate him for his treatment by the late Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary for Ireland; (2) if his attention has been called to the charges made against Lord Shaw's Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances of the conflict between the military and the people in Dublin on 26th July, 1914, by Sir John Ross, who was then chief commissioner of police in Dublin, in a published letter to the late Chief Secretary, in which Sir John Ross asserts that all the Court of Inquiry did with reference to the conduct of Mr. Harrel was to make insinuations which were wholly unjustifiable, and to express some vague opinions, many of which did not even touch the issues before it, and that a great deal of evidence vital to the case was excluded from the consideration of the Court; and whether, in view of the

    737
    gravity of such allegations made by a responsible officer, he proposes to have a further inquiry into all the circumstances, or to take any other action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the correspondence referred to in the two questions of the hon. Member. The answer to the concluding part of both questions is in the negative.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for that decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: On the whole I do not think it is advisable at this time and under the circumstances to revive that question.
    Sir JAMES DOUGHERTY: The statement attributed to Sir John Ross so far as it relates to me and my action on the occasion referred to is pure fiction.

    Transvaal (Land Settlement Schemes).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, subsequent to the 'South African War, land settlement schemes were introduced in the Transvaal the object of which was to afford facilities to those who had rendered military service during the war to settle on the land; and if he will say how many of these land settlements were organised; how much land was taken for these schemes; how much money was expended in purchase, irrigation, fencing, building, on road-making and bridges, and on organisation and administration; the total amount of loans advanced to settlers and the loss thereon; how many soldiers availed themselves of these facilities; how many remained more than two years; and how many ex-soldiers are now to be found on these settlements?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I regret that the information at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to answer my hon. Friend's questions, but I should be glad to show him such information as I possess.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. WINGasked for the respective number of old age pensioners in Durham, Northumberland, and Cumberland?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The number of old age pensions payable in the administrative counties of Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland on the last Friday
    738
    in March, 1916, was as follows: Durham, 11,798; Northumberland, 5,616; Cumberland, 4,065.

    Greenwich Guardians (Balances).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a communication from the Deptford Borough Council on the subject of the balances held by the guardians of the Greenwich Union, which are alleged to be excessive; and whether, having regard to the need for economy and the calls made on the ratepayers at the present time, he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the guardians' accounts, dealing more particularly with the amounts of the balances remaining in the guardians' hands from time to time?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has received the communication to which the hon. Member refers, and has brought the matter to the notice of the guardians. Their accounts are scrutinised at the periodical audits held by the district auditor, and I see no advantage in directing a special inquiry into the subject. There is no reason to suppose that the guardians desire to retain balances in excess of their possible requirements, or that the balances generally held by them have been excessive, when account is taken of the liabilities outstanding and of the amount of the balance represented by necessary stores in hand.

  NATIONAL INSUKANCE ACT.

    COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been drawn to the strictures contained in Clauses 13, 14, and 15 of the Report just issued by the Committee of Public Accounts upon certain expenditure stigmatised by the Committee as improper and irregular in character and considerable in amount; and whether he will state, approximately, what the amount of, money involved is?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The particulars asked for are given, so far as they are available, in the First and Second Reports on the work of the National Insurance Audit Department (Cd. 7885 and 8210). I may perhaps also refer the hon. Member to my statement on 20th June as to the general, character of the expenditure in question.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (FINANCE).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the report of a speech by Mr. W. A. Platt at a meeting of Rechabite secretaries, held on the 3rd June at Leeds; whether Mr. Platt is a member of the Departmental Committee on Approved Society Finance and Administration; and, if so, whether his statement that the alternative to the recommendations in the Interim Report of that Committee that the nation should take over the whole of the approved societies, pool the whole of their funds, and form a national fund and society, is authorised and represents the view of the Treasury?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): My attention had not previously been called to the speech in question, and I had not seen a report of it. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. As regards the third, I do not gather from the hon. Member's question that Mr. Platt purported to go beyond the expression of his individual opinion.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the inconvenience of a member of this Committee making statements of this kind in order to influence the decisions of friendly societies by practically threatening them with suppression?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that this gentleman, having signed the Report of this Committee, advocated its recommendation to people interested, and uttered a prophecy with which I have no concern.

    Correspondence of Members of Parliament (Censorship).
    Mr. GINNELLasked to what extent and on what grounds the undertaking not to tamper with the correspondence of Members of this House is departed from; why the letters are not frankly cut open by the Censor and acknowledged, but opened furtively; why some are never delivered; and whether he will introduce a uniform practice in this matter, and say what it is?
    Mr. TENNANT: The last general statements made on this matter were those made by the Prime Minister and by myself on the 23rd May. A uniform practice has been introduced and is now in operation. Correspondence of every person in this country, except that of persons who habitually conduct official correspondence, is liable to censorship. All letters which
    740
    have been opened in the United Kingdom should bear a label with the words "Opened by Censor." No letters are ever opened furtively by censors in this country, but letters from neutral countries occasionally come into the hands of the Censor which appear to have been opened and resealed by the writers or by some other person in the country of origin. All incoming letters are delivered to the addressee, unless they give cause for inquiry or are required for the purpose of the prosecution of the writer, the addressee, or a third person referred to in the letter.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Postmaster-General account for the fact that this envelope which I hold in my hand has been treated furtively in the manner described in my question and that other letters in the envelopes of this House have never been delivered; and how is it attempted to deny this when the actual envelopes so treated are produced?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only answer the first part of the question by assuming that some person has opened the envelope and resealed it, whether out of curiosity or from other motives I am unable to say; but I think that is clearly obvious.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the Postmaster-General guarantee the security of letters against opening except by the Censor?

    Industrial Diseases (Callosity).
    Mr. FENWICKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the industrial disease known as callosity; and, if so, whether, having regard to the nature of the disease, he can see his way to include it in the list of industrial diseases provided for under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that callosity, which is a hardening and thickening of the superficial layers of the skin, is common, especially on the hands and fingers, in certain occupations, but I am advised that it cannot be regarded as a definite disease and does not of itself cause incapacity. It could not therefore be scheduled under the Act.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

    PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
    Major WALTER GUINNESS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention

    741
    has been called to a statement by the hon. Member for West Belfast that any settlement of the Irish question must involve an amnesty for the Irish rebels who have recently been condemned to penal servitude, and whether the Cabinet has consented, or will be asked to consent, to this condition?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask when we are to have the statement by the Prime Minister, promised yesterday, with regard to the treatment of the conscientious objectors?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) to postpone certain questions referring to this subject until tomorrow, and my right hon. Friend, by that request, conveyed that he would make his statement to-morrow. That, I hope, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will it be a full statement dealing with the whole question?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe so, but I have no authority for saying it.
  Mr. LOUGH: On the Orders of the Day is Order No. 3, Ways and Means, Committee, to be taken to-day?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not effective.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

FINANCE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Motor Spirit Licence Duty.)
  (1) In addition to any other duties imposed by law in respect to motor spirit, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on a licence to be taken out by any person who desires to be supplied with motor spirit a duty at the rate of sixpence for every gallon of motor spirit with which he is authorised to be supplied by the licence.
  Provided that—

  (a) any person using motor spirit for purposes other than supplying motive power to a motor car or motor cycle or for supplying motive power to any motor car or motor cycle in respect of which duty is not payable under Section eighty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be entitled, in accordance with Regulations made under this Section, to an allowance or re-
  750
  payment of the whole duty payable under this Section in respect of a licence authorising the supply of that motor spirit; and

  (b) any duly qualified medical practitioner or registered veterinary surgeon using motor spirit for the purpose of supplying motive power to a motor car or motor cycle kept by him, while it is being used by him for the purposes of his profession, shall be entitled, in accordance with Regulations made under this Section, to an allowance or repayment of half the amount of duty payable under this Section in respect of a licence authorising the supply of that motor spirit.

  (2) A licence shall be in such form, and shall be issued in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by Regulations made for the purposes of this Section by the Board of Trade, and the Regulations may provide for the use of different forms of licence according to the purpose for which the supply of motor spirit is required, and every licence shall specify the amount of motor spirit authorised by the licence to be supplied to the holder.
  Regulations may provide for the surrender of any licence under this Section authorising the supply of motor spirit, and for any consequent repayment of duty.
  (3) Nothing in this Section or in any provisions supplemental to this Section shall apply to the supply of motor spirit to licensed dealers for the purpose of sale to customers.
  (4) In this Section, "motor spirit," has the same meaning as in Part VI. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cannot do something to assist the owners of private motor cars who are using them for public work? I know there is a subsequent Clause which exempts cars used solely for Government work, but that does not meet the case, as the bulk of the privately-owned cars are

  751
  not used entirely for Government work. They are used largely for Red Cross work and by the Headquarters Central Division of the Special Constabulary, who provide all cars for work in connection with Zeppelin raids. Again, they are used for recruiting work all over the country, and are so used voluntarily. I cannot help feeling that in imposing this tax on the users of these motor cars so employed the right hon. Gentleman is not taking sufficient account—he was not here on the last occasion when I raised the question—of the enormous amount of voluntary work which has been so very freely done and given by the motorists of the country during the last eighteen or twenty months. Some account might be taken of that. It is a little hard that, as a reward for all the work which motorists have voluntarily done, the right hon. Gentleman should propose this additional tax upon them. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the real purpose of this tax is to stop the use of cars, or to raise revenue? We are entitled to know that. If the purpose is to stop the use of cars, it would be very much better that the right hon. Gentleman should have the courage of his opinions and should take the necessary steps to stop their use. What effect will this have? It enables the rich man to go on using his car as much as he likes, while it prevents the less well-to-do man and the poor man—there are many men owning motor cars to whom this tax will be an appreciable item—from using their cars. If the desire is to raise revenue, the poor man and the rich man are equally liable to taxation, but if the desire is to stop the use of petrol, all the Clause does is to prevent the moderately poor man from using a motor car, while the rich man can use his as much as he likes. I am sure that that is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motorists do not object to taking their share of war taxation. We are anxious to do our part, but we have done so much voluntarily that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us some recognition. Those men who have placed their cars at the disposal of the public are entitled to some recognition for what they have done. I told the Committee on the last occasion that I could produce evidence from every county throughout the country as to the work done, and I gave certain figures in regard to certain counties. I am not
  752
  going over all those again this afternoon. On that occasion I mentioned a Northern county and a Southern county. On this occasion I will mention a Midland county, not to show what is being done, but to show what is the view of the local authorities as to the assistance motorists have given. Take the county of Leicestershire. There is a large general hospital in Leicester. Ten thousand cases have been moved to or from that hospital in the eighteen months ending the beginning of April this year. That has been done through the voluntary agency of the owners of private motor cars. In addition to that, 5,500 wounded soldiers have been taken out to various entertainments by the owners of private motor cars. We tried to find out the view of the public officials and those responsible for the local government in the different neighbourhoods as to the action of motorists, and I would ask leave of the Committee to mention these facts because of the absurd and cruel aspersions constantly cast upon motorists in regard to the way in which they use their cars, suggesting that they are using them for pleasure purposes in time of war. The Colonel in Command of the district, from a military point of view, says that he has seen the attacks made upon them, and he knows what everybody has done to help the hospital and help his recruiting work in every way. The secretary to the Recruiting Committee authorises one to say that he has always had fifteen or twenty cars at his disposal for recruiting purposes whenever he wanted them. The county director of the Red Cross testifies to the same extent. The Mayor of Leicester, who would be in a better position than anybody else to say what has been done, states:
  "As Mayor I am in an exceptional position to form an opinion. I have been astonished at the willingness of motorists to assist in public work."
  The Chief Constable of Leicester testifies to the assistance motorists have given to the police of the borough, and the Chief Constable of the county testifies to the way in which motorists have placed themselves at the disposal of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman can have all these letters if he likes.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I do not dispute it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As he does not dispute it and is prepared to give a concession to those motorists who place the

  753
  whole time of their cars at the disposal of the Government, I suggest it is not outside his great ability to provide some scheme by which concessions might be made to those motorists who place nearly the whole time of their cars at the disposal of the Red Cross Hospital or the military authorities.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member was not here yesterday. If he had been, he would be aware that we had a long discussion which dealt with that question on the Clause dealing with relief in respect of Motor-car Licence Duties, when the Committee decided that the word "exclusively" should remain.
  Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. Was not the question raised by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) whether the exemption to which we agreed last night with regard to the Licence Duty should not also apply to this new Petrol Duty? Would he not be in order in doing that?
  The CHAIRMAN: So far, certainly. The hon. Member appeared to me to be surveying the whole ground. On this Clause the sole question is whether such or other exemptions should be extended.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As a matter of fact, I was in the precincts of the House yesterday, but I was unable to be here when the Clause was under discussion. I will not press the matter, but will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider it. It may be impossible to give the necessary abatement with regard to the Licence Duty, but it is possible to create a scheme, when dealing with the question of Petrol Duty, to ease the burden on the shoulders of those who lend their cars for public purposes. I would only ask one other question, namely, when may we expect the Regulations and when the tax will come into operation? At present there is a great deal of uncertainty on this point, and everybody is wondering whether they ought to get their licences now.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: When we were dealing with the Resolution the right hon. Gentleman gave us some very clear information with regard to two or three matters which I do not think are fully provided for in the Clause. This is a new class of duty which is to be paid on the licence. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would
  754
  give us some more information about the form of the licence. Will it contain a time limit, or will it be a blank licence to run on for any time? If the licence has a time limit, as was hinted, what arrangement will be made with regard to those cases in which the quantity of petrol specified is not entirely used? I would ask my right hon. Friend also to consider this great difficulty which may arise. Sometimes breakdowns occur and the consumption of petrol is greater than was expected. Suppose a man has only a few gallons on his licence and is caught on a long and important journey when he has run out, can it be explained what provision will be made? Then I should like to ask, will the exemptions provided in the Licence Duty also be granted in the case of the Petrol Duty? It strikes me that the Clause is really rather strict and does not cover all the cases that ought to be covered. Perhaps there is provision elsewhere for trade cars and the numerous points which were mentioned last night on the Licence Duty. Will these all be entitled to similar exemption?
  Mr. McKENNA: With regard to trade cars, the words "or for supplying motive power to any motor car or motor cycle in respect of which duty is not payable under Section 86 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910," mean that trade cars are to be excluded from payment, including omnibuses. It means that cars in respect of which duty is not payable under Section 86 include trade cars, omnibuses, or commercial cars, and they will be excluded from Licence Duty under this Clause'. My right hon. Friend next asks me about what is to happen when a motorist finds that he has exhausted the amount to which he is entitled when he is in the middle of a journey and cannot get home. I am afraid he will have to find a friend who will give him motor spirit upon his, the friend's, licence. He will not be able to buy any more, therefore I should warn all motorists who are running to the end of their licensed amount to remember that they must not go greater distances than the remaining spirit will carry them. With regard to the time limit, I am unable to say anything at present. I do not know whether the licence will be for three or six months or for a year, or what period it may be, but the Regulations are to be prescribed by the Board of Trade. I cannot say anything about them at present because it is

  755
  necessary that we should have the result of the census which is now being taken before any Regulations can be made as to the use of petrol. It may be, as the result of the census, that the motorists of the country are so moderate in their demands that every demand will be able to be met. I do not anticipate that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Suppose that the demand is really moderate in the case of a given person, will he be allowed to have the moderate amount of spirit for which he has asked or will he be averaged with people whose demands are excessive? There are people who really use motor spirit very moderately and only for really essential purposes. If they send in their moderate demand it is rather hard that they should have that cut down because some other person uses a very excessive amount.
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume, though I have no authority to speak on the subject, that no applicant will receive a larger amount of petrol merely because he has asked for a larger amount. I assume that everyone's case will be, so far as possible, judged on its merits. The penalty that any person pays who asks for a larger amount than he is likely to use will be that he will have to pay Licence Duty in respect of the whole amount for which he asked, although he gets the money back at the end of the time if he hag not used it; but no person will get more, merely because he asked for it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not quite my point Supposing a certain person asks for ten gallons a month—a very moderate amount—and supposing the majority of other people ask for fifty gallons, will an average be struck, and the person who asks for ten gallons only get five because other people are cut down?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it will not be in proportion to the demand. It is no general proportion to what people ask. Every case will be judged upon its merits.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Will a man who is six miles from a station have more consideration than another?
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume any Committee would naturally give a person who has got a necessary use for his car more petrol than a person who uses his car merely for pleasure. Then the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked whether
  756
  the purpose of this tax is to put an end to the private use of motor cars or whether it is to raise money. Those two alternatives are not necessarily exclusive. The unnecessary use of a motor car is injurious to the State, but the payment of money is beneficial to the State, and it may be that the degree of unnecessary use is small while the degree of payment of money is high, and the State on the balance may get more advantage from the payment of the money than disadvantage from the use of the motor car. We have, therefore, endeavoured to put on the use of a motor car a financial penalty which will make up to the State for the injury which the State might suffer by what I might call the unnecessary use of the car. It cannot be said that the tax is purely for revenue, and it cannot be said that it is purely to suppress motor cars. It is something of both. With regard to the relief from this tax of cars used for purposes such as the work of the Red Cross Society, I am afraid we shall have to adhere to the rule that no relief of any kind can be considered unless the car is exclusively used for Government purposes or for State purposes of that kind. We cannot allow every person to assess himself. The tax will come into operation, I assume, when the census is taken, but the Petrol Committee cannot act until they know what the facts of the case are.
  Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider one case which may possibly arise? In the case of doctors, suppose the supply which they are authorised to purchase is exceeded, would it not be possible to issue a licence under which, in the case of special exigencies and for the public good, that supply might be in certain cases increased? I know that this difficulty has arisen not from any limitation upon the purchase, but because the petrol was not obtainable, and in the last period before it was obtained medical attendance has absolutely been stopped in some country districts. I have had reports from medical officers repeatedly that they could not obtain it. It would be still harder if, even when the supply is forthcoming, they are told, "No, however urgent the case is, however necessary your attendance at a great distance, you cannot purchase this because you have already had your whole supply for a month." Would it not be possible to give a special permit which might be used only by a professional medical man for purposes of public interest?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman's observations are very much in point, but I think the matter will have to be considered by the Petrol Committee of the Board of Trade. I think it ought to be brought home to their minds.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Sir W. BEALE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the following paragraph:—
  (c) Ministers of religion, farmers residing at a distance from a station, and other persons who under special circumstances to be defined by Regulations require motor spirit for a motor car or motor cycle used for purposes defined by such Regulations to be such as to bring them within this Sub-section, may be authorised by such Regulations to claim and may be allowed relief from a portion (not exceeding one-half) of the amount of duty payable under this Section in respect of such amount of the motor spirit as shall be specified in the licence to be allocated to that particular purpose."
  I have no intention of going behind what was said yesterday in connection with the Motor Licence Duty. I perfectly recognise the unwisdom of attempting to exempt classes of men, because you do not know how far you might go, but it occurred to me that there are undoubted cases which might be met in another way without any objection of that sort. I notice that already in the next Clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes there is evidence that they do anticipate that a special purpose may be indicated on the licence, and it does not seem to me to be impracticable, and seems to be a thing which would remove a grievance which, in the case of ministers of religion, might very well be met by putting on the face of the licence that a certain amount of the spirit was allocated to a specific purpose and a kind of use which was shown to be of national importance, and that for that amount, and that amount only, he might be relieved. I suggest only partial relief, and I should leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put in what variation he likes as to the amount. But I ask him to take this opportunity of having a Clause which will give some elasticity so that relief can be given to certain people. Of those people, I think
  758
  ministers of religion stand first. Their case was fully gone into. It has come within my notice that during the War very many ministers are taking the work of others in parishes at a considerable distance from their residence. They chiefly use motor cycles. They are not people who own motor cars of their own. I have had many representations made to me of the hardship the Motor Duty would be to them, but in regard to the Spirit Duty, I think relief might be given in this way. Another class is that of farmers specially circumstanced in this way, that their horses have been commandeered and they have bought up cheap or second-hand motor cars to tide them over the difficulty. The paragraph as I have framed it would enable that matter to be met. The people who grant the licences will very easily be able to deal with any specific ease. If a minister comes and says, "I have to go once or twice a week to-such a district, and I want to have enough spirit for that purpose at half-price," they could easily verify whether that is reasonable or not, and if only that much is allowed to him no harm would be done. Take, again, the case of the farmer. If they know he is a long way from a station, and has to go into market twice a week, it will be very easy to specify quite, a reasonable amount on which he might have relief from the Motor Duty. There are other cases which may be dealt with if they turn out to be of the same nature. Of course, the whole subject may be defined and limited by Regulations. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to adopt some Amendment of the kind I have moved. I apprehend that it would be practically easy to do it, and it could be done justly without running any risk of the Treasury losing any substantial amount of money. Subsection (4) of the next Clause which is to-be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides that a person shall not use motor spirit with which he is authorised to be supplied for any special purpose by his licence for any other purpose. If he abuses or attempts to abuse any such concession he will be liable to a heavy penalty under the Clause. I am not wedded to the particular words of my Amendment. I have tried to make the Amendment general, and, I think, that a reasonable concession made on these lines would be much appreciated. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept my Amendment as it stands, I would ask him

  759
  to consider whether he could not, by the drafting of other words, meet a really deserving object.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The arguments which my hon. and learned Friend has addressed to the Committee are very similar in purpose to the arguments which were addressed to the Committee on another Clause last night. I have very little to add in regard to the cases of ministers of religion. I hope the Committee will realise that we are discussing this Clause in the middle of a national emergency. There is a great shortage of petrol in this country, and if my hon. and learned Friend had seen the figures which I have seen on this subject he would realise how important it is not to stop the consumption of petrol, but to limit it as far as possible. Immediately one listens to arguments which leads one to sympathise with hard cases, one gets upon the slope of concession, on which there is no stopping. I would draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to his own Sub-clause, which is drawn in such a way that it contemplates an absolutely indefinite extension to any other person under special circumstances. Where are the Committee or the Board of Trade or the Treasury going to stop in giving exemption under a Clause of that kind? When you come to consider particular cases, the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the portion of petrol issued to a particular person that has been used for a particular purpose may be exempted from a portion of the taxation. Imagine the case of a farmer filling the petrol tank on the back of his car and going into the market of a particular town, and then going off to lunch with a friend, a mile or a mile and a half distant from the market town. How is he to tell which part of the petrol in his tank is used for going to market, and how much is used for going to lunch?
  An HON. MEMBER: Farmers do not go away to lunch like that.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am not suggesting that anybody would willingly deceive the State, particularly if they were subject to a penalty, as they are subject to a penalty under this Clause, but I am suggesting that quite innocently they might do that, and that you could not work such a Clause. When you come to the case of farmers who live far from a railway station, I would
  760
  point out that, in the first place, this particular moment is not the moment to suggest to the House of Commons particular exemptions and concessions to farmers, who are, on the whole, very prosperous at the moment. Secondly, I would point out that when you rent a farm you have to pay rent according to the facilities for marketing your produce. The further from a railway station your farm is, presumably, other things being equal, the lower the rent. That is a fact which has to be borne in mind. I do submit that when you look at the proposed concession in its individual application, it is not of particular advantage, and when you consider the concession at large it does away with the whole reason for imposing the tax at all, and on these grounds we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: I think my right hon. Friend has been a little hard upon the farmer. When he says that farmers who live at a very considerable distance from the station have taken their farms at a lower rent, I agree that probably that is the case, but he must recollect that at this time of national emergency the farmers have had their horses taken from them by the military, and they are unable to get from their farms to the station. That is a reason which, I think, should induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept the elasticity contained in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. He can adopt his own regulations. As my hon. Friend says, you do not lay down a hard and fast line. I may not speak generally of ministers of religion in Devonshire, because they have not such long distances to travel, but I do know in that county and in other counties where farmers live ten or twelve miles from a station, and it is very hard upon them that after they have had their horses commandeered, they should now have to pay an extra Petrol Tax in order to use the small cars which they have to use, and which they have been obliged to buy for the purposes of their business because their horses have been taken. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary whether they cannot accept some form of elasticity in regard to this matter, instead of laying down a hard and fast rule. You give a concession of one-half to the doctors, and one-half to the veterinary surgeons, and surely you can give it to men who have been absolutely damaged by the State taking away their means of carrying their produce to market. My

  761
  right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) reminds me that trade cars are exempted. If trade cars are exempted, why should not an agriculturist who is using his car specially for his trade, and for his trade only, not have an exemption?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Why should not all business men have the same facility?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I assume that if a business man uses his car for trade he is exempt. I have no sympathy whatever with joy-rides. I have no sympathy with the use of cars and the utilising of petrol at the present time for pleasure rides, but I do ask that agriculturists should not be placed in a worse position than a trader, more particularly when his means of taking his produce from his farm to the market have been taken from him by the Government. What objection can there be to allowing regulations to be made to give some form of elasticity so that relief may be given in deserving cases? I hope that the Treasury will relent in regard to this very important matter.
  Sir HASTINGS DUNCAN: I should like to speak a few words on behalf of a very small class who are affected by this tax. I refer to the surveyors of local authorities, who as a condition of their engagement have undertaken to keep a motor car. These men are to a large extent in receipt of small salaries, and they have been hard hit by the increase in the cost of living, like everybody else. They are also hard hit by the increase in the Income Tax, and now they have this extra tax put upon them under conditions that they cannot avoid, especially at this time when they have the roads to survey, and they are expected to visit them, when labour is short, and very often unskilled. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the case of these men for relief in regard to this burden, which is a burden we never expected to have to bear when they undertook to keep a motor car.
  Sir J. SPEAR: There are some ministers of religion in very large country parishes who have to use their motor ears largely in professional work. In regard to farmers, there are men who use their vehicles chiefly in the conduct of their trade, but not exclusively. For instance, they may take their family to church, and that would debar them from the relief which is given to trade cars. We have been informed that trade and commercial cars are exempt from this increased tax. Here we have a
  762
  kind of car which is used as to nine-tenths of the oases for trade, but because it is used now and then for a joy ride, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) describes it, the owners are excluded from the concession given to cars used exclusively for trade. From the point of view of equity, and that is all we ask for, there should be in the regulations provision whereby these-exceptional cases may be dealt with by the Petrol Committee. It is not a big concession. These people do not want to get out of paying their fair share towards the cost of the War. They are paying heavily in Income Tax, and in the increased cost of living, and while they do not wish to shirk their duty, they do desire that in regard to these trade cars, by means of which they are doing their best to keep up trade which is absolutely essential for the cost of the War, they should receive some consideration, because this tax means a handicap upon their trade. All we ask is that cases should be dealt with on their merits, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown a desire to deal fairly with all cases, will consider this one favourably.
  Mr. McKENNA: Almost every motor car in the country is used at some time or other for the purpose of the owner's business. How are you going to distinguish between the use of a motor car by a banker, which takes the banker to the station in order to bring him to his office in London, and the use of a motor car by a farmer which takes the farmer to the station in order that he may conduct his business? The sole dividing line must be as to whether the car is exclusively used for trade or not. The moment the owner of the car is allowed to judge for himself how much he may use the car for his own pleasure purposes, so that he may be free from certain taxation, if he uses it in part only for his pleasure and in part for business, we get on a slippery slope which leads to destruction. You must have a fixed line. If a farmer uses his car exclusively for taking his goods to market it is a market car—it is a trade car.
  Mr. LAMBERT: That is quite clear. Assuming that a farmer conveys his produce by motor wagon, the agricultural produce would come under the definition of trade?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. I have no hesitation in giving a straight answer on that point. If the car is exclusively used for business, it is exempt.
  Mr. WATSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the word "agriculturist" is used in the Act itself, "trade or agriculturist purpose "?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me, and that strengthens my point. It is quite clear that the Committee will be well advised not to give any exemption and concessions except to those which are exclusively used for trade.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I know a case of a country parson with a very large parish who has got a motor cycle which is never used except by himself for the sole purpose of administering his parish. Would he get an exemption?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. This man would not enter into a bond or undertaking that if there was a labourer whom he wished to see he would not go a mile on the motor cycle to see that labourer.
  Sir W. BEALE: As it is obvious that the 'Government will not accept the Amendment, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. Reference has been made to the point that you would not know whether the owners of these cars might use them for some purpose of pleasure or for something irregular; but this really does not arise, because the point of the thing was that it would be known in the locality to what extent the vehicle would reasonably be required for he purposes of trade or profession and duty would be allowed only on that. I trust that the Treasury may reconsider the matter from this point of view, in order to meet at least the cases of ministers of religion and other very hard cases.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to add to Sub-Section (1) the following paragraph:
  "(c) Allowance shall be made in any subsequent licence for any spirit not used before the date on which any licence runs out, and if the spirit is not required the amount paid for duty shall be refunded."
  The object of this Amendment is to cover the promise that was made yesterday. I submit the Clause does not do this clearly. It is not clearly stated in the Clause that where duty has been paid on a licence, and the petrol is not used, it shall be allowed for in any subsequent licence or the money shall be refunded. An attempt is made to do it, but it is not properly done in the Clause. As this is a new form of duty
  764
  altogether I do not think it would have been so readily accepted yesterday but for the promise of my right hon. Friend that the point would be covered. The first Sub-section imposes the duty and then there j is a provision for duty to be allowed in certain conditions. I submit that that is the place where this proviso should be put in. It is not done there. An attempt is made to do it in the second part of Sub-Section (2) and the word "may" is used instead of "shall." I admit that that is a small point, but the Sub-Section refers to the surrender of a licence. A licence may not be surrendered; there may be no intention of surrendering it, and the words which I suggest should be added, or in some other way it should be made perfectly clear that as regards the balance under a licence on any amount not used tile duty should be refunded. The Chancellor ought to remember that this is different from all other duties, which are paid when the thing is actually consumed. He is now charging a heavy duty on something before it is consumed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend's ingenuity will find Amendments to any Clause, and Amendments for which he could advance very plausible arguments, but we have already provided in the Clause for the very thing for which he asks us to provide. It is true that we have not provided for it as specifically as he wishes. The reason is quite obvious. We do not at present know what the nature of these licences is going to be, and for obvious reasons. While we do know what the supply of petrol is likely to be and what our estimated shortage is going to be, we do not know, until we have got the census return, what the demand is going to be. We cannot tell, therefore, in relation to demand and supply, whether we shall have to issue licences for a short period or for a long period, again according to the prospects of demand and supply. Therefore, we say, Regulations may provide for the surrender of any licence under this Section authorising the supply of motor spirit, and for any consequent repayment of Motor Duty; and on behalf of the Treasury we make a public statement that we will repay duty in respect of any petrol which has not been used for which a licence has been issued. This Clause is taking the place of the Clause which authorised additional Licence Duty which has been paid in toto,whether the petrol was used or not, and for which there would

  765
  be no refund. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Clause as it stands.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friend has said that he will see that provision is made in some form or other to deal with this point.
  Mr. McKENNA: It shall be done.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Motor Spirit Licence Duty.)
  (1) A person shall not obtain or attempt to obtain a supply of motor spirit unless he is the holder of a licence for the time being in force under this Section, or in excess of the amount with which he is authorised to be supplied by the licence.
  (2) A person shall not supply motor spirit to a person unless he is the holder of a licence for the time being in force under this Section, or in excess of the amount authorised to be supplied by the licence.
  (3) A person supplying motor spirit shall, in such manner as may be directed by Regulations made under the preceding Section of this Act, enter on the licence of the person supplied the name and address of the supplier, the amount supplied, and the date on which it was supplied.
  (4) A person shall not use motor spirit with which he is authorised to be supplied for any special purpose by his licence for any other purpose.
  (5) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of this Section or makes any entry on a licence which is false in any material particular or makes any statement winch is false in any material particular for the purpose of obtaining a licence he shall be liable to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds.—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a penal Clause, and there are some points as to which I should like to be clear. The first is, how far there will be any liability on the holder of a licence for anything which his servant or chauffeur may do with re-
  766
  gard to obtaining petrol. Most people will leave such matters as the obtaining and management of petrol to their chauffeur. The next question is as to the use of the word "knowingly." I think that this word should be inserted throughout the whole of this Clause. A new form of penalty is being created. A person shall not obtain a supply of motor spirit, a person shall not supply motor spirit, and so on. The word "knowingly" should be inserted in these cases. The small petrol dealer might be very seriously hit under this Clause by the large penalty of £100 provided later on, if he by his servant supplies petrol to a chauffeur who had either a wrong licence or a licence with a large number of entries on it, making it impossible for a dealer to find out whether the full amount of petrol has been supplied on it. The penalty for these offences, which are not very criminal matters, but merely contraventions of Regulations, is to be an Excise penalty of £100. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed the question of these Excise penalties before now, and I hope that he will forgive me for saying that that is a monstrous penalty. As I understand, an Excise penalty means that the Board of Customs can themselves, without the order of any Court of Justice, inflict the penalty of £100 on any man where they have some kind of evidence to satisfy them that he is guilty of one of these offences. I am proposing to suggest an Amendment to eliminate the Excise penalty. I think that an ordinary fine not exceeding 40s., or even £10 if the right hon. Gentleman so desired, would be sufficient. Here is a new law with a new series of Regulations and a new series of semi-crimes which are invented, and necessarily invented, by the action of the Government, and to leave every owner of a motor car exposed to the risk of being fined by a Customs decision to the amount of £100 without going to a Court of Justice is monstrous. The proper course would be to alter the fine to something like 40s. or £10, and let a man at least be brought before a magistrate and let the offence be proved before a fine is inflicted.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that an Excise penalty is a penalty which the Board of Customs can inflict, and that a person so fined has no remedy. If he does not choose to pay the fine, then the fine

  767
  cannot be collected except the man is convicted by a Court, and then the Court has to deal with it. I do know this, that very many people who infringe these various financial enactments prefer very much to deal with the Commissioners of Customs 'and Excise than to be taken before a Police Court magistrate, and I am not at all sure that there is any real weight in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the other point with regard to the word "knowingly," if it is necessary in every case for the authorities to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the person who supplies the petrol, then we might as well leave the penalties out altogether, because the thing would become practically impossible. To have provision made that it was open to the person to prove that he had taken every precaution, or that that might be taken into consideration, is one thing, but to throw the onus on the authority of proving that the person did take the precaution which he ought to have taken and in spite of those precautions did knowingly commit the offence, is quite a useless provision to have in an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has answered the point so fully—
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Make him an Under-Secretary.
  Mr. McKENNA: That it is quite unnecessary for me to pursue it further. It simply shifts the onus of proof. It is quite clear that if the person committed the offence unknowingly he could not be convicted, but he would have to prove this. As my hon. Friend says, to insert the word "knowingly" would render the Clause absolutely ineffective.
  Major NEWMAN: I take it that the penalty provided for in the Clause does not refer to the Army and Navy, and that an officer in either Service, or a soldier or a sailor, if he is driving his car, is exempt from this penalty. Supposing an officer of the Army or of the Navy, or a soldier or sailor, when driving a car, suddenly runs short of petrol, and he seeks a further supply, does he get exemption? He must get the petrol if he is to execute his duty.
  Mr. McKENNA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaking of an officer who is driving in his private car for his own private purposes, or an officer driving a military car?
  Major NEWMAN: The officer may be driving a military car, or his own car, with the sanction of the military authorities, and what is he to do if he gets hung up for want of petrol, as occurred to me a month ago, when I had to attend a court-martial. I used my own car, and the petrol ran short. I had to get a further supply, because I had important business before me. As I understand these two Clauses, I should not have been able to do that; I should not have been able to get any more petrol, unless I met a friend, which it is a thousand to one I should not have done; but, if I am an officer in the Army, or a soldier or a sailor, I take it that if I got hung up for want of petrol I could go to the nearest purveyor of petrol to get a fresh supply.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the naval or military officer, or anybody else, is driving his own car for his own purpose, whether that purpose happens to be a military or a naval purpose he will be bound by the Regulation. If my hon and gallant Friend desired to attend a court-martial he should have found out that he had enough petrol, and if he had not enough then to get enough.
  Major NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if I had not got to the court-martial the whole of the proceedings would have been hung up?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could have gone by train.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "not" ["shall not supply"], to insert the word "knowingly."
  I think, in regard to what was said by the hon. Member behind me, that some Amendment of that sort is needed, and we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by what has been said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones), who intervened on another Amendment.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I did not know it; it does not appear on the Paper.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think "knowingly" is quite commonly used in Acts of Parliament, and its introduction, in this instance, would not weaken the Clause at all, either in regard to the man who sells the petrol or the man who buys it. The

  769
  term "knowingly" does exist in many Acts of Parliament, and I do think it might be admitted here.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought there was something in the Amendment which I suggested, but, after hearing the right hon. Gentleman, I think so no longer.
  Sir W. BEALE: I would point out that what is wanted is that the person buying or selling petrol should take all proper precautions.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5) to leave out the words "an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
  I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that for these trifling enactments and calculations there should not be a penalty that possibly might amount to £100.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is the maximum.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that it is the maximum, but, after all, the Customs authorities, if the person who commits the offence does not pay, can bring him before the Court. But in nine cases out of ten the Customs would have the right to impose a fine of 40s., £5, or £10. The bulk of the people who would be concerned are not like shopkeepers or chemists, or so forth, who are familiar with Customs matters; in this instance we are dealing with men who are not accustomed to Excise penalties, and have never heard of them before. In these crcumstances I suggest that the amount of the penalty should certainly be reduced, and if possible put in the form of a fine.
  Major NEWMAN: I take it that the petrol cards which are to be used will contain the entries of petrol which has been obtained, and the vendor will see from those entries what balance of petrol is due to the intending purchaser. If he has petrol due to him he will be all right, but, if he has not, he will be hung up on the road. Therefore it is important that adequate precautions should be taken not to supply petrol unless petrol is seen by the card to be due, and there should be a penalty for supplying petrol in such circumstances, just as the Germans impose a penalty on the vendor who supplies meat or bread to a person who has already
  770
  received his full quantity. But I do think that the fine proposed by my hon. Friend below me is enough to meet the case.
  Mr. McKENNA: This maximum penalty will not be enforced except where a very serious offence is committed. It would be very unfair if we could not enforce the maximum penalty in the case of persons taking more than their share of petrol, and thus depriving others of the share to which they are entitled, because there is not an unlimited supply to dole out, but a very limited supply, and I think that any serious offence against this Clause ought to be seriously punished. If it were some trivial offence for which a heavy penalty was imposed, the matter could come before the Court, and a fine of 40s., £5, or £10 would be imposed in the ordinary way. The maximum penalty provides power, which we ought to have, to stop persons getting an undue share of petrol to the deprivation of others.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of Customs Duties Imposed Under the Finance (No. 2) Act,1915.)
  The following duties of Customs, imposed by Part I. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall continue to be charged, levied, and, paid until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and seventeen, that is to say:—

  Duty.

  Section of Act.

  Increased Duty on Tea

  …

  1

  Additional Duties on Dried Fruit

  …

  8

  Additional Duties on Tobacco

  …

  9(1)

  Additional Duty on Motor Spirit

  …

  10(1)

  New Import Duties

  …

  12

  —[Mr. McKenna.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. LOUGH: I wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether this Clause is in proper form. I called attention to the matter on the Second Beading, and I do not think the question was decided by Mr. Speaker yesterday. I submit that we are not bound in the Clause of the Bill to follow the form adopted in the Resolution, which is only an empowering Resolution, and the Clause in the Bill ought to be in the proper and usual form settled by precedent in this House. The answer of

  771
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, was that the objection to the form of the Clause should have been raised in Committee. Now that the Clause is before us, I desire to ask, Sir, whether you think these Clauses are in the usual form sanctioned by long Parliamentary usage. We are accustomed to seeing in the Clause what the actual duty is, whether it is the Tea Duty, the Tobacco Duty, or other duty, the duties being actually set out in the Clause. But this Clause says, "the following duties," and when one looks one sees no duties mentioned; it is legislation by reference carried to an extreme. I ask you, Sir, whether the Clause is in order, and whether it should not be brought up in accordance with precedents?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, on which this Clause is founded, was submitted to me by the Government before it was brought before the Committee, and I then satisfied myself that it was in a form according to precedents. I therefore put it to the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman, who has a critical eye, did not put to me a point of Order. I think the precedents show that this form of Clause is not new. If it had been proposed in the originating Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in new taxes of widely different character in a single Resolution, I should have deemed it my duty to refuse; but here it is the case of a renewal of duties already existing, and there are two distinct precedents for the present procedure. Therefore, I see no I reason for departing from the course I have taken.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is not this Clause of great advantage to traders? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was very anxious to extend the duties upon tea and sugar and other simple articles of food until next year, and not to bring in another Budget. Now this Clause simply declares these duties, which are enumerated as we all know in a former Act and do exist and will continue to exist until the 1st August, 1917. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) would have been in favour of that, because he objected to these Budgets being brought in so often; I should have thought that he would be delighted with this proposal. If he were to insist that we were to have here the whole of these Sections in the former Act of Parliament it would simply be duplicating work.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will exclaim after the speech of the hon. Gentleman, "Save me from my friends!"
  Mr. McKENNA: Not at all; I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LOUGH: I accept your own ruling. Sir, and not that of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Mine is an opinion.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: In regard to the procedure I desire to make a few observations. My hon. Friend has really misunderstood the point of my objection to this Clause. I do take the most serious objection to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that I do not object in any way this year to the renewal of any of these duties, and I am indebted to him for the way he has done it, thus saving the country from another Budget this year. I am entirely in favour of that course. That ought not to blind the eyes of the Committee to an innovation which might be followed hereafter to the great prejudice of the proceedings of Parliament. My hon. Friend spoke as if everybody knew what the duties are. I doubt if he knows all the duties.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I think I could tell them.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think I could puzzle the hon. Member about tobacco, for instance. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Chancellor knows them!"] The Chancellor knows everything connected with these fiscal matters.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Do you think tobacconists and tea people do not know what the duties are?
  Mr. LOUGH: I am thinking of the unhappy consumer, on whose back these burdens will fall, and I think it should be made clear and plain to those consumers as to the amount of any duty or tax they have to pay. This procedure conceals the amount of the tax and wraps up a number of taxes together. For instance, there are new Import Duties, but we do not know upon what articles they are, or the amount. We have not been able to ask questions or even to propose to amend the proposals in the way in which many Members might be inclined to do. On this occasion we do not suffer much by the innovation, I admit, because, as

  773
  everybody knows, we are in the stress of a great war, and we are all anxious to help in getting the money.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really ought to intervene to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I did satisfy myself carefully that it would be open to any hon. Member who wished to do so to move an Amendment on any specific point. I should not allow a proposal from the Government with regard to taxation to pass my eye in a way which would debar Members, if they chose, from moving Amendments.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is it not a great deal more difficult by this procedure? I hope I am not out of order in what I am saying.
  The CHAIRMAN: No; but I thought it was desirable in the interests of the Committee that my view should be on record.
  Mr. LOUGH: I will go the length of saying that very well instructed lawyers, some of whom I see about me, would not have been able to devise how Amendments might have been proposed. My objection is far wider than that. I say that these taxes ought to be made so simple that the wayfaring man, though a fool, could not err with regard to them. Everybody should be made to realise what it was he was paying as extra taxation, and thus the horrors of war would be very usefully brought home to him. All that information is concealed, and very closely concealed, in this Clause. I spoke to one of my right hon. Friends who asked me what is the additional duty. I said there is no additional duty now. We used the words "additional duty" last September, and because we used those words then we repeat them to-day. I do think a protest ought to be made against this procedure, and that it would be in the interests of the country for other hon. Members to support that protest, and to ask that we should follow our old custom by which we would know in the Clause the nature of every tax which was being imposed. I agree with the course that the Chancellor has adopted in avoiding another Budget, and I think that that is a course of which hon, Members generally approve.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I desire to put a question. When this Bill was introduced these Clauses of course were not down, as it was understood to be the intention of the Government to deal with these matters in another Finance Bill, which was to come on some time later in the Session.
  774
  I have no objection at all to these matters being dealt with now, but in the new Finance Bill, which these Clauses obviate, it was contemplated that the Chancellor would consider the question of other taxes. When he was dealing with the tax on table waters, the Financial Secretary met a deputation of the trade and arrived at a decision in which the trade concurred, on the understanding that if the taxation, or the method of collection, which the Financial Secretary admitted was quite experimental, proved not to be satisfactory, that in the new Finance Bill he would put the matter right. Now that a new Finance Bill is obviated, I would ask the Chancellor to tell me what about that offer. If the Government are satisfied that the tax and its methods of collection is not satisfactory, will they, now that there is not to-be a new Finance Bill, alter the conditions by some Bill ad hoc? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the event of such a decision it would be unfair to deprive those concerned of the opportunity of securing alteration.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is only a question of dates. It was originally intended to introduce a third Finance Bill, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) knows. He strongly objected to such a proposal and desired us to introduce these Clauses in this Bill to avoid a third Finance Bill. We thought we would have been able to get this Bill at an earlier stage, which would have left ample time to introduce a third Finance Bill-before the end of July. We now find that the Committee and Report stages of this Bill will take us so far into July that it is not worth while to introduce a third Bill, and we will do in this Bill all that we promised to do in the third Bill. My hon. Friend will have a full opportunity on the Report stage to introduce any Amending Clause which he thinks desirable in the interests of the trade to which he has referred.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I think if the right hon. Gentleman consults his advisers, they will tell him that between now and the Report stage of this Bill they would not be ready to deal with these matters; and the Financial Secretary expressly stated that it would be impossible for him to deal with them in this Bill. What I am asking is this: If at the time when he would have introduced a third Finance Bill he is then satisfied that some change needs to be made in regard to this tax, he will deal with it at that time by some measure

  775
  ad hoc. It would be quite unfair to have arranged with the trade that in a proposed Finance Bill he would deal with difficulties if he were satisfied that they existed and that the trade at that time, if he were so satisfied, should be deprived of the benefit of the change. The Chancellor would be the judge as to whether any measure ad hoc was necessary. I think a pledge was given on this subject, and I am sure if the Chancellor looks into it between now and Report he will be prepared to carry it out.
  Mr. McKENNA: Any pledge will be fulfilled up to the hilt. I do not know anything of any pledge. The hon. Gentleman says it was given by the Financial Secretary. Any pledge given by him will be kept.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: That pledge cannot be as it was to deal with the matter, if necessary, in the third Finance Bill, but these Clauses have been introduced to avoid the necessity for that Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: Then I will say the spirit of the pledge.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I would like to support the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) in what he has said about the procedure. I think that this mode of procedure of introducing a Clause with so much reference to something in other Acts has seldom been used in taxation matter. The precedents for this procedure are, I think, few, and it is a procedure which strikes me as very inconvenient for Members of the House who might wish to move Amendments. I think those who pay duty on tea, tobacco, and other articles have the right to know exactly what it is they are paying. It may, of course, be said that this is done in stress of war, and that it is difficult to deal with these questions specifically. I do not think, however, that that is sufficient excuse.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of Excise Duties Imposed Under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.)
  The following Duties of Excise, imposed by Part I. of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and seventeen, that is to say:—
  776

  Duty.

  Section of Act.

  Additional Duties on Tobacco

  …

  9(2)

  Additional Duty on Motor Spirit

  …

  10(2)

  Additional Medicine Duties

  …

  11

  —[Mr. McKenna.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second lime, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Additional Income Tux on Securities which the Treasury are Willing to Purchase.)
  In addition to any other Income Tax or Super-tax charged under this or any other Act, there shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be charged, levied, and paid for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, in respect of any part of the income of any person to which this Section applies an additional duty of Income Tax at the rate of two shillings for every pound of that part of the income.
  The income to which this Section applies is the income derived from securities which are for the time being included in the Treasury special list as defined by this Section, while those securities are so included; and the income shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be derived at the time when the interest or dividends payable in respect of the securities become payable.
  (2) The additional duty under this Section shall not be charged on any income derived before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
  (3) A person shall be entitled to relief from the additional duty imposed by this Section—

  (a) in respect of income derived between the date of the publication of the Treasury special list and a date twenty-eight days thereafter if the securities are during that period offered to the Treasury and ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury; and

  (b) in respect' of income derived from any securities included in the Treasury special list after the securities have been placed at the absolute disposal of the Treasury; and

  777

  (c) in respect of income derived from any such securities after a person has placed the securities conditionally at the disposal of the Treasury, if the securities ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury without unreasonable delay on the part of that person; and

  (d) in respect of income derived from any such securities which ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury that any delay in placing those securities at the disposal of the Treasury has arisen from circumstances beyond the control of the holders of the securities; and

  (e) in respect of income derived from any such securities held, in any country outside the United Kingdom, by persons who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom, or by trustees who are prevented by the terms of their trust from placing the securities at the disposal of the Treasury, and are not entitled to the benefit of any indemnity conferred by Act of Parliament in respect of the contravention of those terms, if the securities were so held before the twenty-ninth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen; and

  (f) in respect of income derived from any such securities which are deposited with persons outside the United Kingdom as a security for a loan from those persons, or have otherwise been made security for a loan from persons outside the United Kingdom, if they were so deposited or made security before the twenty-ninth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or after that date with the approval of the Treasury, and if the Treasury are satisfied that the securities cannot be released without impairing the security for the loan; and

  (g) in respect of income derived from any such securities which are proved to the special Commissioners to be held by any company or persons concerned in trade or business in any country outside the United Kingdom as a condition (imposed in that country) of carrying on that trade or business.

  The provisions of this Sub-section shall apply to an offer of securities for deposit in the same manner as they apply to an offer of securities for sale, and securities when accepted for deposit shall, while so deposited, for the purposes of this Subsection, be deemed to be at the absolute disposal of the Treasury.
  (4) The power under the Income Tax Acts to require a person to make returns for the purposes of those Acts shall, include power to require him to make such returns as appear to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the income of that person (whether or not Income Tax thereon is chargeable by deduction) is income to which this Section applies, including such particulars as to that income as the Commissioners may require, and those Acts, including the provisions imposing penalties, shall apply accordingly.
  (5) Where any income to which this Section applies is derived from securities which are held on trust by more than one trustee the securities may be placed at the disposal of the Treasury if, where there are two trustees, one trustee and the persons entitled to the income of the securities, and, where there are more than two trustees, one-half or more of the trustees and the persons entitled to the income of the securities, are willing that the securities should be so placed at the disposal of the Treasury; and any action taken by such trustees or beneficiaries for the purpose of placing any such securities at the disposal of the Treasury shall, notwithstanding anything in the terms of the trust or any rule of law to the contrary, be as valid and effectual in all respects as though all the trustees had consented thereto and had joined therein.
  (6) A person shall not be entitled to any exemption, abatement, or relief under the Income Tax Acts (other than relief depending solely on residence or domicile) in respect of the additional Income Tax imposed by this Section, but in all other respects the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to persons who are to be chargeable with duty, assessments, and appeals against those assessments, and to the collection and recovery of duty, and to cases to be stated for the opinion of the High Court shall, so far

  779
  as they are applicable, apply to the charge, assessment, collection, and recovery of duty under this Section:
  Provided that the Treasury may give directions that the additional duty imposed by this Section shall, instead of being charged by deduction, be charged up to the same amount by direct assessment for the period, and in the cases mentioned in those directions, and where any such directions are given, the Income Tax Acts shall have effect accordingly.
  (7) In this Section—
  the expression "securities" includes stocks, shares, and other securities; and
  the expression "The Treasury Special List" means any list published by the Treasury in the "Gazette," and for the time being in force, of securities which the Treasury are willing to purchase in connection with any arrangements for the regulation and maintenance of the foreign exchanges. — [Mr. McKenna.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. DICKINSON: I do not want to quarrel at all with the principle of this Clause. I quite realise the importance of it, and also the difficulty that the Chancellor has felt in applying that principle; but I would like to say a few words upon the method which, for the first time, is now before the House. If I understand the matter aright, the income from these securities by whomsover held will be taxed at the source, and that then individuals who have any reason which would justify them in escaping that taxation will have the right to recover from the Treasury under the provisions of this Clause. It many be necessary; in fact I do not know whether it is possible to find any other way by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be sure that under this Clause the holders of the various shares, which include American and all shares now, and other securities, can be brought to book. But of course it is a very drastic, and in some cases, I think, it will be a very harsh method of dealing with these people. For that reason I think we ought to be particularly careful that there is nothing put into this Bill which will bring about hard cases, what everybody
  780
  will admit to be hard cases, which cannot be relieved by the Government Department, because they do not come within the four corners of the wording of this enactment. Of course, it is easy enough, it may be easy, to bring this into operation with people in the City, bankers and business men, who are fully cognisant of everything that is happening now and will happen in regard to these shares. But we ought to bear in mind that there are all over the country a very considerable number of holders of these securities, many persons who hold very small amounts, who will really never know what is the operation of this Act, and who will find for the first time the effect of it when the dividends are paid to them, and they find that one-tenth of the dividend is being deducted because they have not offered the shares in the way in which the Government proposed they should be compelled to offer them. They may be perfectly willing to do so. They may not have done so in ignorance, or they may not have acted in particular circumstances which rendered it difficult for them to offer these shares. What remedy will you give them should they wish to recover the money from the Treasury, provided always that they can show that they have a right to recover and that their right comes within the actual terms of the Clause which we have before us? It is always difficult to get money back from the Treasury, and I think it is extremely easy for the Treasury, if they wish, to prevent the return of this money to the holders to argue that the provisions of this Bill do not cover the particular case and that they are not entitled to repayment. It is difficult to understand precisely what is the meaning of this Clause. As I understand it, under (3) (a) a person who has been taxed and has paid this duty at the source will be able to recover under (a) provided that he can show that the income was derived between the date of the publication of the Treasury special list and a date twenty-eight days thereafter, if he has during that period offered to the Treasury the securities and the Treasury has accepted them, and they ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury.
  The next case provided for is that of income derived from these securities included in the Treasury special list later on, provided they come into the absolute disposal of the Treasury. And there is a further wider Section (c) providing that

  781
  he can get it back if the aforesaid securities have been placed conditionally at the disposal of the Treasury and if the securities ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury without unreasonable delay on the part of that person—that is to say, that there has not been unreasonable delay provided always that they come into the possession of the Treasury. Under (d) there is also a provision that he may get this payment if he can show to the satisfaction of the Treasury that any delay in placing those securities at the disposal of the Treasury has arisen from circumstances beyond the control of the holder of securities. Here, again, that is only in the case where the securities ultimately become at the absolute disposal of the Treasury. These, I take it, are the four provisions which will enable a man to obtain repayment of this additional duty from the Treasury. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these are not sufficiently wide; that they do not cover by any means the whole ground; and I cannot help thinking that if no wider words are put in than those that are there now we shall find that a good many people will have paid 2s. in the £ Income Tax and will not be able to recover it, although in all probability it would be reasonable that it should be repaid to them. I will give one or two cases. I understand that the Treasury up to the present have said that they will not accept securities from any holder of less value than £1,000 I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will happen in the case of any holder of those American securities of less value than £1,000? I want to know what will happen in regard to holders who have got securities of less amount, and who therefore do not offer them? In the wording of this Clause—I have read it very carefully—I think it is clear that they will have the Income Tax deducted at the source, and they will have great difficulty in recovering it, because I cannot see that there is anything in this Clause which would entitle the Treasury to pay back that money.
  Mr. McKENNA: They must not sell them.
  Mr. DICKINSON: They do not want to sell if they are perfectly willing to put them at the disposal of the Treasury. Surely it is not right, because you do not want them to be at your disposal when they are under that amount, to collect
  782
  the taxes upon them. I should have thought that there ought to have been a provision here that if the Treasury do not take these securities for any reason at all, then that should be a justification for the repayment of the taxes. With regard to some other securities, I understand that there are securities on the present lists which the Treasury do not want to have at their disposal. What will happen to cases of that kind? I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends that the amount of the taxes paid on these securities will be repaid. But that does not appear in the wording of this Clause at all, and so far as I can understand it, the holder of every single security in that list will be obliged to have the tax deducted, and the fact that the Treasury does not make use of the securities will not entitle him to the return of the money. I put those cases, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can answer these questions satisfactorily, my objection to the Clause will fail. But my point is that it would be wise to put the drafting of this Clause into a wider form and allow a wider discretion to the Treasury in regard to the payment of these additional taxes. I take one more case—I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say it is covered—where securities are pledged, and where it is perhaps impossible or very difficult for the owners to place them at the disposal of the Treasury. We know there is a Clause which says that he may remit those taxes or repay the money where it is beyond the power of the owner to hand over the securities. But it may not be absolutely beyond the power of the owner to arrange with the mortgagees, yet it may be very difficult, and in such a case it would be perfectly reasonable for the Treasury to say, "We will not enforce this particular taxation." There, again, is a case in which I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the wording of the Clause should be more generous and wider in its application, so that difficulties like that may be met properly. I have put down Amendments, which I propose to move and discuss later on, with the object of achieving this end. At the moment I wish to draw attention to the subject generally.
  Mr. McKENNA: The points which have been raised by my right hon. Friend are points which can be discussed on the Amendments themselves. I do not under-

  783
  stand that he is taking objection to the principle of the Clause, and without going into detail on the Amendments which I understand he is going to move, I do not think I can answer the speech he has made.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am going to attack the principle of the Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: Then I will reply to that, but I am not going into it now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is desirable that we should confine ourselves to the principle of the Clause, and that Members should wait until after it has been read a second time before going into those details. On a preceding Clause we had these discussions, and we had them all over again when we came to the Amendments.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I want to raise a point in rather more general terms than those in which his points were raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It seems to me that the real difficulty of the tax, as it is proposed in this Clause, is that it is a flat Clause applying equally to number of securities in which you give different options to the holders, and I do not see how you are going to apply it equally. In certain cases for a certain class of security you give an option to lend or sell to the Treasury. In other cases you give an option only to lend and not to sell, and again in other cases you give an option to sell and not to lend. That is the case of actual holders of these securities. I can give you the name of various categories of these securities, and I cannot see any provision in this Bill for differentiation in the form of the taxes, or the amount of the tax that is going to be imposed upon the holders of these securities. It seems to me that if you give a lesser option to the holder in some cases than to others it is your duty to graduate the amount of the tax to some extent. I do not see how it can be done, and therefore I do not propose to move any definite Amendment, but you must do something to meet this difficulty unless you are prepared to take the securities equally both for purchase and loan which I know for various reasons is most undesirable. As regards the whole idea of the tax, I do not desire to attack the principle of the tax at all, because I really fail to see how else the right hon. Gentleman could have done it provided he was determined to get hold of the securities which were toeing held back. This was a choice of evils, and no
  784
  doubt it is a drastic expedient by the Government to get hold of securities of this nature. I think that in all probability he could not have done it better than by this sweeping course. I hope that the question of the taxes being equal will be considered in regard to the Treasury penalties. In regard to certain classes of bonds, it is very hard to force the owners to sell. Many of these bonds have not matured, and it is hard that these persons should be forced to sell and to give them no option, whereas in the case of other matured bonds they have the option to do either one thing or the other.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not want to reply on the main question, but in order to save time, I think I ought to say that I think the hon. Member who spoke last does not quite appreciate the effect of this tax. The owner of a security is only liable for the tax if he refuses to sell or to deposit. If a man offers to lend to the Treasury securities which he will not sell to them, he is exempted by the provisions of the Clause from taxation.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: I am not sure that this is quite so clear as the Secretary to the Treasury has indicated. It is very important that we should know whether or not an offer to lend or to sell suffices. What we were given to understand was that as regards any security that the Government might pick, the owner should have an option either to lend or to sell. As has the hon. Member who spoke last, I have found, in communication with the authorities, that there are some securities which they will buy but will not borrow; there are others that they will borrow but will not buy. Therefore, they do not give you the option to sell or lend, and we ought to have that made quite clear; because that does mean, in the case of a security which they will buy but will not borrow, and the owner wishes to lend it, that they will make him sell it, or tax him if he does not sell it. That is not giving him an option to sell or lend as he wishes. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the practice of the Department. Further, in regard to that, I think the lists should clearly show which are the securities which the Government will borrow and which are those which they will buy, or with which they will do either. The lists do not show that, and it places people in a difficulty. They should either have different type to indicate the difference in the lists, or lists

  785
  showing the different securities. There is another point, and that is in regard to the notification to the public. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that a large number of people holding these securities know extremely little as to what is going on here, and unless the notification is ample it "will be hard for them to be penalised if they do not happen to comply with the notice. The provision is that a notice should be published in the "Gazette." It might as well, so far as the public go, never be published at all. They never see the "Gazette," and they know nothing about it. Although I do not imagine for one moment that the Government mean to confine themselves to this, yet that is all that the Regulation requires. To publish it in the "Gazette" alone—well, you might as well publish it in the moon! Therefore the notification ought to be most ample, and one day's notification in the papers, in my judgment, is not sufficient for people who are spread all over the country. I think, too, there ought to be continuously published up-to-date and complete lists. At present a person who sees that his security is not in the lists may be unaware of the fact that after all that security appears in a subsequent list. So I say that all these lists ought to be more completely up to date. We ought to have some very clear information on these points—first, as to the borrowing and the buying. I think that persons should be free of the tax if they are willing to either lend or sell a security, whether the Government takes it then or not. The Government has had the offer.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has just said, but I propose to deal with it a little later. I should like to give my reason why I think this tax is wrong in principle and will not work well, and also why it may cause not only loss to a considerable number of people, but also a considerable loss to the Government. On the Report stage of the Resolution a question was asked whether those of us who opposed this proposal were aware that this country was at war. It was stated that because the country was at war it was very necessary that something of this sort should be done. May I point out to the Committee that this Clause makes no difference whatever to the War. Whether it is passed or is not passed makes no difference. The War will go on just the same. The object of
  786
  the Clause is to regulate the American exchanges, and nothing else. Though that may be, and is, a good thing to do, it is absurd to say that the regulation of the American exchanges is going to affect the War. It will not touch it in any way at all. What are the reasons that it is proposed to regulate the American exchanges? There are, so far as I know, two reasons, and only two reasons. The one is in order that, the Government may be able to provide at a lower price certain articles which they feel it necessary to buy—and the saving in that direction has been very seriously exaggerated. On the Committee stage of the Resolution I looked up what the saving was, and I stated it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I forget for the moment the exact figure. Of course, the regulation of the exchange could be dealt with in another manner, either by buying smaller purchases of articles from America or by a larger exportation of our commerce. It is necessary—as an economist I feel that it is—to buy as cheaply as we can. It is news to me, however, that the Government, as a rule, are very much concerned in saving money, or in pursuing any economy or cheapness, but perhaps they have turned over a new leaf and are really anxious to save, and I do not want to put any impediment in their way. But I say, in saving money for the benefit of the nation, any loss incurred, in order to effect that very desirable object, should be borne by the whole nation and not by a small portion of it.
  The other reason is to prevent gold from leaving this country. That, also, is an excellent reason, and one which I should be most glad to support. There again, however, I do not see why to preserve the gold in this country, which is a national object, the burden should be borne by a small portion of the community. It is perfectly well known that the gold is preserved in Germany and France much better than we shall preserve the gold by the proposed means. Neither in France or Germany has any resolution of this sort been imposed. It would not be in order to go into the steps which the Bank of France and the Bank of Germany have taken to preserve their gold, but they are well known to any man who has any knowledge of the City. There is no reason why we, in a state of war, should not use some similar steps. Then comes the next question whether, supposing it necessary to have these securities, the Government are

  787
  doing it in the best way. I said at the beginning that I did not think the Government were proposing the best way I still adhere to that opinion. I believe that the result of taking these securities in the way the Government are going to propose today will cause loss to a small section of the nation, and may cause a considerable loss to the Government themselves. What the Government really are going to do— because they are most desirious of buying and not borrowing—is to use the slang of the City, to buy a large bull of American securities at the top price. I do not think that this is a thing to be encouraged. This is a thing from which they will not emerge without loss. We have not been told by the Government how many of these American securities they have bought, or how many they have sold. Are they large holders of American securities which they have not been able to sell, except by making loss? If so, we should be given the information. Some of the securities are at a very high price, and there is no doubt—as I said on the last occasion I spoke on this subject—while a good many people have been able to sell at a good price, and realise a profit, there are others who, from a variety of reasons, have been unable to sell for profit, and who have sold at a loss. I think those people who have got securities that they sold at a profit are different people from those who have sold to the Government. Consequently the Government have had to buy their securities at a higher price.
  What have the Government done? They have made a good bargain, or they have not, by their transactions! If they have realised a profit, have they got out, or are they, to use a City phrase, "still in." If they are "still in," we must not forget that there is danger of war between the United States and Mexico. What is going to happen with the price of those securities which the Government still hold if there is a big war between the United States and Mexico, and a really considerable fall in these securities? I could give the policy which I have always advocated if necessary to do this at all. That policy is to borrow these securities. It seems to me that there is no question that that is the proper policy to pursue. May I point out to the Committee what would have resulted if the Government had confined their operations to borrowing securities. They would have got those securities, and they would have been free at once from
  788
  any risk of loss through depreciation of these securities in America. They would have got them and have used them as collateral security, and they would then, when the War was finished, and the necessity for the use of these securities as collateral securities was at an end, have returned them to the holders, and that would have involved them in no loss.
  Why was that not done? It was not done for two reasons. I could never understand why. I may have misjudged, but there was, according to my view, a very extraordinary desire on the part of the Government not to borrow securities, but only to purchase them. There was also this difficulty, that the holders of securities did not care to lend them to the Government if there was any doubt about their receiving them back at the end of the time when the Government had finished with the use of them. But I believe that all people who hold securities of this sort would have been only too glad to assist the Government by lending them for any time within reason that the Government required, but they naturally demanded that when the Government had finished with them these securities should be returned. The Government refused to do that, because they said it might be necessary, in the case of certain securities, to have to sell them. My answer to that is this, "Very good, the holders, I am sure, will make not the slightest objection to the Government selling their securities, but they ask that the Government should replace them." It would be very unlikely that anything of that sort would occur. In the conversations I have had with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they have agreed that that event is very improbable, but if that improbable event had happened, and it had occurred that the Government had to make a loss in replacing these securities, I sincerely believe that that loss would have been less than the loss they may incur by being now large holders of American securities, which they have not sold, and which they may be unable to sell in the future except at a considerable loss. At the same time, if my suggestion had been carried out, I believe that no harm and no injury would have been done to the class of people who, as far as I can see, there is no reason to pick out, to make a sacrifice of that which is in the interests of the whole nation. Further, there would have been no occasion to put on this tax, which I still say is a very-novel and very wrong method—that

  789
  the Income Tax should be taken and used, not for the securing of revenue, but as a penalty, punishment, and threat to force certain people to do something which they do not want to do, and which the Government require them to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, I think, made some comments upon the question of small amounts. He said that there was nothing in this Clause which would enable the holder of small amounts, $5,000 or under, lending them to the Government. I do not see that there is anything in this Clause which says that, but I understood something would be put into the Clause. I had the privilege of meeting the Chairman of the Committee sitting at the National Debt Office, and he came and attended a meeting of the London Clearing Bankers, at which I was present. I understood from him that this was under the consideration of the Government, and that in all probability—of course, he could make no pledge—some method would be adopted to meet what is undoubtedly a serious blot upon the Clause. I cannot see that and thing of the sort has been done. As to the question of the Treasury special list, there is a definition in this Clause that it "means any list published by the Treasury in the "Gazette," and for the time being in force, of securities which the Treasury are willing to purchase in connection. With any arrangement for the regulation and maintenance of the foreign exchanges." Now there have been a very large number of lists published during the last few months. What list is it to be from which the twenty-eight days are to run? Ts it to be twenty-eight days from the time the first Resolution was passed, or the second Resolution, or from the time the Clause is added to the Bill, or when the Bill becomes law?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Will the right hon. Baronet look at the words "between the date of the publication"?
  Sir F. BANBURY: But when is the publication supposed to be? My point is that there have been so many publications that, unless a definite date is put into the Clause, nobody will know when the date of the publication is. I do not care what date it is, so long as it is put in and we know where we are. Sub-section (4) says that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue can ask people to make a return as to whether or not they have any of these securities. The dividends of practically all these securities are deducted at the
  790
  source. There may be a few exceptions, though I do not think so, where the dividend is not deducted at the source.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Some are paid direct from America.
  Sir F. BANBURY: With those exceptions. I do not know how you are to send out to America.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Shares on the American Register are sometimes paid by cheque from New York.
  Sir F. BANBURY: So far as I know there are very few shares which are on the American Register in the hands of the actual holders. There may be a few isolated cases. I am not sure I am not speaking in the interests of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue themselves. They may have to ask any number of these people, "Have you, or have you not, got securities of this sort in your possession, and, if so, will you say what they are?" and this, that, and the other. Really, we have already enough forms to fill up, especially with regard to Income Tax, and I do not think we want to fill up any more unless it is absolutely necessary that it should be done. I think I may fairly say I was given an undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Report stage of the Resolution that he would put some words in the Clause to meet this difficulty. A security is listed as being a security which the Treasury will buy. A person owns some of those securities. He is prepared to lend them to the Treasury, but he is not prepared to sell them. He goes to the National Debt office and offers to lend those securities to the Treasury. The Treasury say "No," and he will be liable for this tax, because those securities are in the list which the Treasury have given notice they are prepared to buy, although he has offered the securities to the Treasury, and the Treasury refuse to take them. The right hon. Gentleman definitely told me he would put soma words in to meet that case. I may be wrong, but I have read the Clause very carefully and I cannot find the words to meet the case.
  Mr. LOUGHdirected the right hon. Baronet's attention to certain words in the Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that the words "placed at the absolute disposal of the Treasury" are quite clear. That may be meant to cover it, but I do

  791
  not think it does. It is really an important question which ought to be settled. I do not know whether it is any use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman; I am afraid it is not. The last time I said anything upon this question I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would not wait a little, because plenty of securities were coming in. I am afraid it is no use asking him to do that again, but I do earnestly say that, in my belief, having had some experience of business in the City, this proposal is wrong, the method of carrying it out is wrong, and it will result not in a gain, but in a loss to the Treasury; whereas, if the suggestion I make is carried out, the reverse will be the case.
  Mr. BRYCE: The only objection to the method suggested by the right hon. Baronet is that a security which cannot be sold is no use as a collateral. No one will accept as collateral security a security which one cannot sell. Therefore, for the purpose of this particular operation, I fear his method would not work, but I entirely agree with him in his objection to the scheme as a whole. I do not think it will work. I think it will cause an immense amount of confusion, and I do not think the Government has any right to tax one particular class of people for the benefit of the whole. There are a number of points to which I have called attention during the last month or two in connection with this Clause. One of them is the matter alluded to by the right hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson)— that is, the question of the non-possibility of holders of less than $5,000 of security to lend. In the course of the last two or three months the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said several times that he thought it possible to meet it, and at one time it was said it could be met by allowing bankers to accumulate a number of small amounts, and then deal with them as a whole. That is not provided, and to-day we have a definite pronouncement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is going to force the holders of these securities to sell, though they will not have the option of lending them. That appears to me a monstrous injustice, and it certainly ought to be remedied.
  There is another point to which I have alluded several times, and that is, what is to be evidence of a security having been offered to the Government? The right hon. Baronet has referred to that point, and
  792
  the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (Mr. Lough) said it was covered by paragraph (b),but there is nothing to show how that covers it. There must be some evidence. How is a banker to know whether a person holding a security has offered it to the Government? Is there to be any kind of documentary evidence, or any form which can show that a security has been offered to the Government and refused? I wish very much the Secretary to the Treasury would tell us about that. There is an exemption in the case of certain securities deposited with persons outside the United Kingdom as securities for loans, but how about securities which have been deposited in virtue of a marriage settlement, or other arrangement outside the United Kingdom? Take the case of American ladies who have married Englishmen, and whose property is in America and under American trustees. Are they to be charged this penal 2s.? In many cases there is no power to sell. I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman whose wife is in that position. Her trustees live in America and are Americans, and the whole of the securities are American securities. They are a trust under the law of Massachusetts, and this letter states that, under the law of Massachusetts, it is not possible for trustees to sell—they have no power of varying their investments. Is this lady's income-it is a life interest—to be penalised by this 2s. tax? I believe this particular case has been put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wrote to the writer of this letter, who was a distinguished Member of the House not very long ago, that this matter was going to be considered, but he has heard nothing about it. "Going to be considered" is a synonym for being smothered, and it seems that no notice will be taken. It is a very important point, and affects a great many trusts, and I would like to know from the Treasury what the decision is to be.
  The fact is, the whole of this scheme has not been properly thought out. It has been drawn up by numbers of gentlemen who are very able as regards the handling of taxation questions within this Kingdom, but when they come to deal with American and other foreign securities they are completely at sea. There is no blame to them. They have to settle an immense number of problems. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Report stage will have this question thoroughly examined. He

  793
  has had a great deal of criticism in the House in the Debate on the Resolutions and in the Debate to-day with regard to various points. The original injustice and the false basis of the system cannot, of course, be changed, but a great many of the hardships might be remedied.
  6.0.p.m.
  Sir J. WALTON: I think there are several points in connection with this Clause which ought to be adjusted and made more equitable. All holders of American dollar securities, whether the amount held is less than $5,000, or more, ought to be treated on precisely the same lines; all ought to have an equal right, either to sell or to lend them to the Government at their option. As the matter stands, we have no assurance whatsoever that holders of less than $5,000 will receive equal and fair treatment. I submit that this ought to be made perfectly clear. Then, again, how on earth are a number of holders of American dollar securities to get to know whether or not their particular security is on the Government list 1 I went to the National Debt Office this morning. I was given two lists, and told that another list would probably be issued on Thursday, and that from the date of the next list, if a particular security I was inquiring about was included in it, they gave twenty-eight days, but, if the amount held was below $5,000, it could not be deposited, and the holder of that particular security would be compelled to sell. I do not think that is fair treatment at all, because it is often of much greater importance to small holders that they should not be subject to loss and hardship of this kind than it is to the larger holders who are quite able to take care of themselves. We have not had any clear and definite statement in regard to several points. I cannot understand this policy of concealment. We have been told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering whether he could reduce the limit below $5,000, and we have failed to draw any definite reply from him. I think the time has come when we should have these matters cleared up in a positive and definite fashion. We are told that certain securities will not at present be bought. I offered to the Treasury New I York Central 6 per Cent. Gold Bonds and they would not buy them because it was an issue made after the beginning of the War. I call that absurd. Could anything be more suitable for our purposes than New York Central 6 per Cent. Gold Bonds
  794
  as a dollar security? But I was told that they were not prepared to buy these bonds. The amount happened to be only $3,000, and therefore they could not be deposited, and what is to happen in a case of that sort? The only reply I can get is "Wait and see."
  We are told to see if our securities appear in subsequent lists to the published in the "London Gazette," and therefore you have got to be on the qui vice for months to come in order to see if your particular security is published in the "London Gazette." What an absurd arrangement-Why cannot the Government make up their mind which security they will admit and which they will not admit, and let the public know. To allow small holders whose interests we ought to most; jealously guard and protect only to have the option of selling when it involves a considerable loss is a discreditable transaction. We must remember that the French Government are at the present time offering two-and-a-half times the bonus which the English Government are offering for securities deposited with them, and they are offering a dividend of 25 per cent, on the total amount of dividends, not only for American dollar securities but also for Japanese, South African, Russian and all kinds of securities. If the Government are not careful a large number of securities which the otherwise might have at their disposal will not be available because the French Government are paying 2 ½ times as much as we are paying in bonus. I do not want the British Government to increase their bonus, but when we know the French Government is offering 25 per cent. as a premium or bonus on these securities it does seem that the holders of these small bonds in this country are entitled to very generous and fair treatment in all other respects.
  Mr. MONTAGU: In the first place, let me get rid once for all of the misapprehension which exists in many quarters of the Committee that there is a distinction made between buying and depositing. We have identified the purchase list and the sale list of the Treasury, and we shall not put into the Treasury lists gazetted securities which we are not willing to buy or borrow. At present none of the cases which have been mentioned arise, and there is no necessity for any apprehension, because, unless the Treasury are willing to take these securities on deposit or purchase, they will not be subject to this

  795
  tax. The list appears, and it contains the securities which the Treasury are willing to purchase or borrow. Since the Resolution was passed by this House we have identified the two lists so as to get over that difficulty.
  Mr. J. MASON: Are we to understand that the Treasury are also willing to buy or borrow certain securities when in no case those two categories come into the list?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, and that gets rid of the difficulty of documentary proof.
  Mr. BRYCE: What is to be the proof?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Why do you want proof if you have the securities? Let me deal with the point raised about the 5,000 dollars limit. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Bryce), I do not know on what ground, said that when the Treasury states that any suggestion would be considered it simply means that it would be smothered. All I can say is that every suggestion thrown out in the House of Commons has always been carefully considered by the Treasury.
  Mr. BRYCE: I did not say it in reference to this point.
  Mr. MONTAGU: With regard to the 5,000 dollars limit, in order that our machinery may not break down, and in order that we shall not be face to face with any delay in dealing with them, we do not want to be snowed up with thousands of small applications, and we are perfecting a scheme by which holders of smaller amounts than 5,000 dollars may invest them through the agency of banks, who will collect their securities, and then we can deal with them in bigger parcels. The scheme is not ready yet or we should have announced the details. It is, however, only a matter of days, and then this difficulty will disappear.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it to be equally compulsory on smaller people?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. With regard to Treasury lists, the difficulty about proposals of this kind is that immediately you publish the lists you get an enormous correspondence from people who want to sell and deposit. You get offers of sale, and all these things cannot be dealt with by ordinary laymen, and unless the nation is going to suffer you must have a specially trained staff of people who are judges in dealing with stocks and shares. We have working for the Treasury a staff of patriotic
  796
  gentlemen whose work, night and day, has been beyond praise. The only way you can regulate the stream of offers, and the amount you get week by week, is to deal with selected lists at selected times, and not have every security of different kinds in one list. The difficulty in arranging for some securities is greater than in the case of others. If we can get rid of the bigger masses we shall get over the difficulty, and our harvest will be derived from the existing list. If we get rid of the bigger amounts by this simple process we shall be able to deal more promptly with other cases that come afterwards. That is why we cannot put in a date and why the date will have to be published from time to time. I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion that we cannot publish these lists too widely. It is not our intention merely to publish them in the "London Gazette," but we publish them there to make them official and in order to identify them with this provision of the Act of Parliament.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would it not be possible to put in twenty-eight days to commence not earlier than such-and-such a date. I see the difficulty of publishing one list, but I think there should be something to show that the twenty-eight days really means after the 29th of July, and that until then they need not trouble. Something of that sort ought to be put in, because everybody does not know what the intention is.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will consider that, and I will see if we cannot find some means of making this more plain. Another reason why we deal with this matter in this way is that we do not want to be the possessor of large amounts of securities before we can dispose of them. We are fully aware of the dangers we run to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has drawn our attention, and every effort is made not to include in our list things that we shall not find a market for or be able to use, or which may remain on our hands for such a time as to become a danger. The point I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is that I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has somewhat belittled' the vital necessity of us getting these securities. I do not wish to enter into the economic part of it, but it is not simply a question of profit or loss to the Exchequer. The point is that, whether we like it or not, for the conduct of this War it is necessary to purchase enormous quantities of

  797
  goods both for ourselves and our Allies in America. No human being that I have ever met can devise any way of paying for these except by exporting goods that America will buy or by obtaining loans in America.
  Mr. BRYCE: Or exporting gold.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The goods which the Americans will buy are these securities, gold, and our exported manufactures. We have not an unlimited supply of gold. There are obvious limits to the amount that we can manufacture for export, limits which grow presumably greater with every man we take into the Army or into munition work. These securities are things which the Americans will not only buy but they will lend you money on them, and therefore, unless we can, as it is so often expressed in the Press, "mobilise" our resources, the supply must stop. It is not a question of the convenience of the holder of American securities. It is the vital necessity of carrying on this War at all, and of arming ourselves with munitions that makes it absolutely essential that we should get these securities. We are discriminating between one kind of property and another, because we want this property, and we have no use for any other kind of property at the moment. If the time came when we could use any other form of property, in order to pay for goods which we must have, and in order to carry this War to a successful conclusion, the Government would come down to the House of Commons and say that we wanted them, and I am perfectly confident that the House, which has supported the Government throughout this War in finding the ways and means to carry it on, would give it those further powers, just as they are going to give us power in respect of these American securities.
  Mr. D. MASON: I will make one more dispairing appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to his answer. The right hon. Gentleman put the position in a nutshell by saying that what we had to do was to meet our indebtedness to America. Every one agrees that we have to pay for our munitions and for those other necessaries we require, but what I vainly endeavoured to point out last year, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that my argument was a sound one, was that this policy of exporting American securities stimulates and increases this indebtedness. It surely follows that if you can reduce this in-
  798
  debtedness, and I think you can, by not pursuing this policy, then you will be able to pay your debts on the other side. Let me give one instance. It was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), in reference to the amount of bacon that was coming into this country, that the imports of bacon in the first five months of the present year amounted to 3,500,000 cwts., as compared with 2,200,000 cwts. in the previous year. He went on to show that the imports were likely to be increased in the immediate future, and he said that of these quantities 2,200,000 cwts. in 1916 and 700,000 cwts. in 1914 were consigned from the United States. We thus see that this debt is being increased and stimulated by this policy. There is no reason why we cannot get bacon from other sources or why we cannot increase the supply here. Under this system you are playing into the hands of the American exporter. There is also the case of motor cars and their accessories, and boots and shoes. The excess of imports is not at all confined to munitions. It will probably be found that the excess is something like £500,000,000 this year. It is stimulated by this very policy.
  We have to meet this indebtedness, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are three ways of doing it. A very considerable increase could be made in our exports. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that we could not increase our exports because we had a scarcity of labour. Those who have opposed this continual withdrawal of labour from industry have largely done so for that reason. We thought it unwise to jeopardise our position, and that we should be stronger if we kept more labour in industry. Our supply of American securities is not unlimited, and if we pile up this artificial position by stimulating imports and by encouraging our people to spend freely, as they are doing, what shall we do when our supplies are exhausted? We cannot then suddenly put people back into industry and suddenly expand our exports. It is absurd to tell us that it is necessary to pay for these munitions by taking American securities. By this method you are impoverishing yourself, using up your resources, and accentuating the very evil you are seeking to redress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that my argument was a

  799
  sound one, but said that we were at war. As the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) pointed out when that argument was used to him, war has not altered the multiplication table or the law of exchange. We have to carry on, and we hope to carry on. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I agree with the great part of his speech, but I take exception when he says that we should pursue the same policy as France and Germany.
  Sir F. BANBURY: With regard to gold.
  Mr. MASON: That is the very point. I am very sorry to part company with the right hon. Gentleman. We are not quite in the same position as France. They have a double standard, and prohibit gold payments. We have tried to maintain gold payments, and I am with the Government there. We have tried to maintain our position and not to sink into the position of France and Germany by prohibiting the exports of gold. Germany have not a double standard, but they prohibit the export of gold. We would like to retain the proud position of being the one free market for gold in the whole world. We are anxious that the bill on London should continue to command, as it always has done, its face value in the markets of the world, and it is because I realise that, because I realise if we pursue this spendthrift and profligate system we shall sooner or later become impoverished, and because I realise we are at war that I advance this argument. Authorities like Lord Goschen, who was a distinguished Member of this House, take this very point of an adverse and unfavourable exchange, and would go beyond the various remedies, such as loans. This is a loan and has the same effect as if we placed a loan in America. It is a mere palliative and accentuates the position by increasing the indebtedness.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am following my hon. Friend, but are we not to pay for the commodities we get?
  Mr. MASON: Certainly, but the part that munitions play in our indebtedness is greatly exaggerated.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. D. MASON: I have given you one item of an enormous increase. Take the imports of motor cars.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Would the hon. Member say that we are importing more food now than before the War?
  Mr. MASON: Undoubtedly.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In the aggregate?
  Mr. MASON: I am absolutely certain of it. I would ask the hon. Member to pay some attention to this fact. The working classes have never had such wages as they are receiving now. They are in receipt of the highest wages in their history, and they are probably eating far more than is good for them, and spending it freely. You are stimulating this extravagance. It may be necessary because you require labour, and labour is able to command its price. They ought to have a fair return for their work, but undoubtedly the consumption of food is aggravated at the present time. If you go to the Midlands and the North of England, you will find that there is a large consumption of butter and ham, and in the amount which they expend upon boots and shoes and everything that the working classes and other classes may desire. If you wish to correct the exchange, surely the way to do so would be first to stop diluting your currency by continually issuing Treasury Notes. We have now got £121,000,000 worth. Does not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury think that has some effect upon the exchange? Docs not that increase the indebtedness and make more difficult the position which he is trying to rectify of paying for this indebtedness in America? It surely has its influence. There are seven or eight causes which affect the exchange. He says that he has to meet a dollar balance in America. I have endeavoured to show how he can do so. If he reduces his imports, will not the debt which he has to meet be reduced? If he would really give some consideration to these proposals by increasing his taxation, or even by having a graduated tax on wages, he would reduce the consumption of the working classes, he would contract his exchange, and he would turn the exchange in his favour. He would do something by letting out £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 of gold.
  Mr. CURRIE: With all deference to the hon. Member, is he not merely repeating an argument with which he has favoured us already?
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me to have a very familiar sound.
  Mr. MASON: I frankly admit that I am, but one cannot very well argue against the principle of this Clause without doing so. I am sorry if I weary the hon. Member. I shall certainly try to curtail my remarks, but it is very difficult to argue against this principle without necessarily repeating oneself. If the hon. Member, who is a very learned exponent of eloquence in this House, can show me any other method I shall be glad to learn from him or anybody else. I endorse the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to the Treasury to consider the advisability of pausing in this task of collecting securities. They have already admitted that they have a plentiful supply. Apparently they do not give very much consideration to the arguments addressed to them, but I do hope the speech of the right hon. Baronet will receive some attention, and if we cannot get them to reverse their present policy we may possibly make them pause in their riotous progress in impoverishing and destroying British resources.
  Mr. LOUGH: While acknowledging the fair and conciliatory tone in which the Financial Secretary answered the appeal I made to him in regard to what seems to me a very serious matter, I should like him, if he would, to deal with the point of the notices which are given with regard to these penal taxes. I have one of the notices in my hand, and I never saw a more unintelligible document to put before simple, uninstructed people. We are told that the lists are published in the "London Gazette," but whoever sees that paper?
  Mr. BOOTH: I think the right hon. Gentleman has already replied to that.
  Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend who has just interrupted me is in the habit of coming into the House for a few moments while a Debate is going on and then he intervenes in a most reprehensible manner. The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should see that notice is given to the holders of these securities that a penalty is to be imposed if they do not offer them to the Treasury. Surely, if a person upon whom the penalty is to be inflicted is known, it is equally possible to give him notice that he is to be made liable to the tax! If you know the holder of the security, in order to tax him you must also know him and be in a position to give him notice that unless he offers the securities he will be
  802
  liable to this penalty. Will my right hon. Friend agree to consider this point between now and the Report stage?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the assurances he has given me. But I wish to point out that, in answering my argument, he did not allude to my suggestion that the proper course to pursue is to borrow the stock or bonds and not to purchase them. I consider that a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not allude to it, but, instead of doing so, at the end of his speech he repeated the old story that this was war, and people must be willing to sacrifice their property in consequence. Nobody denies that the State has a right when at war to take anybody's property if it is supposed to be in the national interest to do so. Indeed, it can do this whether we are at war or not. But the proceeding is subject to the proviso that the proper price shall be fixed by a proper tribunal and shall be paid for the property. The right hon. Gentleman is taking other people's property not at its proper value, but at whatever may happen to be the quotation of the day in the Stock Exchange list. Anybody who has had any experience of these prices on the Stock Exchange list knows that they are often the nominal prices and not the market value at all. The list does not give the prices which represent the real market value; it is merely a statement of what is considered to be at the moment the price at which somebody else is willing to buy or sell; in many cases there are only sellers, in other cases there are only buyers, and in no case, with the exception of comparatively small amounts, has it ever been possible except in the old days in the Consols Market, and those days no longer exist, to say that these prices represent the real value.
  What is being done by the Government is not to take a man's property at its full value fixed by a responsible tribunal, but to take it at the price which somebody thinks is the value, because some transaction may have taken place on those terms a few days previously. The result is that a man may be compelled to sell his securities at a price quoted in the list in New York when there are no sellers in New York but only buyers. Great loss may therefore be imposed by this arbitrary method of taking these securities. Nobody objects to their property being taken from them in the interests of the State provided they get full value. But I for one

  803
  do object to property being taken in an unfair way, and I especially object, seeing that I have endeavoured to show there is another method which will inflict no hardship on the owners of these bonds and which at the same time will give every facility to the State. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has warned the people who compose the Committee dealing with these securities not to be too venturesome and not to buy what they may not be able to resell. Many of us would be very glad indeed to be able to carry out such a policy, but we have never found it possible. Therefore, although I have great faith in this Committee, I do not think they will be able to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. For these reasons I still oppose the Clause.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I want to apologise to the right hon. Baronet for not having answered one of his points. I may say, in justification, I spent some moments trying to read a note on my Order Paper, and now I know what it refers to. It is this very point. We cannot confine ourselves only to the borrowing of securities, and for this very obvious reason: When you borrow securities all you can do is to borrow on them. There is some limit to the amount you can borrow at any particular time. There is some limit to the length of loan you can get, and it would be a bad financial expedient to adopt to raise all your funds in America by loan and to have no free dollars to use. If you want a loan for a particular time for a particular purpose the transaction could not be carried through unless you are able to purchase and borrow at the same time. With regard to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), I may say everybody has been circularised upon this matter to an almost unlimited extent, but I will gladly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion as to whether any-further notice is possible.
  Mr. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, did not allude to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton), who pointed out that one could go to the National Debt Office with securities on the list of those purchaseable or borrow-able and not be able to carry out any transaction in regard to them. The right
  804
  hon. Gentleman says he does not want to be overburdened with a mass of securities of the same kind, and that time has to be spent in sifting them out. But, in the meantime, what is to happen to the holders of these securities, who are going to be subjected to this penal tax because they may not have offered them, or because their offer has been refused by the Treasury? What evidence will there be that they have made the offer to the Treasury? This is a very important point, and I think it ought to be dealt with at once. We all know that considerable numbers of these securities are entered on the list as being purchaseable or borrowable, when, as a matter of fact, they are neither. For instance, certain Canadian Pacific securities, mentioned on the list as being purchaseable, are not so purchaseable. Why, if you do not intend to purchase them, are they put upon the list?
  Mr. McKENNA: The placing of those particular securities on the list was a mistake.
  Mr. BRYCE: But there are a number of securities on the list, and if one goes to the Treasury and says he wants to lend or sell them, the Treasury will not take them. There are only three more days before these deductions will begin, and the people want to know what they are to do if the Government refuse to purchase, and what evidence will be acceptable of their offer with a view to preventing the Income Tax deduction being made.
  Mr. McKENNA: Any security which is on the list is chargeable, with the exception of the cases of small holders, in respect of whom we are making arrangements. When I opened the Parliamentary Papers this morning and saw there was no Amendment on the Clause I was extremely surprised. I fully expected Amendments were to be moved, and I am now given to understand that that is so. I am going to suggest one or two reasons for postponing the discussion. One reason, the one of least importance, is that it would be a great convenience to my right hon. Friend and myself that we should be free at the present moment, because there is a Cabinet meeting being held and we are both anxious to attend. But there is a more important reason. It would be a great advantage if we could see on the Paper the Amendments which are to be moved. It will be very difficult

  805
  for us to deal with them and to appreciate their full scope unless we do see them on the Paper. Therefore I would make an appeal to the Committee to allow us to take the Second Reading of this Clause and then to report Progress and continue J the discussion of the Bill to-morrow.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: What other business are we going to take to-night?
  Mr. McKENNA: I apologise to the Committee for not having explained that, as a matter of fact, there is no other business which the House can take. I hope hon. Members, under the circumstances, will excuse our reporting Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. McKenna]—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BOOTH: I desire to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he has had any notice from any quarter that any subject would be raised on the Adjournment, and, if so, has he let Mr. Speaker know? So far as I know, hon. Members generally expected the Debate to continue, and I hope no one is being cut out inadvertently of an opportunity he wished to take.
  The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Gulland): I certainly have not heard of any subject to be raised on the Adjournment to-night. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker has.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes before Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  POST OFFICE LONDON RAILWAY.
  POST OFFICE LONDON RAILWAY.
  PETROL DUTY (TAXI-CABS).
  PETROL DUTY (TAXI-CABS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (BANDS IN PARKS).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (BANDS IN PARKS).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  ARRESTS.
  ARRESTS.
  WOOL PURCHASES.
  WOOL PURCHASES.
JUTLAND NAVAL BATTLE.
  MANIPULATION OF AMERICAN TELEGRAMS.
  MANIPULATION OF AMERICAN TELEGRAMS.
  RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  WAR PENSIONS (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).
  WAR PENSIONS (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).
  IRISH STEAMSHIP SERVICES.
  IRISH STEAMSHIP SERVICES.
  BELGIUM (CIVIC GUARDS).
  BELGIUM (CIVIC GUARDS).
  Income Tax (Rebate Claim).
  Income Tax (Rebate Claim).
  Local Authorities in Ireland (Audit of Accounts).
  Local Authorities in Ireland (Audit of Accounts).

CORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following petition for a Bill have not been complied with:
Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a Bill by the
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.

CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL, [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read 1a.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER,
(Petition for Bill).
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 20 (1916)—Note from the United States Government regarding the examination of parcels and letter mails (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 9 (1916)" [Cd. 8223]):
Education (Scotland)—Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, 1915–1916:
Rebellion in Ireland—Report of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland:
Factories and Workshops—Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1915:
Ireland Development Grant Act, 1903—Report of the Lord Lieutenant of all his proceedings under the Act for the Financial Year ended 31st March, 1916:
Settlement and Employment of Sailors and Soldiers on the Land—Part II of the. Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to consider the Settlement and Employment on the Land in England and Wales of Discharged Sailors and Soldiers:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders, numbered D.I.P. 362 and D.I.P. 363, dated 15th June, 1916, declaring areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected areas for the purposes of the; American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915:
Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909 (Proceedings)—Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to, and proceedings of the Board under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, during the past year:
Irish Universities Act, 1908—Statute VIII of the National University of Ireland:
Intermediate Education (Ireland)—
Rule determining the maximum number of Superintendents to be appointed, 1916;
Rule appointing places of examination, 1916:
India (Civil Service)—Provisional Rule, dated 17th June, 1916, made by the Secretary of State for India in Council, under the Government of India Act, 1915:
Finance—Finance Accounts of Great Britain and Ireland for the Financial Year ended 31st March, 1916:
Civil List Pensions—List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1916, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1910:
National Insurance Acts—Regulations, dated 23rd June, 1916, of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to Insurance Committees:
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—
Councils of Urban Districts of Ilford, Acton, Edmonton, Barry, and Ashington (Five Orders);
Council of Borough of Clitheroe:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LORD SELBORNE AND THE CABINET.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE, rising from the corner seat below the gangway on the Ministerial side, asked leave to make a personal explanation concerning his resignation from the Government. The noble Earl said: It is the rule of your Lordships' House that a personal statement may be made just before the commencement of public business. I believe the rule also enjoins that it is not in one's power, in making a personal statement, to inaugurate a debate. Indeed, I venture to think that the moment has not yet come when, in the interests of the public service, a debate can take place on those grave matters on which I am going only just to touch.
Your Lordships will remember that when the war broke out the Home Rule controversy had reached this stage: The main principle in respect of which the Unionist Party had contended for thirty years had been decided against them, but the Ulster question had not been decided. When the war broke out the whole Unionist Party agreed to accept the accomplished fact and to abandon any attempt during the war to renew any phase of the struggle about
388
Home Rule. That also was the position when the Coalition Government was formed about a year ago. The government of Ireland was being conducted by Mr. Birrell on principles of which we had never pretended to approve; and although, naturally, we did not desire to interfere then more than we could possibly help with the government of Ireland, that would not have absolved us, I quite admit, from interference if we had known that the position had changed, and that the condition of affairs in Ireland was worse than it was when we joined the Government. But we did not know that. Mr. Birrell never informed us that the condition of affairs in Ireland had grown worse, nor did private information reach us from other sources. Therefore we knew nothing about the drilling and manœuvring, and all those matters which were known to other people, and consequently the rebellion took us by surprise.
After the rebellion had been put down the Prime Minister paid a visit to Ireland. He returned impressed with the desire of all parties in Ireland for a settlement of the outstanding problems between Unionists and Nationalists. The Prime Minister appointed Mr. Lloyd George to see all the Irish Parties concerned and to ascertain whether there was any settlement which they would all accept. Mr. Lloyd George was necessarily entrusted with much freedom of action, but I wish to make it quite clear that he was not a plenipotentiary. His function was to make inquiries, to gather opinions and suggestions from other people, then to form the best judgment he could on the position, and, when he had formed it, to report to the Cabinet, with whom the decision rested. And this, I am informed, is the attitude he has throughout adopted.
I understood that the basis of the inquiry was an amendment of the Government of Ireland Act by which Ulster, or a part of Ulster, would be excluded from its operation, and that the Bill of Exclusion would be passed during the war. But I believed that neither the principal nor the amending Act would come into operation until the restoration of peace. This was not a vague impression. I had, and have, sure and definite grounds for believing that when Mr. Lloyd George was appointed this was the basis contemplated. In this belief I concurred in his appointment. It was during the Whitsuntide recess that I learnt for the first time that the basis of the

389
inquiry had been changed, and that it had become a contemplated part of the proposed settlement that the Government of Ireland Act should, with certain modifications, be brought into operation during the war. I immediately—that is, the same day—informed the Prime Minister that I could take no responsibility for such a policy and placed my resignation in his hands. I also took care that the principal parties to these negotiations were informed of the existence of dissent.
In conclusion, let me state briefly why I dissent. Since the Government of Ireland Act was placed upon the Statute Book I have not contemplated its repeal. I have laboured, and should have continued to labour, for the exclusion of Ulster, or of a part of Ulster, from its operation; but, dangerous as I have thought the policy of Home Rule and unworkable as I have believed the actual Act to be, I have been quite clear in my mind that the welfare of the whole United Kingdom, and, indeed, of the whole British Empire, demanded that it should be given a fair trial. I should, therefore, have been perfectly ready to arrange for the exclusion of Ulster, or of part of Ulster, now, and to give every guarantee that the Government of Ireland Act should come into operation immediately after the termination of the war. But I am not prepared to advise His Majesty that it, or rather some travesty of it, can wisely or safely be brought into operation during the war. I say some "travesty" of it, because I do not suppose anybody contemplates the possibility of holding elections in Ireland now. Ireland is in a gravely disturbed condition, and in my judgment, to inaugurate a constitutional change of such magnitude during the war would be more perilous than any other course open to us. I say this while acknowledging in the fullest way the loyal and patriotic attitude of Mr. Redmond all through nearly two years' stress of war. I know well the great difficulties of the case, that there is much to be said on the other side, and that others with an equally honest endeavour to form a wise judgment take a different view; but in matters of such gravity each man must form his own judgment and act upon it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I rise, my Lords, simply to express on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I feel certain that on this occasion at any
390
rate I am also expressing the feeling of the whole House, our great regret that my noble friend has thought it necessary to relinquish his office. On the personal ground I need only say that the noble Earl and I—and I think the same is true of my two noble friends behind me—have been on terms of personal friendship for forty years or so, and therefore I can truly say that the close of our formal association in this manner is a serious grief both to them and to me.
So far as the public aspect of my noble friend's resignation is concerned, I will simply say this, that since the formation of the Coalition Government he has filled the important office which he has held with high credit and distinction. As the House very well knows, the functions of the President of the Board of Agriculture have been peculiarly difficult during the last few months or a year, partly from the peculiar relation in which his work has stood to the paramount need of supplying as many men as possible for service in the Army; and during all that time my noble friend has carried out the duties of his office with a devotion and an absorption in his work which are altogether beyond praise.
Perhaps I may be excused if I do not at all attempt to enter this afternoon into the actual circumstances surrounding my noble friend's resignation. As he has pointed out, it would not, indeed, be in order for me to do so. There is no question before the House, and to attempt to discuss now the various aspects of the intensely difficult and complicated question to which he has merely alluded would be wrong for me and clearly could have no advantage in the public interest. It is quite certain that within a short space of time a general discussion will be held both here and elsewhere on the whole question, and until that time arrives—and it cannot be long deferred—I must ask your Lordships to excuse me from saying a word more on that side of the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not addressed himself to any controversial part of this topic, and I recognise that it is the rule on these occasions not to raise a debate upon a statement such as has just been made to the House by my noble friend who sits below the gangway opposite. But I cannot honestly say that the mystery which surrounds this question has been at all cleared up by that statement. The noble

391
Marquess promises a discussion on an early day. I hope that it will be a very early day, for I think the country is entitled to know what has been going on and under whose authority it has been going on. That, however, is a matter into which I will not enter now. A rumour has reached us that there is to be a statement in another place shortly. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he will be able to make a statement to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot answer that question definitely.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Duke of Devonshire appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

DESPATCHES FROM THE FRONT.
LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the omission of any Despatch from the G.O.C. in France in command of the British Expeditionary Force dealing with the operations on the British Front between the 8th of October, 1915, at which date Viscount French's last Despatch finishes, and the 19th of November, 1915, when Sir Douglas Haig's first Despatch commences; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether any official Despatch dealing with that period of the war exists, and, if so, why it has not been published; and, if not, what steps the War Office propose to take to remedy the injustice done to the troops engaged with great credit to themselves and which sustained heavy losses at the attack on the Hohenzollern Redoubt on the 13th of October and in many other engagements during the period referred to, by the omission of all mention of
392
their gallant conduct in the operations in which they took part and for which they have been honourably mentioned by their divisional and other commanders at the Front in the usual Orders of the Day or other official communications.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I wish to emphasise the facts connected with the Question standing in my name on the Paper. The question arises, why has there been no record from the Headquarters of the British Expeditionary Force dealing with the operations on the British Front for the period of over six weeks mentioned in my Notice. The last Despatch from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Viscount French, brought us down to October 8; the first Despatch received from Sir Douglas Haig commenced on November 19, and there is an entire blank as regards any narrative of the war from official sources between those two dates. No one will deny that a great deal went on at the Front during that period, and a number of new Divisions of Territorial battalions were then engaged for almost the first time. They lost heavily, and there is not the slightest doubt that they behaved with the greatest credit to themselves. Why, I ask, has all mention of their gallant conduct been omitted from the official records?
I do not wish to take your Lordships through the whole of the six weeks in question. I will confine my remarks to the first week, which will be quite enough to show that by the omission of any official record a great injustice has been done to these troops. On October 13, five days after the conclusion of the period covered in Lord French's Despatch, there was a very important engagement in the attack on the Hohenzollern Redoubt. The Division which was foremost in that attack, the 41st Division, had not very long left these shores, and it consisted entirely of Territorial battalions from the Midland counties. I am not able to tell your Lordships the casualties in all these battalions, because I have no proof with regard to them all and do not wish to state anything for which I cannot be absolutely and entirely responsible. But I can give you, from the case of one battalion, an example of the number of casualties sustained. Of the two Lincolnshire battalions engaged in this attack I know a great deal, and naturally I am very interested in them, having been

393
the first chairman of the Territorial Association in Lincolnshire under which they were formed. But I am more particularly interested in the 5th battalion, because it has its headquarters at Grimsby and was enlisted to a large extent in North Lincolnshire. I know the officers personally and have been in camp with the battalion. This battalion—and I do not refer to it in order to take more credit for this battalion than for any other, because they all deserve the highest credit—this battalion went into action with twenty-three officers, of whom twenty-two were either killed or wounded, only one officer coming out untouched; and of the whole battalion, only 120 men came out without being wounded. That shows that this was a pretty heavy engagement; and if all the other battalions engaged lost in the same proportion, the engagement was obviously one which ought not to have been entirely overlooked. I know that there is a bitter feeling both at home and at the Front owing to there never having been an official record of their services, though the whole Division have received the greatest praise from their divisional and other commanders for the way in which they behaved.
Let me say that there were two brigades of this Midland Division. They included, besides the two Lincolnshire battalions, two Leicesters, four Sherwood Foresters, and four Staffordshire Territorial battalions; they were all highly commended, as well as the Midland Artillery Brigade. I will read a semi-official communication which we received at the Lincolnshire Territorial Association from the Major-General commanding the 46th Division—
"I shall be obliged if you will inform the president and members of your Association that in a recent attack on the enemy's position the North Midland Division behaved with distinguished gallantry, worthy of the best traditions of the British Army. I trust that their example may arouse enthusiasm in their various counties, and that the result of their gallant efforts may be to bring every able-bodied man into the ranks. I am proud to command a Division composed of officers and other ranks who, for love of King and Country, have sacrificed private interests, and whose example should be widely followed by other men imbued with patriotic sentiments.
(Signed) E. STUART-WORTLEY."
I think, after what I have said about the casualties and what I have read to your Lordships from the officer commanding the Division, there can be no question that this was a considerable engagement and one which ought to have been recorded.
Although I do not think it is necessary that a large number of troops should be present at an engagement under some General of high rank in order to make the engagement an important one, I wish to point out that the 10th Division, besides others, was also engaged in this attack on the Hohenzollern Redoubt. Therefore I should think that an Army Corps commander must have been present; at any rate, there must have been reports from the divisional commanders. What I want to know is, what has become of these reports? We are told that there was some confusion on account of the change in command about this time, but it does seem to plain business men extraordinary that for eight months it should never have been discovered that there was this omission in the narrative of the war. Were the reports of the divisional Generals and of the Army Corps commander in the hands of Lord French's staff when they returned to England; are they in the hands of the staff of Sir Douglas Haig in France, or are they pigeon-holed in the recesses of some sub-department in the War Office? It is extraordinary that no single person connected with the Staff either abroad or at the War Office should have discovered this omission. I wish to ask whether there are any such Despatches, and, if there are not, what the authorities are going to do to remedy the great injustice under which these gallant troops have been suffering.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I cordially support the attitude which has been taken by my noble friend Lord Heneage on this subject, because I have an intimate knowledge of what the North Midland Division went through on October 13 and 14 last. I do not wish to emphasise the gallantry of any individual battalion, because all the battalions behaved well in the series of battles during those two days. But I should like to say, on behalf of one or two battalions which were primarily engaged in the taking of the Hohenzollern Redoubt, that although they had their personal gallantry mentioned in the Gazette and many officers and men received their just rewards, still there has been something lacking in the absence up to date of any official Despatch relating to the matters which occurred at the Front between October 8 and November 19.
I do not pretend to know what has become of anything that may have been

395
written with respect to that period, but I feel that the regiments which were employed over that period of time have some ground, I will not say for complaining, because regiments do not complain, but for hoping that before long the missing Despatch may be published, so that the public may know exactly what did occur and what these troops did on that occasion. One battalion with which I am intimately concerned, which was employed primarily with one of the Lincolnshire battalions in taking the Hohenzollern Redoubt, lost between fourteen and sixteen officers killed and wounded and a proportionate number of men; but I can say on the highest authority that they held on, and, notwithstanding the terrific losses in officers, did most admirably, and I received the highest private congratulations on the conduct of this battalion.
In replying to a question on this subject in the other House Mr. Tennant—who has done extraordinarily well in the management of the tremendous work which has fallen on his shoulders as representative of the War Office in the other House, and who has invariably answered for the Department not only with courtesy and promptitude but often with a great amount of wit—fell rather short of what he has hitherto succeeded in doing in that respect, for he said that during the period in question no events of outstanding importance occurred which seemed at the time that Lord French laid down the command to call for a Despatch additional to that of October 15 which had already been published. This can hardly be so, because some of the hardest fighting took place during this period. These events were certainly of outstanding importance and had a considerable effect upon the general determination of that fight.
Mr. Tennant also said that great difficulties occurred during the transition in the chief command in preparing any such Despatch, but I hope that we may very shortly have the missing document laid before us, because in justice to those gallant regiments which fought so well—not only this Division but the other brigades and Divisions which were engaged in conjunction with the North Midland Division—we should know what the opinion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief was of their behaviour on that occasion.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I fear that I am not competent to follow the noble Lord and the noble Duke in the speeches which they have delivered, beyond saying that I cordially share the appreciation which they have expressed of the gallant conduct of these troops. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give more of an answer than that which has already been criticised by the noble Duke and a portion of which he read. The reply that I have to give is this, that during the period in question no events of outstanding importance occurred which seemed at the time that Lord French laid down his command to call for a Despatch additional to that of October 15 which has already been published. The change in the chief command and the subsequent assumption of new and onerous duties by Lord French caused an unavoidable delay; but a Despatch covering the period between the beginning of October and the beginning of November is now being compiled. I may add that I will convey to Lord French what has been said by the noble Lord and the noble Duke, and I have no doubt that he will lay the Despatch with as little delay as possible.

ARMY ORDER OF MAY 25.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the administration of the Army Order of 25th May, and to ask whether its provisions have been applied in all cases.
LORD SANDHURST: Before the noble and learned Lord asks this Question, I would respectfully make an appeal to him. He is aware that the Prime Minister was to have made a statement in another place on the subject which forms the point of my noble friend's Question. The press of business, however, has been such that it has been impossible for the Prime Minister to make his statement to-day. It would be more convenient, therefore, if the noble and learned Lord would be so good as to postpone his Question for a day or two.
LORD PARMOOR: I should certainly comply with a request made in the terms which the noble Lord has used. My desire is to promote a just settlement of a very difficult matter, and I do not think it would promote an object of that kind to bring on my Question at the present time, after what

397
the noble Lord has said. I will therefore postpone it until Thursday, which I understand will be a convenient day.
LORD SANDHURST: I am much obliged to my noble friend. Thursday will suit very well.

STATE WOOL PURRCHASES.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask for definite information as to the day and the terms on which the Government will pay for the wool crop, the sale or disposal of which is at present prohibited; and also the date on which the wool will be removed from the premises of the owners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it was on June 8 that the Army Council issued an Order which forbade from that moment all further dealings in wool, whether public or privates. The Order contained nothing except that. The result, of course, was utter disorganisation in the wool trade. It may be said that that could not be helped. But it was very unfortunate. This Order was issued by the Army Council, who I have no reason to believe possess any particular knowledge of wool and the wool trade, on the morning on which more than one public sale by auction was taking place. That in itself introduced complete disorganisation into the wool trade, and this has prevailed ever since. All that the public knew at that time was that it was impossible to deal in wool.
About two or three days afterwards the Secretary to the War Office issued a notice in the Press stating that arrangements were under consideration for the purchase of the whole wool crop of 1916. It was then that it was made certain that the War Office meant to purchase the whole of the wool crop. But with regard to the arrangements, it was merely stated that they were under consideration. The action taken had stopped the whole of the trade, but the arrangements under which the trade was to continue were merely "under consideration." Had any scheme then been settled, or has any scheme been settled since? When the Army Council issued their Order, had they realised what an enormous dislocation of trade they were creating? It is not as if this could have been a matter that came upon the Army Council by surprise. They must have known months before that they proposed to take this wool. I conclude that it is required for
398
the clothing of the Army. Whatever the purpose, there was no reason why the authorities should not have considered the matter months before and have produced their scheme at the time they stopped the trade. I do not wish to find fault in any captious way, but I must say that this action does seem to show an utter want of business capacity and forethought, and I am afraid it is another instance of the practice, with which we are not wholly unfamiliar, of the Government launching schemes before the details had been thought out.
With regard to the arrangements, we have no further public information. I have seen in the newspapers a rumour that the Board of Agriculture have been introduced into this matter for the first time, apparently as negotiators and dealers between the producers of wool and the market generally. We have been told—it is merely a rumour, and it may not be correct—that at the present moment negotiations are going on with the farmers, based to a large extent on the prices of the year 1913. I hope that is not true; because, whatever may be the right thing to do, clearly to take the average of the prices of the year 1913 cannot be just. Consider what was done the other day by the Treasury in the case of American securities. Your Lordships know that the Treasury commandeered the American securities belonging to all investors in this country. I do not say that this was not right and necessary; but they issued at the same time a declaration that they would give the price of the day. At all events they did not propose to go back to the prices of two years before.
I should like to know the day on which the Government will pay for this wool, because, remember, they are shutting it up and preventing dealings in it. On what day and on what terms will they pay for the wool crop? Also, on what date will the wool be removed from the premises of the owners? I have no doubt that the War Office know very little about the wool trade. They probably do not know that if wool is kept on the premises of the farmers it is not merely a great inconvenience to them, but the wool becomes lighter the longer it is kept, and if it is kept for any length of time the probability is that a considerable proportion of it will be spoilt. It is for that reason I ask that we may be informed of the date on which the wool will be removed from the premises of the owners and under what conditions.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I am not in a position to follow the noble Earl into all the details which he has raised, but I may say that there is a scheme approaching completion, and if at an early date the noble Earl desires to raise the matter again I shall be happy to give him the best explanation I can. But at present the arrangements are necessarily incomplete. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I may say that the wool of the 1916 clip will be acquired by the Government at fixed prices based upon the prices ruling in the months immediately preceding the outbreak of war, with an addition of 30 per cent. in view of the increased expenses of farmers. Delivery of the bulk of the clip will be taken as soon as the necessary organisation for collection and purchase has been set up. Payment will be made to the extent of 75 per cent. of the estimated value on delivery, and the balance after final inspection: but it is impossible to fix any one day upon which payment will be made for the whole wool clip. In regard to the pre-war price, I may say that under the Defence of the Realm Regulations market prices as the criteria in connection with the output of factories applied to leather, boots, flax, jute, and so on, are definitely excluded, and that the same principle is applied now to the purchase of the wool clip.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord has not given any reason to excuse the War Office for having stopped this trade absolutely on the day on which they issued their notice.
LORD SANDHURST: I am not in a position to answer that question.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in the district where I live it is a very important matter to farmers to know what the terms are to be and when they are likely to be carried out. I wish the noble Lord could answer these two questions. First, does he mean the percentage to be additional to the price which a particular farmer got for his wool in 1913, or does he mean the percentage to be additional to the then average market price? There are many farmers who pride themselves on the character of their wool and the way in which it is brought to market, and who have obtained prices considerably in advance of the market price as regards the particular staple of wool in which they are
400
interested. I wish to know whether those farmers will be fined—for that is what it comes to—for having in old days endeavoured to produce the best quality of wool. That is a very important matter to farmers in the district in which I live.
The second question I should like to ask is this. Why is the figure of 30 per cent. adopted? I have made calculations in my own district and I find that in order to meet the extra expense incurred through the increase in wages and the increased price of feeding stuffs, the farmer would want an additional 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, the prices are, and were a year ago—I take the 1914 prices in the market—as nearly as possible, at any rate in my district, 50 per cent. above what they were in the pre-war time; and the natural addition as regards the price of wool did not more than meet the increased cost of production owing to advanced wages and the additional cost of feeding stuffs. I assume that this action has been taken by the Army Council because the wool is wanted for war purposes. But if this artificially low price is placed on wool while producers of woollen manufactures are able to get increased prices, their prices not being regulated, it will be placing an undue hardship on farmers. Farmers in this country have held their own in the past under very bad conditions. They do not desire to make anything like an undue profit out of the necessities of the war, but it is a serious matter to them if the prices of their produce are reduced to such an extent that they are in a worse position than before the war broke out. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give any further information on the two points I have raised.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I associate myself with the two questions which Lord Parmoor has asked, though I do not suppose, from the tenor of Lord Sandhurst's answer just now, that we are likely to get any replies to them. I suppose the noble Lord's statement that a scheme is approaching completion and will shortly be issued is the Government's answer to the question put by Lord Camperdown. I come from a sheep farming district, and last Wednesday we had a very large market at Gisburne, a market which belongs to me, where about £6,000 worth of stock changed hands. Lord Camperdown has not at all exaggerated matters when he says that the

401
course taken by the Government and the extreme uncertainties and mysteries which seem to surround it have created a good deal of apprehension. The cause of most apprehension in my part of the country are the conditions of delivery. Up in the fells the farms are very remote and a long way from stations; the farmers are small men; the war has taken away their workers, and they do not feel at all confident as to how they are to pack the wool. They have long distances to cover and very few horses. The other night when I was up there a deputation came to see me about the matter, and I drafted a letter which, owing to recent events, I did not send on to Lord Selborne, who has always been very kind about our farming affairs in that part of the country. Some very responsible people, whom I am glad to represent in this matter, point out that unless you have in remote districts a depôt of some sort which will undertake at a reasonable commission all the questions of sorting into qualities, packing, and delivering, the farmers will consider themselves very hardly treated by the way in which this matter is being dealt with. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Camper-down. I cannot see why the Government's scheme should be incomplete. The authorities must have long known that they would want a great deal of wool. As the noble Earl has said, wool loses as time goes on. The farmers have no places in which to keep it, and the Government will really get themselves into great difficulties unless they decide exactly what they are going to do and let the farmers know the arrangement as soon as possible.
LORD HENEAGE: In Lincolnshire there is a great deal of alarm over this subject. It is not so much a question of the Government having commandeered the wool as the amount of uncertainty that hangs about the matter. It is shown most clearly by the way in which this action has been taken that nobody acquainted with wool has had anything to do with this Order. Otherwise it would have been recognised that the Order was issued at the most inconvenient time and in the most inconvenient way. Farmers had been looking forward to selling their wool and having it taken up in order that they might have more money at their bankers for carrying on their labour up to the harvest; but at the present moment there is no arrangement in sight to which they can look forward. They want some
402
assurance that there are business men dealing with this question. I hope that if the noble Lord is unable to give a better answer than that with which he has been entrusted this afternoon the question will be raised again, because the present state of things has disorganised the whole of the financial arrangements of a large number of farmers throughout the country.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not think the noble Lords who have spoken at all exaggerated the seriousness of this question. I must say that I think the course taken has been high-handed and outrageous. Farmers, of course, are willing to do all that is possible to help the Government, but they feel that Government Departments should adopt business-like arrangements, and there can be no excuse for this Order being issued on the day of the first wool sales. There are many other serious questions in connection with this. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale alluded to the question of packing. Perhaps the War Office are not aware that there are a large number of sheep farmers who do not do the packing themselves. The wool is sent immediately to dealers. These farmers have no premises in which to store the wool. What is to happen to them? It may not matter to the War Office how much wool is spoilt, but it is a serious thing for the farmers.
I should like to know what the authorities are going to do about foreign wool. Are they going, when it comes into this country, to commandeer foreign wool at the price at which it stood two years ago? A great deal of the material for making clothing for the Army will be made out of oversea wool, either from foreign countries or from our Colonies. Why should the farmers of this country be treated differently from any one else? The only fair and reasonable course is for the War Office to pay the market price. I have taken the trouble to have this worked out in the case of two farms, and to compare the price which the War Office are offering and the current price at the time. In the case of one farm with a rental of £230 the loss to the farmer will be £60; in the case of the other farm, the rental of which is over £800, the loss—namely, the difference between what the War Office offer and what the farmer would have been able to get in the market—is over £300.

403
There is another question. Are farmers who have lately purchased sheep to be recouped for their outlay? In the valuation of sheep the prospects in regard to wool and the price of wool enter into the calculation; and if the farmer is to be deprived of part of his wool profits through the fixing of an arbitrary price, surely the War Office ought to refund to him a portion of the purchase price of the sheep. I am not a lawyer and do not know whether the War Office have power to do what they propose; but, whether they have or not, I submit that they ought to reconsider the matter and fix a fair price in consultation with the trade. It is grossly unjust that one particular class of the community should be made to suffer in this way.
LORD SANDHURST: As noble Lords will understand, I am not in a position to-night to answer the various criticisms which have been made, but I can assure the noble Duke who has just sat down and noble Lords that I will make it my business to convey what has been said as clearly as I can to the War Office; and if one of the noble Lords would be so good as to put another Question down I shall come prepared with the fullest answers I can get.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Might I ask the noble Lord whether, when making representation to the War Office, he will impress on them the necessity, in fixing the price of this wool, of employing men who know about the trade and about the value of the wool, because from what we have seen up to the present there is not the slightest reason to suppose that this matter has been dealt with by anybody who knows anything about it. The War Office commandeered the wool, but when it came to fixing the price they brought in the Board of Agriculture, which had nothing to do with the matter, which never issued the original Order, and which is not a professional buyer or seller of wool. All one wants is justice. I shall therefore be much obliged to the noble Lord if he will represent in the strongest way to the War Office that this question of price should not be gone into except by a body which is acquainted with the trade and knows the rights and wrongs of the question.
LORD SANDHURST: I will take care to make the representation which the noble Earl has mentioned.

ARABIA, THE SUDAN AND SYRIA.
THE EARL OF CROMER THE EARL OF CROMER rose to ask—

1. Whether His Majesty's Government can give any further information as to the events which have recently taken place in the Arabian Peninsula.

2. Whether it is proposed to publish any Papers as regards the recent operations undertaken against the Sultan of Darfur.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to offer a few words of explanation with regard to the two Questions which stand in my name. The accounts which have appeared in the newspapers about events in Arabia, which have all the appearance of being authentic, are extremely important. They are also, I think, very satisfactory; and I may add that they are all the more welcome because they are rather unexpected. They are important, because anything which affects the political status of the Holy Places touches very nearly the interests of the whole Moslem population; and amongst the Moslem population I need hardly remind your Lordships that there are a great many million British subjects. They are satisfactory, because although we have no detailed information on the subject I hope and believe that the action taken by the Sherif of Mecca and those associated with him is an indication that they place the most implicit confidence in the declaration which was very wisely made by His Majesty's Government a year or so ago that they had no sort of intention of interfering with the independence of the people of the Hejaz. Not only are they satisfactory, but they are, as I have said, somewhat unexpected; because although the whole of Arabia has been more or less in a state of chronic revolt for many years past, if anybody acquainted with its affairs had been asked whether there was likely to be a revolt, he would have replied in the negative. It did certainly appear that the success unfortunately gained by the Turks at Kut-el-Amara was likely to nip in the bud any idea of revolution in Arabia. However, that has not been the case; and it is another object-lesson to be added to the hundreds that have gone before showing how utterly impossible it is for any European to foretell what is going to happen in the East. All we know is that we may invariably expect the unexpected.
Since I put on the Paper the Question relating to the Arabian Peninsula. I have seen

405
in the newspapers that there have been revolts of the Arabs against the Turks at Kerbela. Kerbela is near Baghdad, and it contains the shrine of Hussein, son of the celebrated Khalif Ali; and the city is regarded with almost as great a degree of sanctity by the Shiahs as the rest of the Mahomedans and the Shiahs regard Medina and Mecca. I cannot complain if I get no information on this subject, as I did not mention it in my Question, but if the noble Marquess can give any information it would be very welcome to those interested in the affairs of the East.
My other Question is in connection with the affairs of the Sudan. We have had, unfortunately, during this war to deplore a good many failures and disappointments both in the field of diplomacy and in the field of military operations. It is therefore especially pleasing to be able to dwell on a success. In the Sudan a very remarkable success has been achieved, not merely the military success to which I have alluded in the Question but a success in the realm of the civil administration. Consider what the position of the Sudan was at the beginning of the war. It is an enormous country, as large as France and Germany put together, perhaps larger; the difficulties of communication are very great, the climate is extremely trying, and the population, as we know from the experience of the last few years, is very often turbulent. The whole of this country under all these conditions has been governed by a mere handful of civil and military employees, many of them young men who have only recently left the Universities or the military colleges. They have been aided by an altogether insignificant force of British soldiers; but in spite of all this, there has not been in the Egyptian Sudan proper the smallest disturbance of public tranquility since the war began. That, I think, is a very remarkable achievement, and I do not know that it has been as fully recognised in this country as it ought to have been. I am not by any means complaining that it should not have been noticed by the Press, because as far as my own experience is concerned it is always a sure indication in countries like Egypt and the Sudan that matters are going well when the Press never alludes to the officials concerned either by way of praise or blame. At the same time I think a little timely encouragement from His Majesty's Government would be welcome.
The state of affairs in the Sudan is one of the greatest indirect compliments that has ever been paid to the wisdom and beneficence of English administration. Moreover, it affords the most ample justification for the lines on which our general Imperial policy is conducted. I may say it also shows the very great wisdom which Lord Salisbury displayed when some few years ago he laid down the general lines on which the Sudan was to be governed. The arrangement then made was full of anomalies and might have been riddled with criticism by political theorists, but it was singularly calculated to meet the requirements of the case, and it has in fact proved a great success. The utmost credit for all this is due to Sir Reginald Wingate and to the officers under his command, and I think it is impossible to speak too highly of the services they have rendered. Let me in fairness also add that I think a great deal of credit is due to the Public Offices in London—not for what they have done but for what they have very wisely abstained from doing. I shudder to think what might have happened if any attempt had been made by Departmental officers to govern the Sudan from this country. It is very probable that we should have created under those circumstances as much confusion in Sudan affairs as appears, from what we have heard this afternoon, to have been created in the wool trade.
Recently Sir Reginald Wingate and his officers established another claim to our gratitude. The Sultan of Darfur, Sultan Ali Dinar, has always been a most unsatisfactory and uncomfortable individual. For a great many years he was kept pretty well in order, mainly through the influence exerted on him by Slatin Pasha. Slatin Pasha, being an Austrian, was obliged to leave the British service directly the war broke out, but that ought not to obscure the fact that during a great many years he gave most loyal and efficient service to the British Government. Whether it was his withdrawal or other reasons, I do not know; but the fact remains that recently the Sultan of Darfur adopted an extremely hostile attitude. Sir Reginald Wingate very wisely and courageously did not hesitate for a moment what to do. He undertook military operations against the Sultan. I see in his place my noble and gallant friend Lord Grenfell, who can speak with greater authority than I can on the difficulties of campaigning in the Sudan. They are

407
unquestionably very great. The climate is very trying, and the difficulties of transport and supply are enormous. In this particular instance the railhead reached only to El Obeid in Kordofan, and Sir Reginald Wingate's force had to advance 300 to 400 miles to El Fasher, the capital of Dar-fur. All this was accomplished with success, and I must say that I think a more brilliant little military achievement has rarely been accomplished in these Eastern countries. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will see their way to publish Despatches in order to enable us to judge of the details better than we can with any information we have now in our possession.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has asked these two Questions, and as regards the latter I am very pleased to bear testimony to the extraordinary ability with which the Sirdar, Sir Reginald Wingate, conducted these operations. I do not think anybody knows the present Sirdar better than do Lord Cromer and myself. He served under me for a period of eight or ten years, and we both served under the œgis of the noble Earl (Lord Cromer). The difficulties of this expedition were very great indeed. I know something of these expeditions when I have commanded in the Sudan. On this occasion, as Lord Cromer has mentioned, the great difficulty was the long distance between the base at the railhead, which was about 350 miles away from the place of the operations. There was little water and nearly all the well-holes had to be re-dug; there were no roads, and at one part they had to pass through a dense forest. The sand was so deep that only camels could be used for transport. There is an idea that a camel will travel a great while without water. That is the greatest possible mistake; he requires a great deal more water than one would expect, and the difficulties of transport are therefore enlarged. To reach El Fasher the expedition had to pass through a part of the Sudan which is inhabited by Arabs whose loyalty was rather doubtful, and I think the diplomatic qualities of Sir Reginald Wingate were greatly displayed by his being able to get through this difficult and dangerous region without any hostilities whatever. There were no Europeans except the English officers who commanded in the Egyptian Army, and perhaps I might be allowed to pay a tribute to Colonel Kelly, who commanded
408
under Sir Reginald Wingate. I do not wish to allude further to the question which Lord Cromer has raised, but I am very glad to have had the opportunity of saying what I have; and I am sure your Lordships will agree with Lord Cromer and myself as to the great success achieved and the wonderful foresight exercised by the Sirdar, Sir Reginald Wingate, in this very brilliant campaign.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to add two or three supplementary questions to those which my noble friend Lord Cromer has addressed to His Majesty's Government with regard to the state of things in Arabia. In the first place, I should like to inquire whether any information can be given us with regard to the state of the Hejaz railway and the number of troops which the Turks at present dispose of in Palestine and Syria. As your Lordships are aware, the only means which the Turkish Government have, since they have been cut off from the sea, of communicating at all with Medina and Mecca and that part of Arabia is by the Hejaz railway; and no doubt one of the chief objects with which Abdul Hamid spent such an enormous amount of money on the construction of this railway was to have a means of communication with those parts apart from the sea. The railway was made largely by German engineers, and although it is only a single line railway it is very well laid, and it has the advantage of having very few bridges for the simple reason that there are no rivers. There are viaducts here and there, but except in one or two spots there is nothing above a brook; therefore in that respect the railway is easy to maintain. I should like to know whether there is any truth in the statement in to-day's newspapers that the forces of the Sherif of Mecca have torn up part of the railway line to the north of Medina, and therefore made it impossible for the Turks to get to Medina and relieve that city by means of the railroad.
Another point on which I would like to have information is the state of things in Syria. We hear very little about Syria, which seems to have been completely bottled up by the Turks; but what little we do hear goes to show that the country is suffering terribly from famine and disease, and from the cruelty exercised by the Turks upon any of the Arab population whom

409
they suspect of disaffection. As your Lordships know, there has long been a smouldering disloyalty towards the Sultan among the Arab population, and although it is strongest in the wandering tribes it extends to some extent into Syria, and I believe it has given occasion to unparalleled severities by the Turks in that part of the country. Lebanon, which is the most prosperous as well as the most beautiful of the Turkish regions because it enjoys an almost complete autonomy and is therefore better governed than any other of the Turkish dominions, is said to be in a state of misery; and the last vestiges of the beautiful forests which grace its slopes are being destroyed to provide fuel because no coal is available for the service of the railway.
Then I should like to ask whether we can be told anything about another question which is of great importance but about which it may not perhaps be thought desirable to give any news at this moment—I refer to the attitude of the Arab tribes in Irak and along the upper portion of the Persian Gulf and near Basra. If we could have such information it would also be of considerable interest. It would be important to know whether the action taken at Mecca has had a sympathetic, effect on those Arab tribes and is inducing them to take up a more friendly attitude towards us than we have reason to believe has been the case during the recent Mesopotamian campaign. I need hardly say that my questions are put only in the hope that His Majesty's Government may feel it consistent with the public service to give us such information as they possess.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I fear that so far as the part of the noble Earl's Question which relates to Arabia is concerned, I cannot add very much to the information which has appeared in the Press and which your Lordships no doubt have read. We have not seen that information altogether with surprise. As my noble friend very truly stated, it has been OUT point of view all through that the Holy Places both in Arabia and in Mesopotamia must be secured under Moslem control, and as soon as it appeared that the Turkish Government, under foreign influence and under something like German control, was ceasing to represent the Moslem world in the truest sense, it became obvious that a rising such as has lately occurred was by no means impossible.
410
The Turkish Government has been for some time past losing its real validity as the representative of Islam, and, that being so, nobody has the right to feel surprised at what has occurred among those who regard themselves as the true representatives of the Moslem faith. It is equally true that we can none of us refuse our sympathy with those who endeavour thus to throw off an alien yoke. And there is a further reason—I do not think it has been mentioned by any noble Lord—why we are sympathetically disposed towards the Arabian efforts to free themselves from Turkish domination. The pilgrimages have been of late greatly and of necessity interfered with. As noble Lords know, thousands upon thousands of His Majesty's subjects go from India and from further East on pilgrimage to the Holy Places, and its seems, I hope, likely that what has taken place in Arabia will render it far more easy to encourage the renewal of the Hadj, which had been interfered with to a great extent by the necessary blockade of the Turkish ports on the Arabian coast.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend below the gangway (Viscount Bryce) concerning the Hejaz railway, we have no reason to suppose that the report which is mentioned of a cutting of a portion of the railway is untrue, but we have no further information regarding it than what has appeared in the public newspapers.
As to Syria, we have, I am afraid, confirmation of the deplorable state of things in that country. Great severity has been exercised by the Turks under Djemil Pasha against a number of Syrian notables who became suspect to the Turkish Government. At least twenty persons of importance were condemned to death, and a number of others were imprisoned or exiled. But apart from that, there is the terrible condition of things which was indicated by my noble friend. The Turks appear to have formed a regular cordon round the Lebanon district and to be practically starving the population inside that cordon, depriving them of the necessaries of life. Representations, I believe, have been or are being made by the United States Government to the Turkish Government, pointing out what a departure from the ordinary proceedings of civilised Governments is involved in action of this kind, and it is difficult to see what other step it is possible to take for

411
the relief of these unhappy people. Bearing in mind the fate of Armenia, it is impossible not to feel the gravest disquiet at the possible fate which may threaten the inhabitants of Syria. We, of course, and also the French, although greatly interested in the lot of the Syrian Christians, are also concerned for the fate of the Syrian Moslems, and the whole future of Syria is one which naturally causes us the deepest concern, and we can only hope that the successes which may be obtained in the different parts of the world in the military field may assist in settling this question.
As regards Kerbela, we have no very special information beyond that which has been mentioned by the noble Earl opposite. It appears to be the case that the Turks attacked Kerbela, actually firing shells at one of the famous shrines, and it may be assumed from this that a considerable part at any rate of the Arab population of that part of Mesopotamia are in hostility to Turkish rule—by no means an uncommon thing, as the noble Earl knows, as between some of the Shiah population and the Turks. But as regards the wider question which my noble friend puts with reference to the general attitude of the Arab tribes in Mesopotamia in their relation to our Expeditionary Force, I am afraid I am not in a position to give him any particular or special information.
I pass to the much more satisfactory subject of Darfur and the success which has been obtained there. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, has told us in broad outline of the recent history of that Sultanate. Sultan Ali Dinar, a quite uneducated and fanatical type of Moslem, maintained for a considerable period rather distant but at any rate correct relations with the Government of the Sudan, but in 1915 he began to show signs of resenting our rule. He refused to pay the very small amount of tribute which he had been in the habit of paying to the Sudanese Government, and he started intrigues with the tribe of the Senussi and with other Moslem elements in Africa which he thought might prove to be hostile to us in Egypt and in the Sudan. Consequently, early this year Sir Reginald Wingate concentrated a small force—he had not, indeed, a very large force at his disposal—to protect the border of Kordofan, which it seemed might not improbably be attacked from Darfur. It is well to note that the French Government, whose colony of Wadai is on the
412
western side of Darfur, were naturally deeply interested and became somewhat concerned at the unrest shown by the Sultan of Darfur, and also at the possible consequence upon their colony of energetic action on our part. It was clearly important that we should not in any way disturb or imperil their frontier. But the real necessity of inflicting a lesson upon the Sultan of Darfur became more and more evident, and it is quite clear now that by far the best course was taken in the interests of the French as well as of ourselves. Sir Reginald Wingate accordingly determined that an advance should be made on El Fasher, and friendly communications with the French authorities resulted in an agreement that they should render on their side any help that they could. All offers of help were naturally welcome, because—as the noble Earl and the noble and gallant Field-Marshal with so much personal experience of that part of the world have described—the expedition to be taken to El Fasher was one of no ordinary difficulty. The capital of Darfur lies just about 400 miles from the railhead at El Obeid.
In the meantime the Sultan had become more and more truculent. He addressed some very violent letters to the Governor of Kordofan and the Inspector at Nahud, which is on the border. The second of these, couched in the most lurid terms and with a sort of grim humour, was addressed to the "Governor of Hell" in Kordofan and the "Inspector of Flames" at Nahud—a letter, in fact, full of the Jehad idea and calling down and announcing his determination to inflict upon all the infidels those combined punishments in this world and the next which the Moslem is in the fortunate position of being able to distribute. It was quite evident that this fanatical Arab had been misled by that propaganda completely misrepresenting the true thought and belief of Islam which has been spread all over the Mahomedan world through German agency, and of which we have had evidence not merely in Africa but also freely in Asia.
On March 16 the advance of the British force began in circumstances which, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has explained, were made harder through the scarcity of water. It might perhaps be asked, "Why advance at a time when water is so difficult to get; why not have waited until the rains, when movement becomes easy?" The answer to that not

413
unnatural question is that when movement is easy for you it is easy also for your enemies; and on a line of communication of that length it is worth the risk and the discomfort to avoid the chance of that line being cut at a time when raiding parties can move freely about; the country. In the dry season they, too, are tied to short travel, and I have no doubt therefore that the General, in acting as he did, showed the truest possible sense of the needs of the situation. It was also likely that if further delay for a more favourable travelling season were incurred some of the Turkish and German emissaries, whose presence with the Senussi tribe we have already had occasion to recognise, might have found their way to Darfur and added to the difficulty of the General's task. At the same time the French made a demonstration in force on their side—that was, I think, towards the end of April; and co-operation between the forces was arranged. The advance from a place about halfway from the Kordofan border took place about the 15th, and the capital, El Fasher, was occupied on the 23rd, after some sharp fighting. Heavy loss was inflicted on the force of Ali Dinar, and he himself fled with a small following. That is, briefly, the history of what occurred. I hope that when Sir Reginald Wingate's complete report of the operations is received we shall be able to lay it before Parliament at the first possible opportunity.
Before sitting down, I desire to add the warmest possible tribute, on behalf of the Government, to what has been already said of the services rendered by Sir Reginald Win-gate and the Sudan officials, both for the very sound judgment which was shown throughout and for the careful weighing of risks without refusal to take a certain amount of hazard, which undoubtedly existed in making this move forward at the time when it was undertaken. The plan was most carefully drawn, and the execution was rapid and prompt. This is indeed just what we should have expected from Sir Reginald Wingate, who is one of the most brilliant representatives of that type of soldier-administrator of which the history of our government in India and also in Africa has given so many examples. He was admirably supported by his headquarters staff; and I should like also to add a word of commendation to those who were referred to by Lord Cromer—namely, the young officials, many of them of quite short service, who have carried on the Sudan administration
414
with such success under the Sirdar. It is also right to remember the name of Colonel Kelly (who was mentioned by my noble and gallant friend), who made the actual march to El Fasher, and who evidently carried out the military part of the expedition with the utmost care and with the success which we are all so happy to recognise

LOSS OF AN AEROPLANE.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information to the House as to the start, flight, and landing of a certain F.E.2D. aeroplane which left Farnborough on 31st May and has not yet joined the squadrons at the Front; and whether any wireless message has been received in reference to it. In my opinion this incident is a serious one, and I should not have referred to it at all had I thought that anything I was going to say, or the mere reference to it, would be of any assistance to the enemy. Such an incident as this, though I am sorry I cannot say it is without precedent, is comparatively rare; but it is so serious that I think the House is entitled to have the answer which no doubt will be given by the noble Earl who presides over the Air Board. I trust we shall hear from His Majesty's Government that steps will be taken as far as possible to ensure that such an incident will not occur again.
On the morning of June 1 the aeroplane to which I have referred and which was fitted with a 250 horse-power engine (No. 7) left the Farnborough Aerodrome to fly to France. What I say can be of no possible use to the enemy, because they have the plane and the engine. It flew across the Channel, past our lines and over the German lines, and descended unhurt—pilot, observer and machine—in the German Aerodrome at Lille. There is a possibility of a mistake in approaching St. Omer and Lille from the air. Pilots very often are guided by two canals which are to a certain extent similar. But in this case there was no question of mistaking the two canals, because I am sorry to tell your Lordships that the pilot who flew this machine over had never flown in France before and had no knowledge whatever of the geography of the Front. That makes it a very serious incident. The pilot's name is Lieutenant Littlewood, originally of the North Lincolnshire Regiment, Special Reserve, and the observer

415
was Lieutenant Grant. I may mention that Lieutenant Littlewood was gazetted to the Royal Flying Corps as a flying officer only on June 8, some days after he was in the hands of the enemy.
It would, perhaps, be well if I read to the House from a letter which was written to me by one who happened to be down at Farnborough at this time. The officer when penning the letter did not, of course, know that it would be quoted, but I have his permission to read it. It commences—
"The War Office sent down and asked for two F.E. pilots, the machines being F.E.'s in which the engines were placed, to fly them oversea—"
I may say that the F.E. is by no means an easy machine to fly—
"Owing to an error in the delivery of the message, it was understood that the pilots were to fly ordinary F.E.'s—"
This one in question was a special type of F.E.—
"with the result that in one ease an inexperienced pilot was sent. I was at Farnborough and saw the pilot "[the pilot who lost the machine]," who complained that he was not an experienced F.E. pilot, also that he had never been oversea and was not sure of the way. The authorities there, who heard all this, took no notice of his complaint, and told him to take the machine. Later a report came through that an F.E. had crossed the lines at Armentieres and had disappeared in the direction of Lille. That evening a German wireless communiqué stated that an F.E. had landed intact south-west of Lille, the pilot having lost his way—"
The somewhat sarcastic German wireless message was to this effect. While informing us that the officers and machine had landed unhurt at the German Aerodrome at Lille, they thanked us for the engine and plane, which, they said, would be "most useful" to them. But to continue the letter which I was reading—
"Thus it will be seen that within three hours of its being turned out of the factory our newest and latest machine was handed over intact to the Huns. I should think if you wrote and told—about this he would have somebody's blood, as it is the second time our beauties at the War Office have lost a brand-new machine in the same way. When the V.E.2E. had just come out, the fourth or fifth machine we sent over to France was also sent over by a chap who had only just got his wings and did not know the way, and he landed right on the Lille Aerodrome and handed the machine over to the Huns. To say it is nobody's fault is rot."
I must add that I agree with the general conclusion to which the writer comes, and I would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will give serious consideration
416
to this most unfortunate incident. From a certain neutral source I have this information as given by the Germans with regard to the landing: "Reason of landing unknown, but pilot stated he did not know where he was and was not aware he had crossed the lines."
There are three questions to which I hope the noble Earl will be able to reply, as I think we are entitled to an answer on them—(1) Who was responsible for sending this inexperienced pilot with one of outmost valuable and latest machines? (2) Is it a fact that other pilots inexperienced in the geography of the Western Front have been sent on previous occasions? (3) Will the Government take steps to ensure that such serious mistakes will not occur in the future? I think I have said enough to justify my asking these questions, and I have carefully omitted details which I have thought might be of use to the enemy.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (KARL CURZOX OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, to the question on the Paper I am quite ready to reply to the best of my ability, but with regard to the other questions which the noble Lord has just addressed to me across the floor of the House he must not mind if I cannot answer them as he would wish. As to the incident referred to, the noble Lord is obviously fully acquainted with all the details; indeed, it is clear that from the means of information at his disposal he knows more about it than I do, and I can only tell him so much as I have been able to find out from the knowledge available to us.
It is true that the aeroplane to which reference has been made left England on June 1. The German Wireless of the day after stated that a British biplane had landed near Lille, no date being mentioned. We now know that it was the missing machine to which the noble Lord has referred in his Question, and that the pilot and his passenger, from whom communications have been received, are prisoners in the hands of the Germans. The pilot after crossing the Channel appears to have lost his way and to have descended in the German lines. Such accidents, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, have happened before and will happen again. They are not confined to one side rather than to the other; they have happened to German pilots just in the same way as they have happened to our own pilots.

417
I am not clear whether the noble Lord meant in this case to suggest any particular inference or to base upon what happened any particular charge. He made something of the fact that the pilot was probably an inexperienced man and had not flown across the Channel before. That, I believe, is true, but I doubt whether it would be wise to lay down a law that no machine should be taken across the Channel, even by a competent flyer, unless he had had experience of the particular route to be taken. No doubt in ordinary cases we should be only too glad to send with the machine a pilot who had done the same job before. But the noble Lord will realise, with the operations going on at the Front, that a pilot who has those qualifications might be much more valuable at the Front than employed in this country to take machines over to France. This is one of the risks of aerial warfare that have to be run. In the present case it resulted in the loss of the machine, and an accident, although fortunately not dangerous, to the pilot himself. I cannot give an undertaking that such incidents will never happen again.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I may mention, however, that there were two other pilots available on that particular morning—at any rate, that is my information from a very reliable source—and I should like to know why this particular man was chosen to fly over to France with the best machine we had of a special type. This is a very grave incident indeed, and one of which serious notice should be taken.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRACHIE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether it is still the intention of the Government to take the Report stage of the Small Holding Colonies' Bill on Thursday next?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, unless any noble Lord desires to raise objection. We have placed it on the Paper for that day.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.