Sitting of 14 March 1916

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

  LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173a apply to all such Bills:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That Four be the quorum:
  Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee
  1854
  between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Mr. Brace.]
  Aberdeen Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
  Consideration deferred till Thursday.

  NEW WRITS.
  For Borough of South Shields, in the room of the Right Honourable Russell Rea, deceased.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  For County of Chester (Hyde Division), in the room of Francis Neilson, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Gulland.]

  BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.
  Copy presented of Regulations made by the Trustees for partial closing [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Accounts presented of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 44.]
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented of Receipts and Disbursements for the year 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented of Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1915, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 45.]
  SAINT JOHN'S CHURCH, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL, BILL.
  Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General on the Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  OHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented of Sixty-third Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5,564 to 5,566 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Abstract of Accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales for the year 1914, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EGYPTIAN CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government only gives its civilian officials who are now serving in the Allied Forces one-third pay during the War, though the Indian Government gives half and the Home Government in some cases gives the whole of their pay; and whether he will arrange for the service of the Egyptian officials during the War to count towards pension?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer is in the affirmative, except that Egyptian Civil servants serving with the Colours are granted full pay for three and a half months from the date on which they cease to perform their civil duties. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question will be submitted to the Egyptian Government.

    ALLIED GOVERNMENTS (PEACE TERMS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what are the special terms subject to which the Italian Government gave its adhesion to the agreement among the Allied Governments not to make separate peace?
    Sir E. GREY: I thought it had already been made clear that questions of this sort could not be answered. His Majesty's Government are not in a position, nor would it be in the public interest, to make statements as to communications that may have passed between any of the Allies on such subjects.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether such special terms as Italy required relating to the liberty of the Pope have been communicated to the Vatican through the British representative there?

    EGYPTIAN MINISTERS (PUBLIC STATEMENTS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked, with reference to the public statements by Egyptian Ministers that on the deposition of the Khedive they had decided to remain in office to avoid British Ministers taking their places, will he say what communications of a threatening character were made, officially or otherwise, to the Ministers by the British authorities in Egypt?
    Sir E. GREY: I have no knowledge of the statements referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question, but I can assure him that he is completely misinformed as to the communications to which he alludes in the second part.

    "OUR DAY" AND RED CROSS FUNDS (EGYPT).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether it was with the approval of His Majesty's Government that its representatives in Egypt by use of their offices and undue influence amounting to compulsion, with known consequences of refusal, collected £115,000 for an "Our Day" fund, as well as Red Cross and other funds nominally voluntary; and, if not, what action will be taken with reference to the money so obtained?
    Sir E. GREY: The allegation implied by the first part of the hon. Member's question is baseless, and I regret it should be made, as the tendency of such statements would be to detract from the credit and gratitude which is due to the Egyptian Government and people in the matter.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CIVIL POSITIONS (EGYPT).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state, approximately, the number of British-born men of military age occupying civil positions in Egypt, such as clerks and railway officials, while Egyptians competent to fill those positions are left without employment; the reason for this discrimination before the War; and the reason for its continuance when Britons are required for the British Army?
    Sir E. GREY: I cannot give the numbers, but I believe it to be as true now as before the outbreak of the War that the British officials employed in Egypt are necessary to maintain the administration and our obligations there; they are therefore best performing their duties to their country at a time of war by continuing in their posts, and it would be a grave lose if they were withdrawn from there.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is according to any regular rules, or only by influence, some university men are now obtaining exemption from service under the Military Service Act; if rules, by whom drawn up; whether they will be submitted to this House; what are the general grounds and qualifications for obtaining those exemptions; by what means some men of no scientific distinction or aptitude have obtained them; and whether open competition will be substituted for the present method of exempting from military service men claiming to be of potential value to the State otherwise
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR(Mr. Tennant): Exemption from service under the Military Service Act is a matter for the tribunals. I am not aware that men have been exempted on grounds such as those suggested.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 7th instant Major Kerr, as military representative, informed the Glasgow Tribunal that the military authorities suggested that the tribunals should not grant exemptions for a longer period than up to 10th June; will he state who are the persons seeking to subvert the law; and will he take immediate steps to instruct tribunals to disregard their endeavours?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any instructions to tribunals would be given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. The War Office have made no suggestion of the kind referred to in the question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will you instruct Major Kerr to the effect that he made a misrepresentation when he said such instructions had been given?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will inquire what he actually did say.

    RECRUITING OFFICERS (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in many cases recruiting officers have persuaded men who had been rejected as medically unfit to give up their certificates and insisted on attesting them; if this is contrary to their instructions; and if the Secretary of State for War will remove and otherwise punish these recruiting officers for failing to carry out the instructions and illegally compelling men to attest?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that there is any general practice of the kind suggested, though cases have been brought to my notice. It is certainly not in accordance with instructions, but I cannot undertake the drastic act on suggested unless it should appear that there was really ground for it.
    Sir C. WARNER: Has any action been taken in cases where rules have been broken? Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that it is a very important question?
    Mr. TENNANT: If it can be really brought home that a recruiting officer has deliberately disobeyed instructions, then suitable action will be taken.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he made his statement in this House certificates have been

    1859
    and are still being torn up, that many unfit men are being treated with great harshness, and that some recruiting officers say the Under-Secretary of State for War has no authority in this matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of any one of those three things, and, if my hon. Friend will bring to my notice the actual case of a particular officer, I will certainly have it inquired into.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that notices mobilising these men are still being issued?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to punish the offenders?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind hon. Members of the great number of questions which we have upon the Order Paper.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. HINDSasked the under-Secretary of State for War whether he will see that in the selection of officers to coordinate the work of the military representatives in connection with the Military Service Act, 1916, he will secure that those appointed for Wales will have knowledge of the Welsh language?
    Mr. TENNANT: Attention has already been given to this point. Certain of the officers selected for Wales to act before the appeal tribunals can speak Welsh.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is with his sanction that the Doncaster Rural District Tribunal, in hearing a claim for exemption of a conscientious objector, excluded the public and the friends of the applicant while admitting the reporters of a hostile newspaper; whether a witness called to support the evidence of the applicant was properly prevented from testifying and made to withdraw from the Court; whether the applicant himself was properly excluded while his case was discussed, but the Press was allowed to remain; whether the decision of the tribunal ought to have been withheld from the applicant for two days and he left to learn his fate from the newspaper; and whether he will secure that the rights of conscientious objectors, as conferred by the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be more carefully guarded?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I have communicated with the local tribunal on this case. I am informed that the Press have been admitted to all the sittings of the tribunal and that there has been no exclusion of the public. Applicants have been asked to withdraw while the tribunal arrive at a decision on their cases, but the Press have not been called upon to, retire. I am informed that the decision of the tribunal was posted to the applicant early on the day following the hearing. It is probable that he may have seen the result in the newspaper before the notice of the decision reached him. The facts before me do not indicate that the Military Service Act has been infringed.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing from that reply it must have been two days before the applicant received the decision of the tribunal and that there were only three days allowed for notice of appeal, does he think that sufficient time was given to the applicant in which to decide whether to appeal or not?
    Mr. LONG: So far as I can see the tribunal acted quite regularly. It is quite obvious that those who desire that their cases should be heard a second time must themselves take a little trouble to see that they keep within the Act and take the earliest opportunity of making the appeal.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a tribunal is acting quite regularly in referring to a witness as "that woman" in insulting terms, and will he take steps to see that witnesses are properly protected?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary for War if the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 18th January last, that no man who was deemed to have enlisted and was transferred to the Reserve under the Military Service Act, 1916, should be liable to suffer the death penalty in respect of failure to obey an order calling him up front the Reserve for service with the Colours, extends to a person taken by force under the Military Service Act, 1916, who refuses to submit to military orders and discipline; and, if so, if he will state what is the maximum penalty of imprisonment which could be imposed in such a case?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think my right hon. Friend's assurance was limited to the conscientious objector. I think it must be

    1861
    obvious that once a man, deemed to be enlisted under the Military Service Act, 1916, joins for duty with the Colours, he must be subject to the Army Act in exactly the same way as any other soldier. My hon. Friend is, of course, acquainted with the provisions of the Army Act, and he can see by reference to it what penalties are provided by Statute in respect of failure to obey military orders or in respect of other military offences. It would obviously be improper for the death sentence to be applicable to those who enlisted voluntarily and inapplicable to those who join the Army under compulsion.
    Mr.SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the pledge of the Attorney-General which was incorporated in the Act is now withdrawn, and if a person refuses to act as a soldier because he thinks he has been unjustly treated or because he has conscientious objections he is to be shot? Are we to understand that to be the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's reply?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, the hon. gentleman is not to understand that. What the Attorney-General said was that no conscientious objector would be subjected to the death penalty. I think the hon. Member should put the question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I tried to do so, but the question was not accepted at the Table.
    Mr. TENNANT: I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend, and the answer I have given is the joint answer agreed upon.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow quite so much latitude.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to cancel or diminish the number of exemptions granted under the Military Service Act, 1916, upon the plea or pretext of conscientious objection and for other reasons, in order that the pledge given to married men who attested under the Derby scheme, that all unmarried men except a negligible minority should first be called up, shall be in spirit and letter redeemed?
    Mr. LONG: The Departments con- cerned are engaged in reviewing the lists of certified occupations. The decisions given under the Military Service Act are valid unless varied on appeal.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the Government abstain from calling up further classes of married men until the just grievance of those who attested under the Derby scheme has been dealt with, and, if possible, satisfied?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for debate, not for an answer to a question.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of giving to conscientious objectors who are physically fit an opportunity of volunteering to fix barbed wire between the trenches, in which work they would be saving instead of taking human life?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend mill have gathered, from the usual source of information, that conscientious objectors accepted for service will be appointed to the Non-Combatant Corps. Members of this corps will be organised in units to relieve combatant soldiers for service at the front. These men as a class are not, I venture to think, wanting in physical courage, and the opportunity of performing tasks requiring that quality and of winning a hero's crown, will not be denied to them.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the sitting the local tribunal for the rural district of Newcastle, Staffordshire, on the 9th instant, at which a claim for exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection was refused which had been made by a man who has been a local preacher for five and a half years and a Sunday school teacherfor a longer period; and, in view of the fact that both Colonel Heath and the Reverend P. E. Mainwaring appeared as military representatives, will he state whether the War Office is securing the services of the clergy to oppose claims for exemption on grounds of religious conviction?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has not been called to the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The military representative is entitled to ask the tribunal to receive such evidence as he thinks desirable in exactly the same way as applicants are so entitled. The decision of the matter in every case is that of the local tribunal.

    RUSSIANS BORN IN ENGLAND.
    Sir W. BYLESasked whether a person born in England of Russian parents who has offered himself for enlistment and been rejected owing to nationality is excepted from service under the Military Service Act, 1916?
    Mr. TENNANT: If a person of the parentage described has since 14th August, 1915, been formally rejected he would be excepted, but a mere inquiry regarding eligibility for enlistment would not be sufficient to obtain exception.

    ATTESTED MEN (CHOICE OF REGIMENT).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that in some districts, the Guiseley district of Yorkshire for instance, attested men are not being allowed to join the regiments they have put down on their attestation papers; and whether he will give instructions that if a regiment chosen by an attested man is open for enlistments the man will have the opportunity of joining it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unaware that in the Guiseley district of Yorkshire attested men are not being allowed to join the regiments they have put down on their attestation papers. The reports which come from various parts of the country show that, as a general rule, where a man has stated his preference for a unit in which there are vacancies, every effort is made to give him his preference; but as many men state that they wish to join the Army Service Corps or the Royal Army Medical Corps, both of which have been closed to recruiting for some time, it is natural that in these cases men whose preference has not been for an Infantry unit are a little disappointed if they are not able to join the two arms mentioned.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Derby recruits are frequently refused choice of regiment, while men brought in under the Military Service Act are given a choice?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have not heard that. I suggest that in cases where Derby attested men have not been able to join the units they have said they prefer is because the units are closed, or because they have requested to join the units I have just mentioned-the Army Service Corps and the Royal Army Medical Corps.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Under-Secretary for War whether a school of instruction for non-commissioned officers to be drawn from the Royal Irish Constabulary has been opened in Dublin; whether the military authorities have limited the number of men to be admitted to this school from the Royal Irish Constabulary to the number of 100; if so, what is the reason for this limitation; and what steps are to be taken to obtain the 1,000 recruits which we asked for from the Royal Irish Constabulary some time ago by Lord Kitchener?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the second part the military authorities will take, and the civil authorities will, I am informed, release for the purpose as many men from the Royal Irish Constabulary as are willing to attend the school of instruction in Ireland for non-commissioned officers, provided that these men have the necessary qualifications. Those who have not been included in the present course will be called up for one which will be held a little later on. When the 150 going through the present course have enlisted there will be 782 members of the force serving in the Navy and the Army. In addition some thirty-eight police sergeants are acting as instructors at the School of Musketry in Ireland, and a large number of men are performing duties under arms which must have been carried out by the Naval and Military Forces had the Constabulary not been available. Every encouragement has been given to the men to come forward to enlist and lately to join the school of instruction referred to in the question.
    Mr. REDMOND: Do I understand there is no limit to the number in this school of instruction?
    Mr. TENNANT: There will be no limit excepting so far as the possibilities of the school of instruction go. There will be no limit to the establishment, but the school cannot take more than a certain number.
    Mr. REDMOND: Is there any reason why it should not be possible to admit a larger number?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know of any, but I should imagine the school has its full complement.

    ELIGIBLE RECRUITS IN MUNITION FACTORIES.
    Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that thousands of men of military age have entered munition factories with the object of escaping military service; and will he see that these men are given the opportunity to enlist before married men are taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question of single men of military age who have entered munition factories, not with the primary object of assisting the supply of munitions to the Army, but rather with the object of escaping military service, is receiving the careful consideration of the Government as a whole and of the Ministry of Munitions in particular. It would be impossible to give an undertaking that every single man in a munition factory will be taken for military service before any married men are taken, but the Government is fully alive to the importance of the subject raised by the hon. Member.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How are the Government to determine the intentions of the young man when he enters a munitions factory?
    Mr. TENNANT: I agree it is not very easy to discover motives in any case, but I would refer the hon. Member to the communiqué issued to the Press to-day.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the War Office ascertain what influence the relatives of a young man have?
    Mr. W. THORNE: And their station in life?

    BOY RECRUITS.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that, in spite of the official announcement that boys under eighteen years of age would not, in cases where satisfactory evidence of age is produced, be sent abroad, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee are now officially answering inquiries on this subject, and are stating that nothing can be done to give effect to his promise; and whether, not withstanding the fact that many of these lads gave a wrong age on enlistment in their zeal to serve the country, he will, in the national interest, when satisfactory evidence of age is produced, release them in instances where they could be doing more useful work, and in other cases at least give an assurance
    1866
    that the lads will be employed for Home service only until the age of nineteen is reached?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November remains a correct statement of the principles on which these cases are dealt with. I do not think my hon. Friend correctly reproduces what he describes as the official announcement. Boys who have enlisted being under the minimum age are not sent abroad unless they are found to have physical qualifications of a youth of eighteen and a half.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In view of the numerous questions placed on the Paper relating to this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman not now save time by saying that no boy of eighteen shall be sent to the front?
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he originally made that statement in the House, and that it has been disregarded?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I never made any statement of the kind. I would suggest my hon. Friend should look at the statement I made. The statement I made was, as I have often said, a locus classicus.

    MARRIED MEN.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in order to carry out the pledge given by Lord Derby to married men, he will forthwith issue instructions to the tribunals, advising them that in cases where married attested men can carry out the work in reserved trades now being done by single men of military age, such married men shall if they so desire be forthwith exempted from military service to work in such reserved trades, the tribunals at the same time discharging from the reserved trades a corresponding number of single men?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is hoped that the revision of the list of reserved occupations, which is now receiving the earnest consideration of the Government, will accelerate the substitution which my hon. Friend has in mind. I understand that under the proposed revisions far more protection is given to married men than to single men, and by this fact employers will be encouraged to allow their single employees to join the Army and fill their places with older married men.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked him last week, and I ask again this week, the question on the Paper. Have the tribunals power to act in this matter, have they the necessary legal power, and can it be done by Proclamation, or does it require legislation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is the tribunals who have to do it. I think it is the action of the Committee to which I have referred.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does not Lord Derby think otherwise?
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that married men who have attested are being laughed at and ridiculed for doing so by other married men who have not attested, the latter claiming that they will now escape enlistment altogether; and whether he will now consider the question of treating all married men of military age upon the same footing?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer his questions. I cannot believe that the allegations made in the first part of the question are in any general sense true. In any case men who are doing their duty to their country have a sufficient answer to such ridicule.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received copies of letters sent to the Prime Minister on the subject informing him of this; and is he also aware that the dissatisfaction on the part of married and attested men throughout the country is becoming very serious, and what steps is he going to take?
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely, whether he will now consider the question of treating all married men of military age upon the same footing?
    Sir W. BYLES: Are the married men shirkers now?

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES)
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if instructions about their duties as military representatives on local tribunals have been sent to Colonel Pearson of the Swansea district and to Lieutenant Hudson of the Accrington District Tribunal; and, if so, will he
    1868
    send a further instruction to Colonel Pearson informing him that it is not the fact that conscientious objections only hold good so far as non-combatant units are concerned, as his remarks at the Llamsamlet Tribunal on 2nd March show that he is misinformed on the point; and will he also inform Lieutenant Hudson that his observation at the Oswaldtwistle Tribunal, that he did not think they ought to waste any time at all on conscientious objectors, is not in accord with the instructions to the tribunals that conscientious objectors should be so treated as to feel that their claims will be fairly and judicially considered?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am communicating with Colonel Pearson and Lieutenant Hudson on the subject of my hon. Friend's question, and am inquiring into the circumstances.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if Lieutenant Hudson, the military representative for the local tribunals in the Accrington Division, is a young man of thirty years of age; if he was lately the Conservative registration agent for the Division; and why an active young man is employed by the War Office as military representative on the tribunals instead of being on active service, when there are plenty of partially disabled military officers who might be competent to act as military representative on the tribunal?
    Mr. TENNANT:I am informed that this gentleman is not fit for military service, and that he is in every way thoroughly suited for the duties entrusted to him. I know nothing about his politics, and I do not think that that should enter into the matter.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: On what ground is he unfit for military service; is it because he is a minister of religion?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why not put him in the non-combatant group?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it is on physical grounds.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is a playing member of the local cricket club?

    EPILEPTICS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Westminster Tribunal has passed epileptics for the Army under

    1869
    the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, whether he intends to take any action, by means of regulation or circular or otherwise, to try to prevent this system of bringing up the numbers of the Army?
    Mr. LONG: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that the Westminster Tribunal had before it the case of a voluntarily attested man who, it was alleged, was subject to epileptic fits. Questions of fitness on grounds of health are determined in the case of attested men, being already members of the Army Reserve, by the military authorities, and not by the local tribunals. The case was accordingly dismissed by the tribunal.

    BAG MAKERS, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether there are several hundreds of men employed at Woolwich in the manufacture of bags for gun charges; whether this work could be done by women; and, if so, will he take steps as soon as possible to release these men for enlistment or for dockyard work or for other work for which women are unfitted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend is now giving careful consideration to the possibility of replacing men by women at the Royal Ordnance Factories on operations which women are capable of performing in instances such as that to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He hopes in this way to be able to release a considerable body of men for other forms of munition work or for service with the Colours.

    RESERVED OCCUPATIONS (INSTRUCTIONS TO TRIBUNALS)
    Mr. GLYN-JONES (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether under former instructions the only function of the local tribunals in the case of men in reserved occupations who voluntarily attested would be to satisfy themselves that the person was in fact engaged in a "reserved" occupation and to report on this question of fact to the Central Tribunal, and whether such instructions have been modified so as to give further power to local tribunals in such cases?
    Mr. LONG: Under the original instructions cases of attested men in reserved occupations did not come before the local
    1870
    tribunal unless the recruiting officer raised a question whether any particular man was in fact usually and principally engaged in one of those occupations or whether, if so, it was still necessary in the national interest to retain him in civil employment. If either question was raised, the local tribunal could make a recommendation on the subject to the Central Tribunal, whose decision was final. Under the revised instructions the local tribunals have power themselves to determine any question of the kind, and to grant or refuse a certificate of exemption. There is a right of appeal against the decision of the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to the voluntarily attested person to change the conditions?

    AUSTRALIAN TROOPS (CAIRO).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether there was any loss of human life in connection with the burning of a building by the Australian troops in the Ezbekieh quarter of Cairo; and whether any compensation was paid for life or to the proprietors for the building?
    Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member's question of the 11th November last.

    ENEMY COUNTRIES (PASSPORTS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether, when consenting to the use of Mrs. Scott, recently deported, as carrier of a letter written in Hungarian from London to the Finance Commissioner of Hungary making a certain offer if Hungary would secede from Austria and join Russia, he was aware of the other uses previously and concurrently made of Mrs. Scott by Messrs. Rothschild; on what grounds the Foreign Office enabled Mrs. Scott to pass into and out of enemy countries once a month during eighteen months of war; and whether the American Embassy, through which legitimate communication with those countries was carried on, was kept informed of the uses being made of Mrs. Scott over the same ground?
    Sir E. GREY: The Foreign Office have never employed or been responsible for the employment of Mrs. Scott as a messenger to Austria-Hungary, and I gather,

    1871
    on inquiry, that the firm of Rothschild have also never employed her. I am informed that she was at one time associated with the American Relief Committee, but that is not a matter for which His Majesty's Government have any responsibility.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how Mrs. Scott has 'been enabled to pass into and out of enemy countries once a month for eighteen months of the War?
    Sir E. GREY: I have said that Mrs. Scott at one time was associated with the American Relief duties, and we have no responsibility for that.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether the American Government have kindly taken charge of the interests of British prisoners of war in Bulgaria and Turkey by visiting camps, etc.; whether any Reports have been received from them; and when they will be published in a White Paper?
    Sir E. GREY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the United States representatives at Constantinople and Sofia have been unremitting in their afforts to improve the lot and the circumstances of the British prisoners of war in Turkey and Bulgaria. I regret to say, however, that in spite of reiterated and pressing requests addressed to the Ottoman and Bulgarian Governments for permission for United States representatives to visit the camps in which British prisoners of war are interned such permission has hitherto been withheld. His Majesty's Government will continue to press this matter. I also regret that I am not in a position to publish any reports on the subject at present, but I hope to be able to do so with respect to our prisoners in Turkey very shortly.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked how many prisoner camps there are in Great Britain and Germany; how many German ministers of religion are permitted to perform their duties in prisoner camps in this country; and how many British clergymen are allowed to exercise similar functions in prisoner camps in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: There are nineteen prisoners-of-war camps in Great Britain, and in Germany, according to our
    1872
    information, there are seventy-two. Five German ministers have been authorised to perform services in the camps in this country. There are four clergymen officiating in the camps in Germany, of whom one is British, two American, and one neutral.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Would it not be possible to see that we have at least as many British prisoner chaplains with the British prisoners in Germany as the Germans have German chaplains with German prisoners in England?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have not gone into the proportion, but they are not very far short if you count the American ministers as being British. I do not know that we have any right to do so, but I do not think there would be any objection to the American ministers being counted as British.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Five German ministers for nineteen camps is not in proportion to five British chaplains for seventy-two camps.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not necessary that the Germans should have more chaplains?
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that photographs, in postcard and other forms, of prisoners and prisoner camps in France and Germany are now exhibited and sold; that by, means of one such photograph at Nice three men hitherto described as missing were identified by their friends; and whether he can arrange for an exchange of publication of similar photographs between Great Britain and Germany?
    Sir E. GREY: I have no official information regarding the facts stated in the first and second parts of the question, but do not doubt that they are correct; with regard to the third part, lists of missing officers and men are sent periodically to Germany for distribution in all camps and hospitals were British prisoners of war are interned. This system should enable us to obtain a complete list of all our prisoners in Germany, but I will consider whether the suggestion made by my hon. Friend could be usefully adopted.

    UNJUST INTERNMENT (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether it is in accordance with international law and

    1873
    practice for His Majesty's Government to demand compensation for the unjust internment of British subjects in friendly countries; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to secure such compensation for Messrs. Purcell, Service and Draycott, who were first imprisoned and subsequently acquitted and released from confinement in Switzerland?
    Sir E. GREY: The fact that a person has been detained in prison while awaiting trial, and is subsequently acquitted, is not necessarily sufficient to justify a claim for compensation from the Government concerned. His Majesty's Government would not invariably admit or make such a claim, but the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers, as far as they are at present known to me, appear to be such that it is possible that compensation might properly be claimed from the Swiss Government. I expect, however, to receive a full report on the case at an early date, when the matter will be carefully considered.

    CONSTANTINOPLE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether it is intended to consult the Government of Australia on the subject before any commitment is entered into as regards the future of Constantinople?
    Sir E. GREY: It appears unnecessary to add anything to the statements made in this House by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 14th April last in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Gravesend, and on the 20th April last in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Hereford City.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of officers on the Reserve of Officers who rejoined their regiments at the commencement of the War, the service of the War will be added to their previous service and allowed to count for pension provided the total number of years served qualify under the Royal Warrant?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. These officers, who receive full pay, in addition to any
    1874
    pensions or gratuities earned prior to retirement, do not count their further service for pension.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is there no chance of that being reconsidered seeing the great assistance these officers are giving in the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the sense generally of the public is that they ought not to get both their pension and their full pay. Now they are getting their full pay and pension.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The pension to which they would be entitled after the War and not now if they add to their period of service owing to the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think I can hold out much hope of that.
    Colonel YATE: If an officer has been invalided out of the Service and has been recalled and invalided again, will he be entitled to a second invalid pension?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are numbers of officers on the Reserve of Officers who rejoined their regiments at the commencement of the War who have done most excellent service, and are in some cases holding high temporary rank, but yet have been refused all promotion; and what is the reason for refusing promotion to this section of the Service while everybody else is getting it?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that everybody else is getting promotion except the category of officers to whom he alludes in his question. I have already explained that officers of the Reserve of Officers get promotion when they come to the top of the list of their rank, their seniority being counted from the first day of mobilisation.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (COMMAND OF FIELD COMPANY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether ordinarily a command of a field company in the Royal Engineers is vested in a majors who has under him a captain and four subalterns; whether these companies

    1875
    are now frequently commanded by captains, with another captain and four subalterns below them; and why, in this case, promotion is not granted to the rank of major?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third that promotion is carried out in the corps, and not by field companies or other units thereof.

    MILITIA SERVICE IN SOUTH AFRICA.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in some cases captains with fifteen years' service, including embodied Militia service in South Africa, have been promoted majors, but others have not been allowed to count such service; and whether he will issue an order that all captains who have got a total of fifteen years' service should now be so promoted?
    Mr. TENNANT: Infantry captains with fifteen years service who have been promoted to be majors have got that promotion when they became senior of their rank in their regiment. There are cases of captains who, if they reckon embodied Militia service, have a total of fifteen years' service, but who have not been promoted because they are not yet senior of their rank. I cannot undertake to issue an order that all captains who have a total of fifteen years' aggregate service should be promoted irrespective of seniority.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say some time ago that he would inquire, principally into the case of the Middlesex Regiments, in which the promotion of no less than twelve captains with fifteen years' service was blocked by junior officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question has been very carefully inquired into. I promised to investigate it; but whether. I could promise to alter the policy is another matter.

    INFANTRY BATTALIONS (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether majors commanding temporarily British
    1876
    Infantry battalions left in India are not given the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel, as is usual elsewhere; whether their wives in the event of their being killed on active service in frontier fights, which are now not unusual, thus qualify for lower pensions; whether it is usual to gazette to the rank of temporary lieutenant-colonel after one month's tenure of command; and whether there is any reason for discrimination against officers holding temporary commands in India?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would suggest that the hon. Member should address this question to the India Office. I am not unacquainted with the position of the matter, but as the cost involved in doing what is suggested would fall on Indian funds it is not for me to make any pronouncement.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS BATTALIONS.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware of the paucity of commissions given to men of the 20th Royal Fusiliers as compared with other universities and public schools battalions; whether facilities will be extended to the 20th Royal Fusiliers so that commissions may be granted to all suitable men; and (2) whether the 20th Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Universities and Public Schools) will be dealt with on the same lines as the other universities and public schools battalions; and, if not, what is the reason for the difference of treatment of the 20th Battalion as compared with the others?
    Mr. TENNANT: All units are on the same footing. The application of any man recommended by the commanding officer of the 20th Battalion Royal Fusiliers is treated in precisely the same way as any similar application. Inquiries are being made as to whether there has been any delay in submitting recommendations in the case of this battalion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be so good as to speak to me on this matter.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is this battalion on the same footing as other universities and public schools battalions?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, exactly.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the commanding officer of one of

    1877
    the university and public schools battalions now serving at the front has consistently refused to permit any of his men to accept commissions, notwithstanding the fact that in many instances they have been invited by commanding officers to join their battalions; whether, in the other university and public school battalions, such permission has been granted in probably a thousand cases; and whether, in the interests of the Service and to ensure fairness to the men, he will take steps to have this grievance rectified?
    Mr. TENNANT: The commanding officers of all units of the Expeditionary Forces have the same instructions regarding recommendations of suitable candidates for commissions, and all such recommendations are treated alike. The commanding officer is the best judge as to the suitability of such candidates for commissions, and the recommendations must come through him. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to the 20th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, about which I am answering some questions later to-day. If the battalion he has in mind is not that one, perhaps he will be good enough to furnish me with the name, when inquiries can be made.
    Mr. HASLAM: It is the 20th Battalion to which my question refers.
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps the hon. Member will speak to me on the subject.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the statement that the 20th Battalion Royal Fusiliers (3rd Public Schools Battalion) is not to be allowed to rank as an Officers' Training Corps, whereas the remaining three battalions similarly constituted are so regarded; and, if so, if he can state the reason for this differentiation?
    Mr. TENNANT: None of the so-called "public schools battalions" either rank as, or are regarded as, Officers' Training Corps. There is no differentiation between any of the units of the Army at the front in regard to recommendation of suitable men for commissions.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (SALARY OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the
    1878
    pay of the General Officer in Command, Southern Command, was reduced by the sum of £850 per annum at the beginning of the War; if it is now proposed to increase it again by that amount; and, if so, why this course is adopted?
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why, in view of the desirability of economy, the recently appointed General Officer Commandingin-Chief, Southern Command, is to be given £3,350 a year, whereas his predecessor received only £2,500?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): In peace time the General Officer Commanding. Southern Command, was a General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, First Class, responsible for the higher training of a large portion of the Army. When the Expeditionary Force had left the country and the New Army was formed, the training was necessarily elementary, and the responsibilities of the post were adequately met by the pay of a General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Second Class. At a later stage a separate General Officer Commanding was appointed to take charge of the training of the Salisbury centre, with the pay of the First Class. Both these officers have now been succeeded by a single General Officer Commanding of the First Class, the pay of the Second Class post being saved.
    Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, why have they not increased the salary of the General Officer in Command at York, who has duties equally as important as those of the General Officer in Command at Salisbury?
    Mr. FORSTER: The matter is under consideration now.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that not only is the salary of the General Officer in Command at Salisbury to he increased, but also the salaries of the others?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That raises another point, and the hon. Member must give notice of it.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the claim of the mother of Shoeing-smith

    1879
    R. J. England, R.F. 2,525 (Army Pay Office, Dover), whose father died on the 20th December last, for separation allowance, is barred by reason of no application for same having been made before the 10th of December; and, if not, whether he will give all necessary instructions for its payment?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is no evidence before the War Office that this woman was dependent upon the soldier before the outbreak of war, he being then already in the Army; and in default of such evidence there is no claim to separation allowance from Army funds. The question of date of application does not appear to be the only bar.
    Mr. TERRELL: If I give the hon. Gentleman the papers will he go into the matter, because I think he is mistaken?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of William Thomas, who served in the 3rd Hussars for twenty-one years, obtaining a medal for long service and good conduct, and subsequently in the Army Service Corps as barrack colour-sergeant and barrack warden; whether he is aware that on retiring from service Thomas was given a pension of 2s. 3d. a day, but has received no money since 31st December; why the pension has not been paid and whether it is the intention of the War Office to deprive Thomas of his pension; and, if so, the grounds on which such action is being taken?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret to say that an error was made in this case owing to a misapprehension as to the facts. I am having this fully investigated. The pension was issued on the 6th instant.

    GARRISON DUTY
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state the exact nature of garrison duty; whether recruits in Class IV. (a) are included in those defined as on garrison duty; whether Class IV. (a) men are set to dig trenches, make wire entanglements, and other dangerous work at the front; and whether men with defective eyesight are being placed in Class IV. (a) with a view to doing such work?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am revealing no secret when I say that garrison duty implies duty in defended forts and places, and that it does not require such a high standard of activity as service in the field. Class IV. (a) includes road-making, entrenching, 'duty in works companies, etc., which is, I think, of a less dangerous nature than active fighting and does not call for such a high standard of vision as does actual fighting.

    BRITISH ADRIATIC MISSION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information concerning the British Adriatic Mission, its personnel, its work, and its movements; whether General Taylor is in command and, if so, what special qualifications or experience he has had; what persons specially acquainted with the Adriatic littoral and the problems to be faced were with the mission; and whether adequate information about the equipment and requirements of the mission was first obtained?
    Mr. TENNANT: A memorandum is being prepared for communication to the Press which will give my hon. Friend all the information for which he asks. At the moment this memorandum is not ready, and I would prefer, with my hon. Friend's permission, not to forestall the pleasure and satisfaction he will have in reading the memorandum when it does appear.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN (BOUNTY).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary for War how many time-expired non-commissioned officers and men have left the Regular Army during the last twelve months; and what is the amount of the bonus offered to time-expired non-commissioned officers and men as an inducement for them to rejoin?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it would be desirable to make public these figures. A bounty of £15 is payable to Regular soldiers who agree to continue in the Service for the duration of the War instead of claiming their discharge on termination of engagement.
    Mr. BENNETT- GOLDNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of increasing the bounty so as to retain more of these valuable men?
    Mr. TENNANT: The bounty has only just been created. It is pretty high, and I do not think it is possible to do as the hon. Member suggests.

    V. A. D, HOSPITALS (REGULATIONS).
    Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has received any complaints from the V.A.D. hospitals as to the strict nature of the regulations governing the movements of convalescent wounded, and if he will consider the possibility of introducing a little more liberty in this respect regarding the inmates in these hospitals?
    Mr. TENNANT: Complaints have been received that the discipline in these hospitals was too lax, and also, in smaller numbers, that the discipline was too severe. New instructions were issued, and the complaints have ceased. The desirability of giving reasonable liberty to patients is fully realised, and the desirability of patients fully recovering their health is no less realised.

    AIRCRAFT LANDING GROUND.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary for War if there have been any further escapes from mishap since 14th February to any aeroplanes at the little aerodrome in the marshes which has been used by the pupils of the machine-gun school; if so, if he can say whether the danger was due to the dykes which intersect the aerodrome or to its protuberances; if he can say whether any report has reached the War Office pointing out these dangers; and, if so, when they were first received?
    Mr. TENNANT: The landing ground at the ,musketry range in question is intersected with dykes, but by using different fields to land in, according to the direction of the wind, no danger is incurred from the dykes. There have been no serious accidents on this landing ground; when flying first started there one machine was badly damaged. There has been one accident, unattended by serious consequences, since 14th February. This was due to engine failure.

    "NOTES ON THE BALKANS."
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Under-Secretary for War if General Howell is at Salonika; whether he is the same person who issued a memorandum, dated 12th October, 1915, called" Notes on the Balkans "; whether his advocacy of the desertion of Serbia and the description of our failures in the Dardanelles and the Balkans was authorised by the War Office; and if any disciplinary action was taken in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, General Howell is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, at Salonika. I have not seen the memorandum in question, but I believe a confidential note expressing General Howell's personal views was privately circulated. It had no official authority and no disciplinary action is necessary.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at whose expense this memorandum was printed and to whom it was issued, bearing in mind that this general was on active service at the time he wrote it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not familiar with this document?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have given my hon. Friend what information I have.

    AIRCRAFT MACHINES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information that there has been delay on the part of Government contractors completing work on aircraft machines owing to contractors being called on to deliver large numbers of motor cars for the use of the staff; if so, will he say what steps he proposes taking to remove the person responsible from his office?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. So far as I am aware, there has been no such delay, but if my hon. Friend would furnish me with more precise details, I will make further inquiries.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will you reply to Lord Montagu?

    MACHINE GUN CORPS (PAY).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the present rate of pay for machine gunners?
    Mr. FORSTER: Machine gunners receive pay of their rank according to the arm to which they belong. Machine gunnery is one of the qualifications for proficiency pay.
    Mr. MILLAR: Having regard to the special course of training which these gunners have to undergo and the special efficiency required of them, is it not desirable to increase the pay?
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to enlarge the establishment of the Machine Gun Corps so as to secure promotion within the corps itself and to maintain it as a fully-equipped branch of the Service?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Machine Gun Corps is a fully-equipped branch of the Service, and promotion takes place in it to fill the establishments laid down.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary for War on what principle men are being selected for training as machine gunners; and what steps have been taken to secure suitable men from the various units for the Machine Gun Corps?
    Mr. TENNANT: Men are selected for training as machine gunners on the basis of their fitness for the duties of that corps.
    Mr. MILLAR: Has there been a certain amount of complaint that unsuitable men have been put forward for machine gunners?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have heard nothing at all to that effect. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me an illustration.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether provision has been made for the training of a sufficient number of machine gunners to enable the increased output of machine guns to be immediately utilised in the field as the new guns are from time to time delivered?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will give Parliament an
      1884
      opportunity to restore generally the right of personal liberty until forfeited 0n conviction of an offence proved according to law?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member has in mind the question of internments under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, I would refer him to the statement made by the Home Secretary on the 2nd March, when the subject was fully discussed in this House.
      Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question when will the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of dealing with this important matter?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that it was debated the week before last.

    NATIONAL ECONOMY.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in the interests of national economy, intend to introduce legislation enabling them to entirely suspend for the duration of the War any statutory obligations or duties involving expense, such as land valuation, survey of the United Kingdom, and other similar matters which may he considered unnecessary for the effective prosecution of the War?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take in order to give effect to the opinion expressed by the Committee on Public Retrenchment that any wholesale reduction of Civil expenditure can only be brought about by a general restriction of State activities and by the abrogation of Acts of Parliament enjoining such activities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: While the Government are endeavouring to enforce rigid economy throughout the public service, they are not prepared to propose the repeal or suspension of the Statutes in question.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no men of military age and capacity are kept working for these useless purposes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that most of the men of military capacity who were engaged in these occupations were let go long ago.
    Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling that all these activities, which are costing money, ought to be stopped?
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the Government noted that this is the chief recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee, and without it nothing can be done?
    .Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to carry out a proper scheme of economy in this country means that we should have nothing except good old sound Toryism?

    WAR EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister if he can state, approximately, what proportion of the daily war expenditure of the nation goes to the payment of the forces of the Crown and what proportion to the working classes of the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir, there are strong objections to making public the information asked for in the first part of the question, and I see no way of framing the estimate asked for in the latter part.

    DAMAGE FROM AIR RAIDS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the. Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Germans continue by night to drop bombs from airships indiscriminately on places neither fortified nor where munitions of war are made, and that their official reports have stated that certain towns have been bombarded, whereas no airships have, in fact, approached within fifty miles of the said towns, he will say, in view of these continued outrages on the civil population contrary to The Hague Convention, that on every occasion when bombs are dropped on unfortified places, or places where munitions of war are not made, His Majesty's Government will sequester for each such offence a large sum of the German moneys invested within the British Empire?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on the 4th November, 1915.
    Sir A. MARKHAMAre we to wait and see until the end of the War? Why is it that His Majesty's Government cannot
    1886
    now see that this compensation is given to British subjects who suffer from these raids?

    AIR DEFENCES.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement as to the steps now contemplated or being taken by the Government for the improvement of the air defences of the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In accordance with the promise given by the secretary of State for the Colonies on l6th February, an opportunity for a further discussion of this question will be given immediately after the financial business has been concluded, and a further statement will then be made.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take early steps to bring the operations of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) under the control of Parliament?
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the restrictions imposed by the Board have conduced very much to the lessening of drinking in the restricted areas, and have also been the cause of speeding up the supply of munitions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for York on the 14th December, 1915. On the whole, I agree with my hon. Friend (Sir S. Collins).

    STATE FACTORIES.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions if he was in a position to give the figures of the total cost to date of the new Government munitions factories, and the total output in value of the munitions which have been obtained therefrom?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would not be in the public interest to give any of the figures asked for in the question.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the firm of engineers

    1887
    originally engaged to carry out the work on the largest munitions factory in Scotland has been dismissed; if so, what were the terms of payment arranged on their departure; and will he say the name of the firm installed in their place?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certain changes have been made in the arrangements for the supervision of construction work at the factory to which, presumably, my hon. Friend refers, but it would not be in the public interest to enter into details.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a workman leaving a munitions works, while compelled to surrender his badge, is permitted to keep his certificate relating to the surrendered badge stating the firm by which he was previously employed; and whether he will issue instruction to abolish this practice and compel the surrender of the badge certificate with the badge on the workman leaving the employment of the firm to whom the badge and certificate were issued?
    Dr. ADDISON: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the badge certificate in certain circumstances entitles its holder to exemption from military service. The arrangement referred to in the question became necessary in view of Section 2 (3) of the Military Service Act, which provides that "no certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing in or entering into employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment." My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to vary the instructions which have been issued on this point.
    Sir A. MOND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that certificate states that the man is working for that firm, and that when the man leaves that firm and keeps the certificate it states something which is not correct, and that no recruiting officer has any opportunity whatever of inquiring whether or not the statement in the certificate is correct?
    Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Act was before the House this matter was specifically considered. To obviate a man being dismissed for other purposes in order that lie might be forced into service, and to show that a man has extra knowledge
    1888
    of munitions work, and is an extra efficient workman, we allow him to retain his certificate. We are only carrying out the law.

    DAYLIGHT SAVING.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister, in view of the desirability, particularly at the present time, of arranging that work should be done as far as possible by daylight, whether he will take steps to make earlier the hours of commencing and leaving off work in Government offices, in so far as practicable and even where some steps have already been taken in that direction; and whether -he will cause intimations to be published urging other employers and the public generally to do the same?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Although a general alteration in the official hours of Government Departments would be impracticable at present there is no objection to the fixing of earlier hours by the responsible head of any Department where this can conveniently be done without detriment to the public service. I do not think it necessary to adopt the suggestion put forward in the last part of the question.

    WAR OFFICE DIRECTORATE.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has now ascertained that the following Order was issued at the War Office on 1st February, 1916, "That the C.I.G.S. wishes that, officers of the Directorate should attend at the War Office wearing breeches—not slacks—and belts?"
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that such on Order has been issued, but in any case it would merely be a reminder of the standing regulations on the subject.

    BALING PRESSES.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that practically all baling presses in the country have been requisitioned by the military authorities that in numerous cases they have been kept lying idle and their use for civil requirements refused unless the straw is sold to the War Office at less than its local

    1889
    market value; and that instances have occurred of the use of a baling press having been stopped in the middle of a day's threshing, to the loss and inconvenience of farmers and interference with them in maintaining and increasing homegrown produce and making the most of the limited labour now available; and whether he will represent to the Forage Committee of the War Office that when baling presses are not required for military purposes they should give instructions that civilians may use them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I understand that instructions have been given by the military authorities which have the effect of restricting the use of all steam baling presses to military requirements. I am assured that their number is no more than is absolutely necessary for the military work required to be done. The Board have no knowledge that balers are being kept idle, or that their use for civil requirements is refused except on the condition named. On the contrary, it is an instruction to Army purchasing officers that balers when not required may be lent to farmers for baling straw. If the hon. Member has particulars of any specific cases and will forward them to me, I will endeavour to get them investigated. But he must bear in mind that no presses are available for the pressing of straw for private sale, only for the pressing of straw for the farmers' own use.
    Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise the question on the Report stage of the Army Vote.

    BOARD OF MARKET PRICES.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can state the annual cost of the weekly publication issued by the Board of Market Prices; and whether, in the interests of national economy, it is proposed to discontinue this, issue during the War?
    Mr. ACLAND: The cost of the Return in 1915 was about £4,000. It is valued and widely used by farmers, and the official prices it contains are of considerable value to the War Office and other Departments, chiefly in connection with purchases which they have had to make during the War. As the Returns fill a most useful war pur-
    1890
    pose it is not proposed to discontinue their publication.
    Mr. TERRELL: Does the cost the right hon. Gentleman has given include the cost of pre-postage?
    Mr. ACLAND: Not if postage is free.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (ACTIVE SERVICE PAY).
    Mr. ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state, either approximately or exactly, the total sum paid for any recent period in the way of pensions to officers who were on the retired list before August, 1914, and who are now receiving pay for active service in addition to their pensions?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley on the 24th February.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state, either approximately or exactly, the amount of money returned to the Exchequer by officers now entitled to be paid twice, i.e., for active service and also as pensions?
    Mr. FORSTER: The only case of formal surrender of retired pay that has come to my knowledge is at the rate of £180 a year.

    DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the official assurances that in future disablement, allowance will be paid to those discharged from the Service owing to disease aggravated by the Service will apply equally to soldiers discharged from the Army from the same cause?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the action of the War Office be retrospective and wilt men who have been discharged receive pensions?
    Mr FORSTER: I am prepared to deal with that in debate later to-day.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the question be answered then?
    Mr. FORSTER: As far as I can.

    MOTOR CARS (STAFF OFFICERS).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the maximum price at present being paid for motor cars for the use of staff officers at home and abroad, respectively?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot make an exception to the general rule which prevents me from disclosing prices paid to contractors.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it always the policy of the War Office, when they pay double what they ought to pay, to say nothing on the ground of public policy?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think the hon. Baronet has the slightest justification for making that insinuation.
    Sir A. MARKHAMIs it not the general practice of the War Office always to pay too much, and then to say it is the public interest when it is their own inefficiency?

    WAR LOAN (PREMIUM BONDS).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to issue part of the next War Loan in premium or bonus bonds of small amount?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am unable to anticipate the terms of future Government issues. I may say, however, that the Government have decided not to make an issue of the kind suggested, which would be contrary to the provisions of existing Statutes.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government is now owning race-horses?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the Government owns race-horses, but it is for entirely different purposes.

    PLUMAGE (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. GREENWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with the object of restricting the importation of luxuries, and in view of the fact that the plumage trade is for the most part in the hands of persons of alien origin, he will consider the advisability of imposing prohibitive duties on the importation of all plumage with the exception of ostrich feathers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I fear I am unable to anticipate the next financial statement.

    FISHERMEN'S WIDOWS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. WINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been called to .the case of Mrs. Meadows, the widow of a fisherman, Lowestoft, who by a recent decision of the County Court failed to obtain compensation for loss of her husband owing to his presumed share in the stocker of the voyage; and will he take steps by legislation or otherwise to prevent such seamen and their dependants being deprived of compensation given them by Act of Parliament by the evasion of giving stocker which is recognised by custom?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My attention has not been called to this case, but I presume it was decided under the provision in the Act which excludes from compensation all such members of the crew of a fishing vessel as are remunerated by shares in the profits or gross earnings of the working of the vessel. There may be good grounds for reviewing the application of this provision to cases of the kind referred to, but no change can be made except by legislation, and it would not be possible to undertake this at the present time. The point has been noted for consideration.

    DRUNKENNESS (PUNISHMENT).
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the present practice regarding punishment for drunkenness; if he has considered the reiterated statements of the trade that they regard more severe punishment of drunkenness as desirable in the public interest; and, in view of the present national crisis, will he deal with the matter on an emergency basis either by legislation or administrative action?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am aware that suggestions of more severe penalties for drunkenness have been made by various bodies and persons, including representatives of the

    1893
    licensed trade, and the same considerations would point to stronger measures against the offences of permitting drunkenness or selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Whenever an Order has been issued by the Central Control Board the Home Office has issued circulars to magistrates and police in the areas covered by such Orders drawing attention to various aspects of the question and expressing the view that, at the present time particularly, "drunkenness is anything but a venial offence; it may amount to a serious crime against the community." I fully concur in this view, and I trust that magistrates will be alive to the special importance of the matter and that, having regard to the high rates of wages often received by persons who commit these offences, they will not hesitate to make the fullest use of the penalties provided by the existing law.

    CONFISCATED PAMPHLETS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, although pamphlets entitled "How the War Began," "Belgium and the Scrap of Paper," and "Persia, Finland, and the Russian Alliance" have been confiscated by the police under the Defence of the Realm Act, they are still to be obtained from the National Labour Press, Limited, 30, Blackfriars Street, Manchester; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the defiance of the law by this organisation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am making inquiry about this matter and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    TOBACCO (DRAWBACK).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that substantial amounts due by His Majesty's Customs in London for the repayment of drawback on tobacco to manufacturers have been held back for several months past, and that payment is still being refused of many such sums; and whether, having regard to the difficulty of financing payments owing to the rates of duty now being levied, he will undertake to see that these drawback accounts shall be cleared up at once?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The recent increase in the tobacco drawback rates, involving special inquiry into many claims
    1894
    submitted, combined with the heavy and continuous increase in the number of exportations, particularly those by parcel post to the Expeditionary Forces, has led to some unavoidable delay in the full payment of claims. It is expected, however, that the outstanding balances of drawback will be paid off at an early date.

    BRITISH MUSEUM (STAFF).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked how many of the staff ordinarily employed at the British Museum and the Natural History Museum are now engaged on other work, and whether the salaries or remuneration of any of the staff so engaged are or is being paid by the trustees of the British Museum or charged against the funds under their control?
    Mr. MONTAGU: One hundred and ten members of the staff of the British Museum (Bloomsbury) and fifty-three members of the staff of the British Museum (Natural History) are serving with His Majesty's naval or military forces. These men receive pay from the Navy or Army Votes, and the difference between such pay and their civil pay is made up from the Vote for the British Museum. In addition, forty-two members of the staff of the British Museum (Bloomsbury) and one member of the staff of the British Museum, (Natural History) have been lent for service with other Government Departments. These men receive their pay from the Vote for the British Museum.

    MR. MASTERMAN'S SALARY.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked on what Vote the salary of the Right Hon. C. F. Masterman is charged?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for the Mansfield Division of Nottinghamshire and for Pontefract on the 1st and 8th December last, respectively.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman gave me no answer at all.

    NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASES OF PICTURES).
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he

    1895
    is aware that the trustees of the National Gallery have recently purchased a "Madonna and Child," by Masaccio, and a picture called "La Collation," by Pieter de Hooch; whether he is aware that the country already possesses several examples of de Hooch's art, including the "Music Party," whose purchase was announced a few days ago; and if he will say what prices were paid for these pictures, and what was the necessity for buying them in war time rather than investing the money in the War Loan or other Government security?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Masaccio was purchased in this country from its English owner for £9,000, half only of which amount was paid out of invested Trust funds by the National Gallery. As far as is known this "Madonna and Child" is the only obtainable example of this rare and important master and, if it had been allowed to leave the country, it would have been au irreparable loss to the nation. The de Hooch, which is known under the two names of "La Collation" and "The Music Party," was purchased, also out of Trust funds, from a foreign dealer for £3,000. I am aware that there are other examples of this painter in the National Gallery, and I see no reason to modify the views which have already expressed in the House as regards this purchase.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that money will not be sent out of the country to purchase pictures during the. War?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I expressed my views on this subject in Debate. I have no control over the trustees of the National Gallery.

    Margarine Prosecutions, Glasgow.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the sanitary department of Glasgow during the past three months against traders in that city who endeavour to pass off margarine as Irish butter; and whether active co-operation with the Irish Department of Agriculture has been effected in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The total number of prosecutions in Glasgow during the three months ending 29th February for selling margarine as butter was eleven, two of which were for selling margarine as Irish
    1896
    butter. All the prosecutions were successful. The Glasgow sanitary authorities and the local Government Board for Scotland have been in communication with the Irish Board of Agriculture in the matter.

    Great and Little Ouse (Extensive Flooding).
    Sir RICHARD WINFREYasked the Parliametary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has caused inquiry to be made regarding the breakage for the second time in a period of fifteen months of the Little Ouse Bank; what is the amount of damage caused thereby, what is the area of wheat and potato land so flooded, and the number of tenants who have been rendered homeless; and what steps the Board are taking to assist the unfortunate tenants?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board have caused inquiry to be made, and they learn that about 13,000 acres of land are flooded. They have no information at present as to the actual extent of the damage, though they believe that work is being done to stop the breach, with the assistance of 100 soldiers under capable direction. The Board themselves have no power to relieve private owners or tenants in such a case. The authority responsible for the upkeep of the river bank is the Feltwell Second Fen Drainage Commissioners, who have been warned by the two previous breaches that the bank urgently required improvement.
    Sir R. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what progress has been made by the new authority created by the Board to-deal with the waters of the Great Ouse which now, instead of flowing into the sea, are returning into the Little Ouse and so increasing the volume of water finding its way on to the flooded lands in the Feltwell and Southsey fen district?
    Mr. ACLAND: I understand that the recently formed Lower Ouse Drainage Board has not undertaken any of the work which they are authorised to execute for the improvement of the outfall of the River Ouse, because they do not feel justified at present in employing either the labour or the capital required for the purpose. Their authority, as my hon. Friend is aware, does not extend to within many miles of where the recent breach has taken place.
    Sir R. WINFREY: Seeing the national importance of this matter, I shall call attention to it on the Adjournment to-night.

    Nigerian Railways.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Captain William Waddell was in the service of the Government as master of the steam ferry of the Nigerian Railways, British West Africa, for some years; whether his employment there led to a complete breakdown of his health; whether he has been unable to resume his duties on account of that breakdown; and whether the Department proposes to do anything to assist him financially, in view of the fact that he is much in need of help?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Mr. Waddell held a temporary appointment under the Government of Nigeria, which he was compelled to relinquish owing to ill-health after receiving the maximum of leave allowable. His post was not pensionable, but the Government of Nigeria have been asked to consider whether a compassionate allowance can, in the circumstances, be granted.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made representations to the Nigerian Railway on the point?

    Property Tax (Greenock).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the collector of taxes at Greenock and his various sub-collectors have sent out final notices for payment of property taxes within seven days on a penalty of costs; can he say whether this is the earliest threat of costs in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether his Department countenances by advancement this kind of action or whether the Department tries to bring about equality of treatment for all citizens throughout the country by threatening costs at the same time to all?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed that final notices have been in process of issue since the latter part of February in all parts of the country.

ENTRY OF PORTUGAL INTO WAR.

  STATEMENT BY SIR EDWARD GREY.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The Prime Minister who, unfortunately, is unable to be present, owing to temporary indisposition, has requested me to read to the House the statement which he intended to make on the subject of the entry of Portugal into the War.
  1898
  The immediate cause of the declaration by Germany of a state of war with the most ancient of our Allies has been the decision of the Portuguese Government to requisition the German ships, which, since the commencement of hostilities, have been lying in the home and Colonial ports of Portugal.
  Had Portugal been entirely a neutral nation, without ties or alliances with any of the combatants, her action would, nevertheless, have been completely justified. The War has been the cause of a rapidly increasing shortage of tonnage in all parts of the globe, and it became clear that, in the interests of their country, it was the duty of the Portuguese Government to make use of all the available ships in their harbours. This was their view, and it was also urged upon them by His Majesty's Government.
  They accordingly proceeded to requisition the German ships in their ports, explaining to Germany the reasons which prompted them to take this action, and promising eventually to indemnify the owners of the vessels. The German ships had been lying in their harbours for more than eighteen months. They therefore fell within the broad principle that a State is entitled in cases of emergency to take the property of all individuals within its jurisdiction, and to convert it to the public use—a right which is inherent in the sovereignty of the State, and which cannot be challenged by any foreign Power.
  But Portugal was not a neutral nation in the narrowest sense of the term. At the beginning of the War the Portuguese Government declared that in no circumstances would they disregard the duties of their ancient alliance with Great Britain; and now, as always, they have remained faithful to their obligations as our Allies. They were but following a course of action which would have injured no third party, for requisition would have been followed by payment in compensation; but the German Government saw fit to precipitate matters by a peremptory demand for an explanation, shortly followed by a declaration of war, thus altering the whole position as regards the payment of any compensation for the vessels.
  It is to be observed that Germany, who now charged Portugal with a breach of neutrality, had herself in October, and again in December, 1914, violated the territory of Portugal by raids into the Portuguese colony of Angola, and later by seeking to stir up a native rebellion in Portuguese East Africa.

  1899
  Portugal may rest assured that Great Britain and the Allies will afford her all the assistance that she may require, and that, having been compelled to range herself on the side of the Allies, she will be welcomed as a gallant coadjutor in the defence of the great cause for which the present War is being waged.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Noel Pemberton Billing, esquire, for the County of Hertford (Eastern or Hertford Division).
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Sir Daniel Goddardreported from the Committee of Selection that, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following fifteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners; Mr. Ainsworth, Major Anstruther-Gray, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Currie, Sir John Dewar, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Morton, Sir John McCallum, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Watson, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Wilkie.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

      MR. TENNANT'S STATEMENT.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The history of the Army during the last twelve months is so much the history of our country, is so much the history of our hopes and our disappointments, our attainments and our disillusions, that he would be a bold man indeed, and a foolish one, who did not feel that the narration would be a task which would tax his powers to the uttermost. But it is no part of my intention to-day to traverse the blood-stained field of Flanders or of France, or of Gallipoli. I must essay to cover the wide, though duller, field of administrative action. In presenting these Estimates my mind naturally goes back to the occasion a year ago when I explained to the House the limitations in which I found myself. These Estimates are presented in the same form as they were a year ago—that is to say, they are token Estimates of £1,000 apiece. The House is familiar with these limitations; I need not elaborate them. The House has become almost too familiar, I dare say, with the statement that it is not advisable to give information which might be useful to the enemy, and occasionally indeed it has been said even by myself that such-and-such information would not be in the public interest, and hon. Gentlemen are familiar with that phrase. It remains not in the public interest that I should give the numbers of the Army, either in the separate arms or in the various definite theatres of operation, and still less the numbers of those who are training at home to supply reinforcements for the Armies in the field. So I find myself bound by the same ban which bound me a year ago. Nor can I speak in terms of money of the amount required for the Army, though my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given the House certain information on this subject. I think that it will be sufficient for me to remind the House that we are voting in
      1934
      these Estimates 4,000,000 men, and that the Prime Minister has stated that the three Services of the Army, the Navy, and the Munitions Department are costing just over £3,000,000 a day. Having said that, I should like, just in a sentence or two, to explain that I cannot trust myself to speak of the quality of the Army as it is so well known in all quarters of the House, but I would like to pay a tribute to their wonderful discipline, considering the short term during which many of these soldiers have been trained. It speaks wonderfully for the men themselves, and also for the officers who are training them.
      I will now come, if I may, to the Army and the methods by which it has been raised, and deal with the recruiting problem, which has aroused a certain amount of comment in this House. I would like to be allowed to go back to the beginning and to recall to the House the first rush of recruits to the Colours, after which, as hon. Members are aware, there was a lull in recruiting; but still, at the commencement of last financial year, recruiting was satisfactory, and then occurred the rival claims of the Munitions Department and of the general labour market, when naturally the intake of recruits gradually declined. There was occasional temporary improvement owing to the special efforts of the Secretary of State, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, and the War Office recruiting authorities, but it became very soon evident that some special steps would have to be taken, and so, at the desire of the Government, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State asked Lord Derby to undertake the scheme of recruiting. That is a thing which is too familiar to require description. It may be sufficient if I remind the House that the recruiting scheme was based upon the age and the married condition of the recruit. It recognised his domestic and other responsibilities by giving him notice, during the period of which it was hoped that he would have time to windup his business, and it also gave notice to the employers. It is no doubt fresh in the minds of all of us that after the enthusiastic reception of the scheme by all classes, and especially by the Press, to which I would like to pay a tribute, men came forward slowly at first, and that then by degrees people wakened up through the agency of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, the General Labour Recruiting Committee, and hon.

      1935
      Members of all parties in this House, and the intake of recruits became very large, until that final, wonderful wave of enthusiasm which brought 1,000,000 recruits into the Service in so short a space as four days. I think that that is a most encouraging augury for our final victory.
      4.0 P.M.
      In this respect it is difficult to overestimate the services rendered by hon. Gentlemen of all political parties, to whom I must extend the thanks of the Army Council. In an especial degree our thanks are due to Lord Derby and to his staff of energetic coadjutors, who have worked with an energy and single-mindedness deserving of all praise. Not merely we at the War Office, but the whole nation, are indebted to Lord Derby in an especial degree. The nest stage is that of the Military Service Act, and in dealing with the Military Service Act I shall be careful to confine myself to mere comment on the administration of certain of its provisions after it had passed through this House. I am aware that the recruiting authorities have become subject to criticism in this respect, and I am not going to pretend for a moment that mistakes have not been made and that there have been no blunders, but I would ask the House to remember how overstrained these Departments have been for over twenty months. Hundreds and thousands of soldiers, growing to millions, passed through the hands of the recruiting officers. It was very difficult for them at the outset, and, in fact, throughout the whole of the recruiting campaign there was not sufficient clerical assistance. They were overworked before the Military Service Bill came before this House at all, and, when we consider the new problems brought into existence after the Military Service Act, it is not so much to be wondered at if some mistakes have been made; indeed, it is to my mind really remarkable that greater breakdowns have not occurred. During the progress of the War the problems confronting the recruiting authorities materially changed. In its early stages men presented themselves for enlistment, and, in their desire to join the Army, if they had any physical defect, they did their best to conceal it. The early rush of recruits no doubt was very successful. Later on the position changed. Under the group system men persuaded the
      1936
      doctors of maladies very often fanciful and quite imaginary, and consequently they were rejected. That was brought to our observation fairly early in the period of the group system, and some means were devised for tightening up the machinery. It has been decided to make the conditions in regard to the armlets more stringent. It has been found in the case of a number of men who have had a second medical examination that they were "fit for general service."
      It has been said that the medical standard has been reduced. I should like to disabuse the minds of hon. Members of that. The standard has never been reduced; it remains the same. We have established medical boards in each military area of the country, by which we think that the medical examination has been materially improved, and the efficiency increased. We now are seeing that the standard is more strictly enforced, and some men who were previously accepted for military service by the medical practitioners have been rejected by those medical boards. The next step is that of trying to conserve the men. We realise that this War is a war of attrition, and is particularly a war of attrition of men. It became evident that we should have to do what we could to save those who were medically fit from doing what might be called supplementary duties not involving such a great strain as that of fighting at the front, and substitute for them men less fit who would discharge those supplementary duties, and so release men fit for actual fighting. We therefore instituted a process of grading men and putting them into categories. Last July we accepted men for garrison duty, and now we are accepting for various military corps such as the Military Ordnance Corps and the Army Service Corps, men who would not be fit to fight at the front line, and thereby we are able to release the first-rate men for these means men have been placed in the Reserve for various duties, and some of them may never be called upon unless the situation becomes worse than we have any reason at the moment to believe likely. By these means, by putting men into the Reserve and not calling upon them, their businesses are not interfered with, and they are able to return to their homes. It has been suggested in this House that by means of grading and putting them into categories the men have been tricked and cajoled to get them into the Army.

      1937
      I am afraid that has been done in some cases—I know it has—but I have one my best to see that it is put right. I have issued instructions by which, I hope very much, nothing of the kind can occur in the future. It has not occurred within the last week, and in any case where real injustice has been done I hope it will be put right.
      There remains the question of the conscientious objector. However much one may sympathise with and admire the man of deep religious motives who objects to combatant service, the man who shields himself behind a spurious conscience is, not to put too fine a point upon it, not a patriotic citizen. The duty of deciding whether a man is a true or counterfeit conscientious objector has been left—it was decided by the House—to the hands of the tribunals and their Appeal Courts. When their decision is made we wish to assist the tribunals by placing out work of national importance and non-combatant duties consistent with their dignity and advantage to the State. With this end in view we have established the Non-Combatant Corps, and we hope that many men will join. For members of the Society of Friends there is the Friends' Ambulance Unit, with which I associate the name of Sir George Neuman, who has done admirable work in this connection. That unit is prepared to find work for all the members of the Society of Friends. There is a great deal of useful work which non-combatants can perform both in France and this country, such as the repair of roads and railways, sanitation, the provision of huts and baths for soldiers coming out of the trenches, and the manufacture and provision of many necessaries of life.
      There has been a certain amount of agitation lately in the country over what is called the question of the married men. It has been considered that the pledge given by the Government that unmarried men should go first would not be kept if so many unmarried men are allowed to remain behind while married groups are called upon. I may say—I think it appeared in the Press this morning—that energetic steps are being taken by the Government to revise the list of reserved occupations, to revise the starred lists, and to reduce to the minimum those who are of military age and physique, who are unmarried, and who have to be kept at home to keep industries going, particularly the manufacture and production of
      1938
      munitions at home. Steps have been taken to reduce the number of those men to the minimum, and when I say that the Government are taking these steps, that is really all that should be expected of the Government. They have given this pledge, and I think the pledge will be carried out by that means. In any case, I can assure the House that the matter is engaging the most earnest attention of the Government and of my Noble Friend Lord Derby. They are, moreover, alive to the situation, and are not going to let the married men down.
      I come now to certain alterations that have been made in regard to recruiting. Certain arrangements have been made with regard to officers in the Army. It has been decided to modify the system whereby candidates for temporary commissions and commissions in the Special Reserve and Territorial Force are appointed and trained. Instead of a man being granted a commission first and subsequently receiving their elementary military training, the candidates for temporary commissions will in future be selected from non-commissioned officers and men who have served in the ranks, including the ranks of the Officers' Training Corps. They will be appointed as cadets to cadet units to undergo a course of training of about four months' duration. At the termination of the course those likely to prove efficient commanders will be granted commissions. Should a cadet prove himself unlikely to become an efficient leader, or unworthy of holding a commission, he will be returned to the ranks, or otherwise disposed of as the Army Council may direct. It is confidently anticipated that these measures will not only conduce to greater efficiency among the junior officers, but will result in a considerable financial saving. I now come to the question—
      Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to the next question, can he say whether recruiting has been satisfactory?
      Mr. TENNANT: I should not like to commit myself to the word "satisfactory." I would rather the right hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity to consider my answer more fully. The raising of such large Armies, of course, involves very difficult problems of housing the troops. Huts, billets, and camps, the equipment and training of officers and

      1939
      men, clothing, and munitions have all to be provided for on a gigantic scale. We have likewise to consider the needs and health of the troops, the sanitation of camps, and the question of rapid communication. We have had to supply general and special hospital accommodation for convalescent soldiers. All these things involve an enormous strain upon the Department. I should like to thank the other great Departments of the State, the Board of Education, the Local Government Board, and the Scottish Office, and the Board of Control for the assistance they have given. With them I also associate the Red Cross Society, the St. John's Ambulance Society, and many private individuals who have been so good in many cases to give us many buildings rent free and a very large amount of money. I should also like to notice the great cities like Bradford, Leeds, and Huddersfield who, of their own free will, have actually provided and equipped hospitals, while other places like Bath, for example, have provided equipment. A very influential Committee of the Institute of Civil Engineers was invited by the War Office to visit and report on all these works in progress, as, for instance, the Huddersfield camp, and so on. These gentlemen have given their valuable services gratuitously, and have visited all the principal works and submitted a most valuable, and, on the whole, very favourable report.
      The next question to consider is the clothing of the recruits and the provision of equipment generally—tools, and every kind of thing, including clothing, having to be considered. In order to do this, in the case of these great Armies, we have had to deal with matters in a gigantic manner. There are five important articles of clothing, boots, shirts, socks, jackets, and trousers, of which the normal annual provision was 1,900,000, and we have provided up to now 117,090,000. That is not all. We have to provide an enormous number of stores and articles which in peace time would not have to be provided. For instance, we have had to provide three million goat and other skins in order to make fur-lined coats for the soldiers, besides having bought large numbers of fur coats in Canada and the United States; and, in addition to that, there was a large provision of articles for our Allies the Serbians. Again, in general stores, equipment of saddlery, harness, bedding, blankets, tools, techni-
      1940
      cal stores R.A. and R.E., the numbers we have had to find since the outbreak of War would have lasted in normal times 140 years. From the beginning of the War the Contracts Department has maintained the closest touch with the representatives of the Allied Governments on the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement. The Contracts Branch has not only had to buy for the British Army, but to act as adviser, and in many cases as buyer, for the Allies. All the Department's facilities have been placed at the disposal of the Allies to enable them to procure at reasonable prices all the supplies which this country could spare. This co-operation between the buying departments of the Allies has been extended in the last few months by centralizing, either with the Contracts Branch of the War Office or in purchasing agents acting for all the Allies, the purchase of stores needed by one or more of the Allied Governments. Thus purchases of wheat, meat, oats, hay, timber, and jute goods are now made through one single channel in each case on behalf of all the Allied Governments in a way which effectively prevents any possibility of rises of prices caused by unnecessary competition, and which enables some measure of control to be exercised over the markets of the world. Recently representatives of the Contracts Branch have visited France and inquired into the general methods and procedure of the French authorities in purchasing supplies.
      It may well be imagined, by anyone who thinks about it, that all this has led to great strain on the industries of this country. It has been found necessary to organise the industries as best we might for production, and also for the import of raw materials, and for the provision of transport and railway facilities, and to induce new firms to undertake manufacture and production, and firms which had never done so hitherto. In those cases assistance had to be given to some of those new firms, and machinery and labour, and in some cases capital had to be advanced. For these purposes we had to largely increase the army of inspectors. In many cases we have abandoned our old system of competitive tenders, and steps are being taken, as I indicated just now in regard to our Allies, for control of prices. For example, in the leather trade maximum prices have been fixed for long periods

      1941
      ahead, whatever the demands of the Department for harness or leather equipment or the prices of hides may be. In the jute trade the price of jute yarns and Hessian cloth required for sandbags and other purposes has been fixed both in the United Kingdom and in Calcutta. The effect of these measures and of the careful organisation of the, jute trade which has accompanied them has been that the Allies have secured all the supplies of bags they need at a price of 25 per cent., or more, less than the market price, with the result that on the whole purchase of bags a saving of at least £2,000,000 has been effected. It is interesting to note that, although the value and quantity of the purchases by the Contracts Department has increased a hundredfold or more, the Contracts Department itself has only been increased four and one-third times, which is a very striking figure. Finally, on this subject I would say we have had great assistance and advice from various trade organisations, such as the United Tanners' Federation, the Wholesale Clothiers' Association, the Boot Manufacturers' Association, the Flax Supply Association of Belfast, the Scottish Spinners' Association, the Indian Jute Mills Association, and from various chambers of commerce. We have had also the benefit of the knowledge and experience of some of the ablest business men in this country. Some of them are giving their whole time to the service of the Department. A small number of those who have been advising the Department for many months in an informal way have been constituted for some weeks into an Advisory Committee on Contracts. The members of this committee are constantly consulted individually on the points connected with the trades with which they are specially familiar, and the committee, as a whole, considers and advises on matters of general importance or involving points of special difficulty.
      I would ask to be allowed to pass now from the soldier fit for military service to the soldier who has been through the Army and is disabled in consequence of that service. I want first to disabuse the minds of hon. Members as to certain statements of a rather astounding nature which have been made. I have heard it said that the Army pension authorities have given no pensions for five illnesses—tuberculosis, frostbite, rheumatism, heart disease, and epilepsy. I know that that has been said, and a greater mistake
      1942
      could not be made. I will now give the figures. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of all cases?"] As to tuberculosis, there 'have been 1,932 cases pensioned at war rates and 1,208 rejected. In the case of frostbite there have been 306 admitted to pension at war rates—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many rejected?"]—and none rejected. In the case of rheumatism there have been 891 pensioned. In the cases of rheumatism, heart disease, and epilepsy no doubt there may have been some rejected, but I have not been able to get the figures as it would require an enormous amount of inquiry. There have been actually passed for pension 891 cases of rheumatism, 1,431 of heart disease, and 210 of epilepsy. So that I hope hon. Members will realise it is quite untrue to suggest that these cases are not fully considered and dealt with as far as possible.
      Mr. HOGGE: There are thousands of cases.
      Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to my statement. I am aware we have encountered some criticism, because it has been stated that men who were in the Army and who were willing to risk their lives on behalf of the country have been invalided out of the Army and have not been granted pensions. It is said that 12,000 men who would have given their lives for their country are now wandering about the country without a farthing to live upon. I want to state the case as frankly and as dispassionately as I possibly can. It is known, I hope, that soldiers discharged from the Army on account of wounds or injuries or sunstroke received in connection with or in the performance of military duty, or for blindness caused by military duty, or disease due directly and wholly to military service are given pensions at full rate. There remain the cases not covered by those terms, that is the cases of men who are discharged from the Army for disease which has been aggravated by service, and the cases of disease which was neither caused nor aggravated by the service. I think the House will agree with me that it would be improper to pension men whose illness was neither caused nor aggravated by service out of the public funds. But I think the case of the man whose illness has been aggravated, although it was not caused by military service, is in a different category. It may be said that none of these men should be in the Army, and

      1943
      that they ought never to have got there. My answer to that, as I have already indicated is, that during the first rush of recruits to the Colours it was not possible to ascertain in every case that there was some organic trouble.
      Mr. HOGGE: They are accepting them flow.
      Mr. TENNANT: I absolutely deny that that is so. The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the same thing is going Am now. It is not, so far as it is humanly possible to ascertain whether there is any disease present. Some of these men did their best to conceal their ailments, some from the very best motives, because they wished to fight for their country, and others for different motives. For instance, the Chelsea Board had on the 24th February sixty cases brought up for consideration of men who had been discharged. Although they had served from seven months to a year not one of them had done any military training, not even drill. Those were men who had been determined to get into the Army in order to get free hospital accommodation, and who have been in hospital the whole time since. I say that no claim lies in such cases. Hon. Members may say, of course, that the doctor ought not to have passed such men, but I should like hon. Members who are so accurate themselves to realise that other people may make mistakes. It has been the habit of the Chelsea Board to pension those men whose cases of illness have been aggravated by service and to recommend from 4s. 8d. to 7s. per week. The Government, having given some consideration to those figures, have decided that that is not an adequate pension. We have decided to make a very great rise. We realise that there is some responsibility on the State in this matter for the disabled condition of the soldier, though it is not fully responsible. In order to meet that as precisely as we possibly can we have decided to give to those disabled men whose cases are cases of aggravation, not a full pension; but four-fifths of a full pension, which I think is very generous.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will that be retrospective?
      Mr. TENNANT: I would rather not answer that question without notice. I do not think a decision has been reached on that point. It is being carefully con-
      1944
      sidered. Perhaps the hon. Member will put forward points which he wishes to make on that problem which I recognise is an important consideration in relation to this matter. I hope the House will agree that this is treatment which is not ungenerous. It will involve a heavy charge on the public funds, but in spite of our desire for economy it is widely felt that we ought not to effect economy at the expense of men who, whatever may have been their physical imperfections when they joined the Army, have, at any rate, expressed their wish to serve their country. We have recently issued an Order with the object of providing employment for disabled soldiers, and also in order to provide labour for those employers who are crying out for workmen. That Order, which was issued only on the 10th March, states that when any Regular or Territorial soldier is discharged a report is to be rendered forthwith by the officer in command of the records concerned to the general manager of the Labour Exchange Department of the Board of Trade in order that his name may be registered, with all particulars, showing the cause of his discharge, his occupation before enlistment, the nature of his injuries, and his special qualifications for any particular form of employment in civil life. I have a copy of the form here. It is hoped by this means to give the wounded soldier employment at the earliest possible moment, and at the same time to contribute something towards the solution of the industrial problem with which we are now confronted.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Will the soldier's pension be cut down if he gets work?
      Mr. TENNANT:I hope not. That is a point, of course, but I cannot answer on the spur of the moment, I come now to another branch of the administration of the Department with which I am connected--a branch which has created a good deal of stir, not only in this House, but also, I understand, in the Parliamentary Division of East Hertfordshire. If the House will allow me, I am going to deal with the air problem. I have been in consultation and constant communication with my military advisers on the subject of the defence of this country against hostile aircraft, and I am able to make some statements to the House which I hope will act as assurances and allay a certain amount of public anxiety. In the

      1945
      first place, it is a great mistake to suppose that we are not fully seised of the importance of the aerial defences of the country. It is quite wrong to suppose that the Government have ever considered this problem as one of secondary importance; on the contrary, we look upon it as one of first importance. It is useless, for instance, to increase the strength of your Armies abroad if the bases from which they draw their munition supplies are laid in ruins by the action of hostile aircraft. The best guns and the best gunners must be obtained and employed on the all-important duty of protecting these bases. Personnel thus employed are just as much on active service as their comrades in France; as a matter of fact, they are interchangeable, and are drafted abroad and back again as circumstances dictate.
      The second point I would make is that the provisions for defence in this country are really military operations of great importance, and they, just as much as any operations in the field, and possibly even more so, depend for their success on secrecy. The first question the House would naturally ask is, "In what manner are you providing for this defence?" The first matter is, therefore, intelligence—that is, how do we know that an aerial attack is contemplated or about to begin? Intelligence is a matter of a very delicate character and cannot be discussed in public. The second question one would naturally ask is, "What provision has been wade in regard to anti-aircraft guns?" I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. The position in regard to anti-aircraft guns, though no doubt it leaves a great deal to be desired, is better to-day than it has ever been. We have also provided at Shoeburyness, in order to train gunners, a school where a large number of officers and men are being taught to perform the difficult task of shooting at objects in the air. Shoeburyness, as the House will doubtless realise, possesses better facilities for training gunners than probably any other place. We have established an organisation of defences which for London is complete, and, for the provinces, is approaching completion. We have provided, for London, aeroplanes, landing places, and lights. I would like the House to realise that in this matter the possibilities of provision for defence are unlimited. It is difficult to conceive of finality in such a provision, but for Lon-
      1946
      don we have completed the defences on an agreed scale, and we are proceeding now to apply that scale to the rest of the country. When that has been completed, and as more material becomes available, we shall raise the standard and go on improving it.
      Mr. LYNCH: What is the exact meaning of the word "complete"? Does it mean that Zeppelins will be prevented from coming?
      Mr. TENNANT: I said that the organisation was complete, and that the defences were not in a complete state. In order to correct certain misapprehensions which exist, I want to say a word or two on the development of the Royal Flying Corps. When war broke out we naturally realised that a great expansion of the Flying Corps would become necessary. That expansion presented very considerable difficulties. The success of that expansion depended upon simultaneous development along four lines, every one of which was indispensable to the others, and the failure of one of which might wreck the whole scheme. Those four lines were the provision of aeroplanes, the provision of engines, the provision of mechanics, and the training of pilots. I will take them in that order. The supply of aeroplanes presented a double problem—the problem of design and the problem of supply. In this country our design at the outbreak of war was not inferior to that of any other nation, and during the War we have kept pace with the advances which have been made abroad, although we have always been handicapped by the engine question. The supply of aeroplanes presented serious difficulties. Before the War there were very few establishments prepared to undertake the manufacture of aeroplanes, and those establishments were not capable of any great or rapid expansion; moreover, they were dependent upon sub-contractors for many of the parts, particularly of metal. Therefore we had to find new contractors and to provide for them labour, machine tools, and raw material further, we had to see that the standard was not in any way lowered, but kept at the high level at which it had always been maintained. I am glad to say that all these difficulties have been met by the energy of the supply branch of the Aeronautics Directorate, and great help has been rendered by the Ministry of Munitions. The provision of aeroplanes may now be considered satisfactory; indeed,

      1947
      it is ahead of the other essentials, namely, the supply of engines and pilots.
      The supply of engines throughout the War has given us great anxiety. On the outbreak of war we were behind the French and the Germans in the manufacture of engines. Of the engines then available a large proportion, and those of the larger types, were required by the Royal Naval Air Service. Consequently the first squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps which took the field were equipped with engines chiefly of French design and of French manufacture. This problem was seriously attacked at once by the Navy and the Army, and great efforts were made. The House will realise that it is difficult for manufacturers to arrive at the production stage of engines. It is a long process. Nevertheless, a great proportion of the engines now are of British design and the great majority of them are of British manufacture. The real supply of high power British engines is now coming forward, and will produce a marked improvement almost at once, because we almost invariably have been under-powered. I should like the House to realise the interdependence of aeroplanes and engines. Although British designers produce an aeroplane equal, perhaps superior, to any other in the world, the provision is governed by the possibility of obtaining suitable engines, particularly in view of the tendency to increase the weights carried by aeroplanes in the way of machine guns, wireless telegraphy, photographic and other devices. Since the War began we have had to substitute for the original engines new engines of higher power, and those engines again are now being replaced by yet more powerful engines.
      With regard to mechanics, I am glad to say that we have been able to keep pace with the expansion of the Royal Flying Corps. Every squadron has a full complement of skilled men, whose quality, discipline and conduct leave nothing to be desired. In connection with this technical personnel we have received great assistance from the Ministry of Munitions. The supply of pilots, of course, presented a problem of the greatest difficulty. In August, 1914, a difficult decision had to be taken—a decision as to the proper distribution of the pilots between active duties in the field and training duties here at home. On the one hand, the Army in the field might suffer if we did not give them
      1948
      a sufficient quota of aeroplanes and pilots; on the other hand, expansion became impossible in this country unless we had instructors. All the civilian instructors joined either the Military or the Naval. Wing of the Flying Corps; therefore instructors had to be found from one of the Services. The decision then taken is now recognised to have been the right one. The number of pilots in the field was kept as low as possible, while every available pilot was kept at home for the purpose of training new pilots. Since the outbreak of war there has been a strong temptation to reverse that decision and to strengthen the squadrons in the field; but we have never departed from our original decision, and now I am glad to say we are reaping the reward of that policy. We are now producing every month as many pilots qualified for service in war as we were able to mobilise from our whole resources in August, 1914. This output will be largely increased in the near future. As to the quality of the pilots it is perhaps scarcely necessary for me to speak.
      I pass from that subject to the subject of the Territorial Force. No words that I could speak could add to or detract from the splendid fighting qualities which have been displayed by the Territorial Force. They have covered themselves with glory. It should be remembered that these men were enlisted for Home defence. Now they are to be found in France, Salonika, Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia. I think it may be fairly claimed that the Territorial system has amply justified itself. The only comment perhaps that need he made is as to the difficulty of providing reinforcements. We tried to meet this by the provision of a third line. This, however, did not always succeed owing to the men being locked up in watertight compartments. That matter, however, has now, we think been put right. Before we were not able to actually liquefy our assets where we ought to have been able so to do. The difficulty was in finding men, particularly from certain districts—some of which I know well—in Scotland, and also—as I dare say my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) will know well—in Wales, where the whole countrysides have been depleted of men. That process has gone on by the raising, in particular places, of local batteries and battalions, of companies of the Royal Engineers and of the Army Service Corps—patriotically

      1949
      raised by mayors and persons of importance in the countryside. This has added to the difficulties of finding reinforcements for the Territorial Force. In regard to the progress of the second-line units it is said to be most satisfactory in spite of certain initial difficulties. They are being trained now for duty in the field, or where they may be most required. Undoubtedly some of them will have to be retained at home, but many of them will go abroad to fight with their comrades.
      In the matter of the promotion of officers in the Territorial Force, that goes by roster of combined first, second, and third lines. But if an officer from the first line comes home wounded to the third line he takes his proper place according to seniority—that is to say, a lieutenant with three years' service would, on coming home, supersede a captain in the third line with one or two years' service. This system of promotion is, I think, as fair a one as could be devised. In two cases lately Territorial Force majors have, I am glad to say, been appointed to the command of new Army battalions in the field. Time-expired men of the Territorial Force have been willing to re-engage in a most satisfactory manner. As to cyclists' battalions and others who have been kept at home for urgent duties, and who have volunteered for foreign service, let me say that the War Office realise that they are performing service to the State at home as great perhaps as they would be in the field, or in any theatre of war. The class of officers we have obtained, it is well known, is very high. I should like to pay a tribute of praise to the men who have been billeted all over the Eastern Counties. We have heard nothing but praise of their conduct. I would add a word of recognition of those Territorial Force Associations who have done most splendid work since the beginning of the War. Many of my hon. Friends here are chairmen, or members, of these associations. They have never put obstacles in the way of any good measure; they have always been ready to help us in this emergency.
      Let me now deal with horses. We have a good and sufficient supply of horses. The purchases which we made in Canada and the United States have ceased. The purchases in the United Kingdom will be sufficient to provide for wastage, and thus the expenditure will be greatly reduced. For mules we shall still have to go to America and other countries. A vast
      1950
      amount of work has been done by the Veterinary Department of the War Office. There has been no hitch in the provision of medicines or veterinary equipment since the outbreak of the War. The average annual mortality among all animals of the British Farces is well under 10 per cent. per annum—an astonishing record, far surpassing that of any previous campaign.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Up till when?
      Mr. TENNANT: Up till the other day—I think the beginning of March. The average mortality on horse and mule freight ships carrying animals from Canada and America to England and Egypt, and from England to the Mediterranean has been for many months less than 1 per cent., a fact chiefly attributable to the adequate sanitary measures taken by the Army Veterinary Service to ensure the health of animals when shipped and their care on board ship.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Does that refer to all the horses that have been cast?
      Mr. TENNANT: That refers to the horses carried from America to England, and from Canada to England, and to Egypt and the Mediterranean.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the 10 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Gentleman include all the horses that have been cast?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. I think that is in fact all, but perhaps I had better not say so definitely.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there are sufficient horses in this country to make up the wastage?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. That is the information that I have conveyed to the House. In the matter of prisoners of war, various arrangements have been made with hostile Governments for the mutual exchange both of combatant and civilian prisoners of war. The general tendency has been to make the conditions easier. Arrangements for the transfer of sick and wounded prisoners of war from this country and Germany to Switzerland have been found possible, and have been made. Camps of prisoners of war throughout the Empire are at all times open to inspection by the American Ambassador, or members of the Consular Service. Camps in Austro-Hungary are similarly inspected on our behalf. The result of these inspections is that the conditions are distinctly better than they were a year ago, but the

      1951
      ration is still very scanty. Difficulties have been placed in the way of American representatives in Turkey and Bulgaria visiting prisoners of war. Negotiations are now in progress for the exchange of all British prisoners in Turkish hands. The United States Ambassador in Constantinople has urged that we should not take up the prisoners of war as a whole yet, but limit it at first to the question of combatants. The latest news as to our prisoners of war in Bulgaria is that they have been assembled at Philippopolis, and that American doctors have been put in medical charge of them. In a matter which has been discussed in another place, the question of posthumous honours, I recognise the force of the request, and sympathise with the desire of those who have had the sad misfortune to lose relatives, and who desire some kind of recognition of the valour of those who have gone. The matter is now being reconsidered with a view to seeing how far the present practice of bestowing posthumous honours—now limited to the Victoria Cross—can be extended. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is in consultation with the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the various theatres of war. I would remind the House that there is no regulation, only practice, barring such a grant. I desire to acquaint the House with a. letter I have received from Sir Douglas Haig, Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force in France. Sir Douglas Haig says:
      "The requirements of the forces in food, forage, clothing, equipment, and transport have been met from the outset with unfailing regularity, while the quality and quantity of what has been supplied have left nothing to be desired. Our forces in France have been increased from a couple of corps to a large Army; but the provision made for their well-being, whether in sickness or health, has continued to he all that could be wished. The result of the strenuous labour devoted to increasing and maintaining this Army is that all are in good health and good heart and confident of victory. In addition to everything else that has been done for the Army, neither myself nor those under my command fore-et what we owe to our sister Service for the safety and regularity with which the troops and their requirements have been transported across the sea under most trying conditions."
      Mr. ASHLEY: Was General Long responsible for all this.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. TENNANT: The Quartermaster-General's Department was certainly responsible. Sir Douglas Haig speaks of the troops being in good health. I am glad to say a word for the medical services. Since I last spoke I think it is fair to say that these services have been
      1952
      continued and almost perfected. The incidence of disease in France is low. There has been an entire absence of any epidemic. We owe our thanks to the many scientific men who by their energy and action in this matter, particularly in the matter of the prevention of disease, have helped to bring this about. We have received valuable aid from the Sanitary Committee to which I have before alluded. That Sanitary Committee has done splendid work, especially in Gallipoli, where we had the difficult task of meeting and counteracting tropical diseases. An outbreak of dysentery and diarrhoea caused very great anxiety. Fortunately we have now no anxiety in relation to the troops either in Salonika or Egypt. At home large convalescent hospitals have been established, and in the military hospitals at home men are being replaced by women. Fourteen hundred women have already asked for general service. We have to thank the Red Cross Society for this. We have also to thank between 5,000 and 6,000 women who have organised under voluntary aid detachments. This is all a wonderful fact. In order to obtain medical officers under conditions least harmful to the needs of the civil population and the great civil institutions, we have established a representative body of medical men in conjunction with the National Health Commissioners and the Local Government Board. This has done very valuable work. The medical profession in general have come forward in the most admirable manlier to meet the needs of the State. We have taken highly successful defensive measures against the gas attacks of the enemy. There have been established new medical Boards, as I indicated a little time ago, for the examining of recruits. Finally, the National Health Commissioners have taken up the question of the early treatment of tubercular cases removed from the Army. The medical service have done very great work. That is not my own opinion only. I should like to quote the opinion of a great surgeon, Sir Frederick Treves, who has had a wide experience, who went through the South African War and the Russo-Japanese War, and who also, I would remind the House, was at one time a critic of the War Office. Sir Frederick says:
      "Those who are familiar with the medical dispositions in the South African war will find in this campaign an advance in the medical services so great and so wide extending as to amount to an actual revolution. Not only has the sick and

      1953
      wounded soldier never been so well cared for in any campaign as in the present, but it is difficult to suggest in what way his welfare could be further promoted."
      Sir Frederick takes a couple of illustrations. He says:
      "We should note in the first instance such an advanced dressing station as that at Les Brebis. The place is a mining village well within range of the enemy's fire. Indeed, some twenty shells had fallen into the area on the morning of our visit. The hospital is a building which was used by the miners as an entertainment hall. This hall makes an excellent ward, provided with every necessary detail. Attached is a small, carefully equipped operation room, where operations of an urgent nature—such as the arrest of haemorrhage—could be carried out. Here also wounds may be cleansed and redressed, fractures more comfortably adjusted and injections of anti-tetanic serum given. Close at hand were two dug-outs into which patients could be taken if the shelling threatened the building. The whole station was simple, efficient and exactly equipped for its limited purpose. There was nothing lacking and yet nothing superfluous, and the feature of extreme mobility was kept prominently in mind."
      Reference is made to clearing stations, and he alludes to one at Bailleul:
      "From a surgical point of view, these clearing stations represent the most important items in the general scheme for the treatment of the sick and wounded. They are as near the front as they can be placed, they are readily accessible from the advanced dressing stations, while they are in direct touch with the base either by a line of rail or by a. good main road. The tents are well warmed by stoves and well lit by electric light, while the operating theatre is as well-found as any in a civil hospital of its size. The huts at Remy and the wards at Bailleul could compare with the wards of any good civil hospital in England.
      To these clearing stations wounded men can be brought in a few hours, and it is needless to point out that in the severest gunshot wounds prompt attention is the main factor in the saving of life and limb. In many cases a man in need of a grave operation has found himself on the operating table within three or four hours of his being shot. We were told of instances in which operations upon the skull and the abdomen had been carried out within two and a half hours of the receipt of the wound. Such prompt attention could not be obtained by a wounded civilian in any rural district in England. The patient not only finds himself in an operating theatre, equipped with the best and most recent appliances, but in the case of every one of these hospitals he finds himself in the hands of an operating surgeon of the first order. The value of such service cannot be exaggerated. At the same time the patient has the advantage of the regular and frequent visits of a consulting surgeon of European reputation. Moreover, the nursing in these stations is of the highest type, being carried out by the Army Nursing Sisters.
      It must he remembered that a great number (and often the greater number) of the patients arrive at night and that, over and over again, operations are carried out the whole night through. It must be noted also that vast shell wounds require constant and elaborate dressing that absorbs much time and can only be carried out by the surgeon himself. At Lapugnoy, with its 376 beds, no less than 2,000 casualties were dealt with in one day. We found that at the clearing station at Bailleul the vast number of 61,000 sick and wounded had passed through the hospital since it was opened, while the number of major operations reached to over 1,000.
      In the hospitals we visited we found on all sides evidence that the sick and wounded soldier has the advantages of the latest advances in surgical
      1954
      science, the most modern equipment and the most recent developments in bacteriological work."
      I have seen these clearing stations. I have visited them with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, and have watched the ambulance wagons coming in, and seen the wounded taken out. I have watched until I could watch them no longer, and I have asked the officer who took me round to take me away, as I could not stand it. These are the men who are risking their lives day by day and hour by hour in the trenches for the great cause for which we are fighting. These are the men who have answered the call, "Your King and Country need you." Could there be a greater call to any man at any time? Yet there are others—thank Heaven a minority—who would pass these words by as a poster which has served its day by summoning others. I would ask the House, are we happy that the men who sprang to their country's call should die in France and Flanders, while every effort is made by Press, pulpit, platform, and poster to make these other men undertake these duties, and join their comrades in the fight for their country? Some there are who express sympathy with the difficulties found by these men. They are tender to those difficulties—in my judgment, too tender. I would appeal to them, before they give expression to that sympathy, to count its effect upon the waverers and its cost to the Army. A terrible responsibility lies upon them in giving such encouragement, for to encourage wavering and waverers at home is to dishearten the soldier in the field. I would say, let us send the soldier a different message, in which there is no word of wavering or waverers, but only a determination to respond to the iron of his resolve by the iron of our own.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has concluded a very interesting address with some very eloquent words, with which, I am sure, the whole House will agree. I listened to the whole of his remarks with the greatest attention, and I think I made note of all the subjects to which he referred. He did his best, and I think he succeeded, if I may venture to say so, in interesting the House in the topics which he selected. He presented them to the House as fully and with as little reserve as the interests of the public require, and, within those limits which he laid down for himself and for us, I am sure he afforded us the fullest information he could. But, after

      1955
      all is said and done, I am quite certain the 1-louse feels there has been an atmosphere of unreality over this Debate, just as there vas an atmosphere of unreality over the Naval Debate. Just look at the topics which my right hon. Friend took at the inception of his remarks. He began by saying he was unable to give us the numbers who had enlisted in the Army. We know within what limit, roughly speaking, those numbers are. They are something less than four millions. I doubt very much whether any public purpose is really served by withholding from this House the actual number of men who have been enlisted for service. My right hon. Friend has from time to time, with the greatest candour and the greatest usefulness, told this House and the country the number of men killed, wounded, injured, and missing in the service of the Crown. I think that number now amounts to something like 600,000. The numbers on the Western front, in Egypt and in Mesopotamia are, approximately, known to the enemy, just as the numbers of the enemy are approximately known to us. What useful purpose is served by withholding from the House the closely approximate numbers of the men who have enlisted and gone to the front in various parts of the field? I have never heard any useful purpose suggested. It is merely a policy of reticence, which, believe me, is not justified by any useful purpose so far as the purposes of the campaign are concerned.
      Then my right hon. Friend went on to speak about the methods of recruiting, and he dealt with the recruiting problem very much from the point of view of the discussion which took place in this House upon the Military Service Bill. I do not think he added to our knowledge. He expanded one or two of the details, but, beyond making some general observations on the point, I do not think he really gave the House any useful information upon the subject. He went from that to a dissertation on the Friends' Ambulance Corps, the preliminary training of officers, and then he came to a subject on which he gave us actual figures. He told us his Department had produced 3,000,000 goatskins for the Army. If you can tell us that, I really do not see why you should not tell us the actual number of men who are to wear those skins.
      Mr. TENNANT: I said we gave some to the Serbians.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are a certain number to be deducted for Serbia. The actual numbers in small matters can be given, and why not tell us the actual numbers of men?
      Mr. TENNANT: There is a very good answer to the whole of the passage of my right hon. Friend's speech. One thing the Germans want to know more than anything else is not only the Army in round numbers, but the particular units they may have to meet, and it is of vast importance that we should not let them have any information by which they can form anything like a conjecture what those units may be.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Nobody in this House or anywhere else asks the particular number of units. All that is asked for are—and, believe me, there are things happening outside this House, as well as inside, which, I think, will force the Government to give these details—not meticulous details of units, but the general figures both for the Army and the Navy. We know, I think, exactly how many men are found for the Navy. It is only as to the Army that this reticence is observed. My right hon. Friend went on to a most important subject, and he gave us some most satisfactory information with regard to pensions for men invalided out of the Service. I think that part of his statement was exceedingly useful and exceedingly reassuring, and that everybody will feel the War Office has done its duty generously and well. He went on to talk about aviation, and I am bound to say, in view of the events of the past few days, he did not give us so much information as I thought he might well have afforded to the House. The numbers of personnel, the numbers of the guns employed, were not, he said, a subject which could be usefully or properly discussed in public. Let us. agree. Then what is the good of mentioning the subject of aviation at all, if you are not to deal with the details which make that service useful against the attack of the enemy or reassuring to the public who are attacked in this country? I think there is very much to be said from my right hon. Friend's point of view. I do not think in public you can discuss those details. I do not think you can tell the newspapers of this country where guns are stationed, how many there are, what quality they are, what size they

      1957
      are, what shells they use, and all those various details, without which generalities are really of no use at all, and, while they occupy a certain portion of the time of this House, I do not think they serve any other purpose whatever. The same thing may be said with regard to the information about the Territorial Force, horses, prisoners, and so forth, and the various subjects with which my right hon. Friend dealt.
      It was not until my right hon. Friend came quite to the end of his remarks that he gave us something, a generality, which was reassuring. He read out a message from the General Officer Commanding the British Expeditionary Force in France, in which he said the supply of food, forage, etc., in France had been ample and satisfactory in every particular. Well, it is useful to know that. It is very useful to know that in some particulars, but, after all, that statement might have been made to the House without going through all the form and ceremony of presenting Estimates to the House which, indeed, are token Estimates, but which represent, on the information given to the House by the Under-Secretary, an expenditure of something like £1,000,000,000. I think that is about the figure which this token Estimate represents—£3,000,000 a day. It does not matter very much whether it is £1,000,000,000 or £700,000,000. The figures are portentous, and they are presented in an indeterminate fashion which makes it difficult for us to follow. With regard to all the really serious questions connected with the War which have arisen since the right hon. Gentleman presented his last Estimates, I do not think he has said much that is useful. Look at the topics with which he could have dealt, and with which he ought to have dealt, in this House! There is the whole of the Gallipoli campaign and the expedition to Mesopotamia. With regard to the latter expedition, the news which has filtered through during the course of the last fortnight is calculated to fill us with very serious alarm as to the condition both of the besieged and the relieving force on the Tigris. With regard to Salonika, however satisfactory the position may be out there, this House, which provides the men for it, is in total darkness as to what is really going on there. Since the right hon. Gentlemen presented his last Estimates two great battles have occurred on the Western front, one at Neuve Chapelle and the other at Loos. With respect to
      1958
      the latter, in no action fought by British arms in the whole history of the British Empire has there been such a tremendous loss of men and such a doubt thrown upon the qualifications of the generals commanding that action as that which occurred at the Battle of Loos. Then there is the conduct of the expedition in Egypt. Whether or not it is wise to retain in that country so large a force as is retained there—that is a subject which ought to be discussed in this House.
      Take as another example the expedition to East Africa. That expedition, which was began under rather had auspices, has now taken new force and direction under the conduct of General Smuts, and it is developing apparently in a manner satisfactory to us. There is another subject which is absolutely and directly germane in the narrowest possible sense of the word, to this discussion There has been a very considerable reorganisation in the War Office of which the newspapers have sketched out one or two of the most important details. It is clear that within that office a very considerable alteration both in method and manner has taken place upon which this House might have been consulted and asked to pronounce an opinion. It is quite impossible, within the limits of what my right hon. Friend has to say, and within the limits of what I have to say, and any other hon. Members who wish to take part in this discussion, to discuss all these details in public when people are so ready to take advantage of anything that filters through from this House, or from statements made by Ministers, to the Continent and to the enemy. Take so small a subject as that of aviation. My right hon. Friend made some remarks about engines, and in that respect it would have been possible to have supplied a comment upon the things which my right hon. Friend said which might have given the House quite another idea as to the activities of his office in connection with the supply of engines. In this respect I am bound to hold my tongue in criticism, just as the right hon. Gentleman was bound to refrain from explaining all the activities of his Department in connection with that science, but it is not in the interest, either of the country or the right hon. Gentleman's Department, that so much silence should be observed, and it is not to the advantage of the public.
      I think the House of Commons has been extraordinarily loyal to the Government since the Coalition Government was

      1959
      formed. I do not suppose there is a single private Member, whatever his status, who has not observed what to me is an undesirable reticence in regard to criticism, because he does not wish to say or do anything which will weaken the Executive Government when the nation is in a state of great peril. Nevertheless, I think we call carry that reticence too far, and it is not to the advantage of the country or the Government. It is quite clear that in the country and in this House there is both anxiety and restiveness as to the proceedings of the Government in the conduct of the war and in connection with the supply of men and munitions in the larger sense. The last Liberal Government was removed, as everybody knows, by a newspaper campaign, and I think it may be quite possible that this Government will fall to another campaign conducted, perhaps, not from the same sources, but from the same cause, and I think it will be greatly to the disadvantage of this country if such powers were discovered in the country which can put an end to Governments at ther own will in the middle of a crisis of international disturbance such as we have never known, and I will do nothing and say nothing which in any way will endanger the position of the present Government, and anything I do say is for assisting the Government and not for hurting it. There are in this House at this moment committees organised, one by the Conservative party and one by the Liberal party whose nominal intention is to strengthen the conduct of the War, but the result of whose action is not to strengthen but to weaken the Executive. We have had within the last few days the same symptoms throughout the country, and you have had a candidate in one of the Home counties, supported by both Liberal and Conservative organisations who has been soundly trounced, although he has had the support, officially and unofficially, of both great parties in the State. I believe if the Government had put Members of the House of Commons in possession of the facts with regard to aviation of what they had done and what they were trying to do, and precautions they had taken, this alarm would not have arisen in the way it has done.
      It has now come to a head in respect of aviation. Are you quite so sure it is not going to come to a head in respect of other things? We have had a most optimistic account as to the supply of horses and clothing and all the rest of it, but a good
      1960
      many of us could tell the public a different tale if we were free to speak. The public may decide to take this matter into their own hands again, and the result will be that you will get a regular opposition formed in this House and the country, whose main object will be to remove the present Government and substitute something else for it. I do not in the least agree with many of the actions of the Government, but I would not do anything which would disturb its position. What is the remedy In two of the great countries which are combatants in this War, France and Germany, Parliament meets in secret session and. the members are made acquainted with the general situation of the Armies and the requirements of those Armies on the different fronts. The French Chamber does this by means of committees, whose action largely controls the action of the Minister in charge of the Department. I think that is a very bad system, because it weakens the Executive and divides the responsibility, and I do not think that promotes good administration. Nevertheless, it keeps the Deputies in the French Parliament acquainted with the actualities of the situation, and there is not a single person who can point to any leakage of information from the French Chamber in consequence. The same thing happens in Germany, but in a different way. There the German Reichstag meets in secret Session. There statements are made by the Chancellor and various Ministers, and the members of the Reichstag are made acquainted with all that goes on, and yet there is not any leakage of information. There are a good many things we should like to know with regard to the conduct of the War in Germany, but neither the War Office nor the Admiralty can boast that they have been able to obtain information from members of the Reichstag or through any communications from them.
      What is useful to Germany and France surely cannot be harmful here. In this House hon. Members are not more treacherous than members of the Reichstag or the Deputies in the French Chamber. What is the reason why the representatives of the people here are to be less trusted than the representatives of the people in France and Germany? This is not a new doctrine which I have adopted since I have been standing on this side of the Table, because I stated my views in previous years on this question when I sat on the other side of the Table. This

      1961
      is not a Government war, but it is a national and racial war, in which we are all profoundly interested, and I am certain that unless you take the representatives of the people into your confidence and tell them far more than you have done, you will get an explosion of public feeling in this country which, although it may not sweep away the Government, may do infinite harm to the cause of the Allies. It is perfectly easy to say that it is not in the public interest to say this or that, but the public may force it from you whether you like it or not, and if it is forced from you and you have to get it by force majeure, it will not be in the interests of this country, but in the interests of the enemy; whereas, if you communicate that information confidentially to your fellow Members of the House of Commons, who are the representatives of the people, you get not merely their confidence, but through them you will obtain the confidence of the people of this country, and that is an asset which alone will sustain the Government of this country in the successful prosecution of the War.
      Mr. GEORGE THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion this afternoon is so uniformly courteous and has so much laborious work in his office that it becomes a thankless task to appear to criticise him, and in any remarks I may venture to offer I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the spirit in which they are made is exactly that manifested by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken; the desire is to help rather than to hinder the Government. I shall only refer to three aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which to my mind did not seem quite so clear as I should have liked. The first is in regard to the single men who have attested or will come under the operation of the Military Service Act. I suppose we are all somewhat dissatisfied with the results. I take it the experience I have personally had as representative of my Constituency is very much the same as the experience of almost every other Member of the House, or, at any rate, of those who represent industrial constituencies. I have had representations made to me as to the number of attested men—the very small number—who have found themselves available for the Army. I suppose private Members have to exhibit the same reticence. as Members of
      1962
      the Ministry, and therefore I do not propose to quote any figures, but I may say that the small proportion of men available for the Army out of the number attested in industrial districts is a matter of grave concern.
      As a result of the representations which have been made to the authorities certain steps have resulted. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that steps are being taken to secure that every individual man shall be examined in order to learn whether he is not available for the Army and more useful there than in munition factories. I will ask the President of the Local Government Board, or anyone who may rise to speak on behalf of the Government, exactly what is going to be done. For the satisfaction of the general public, and particularly of the married men, I will ask him to state in detail what steps are going to be taken in order that every man who can be spared shall be brought into the Army and used for military purposes. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is a very strong feeling on this matter in the country, and I agree with the right lion. Gentleman who last spoke that it is one of those matters which require most earnest and anxious consideration on the part of the Government, or else it may have a very grave effect upon them and upon the future of the War.
      Then I would like to ask this further question. A large number of married men who have attested under the Derby scheme have done so, not only because of the statement made by the Prime Minister—a statement which I for one am fully confident the Prime Minister most absolutely desires to carry into full effect—but they have also done so because of a certain sense of faith that their fellow married men in the country would do the same. I have, from the personal experience of those with whom I have discussed the matter, gathered that they deemed it was their patriotic duty to submit their claims—although they felt that their circumstances did not justify their giving themselves to the Army—they deemed it their duty to submit their claims to the tribunal, and they considered that other married men ought to do the same thing, so that there should be some fairness, some equality, and some sense of proportion between the married men in this country. I would like, therefore, to ask whether any inducement can be put forward so that married men who have not

      1963
      attested shall join up with the married men who have attested in bringing their cases before the tribunal, which will then have a fairer chance of dealing with the respective claims of all the men.
      The next point I would like to put is this. Is there not a middle course in regard to these married men—a course other than absolutely taking them entirely away from their businesses and their homes, and, possibly, destroying both home and business, with results which must be disastrous to them and to the trade of the country as well? I venture respectfully to ask, under the circumstances, whether we have really arrived at that stage in the history of the War where it is vital to the country to take these married men right away from their business and their homes? Is there no possible modification which can be made? Some say that these married men are whining. I do not regard their attitude as such. I know many of them. I believe that, from the very first start, these married own have been as keen as the young and unmarried men to take part in serving their country. But they realise that they have homes, and personal and business responsibilities, which make it wrong for them, to offer themselves unless the circumstances of the country are such that it is absolutely vital they should do so. They have shown that they are only too anxious to serve their country if they can, but they point out, very reasonably, the responsibilities which rest upon them, and therefore to say that any of them are whining is to make a most unfair charge. They are, indeed, as patriotic and devoted to their country's welfare as any of the men who have already joined, but the man who is the father of a family, who has a wife and children dependent upon him. who has large business responsibilities and relatives who look to him for support, has to think not only once, but twice and even thrice before he offers himself, and he has to make absolutely sure that the time has arrived when the country cannot be properly served without his being brought into the Army.
      I respectfully submit whether there is not a middle course in regard to many of these men who are anxious to serve their country—a course which would avoid the difficulties to which I am alluding. If this burden has to be accepted, it cannot be
      1964
      borne by the married men alone. The country must step in. Something in the direction of a moratorium has been suggested, but I have not yet seen any suggestion of that kind which meets the case. There is a suggestion that we should follow the French example, but that does not seem to me adequate. If a man is relieved of paying his rent for two years or so, he still has to pay it some time or other, and in the meantime the burden falls heavily upon the landlord, who is unable to get the rent to which he is entitled. It seems to me that if these men are to be spared and their homes and businesses endangered, the nation will have to step in and incur a burden of responsibility which some of us hardly like to think of in addition to the burdens we are already under.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that these observations are hardly in order, as the hon. Member's suggestion would involve legislation.
      Mr. THORNE: I was going to ask whether they would be in order, and I would point out that this is an administrative rather than a legislative matter. What has been suggested to me is this, that marries men, instead of being called up for the whole time, which may destroy their business and their homes, should be trained so as to be ready for any emergency later on. They could be made thoroughly qualified men if they were called up for, say, three days a week and trained in their immediate locality. And I submit that that is an administrative rather than legislative matter which would come well within the control of the War Office.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was not referring to that, I was alluding to the question of the moratorium.
      Mr. THORNE: I was not desiring to suggest we should adopt the proposal for a moratorium; on the contrary, I was trying to point out it was utterly inadvisable to adopt it. The measure which I suggest instead is one on administrative lines, and I submit it could be followed on those lines and would be in the interests of the country. It has been suggested, and I am only pointing it out as a suggestion—I think it is the duty of every Member of this House to try and share the responsibility with the Government so far as is possible by making practical suggestions in order to help them to meet a difficult and critical situation—the suggestion is

      1965
      whether it would not be possible administratively to arrange that many of these married men, who would gladly accept the modified arrangement, should be called up for three days a week—on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays—in their own immediate locality and thoroughly trained, so as to qualify themselves. They would then have four days weekly in which they could attend to their business and keep their homes together, and they would relieve the Government of a very heavy burden of debt and taxation, and they would be ready when it became absolutely necessary to go into the Army to serve their country by fighting in the field, a duty for which they would be thoroughly qualified. It seems to me that in some method such as this we have a way in which this most difficult and critical situation can be met.
      I offer the suggestion and I earnestly trust that the President of the Local Government Board may be able to give us some satisfaction and some help on the points I have mentioned. I would venture in my concluding words to remind the Government that this question is already agitating the country in a way I have not seen it agitated throughout the whole course of the War. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that both the present and the late Government have received marvellous support, but there is now a feeling of agitation and doubt growing, which I believe can be removed by the plan I have referred to. I hope therefore that, in the interests of the Government and of the nation, the suggestion which I have ventured to make will be sympathetically considered.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I ask the indulgence which I know this House always extends to a Member when he first rises, and I claim that indulgence because of the somewhat peculiar circumstances which are responsible for my appearance in this House. Within an hour or two of taking the oath at that Table I am on my feet, fulfilling what I know to be a duty to my Constituents and to the country. It would not be fitting, and I know it is not done, that I should drag the dust, or rather I should say the dirt, of a hotly-contested by-election into the comparative calm and cleanliness of this House. I will touch one personal note. I left the Royal Naval Air Service because I felt that, unless someone came to this House with a weight of authority which only a con
      1966
      stituency can give him, the Air Service would continue to be a byword among its members and a subject of almost tragic mirth in its efforts to defend this country. I have listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War and to what he has said in regard to the Air Service, and I have but one remark to make now. I fancy—indeed, I am sure—he is most grievously misinformed.
      Eighteen months ago, when the material at the disposal of the Royal Naval Air Service was something like one-twentieth of what it is to-day, we succeeded in raiding Zeppelin bases and carrying the air war into the enemy's country, proving thereby that although our material was lacking, our personnel was such as that we were able to carry out these raids successfully. I therefore definitely join issue with the First Lord of the Admiralty in his statement that the lack of material is responsible for our present policy of masterly inactivity and deplorable delay in answering the challenge of the enemy in the air. For the first six months of this war our Air Service was rich in leadership and poor in material. During the last six months we have been somewhat richer in material, but infinitely poorer in leadership. The six months' gap, a sort of Tom Tiddler's ground of time, which existed between these two definite periods was devoted to internal intrigue and consequent service bitterness. This deplorable condition of affairs is directly responsible for the present impotence and inefficiency of the service.
      I contend that the crux of the whole question at the present moment, so far as the Air Service is concerned, is one of personnel. I mean personnel in its broadest sense, beginning with the chief. His appointment should not be a mere political concession, but should be the creation of a definite leadership, carrying with it the support and confidence and loyalty of the entire service. By "personnel" I mean also the human material, which must be the sound heart of such a service. Once we get the right man you will see the personnel grow, you will see the material grow, and you will see a vigorous offensive take the place of the huddled impotence which we see to-day. The House may be surprised if I ignore the recent hurried efforts of the Government to patch and potter the two Air Services. The appointment of yet another Departmental Committee, with at its head a

      1967
      Noble Lord who cheerfully disclaims both authority and power, I assure you, moves me but little, and I also assure you leaves the country cold. I had in mind to place before this House my own detailed proposals for the immediate strengthening of our power in the air and for the creation of an Imperial Air Service worthy of our Imperial power, but I have been advised that in the open secrecy of air discussions it might be difficult for me to say all that I would say, having in view our national interests, and I propose, when the adjourned air debate, which I understand this House has received a promise will take place, is resumed to deal fully and freely with all the facts, figures, suggestions, and proposals that I may humbly make. If, as the youngest, and perhaps I may say the newest, Member of this House, I might venture to make a general criticism, I would say that if we had such committees as are to be found in the French Chamber it would be an easy matter for me to lay before the Members all that confidential information and all those technical facts relating to our present dangerous position, and to point a way out, and I feel sure the service would take kindly to such action. It would mean that there would be no more delay, and at least it might possibly save the words "Too late" being written across yet another page of the history of this War.
      We can strike now in the matter of aerial offence, and I say that we must strike now. I do earnestly appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to pay no heed to so-called religious scruples of any members of the Board of Admiralty, but to take his courage in both hands and issue orders, definite orders, that all the existing material which we have should be immediately employed in raids over the enemy country. I am quite sure that we have the material. I do not propose to give this House facts and figures unless I am challenged. I quite appreciate what a mark a Zeppelin shed is—bigger than a battleship and more vulnerable than the Crystal Palace. We possess machines to reach these sheds which house not only a pest of the night, but that which has proved itself to be the eye of the German Navy. We hear and read of a new Trafalgar and there are rumours of a coming naval raid. Is it too much to ask that our Grand Fleet should cease to be handicapped in its movements by this never-ceasing flow of information conveyed to
      1968
      the German Admiralty by these spies in the air? We must exterminate these Zeppelins and we can exterminate them. As one so recently an officer in the service, I do not propose, as I have said before, unless challenged to give any facts or figures, but speaking with a full sense of responsibility, I say that we have all the material ready to initiate air raids on a very great scale. When we consider that twelve months ago last November we partly destroyed a Zeppelin factory at Friedrichshaven with three machines which would now be looked upon as old-fashioned and out-of-date, three pilots, and eleven bombs, and when we consider that to-day we have a hundred times as many machines, a hundred times as many pilots, that our bombs are much more efficient than then, and that our machines are capable of carrying loads of explosives something between four and ten times as great as then, is it to be wondered that the public become slightly indignant that no action is taken? I assure you that our people are ready to make any sacrifice in this War, but they are not prepared to remain in darkness while our rulers remain indifferent. It has been suggested by, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War that we have not the machines and we have not the pilots. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that we have not the pilots, I shall be very pleased to introduce him, within the next twenty-four hours, to a hundred of them. If he tells me that we have not the machines, I am prepared there, too, to lead him to them by the hand. If he tells me that we have not the bombs, then, with your permission, I will put them on the Table of this House.
      I would beg hon. Members to lend all the wealth of their imagination and their wisdom to this very momentous question of our supremacy in the air. I would ask them to remember that this country is no longer an island, that every city lies on the shore of the ocean of the air open to attack by enemy airships and a prey to outrage at. any moment of the twenty-four hours. Who will dare to plead the expense of a great air fleet when we realise that this. War may possibly be eventually determined in the air, and when we consider that with the cost of two or three days' hostilities we could not only gain but we could maintain supremacy in the air It is a wonderful thought; and I am quite sure if this House lends any time to it we may yet live to regain for this country the

      1969
      supremacy which we held for a few brief moments owing to the priceless men who first went out with the rotten material they had at their disposal. This country is demanding that this material should be used. The men in the service are demanding that they should be sent out to fight instead of staying at home. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to insist, not in six months' time, not in six weeks' time, but, if necessary, in six minutes' time, that the material which is now waiting shall be used, and that the bombs which are now being stored and which are due for delivery in many places in Germany shall be delivered forthwith and without further delay.
      6.0 P.M.
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: This House has invariably listened with interest to the maiden speech of its most newly-arrived Member, and I am sure we all congratulate the hon. Member on a well-balanced speech which argues well for his career in this House, and also on the kindly intentions which he has exhibited towards my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the various introductions to which he proposes to lead him. I had the pleasure of listening to the whole of my right hon. Friend's speech, with the exception of some ten minutes or so when I was called to a Committee upstairs, and I heard him, as I expected, express his conviction that all was done in the best possible way in this best possible world of ours. I was certain that he would express that view, and I am glad that I was not disappointed, but as my right hon. Friend sitting beside me remarked, we got very little information from him. I have never yet in the course of twenty-three years' experience received any information from Ministers on that bench. I presume that reticence is what they are paid for. Therefore, I was not in the least astonished at the general tenour of his speech. There are two points to which I do not think attention has yet been drawn and to which I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The first, a very remarkable one, has regard to the Mesopotamia Expedition. I was disappointed to hear no allusion to it at all. The public are at present intensely anxious over that expedition, and I think we might be informed why it is that so little information has been given to us as to its real progress. There is a still more important point connected with that expedition. Various disagreeable rumours have reached us 'all, private individuals
      1970
      and collectively, as regards the treatment and care of the wounded in that expedition. I heard my right hon. Friend give a lucid and most interesting 'account of the magnificent care and attention bestowed on the wounded in France. We are aware of that. Those who are in France and the way the wounded there are treated are always before us. We have heard great men like Sir Frederick Treves express their opinion that science has almost exhausted itself in its efforts to bring comfort where it can to those severely wounded on that front. But there are also others who are far away from us about whom we do not hear anything at all. Speaking from information which I have received privately, I confess I am much disturbled from what I hear of the want of care bestowed on the wounded in Mesopotamia. I am aware of the difficulties, of the shortage of doctors, of the climate, and of other drawbacks, but, at the same time, I believe more might have been done and that more foresight might have been exercised over the care of the wounded there. The right hon. Gentleman may say—and I believe it is true—that this expedition was for some time under the care of the Indian Government, but I think I am correct in saying that now it is under the charge of the War Office itself, both the expedition and the medical care.
      Mr. TENNANT: Not the medical care.
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: If that is the case, I presume I should not he in order in pursuing that subject. I am only desirous that it should be brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that we are extremely anxious, and that we have good reason to be anxious, over the way in which the wounded there are looked after.
      The second point I wish to raise is with regard to the rations and feeding of the men at home. We all know of the hideous waste there was when War began, how the bread was chucked out into the streets, how tins were buried, and that in various ways food which might have been of use to the people was wasted. From information which I get—and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have received the same information—I understand that things are now exactly the opposite, and that men in billets, especially in the country districts, are now not getting sufficient food; indeed, in many cases I am told that the men are absolutely hungry

      1971
      and are fighting for their rations. When hounds are fed at the trough the weaker dog goes to the wall unless the huntsman looks after it. I hope that is not the case. I know that I shall be told that it is the fault of the brigadier, or of the commanding officer, or of the quartermaster. It is the fault of all three, and it is also the fault of those who have the overlooking of the matter in the War Office at home. I would direct the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for War, to the fact that there are numerous complaints now reaching private Members as to the sufficiency of the food issued to the troops at home. I do not want to dilate for a moment on the harm which, if such a thing is true, it would do to recruiting or to the Service generally. I think it is sufficient to bring the matter to the attention of the War Office now.
      Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I am very glad to be able to welcome the new Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Pemberton Billing). I do not hesitate to say that I welcome his return as the Member for that constituency on broad national grounds, because I have felt great anxiety for some time past as to the absence of that activity and growth on the part of our Air Service that we had a right to expect would be achieved after having been at war for eighteen months. I am sure the House welcomes the accession of the hon. Member. We all trust that this will be the beginning of a new era in the air defence of the country, and that not many months will pass before we have regained supremacy in the air as we have it on the sea, and as, I trust, we shall have it on land. I rise to ask for information on certain important points. The question of the enormous expenditure of over £3,000,000 a day on our fighting forces is one that we ought not to forget, and it our duty to endeavour in every possible way to prevent wasteful expenditure. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office is here. The other day I asked him a question as to whether there were not on the lines of communication and in the base camps a number of officers who were receiving retired pension and also service pay. At the base camp at Etaples, which is the base camp of twenty-six divisions, there are no fewer than twenty-six commandants, paid £650 a year each, the great majority of whom are also in receipt
      1972
      of retired pay. Surely, when reinforcements go to that camp at Etaples they go under their own officers or under military control. Can anyone imagine that twenty-six commandants are required to send those reinforcements to their divisions in the field? I hope my hon. Friend will be able to announce not only that they will cease to receive the double pay and will either get their retired pay or service pay and not both, but also that steps have been taken to make a considerable reduction in the number of commandants in the camp at Etaples. Many other questions have been raised recently on which I desire to have further assurances. My right hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Colonel Lockwood) referred to the waste in camps. He tells us that now things have gone to the other extreme, and that there is a scarcity of food in the camps. No one wishes that, but the waste in the camps and hospitals elsewhere twelve or fifteen months ago was a perfect scandal which was well known all over the country. I would ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to give the House an assurance that closer oversight is being exercised over the contractors' prices at the different camps in this country, and also that the cost of khaki and clothing of all sorts is seriously engaging the attention of the contracting Department of the War Office. I was thunderstruck when I heard from the Under-Secretary of State for War that we have actually spent since the outbreak of war £117,000,000 on clothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No:"] I understood him to say that the expenditure on several things which he enumerated amounted to a total of £117,000,000.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: What my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War did say was that we had purchased 117,000,000 articles.
      Sir J. WALTON: I am glad to be corrected. I had understood that the expenditure had reached the stupendous figure of £65,000,000, which I thought most excessive, and I wondered how much real value we got for that expenditure. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us some reassuring statement on this and other points. Another question I desire to ask him is whether he can state to the House that in the matter of small requisites which lessen casualties our armed forces in the field have full and adequate supplies? There is the question of steel helmets for our men. It is perfectly clear

      1973
      to me, who has been recently in France, that we are in arrears with steel helmets. I hardly met a single French soldier who was not wearing a steel helmet, but I hardly met an English soldier wearing one. I should like to know from my hon. Friend whether active steps are being taken in the matter, and how soon our men are to receive this protection, which certainly they ought to have without a day's delay, and also a supply of cuirasses. There are other requisites which are small but which lessen casualties, such as an abundant supply of sandbags—
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: Of what?
      Sir J. WALTON: Sandbags, periscopes, flares, rubber boots, etc. I do not enter into the question of artillery, shells and machine guns, or up-to-date rifles, because that will come on when the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions is taken, but there is one important item which I will mention that is, telescopic rifles. It is of the utmost importance that we should have a certain number of telescopic rifles in the hands of every battalion in the field with the least possible delay, and they too will save casualties. I desire to refer to one or two questions connected with the Territorial Force. We commenced, in the first place, with a first-line battalion of the Territorial Force. Then we created second-line battalions, intending them to reinforce the first line. Subsequently it was decided that the first and second lines should go out as fighting units and that a third line should be created, which should be a draft line to reinforce the first and second lines. That arrangement has broken down absolutely. Many of the Territorial battalions at the front are not up to full strength. There is hardly a single second-line unit at home which is of full strength, and the third-line battalions, which we intended to be draft battalions, are not nearly up to full strength. I desire to know from the authorities at the War Office whether the time has not come when that scheme ought to be abandoned and when the whole of the battalions of the Territorial Force ought to be kept at full strength at the front by drafts from either the second or the third line, preferably from the second line, because they are better trained men. I know instances where companies have gone out from the third line of men who have been in training only three months, when there were in the country men of the second line who had had from ten to
      1974
      twelve months' training. The Territorial Forces deserve well of the nation. What would have been our position after the Expeditionary Force was practically wiped out, when Kitchener's Army, so-called, was not ready for the field, if our brave Territorial Forces had not borne the brunt of the fighting for months on end? Therefore it is that I submit that our Territorial battalions are entitled to full reinforcements. They often have to take the place of Regular battalions in the trenches, and they ought to have as many Line men in the trenches as the Regulars have that they take the place of, and they ought not to be put at a disadvantage.
      Another question I have to ask is whether a great many men who are physically fit to be combatants are not employed at present on lines of communication and at the base who ought to be liberated? My right hon. Friend has told us that a non-combatant battalion is being formed. That is a step in the right direction, but they ought to go further than that. Why not ask for volunteers from the provisional Territorial battalions at that. Why not ask for volunteers from the Volunteer Training Corps at home? I believe they would have an immediate response. Why not send all the men who were rejected on account of flat feet and hammer toes, as well as our conscientious objector friends, also into that kind of service, and liberate thousands of men of military age, trained soldiers, who are now on the lines of communication, for service in the firing line? We are told there is great difficulty in raising the requisite number of men. I am compelled by a sense of duty to state what I believe to be the real reason why men are coming forward more slowly than we could desire. Our offensives, whether at Neuve Chapelle or Loos, which were most successful in their initial stages, largely failed through lack of the necessary reinforcements when all were required in the course of the battle. Take the case of Loos. It is open knowledge that that magnificent Scottish division, the 15th, charged right over the first and second lines of German trenches right on to the top of Hill 70 and over the other side. They considered that troops coming up behind them would deal with the Germans in those trenches, but when they were well established on Hill 70 the Germans in the trenches they had passed over opened fire on them. They were fired at from the left and the right, and from

      1975
      all four sides, but that magnificent division held that hill for nine hours, though they had 8,000 casualties among 17,000 men, holding on and waiting for reinforcements which never arrived. Who was responsible for that hideous mistake? This offensive had been prepared for months, and it ought to have been thought out. The best brains in the field staff and in the higher commands ought to have been applied to it. They had seasoned divisions in France, which had had experience of trench warfare, and could have been sent as reinforcements to back up that Scottish division, but did they do it? No. They marched up the 21st and 24th Divisions, which had just been landed in France, for miles carrying their heavy accoutrements, and they had no one to guide them as to inhere they were to go. They were totally ignorant of the country, and when they got into the firing zone, worn out, with no proper food, they were expected to go forward instantly in that desperate attack.
      I do not want to reflect on any of our generals, but I say unhesitatingly that in these offensives we had not good staff work. We had commanding officers in the higher commands who proved themselves incompetent. Human life was at stake. Human life will again be at stake in the next offensive. My only reason for raising this question now is that the confidence of the rank and file of our men in the field ought to be restored by it being announced to them and to the nation that the field staff has been reorganised, that men who failed in the higher commands have been removed, and that we can guarantee to the rank and file of the British Forces that never again will there be this horrible and hideous mismanagement when an offensive takes place. That is what is checking recruiting. Think you that this is not known? Think you that men coining home on leave from the divisions which have been through this terrible ordeal do not know? We have not had it announced, so far as I know, that a single man on the general staff or a single commander has been relieved of his command because he proved himself deficient. I have no feelings against one of these men, but if we have human life at stake it is not a question of men, it is a question of the country which ought to be considered. It is the question of the lives of our brave soldiers who have been sacrificed by the thousand owing to the incompetence of the direction and control under which they
      1976
      have fought. No more terrible punishment could rest upon the men who have failed, whether in the field staff or in the higher commands, than to be haunted to the day of their death by the memory that but for their blundering and mismanagement and incompetence thousands of men who no longer live might have been alive to-day. It is very easy to criticise, but these accounts have come to us from officer after officer, and from man after man. It is not that we have not got the men. We have thousands of the flower of the manhood of God's universe available in the field. It is a question of putting the right men in to lead our soldiers, and retiring those who have failed. It is the duty of the War Office ruthlessly to weed out every incompetent and inefficient member of the field staff and of the higher command, and the country has a right to know that this is being done, and that when the next offensive comes our men will be capably led, and will receive absolutely all the direction and help which can be given by the field staff.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: I am sure the House will re-echo the very eloquent and moving passage with which my right hon. Friend concluded his interesting speech. He spoke of the bravery of the soldiers, and. though I may have something to say in criticism of his Department, I hope not a word except of the most profound admiration will escape me in my respect for the courage and zeal which they have shown. My right hon. Friend has been criticised in some quarters, but, so far as I am concerned, I wish to bear my testimony to the unvarying courtesy and the unwearying diligence with which he has endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. Members. I feel that he has occupied a very difficult situation. He has been put sometimes in an almost impossible position, but he has acquitted himself right well. I am sorry to appear as a critic of the War Office. I do not willingly do it am not here willingly to criticise in the Smallest degree. There is no object in criticism except to help the country at this time of crisis. But I feel it my duty to say some words which may seem critical. I will go back to August, 1914. Then John Bull, who we were always told was lazy and luxury loving, was in my judgment the only one of the Allies which at any rate was ready. We moved 80,000 men across to Mons without a single casualty. The Navy, despite the criticism of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, was also

      1977
      ready. Finance, railways—everything was done which could be done and which had the approbation of the nation. Recruits came in, national unity was secured, the War Office and the Admiralty had all the money they could ask for. There was no stint at all. But there is legitimate ground for disappointment that in the strategy of this campaign it seems to me we have been seriously defective.
      I am not a student of military history, but from what I have been able to gather success is secured by concentration and disaster is courted by dissipation. We have been in our military campaign too weak everywhere, and not strong enough anywhere. We were told to hope and we did have high hopes for the spring of last year. We had a great offensive at Neuve Chapelle. Every gun, every ounce of ammunition, every man, and every organising officer was required for that great offensive. But what happened in another part of the world? At Gallipoli, after two months warning to the Turks, at about the same time we landed another force. If we had had Gallipoli at Neuve Chapelle, or if we had had Neuve Chapelle at Gallipoli we might have succeeded, but we succeeded in neither enterprise. It came out in the Press that there was rot a sufficiency of high explosive shells at Neuve Chapelle. The War Office denied that through the mouth of the Prime Minister. We all know the Prime Minister is the soul of honour and would not in the slightest have made a misstatement. But I want to know who was responsible for this misstatement which was put into his mouth.
      I come to the autumn of this year, and precisely the same thing occurred. We had an advance at Suvla Bay, and we also had a great advance in France at the battle of Loos. One thing which characterised both actions was the magnificent and superb heroism of the men. But I ask why was it that our Forces were so dissipated? Again I must ask the reason why it is that the War Office persist in giving us inaccurate information. They gave us incorrect information about Neuve Chapelle. I am going to show that they gave us incorrect information about Gallipoli in September last year. We know that the Suvla Bay action took place about August. The following statement is from Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch on 16th August:
      "The Turks then I reckon had 110,000 rifles to our 95,000, and held all the vantage ground; they had plenty of ammunition, also drafts where with
      1978
      to refill ranks depleted in action within two or three days. My hopes that these drafts would be of poor quality had been every time disappointed."
      That was from Sir Ian Hamilton on 16th August. What were we told on the 15th September by the Secretary of State for War. He then said:
      "There is now abundant evidence of a process of demoralisation having set in among the German-led or rather the German-driven Turks, due no doubt to their extremely heavy losses, and to the progressive failure of their resources."
      What is the reason that the War Office gives us this inaccurate information? Sir Ian Hamilton was very clear that the Turks were strongly entrenched, but we were told by the Secretary of State for War that "there is abundant evidence of a process of demoralisation having set in among the German-led Turks. I think we need some explanation of what I say are inaccurate statements. We know that the Gallipoli Peninsula was evacuated, and the one thing which we can congratulate ourselves upon was the magnificent organisation prevailing during the evacuation. No sooner were our troops out of Gallipoli than they went to Salonika, and the first thing one heard was that the British had to retreat. I read the headlines in the newspaper "British heroism." "Retreat." "Loss of ten guns." Why is it that our troops are put into such positions that they have to retreat with magnificent heroism and that they have to lose their guns? Again, there are prisoners in Bulgarian hands. I do not understand this strategy. We went there to save Serbia. If we want to impress the Balkans, we can do it far better by having some success on the Western front, because it is there the real result of the War will be decided. Then we have got a huge force, so I am informed, in Egypt. We have had elaborate warnings from the Germans that they propose to attack Egypt. The Germans do not advertise their warnings when they are going to attack any place. At any rate we have got a huge force there. Egypt, I am informed, is extremely difficult to attack. It has a desert of something like 150 miles. However, we have a force there of probably hundreds of thousands of men. I think we have a right to complain that in our War Office strategy and administration there is no coherent, concerted plan. We are always dancing to the German tune. I will take the case of Mesopotamia. Why are we advancing to Bagdad? We were told it was to protect the oilfields of Mesopotamia. I was concerned in that

      1979
      deal, and I would point out that the oilfields of Mesopotamia, or rather of Persia, are 400 miles distant. I am quite certain from my own knowledge that this advance on Bagdad was not carefully thought out and there was no plan of campaign at all. I w ill give my reasons for that statement, because, as has been said by one of my right hon. Friends, it is shown by the care of the wounded there. I have a letter from one of the most gallant officers who adorns the British Army. He was very seriously wounded on 13th to 14th January in the fighting there. This is what he says:
      "I must consider myself fortunate to have arrived at Basra, where sonic medical aid was available, without getting a septic wound. The lot of the badly wounded during the evacuation stage from the field to the base at Basra is anything but joy. The five or six days spent on the paddle steamer down the Tigris are not to be forgotten in a hurry, two hundred or possibly more lying anyhow on the deck, with only one medical officer and practically no medical equipment. However, I understand that proper hospital steamers are now being sent out there."
      Why is it that these campaigns are undertaken without proper provision for the wounded? The War Office have ample money at their command.
      Mr. TENNANT: It was not the War Office. It was the Indian Government.
      Mr. LAMBERT: The War Office or the War Council here assented to the advance, therefore they must be held responsible for the deeds of the Indian Government. We cannot fix responsibility upon anyone. That is what I am complaining about. I bring up the case in the House of this wounded officer, who suffered these appalling six days going down the Tigris, and my right hon. Friend says, "It is the Indian Government." We want to fix responsibility upon someone. What is the kind of information we get? I read this morning from a correspondent in Mesopotamia
      "Another boat indigenous to the Tigris is the cauldron-like gufar of Bagdad, probably the oldest vessel in the world."
      That is the stuff that is sent over here from there officially. We do not want to know about these archaic means of communication. We want to know how our wounded are progressing to-day in Bagdad. There is another campaign going on in East Africa. There, apparently, things are going well under General Smuts, and I sincerely hope they will go
      1980
      well. The fact is that we have five campaigns going on at the present time. There are the campaigns in Flanders, Salonika, Egypt, Mesopotamia and East Africa, and curiously enough this number just tallies with the number of gentlemen who are engaged in War Office administration. The first gentleman in War Office administration is the Secretary of State for War. Then there is the Chief of Staff, who has, by Order in Council, been given the power of movement of troops. Then we have the Minister of Munitions. Next we have Lord Derby, connected with the Air Service and recruiting, and last, but not least, we have the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) inquiring into the waste of the War Office. It does not seem to me possible that such a system can lead to economical or efficient administration. I say, and I think I can prove it, that this division of our energies in various parts of the world is seriously, if not fatally, weakening our offensive power. We are actually playing the German game. We have got visible, tangible evidence in this country. The state of feeling outside is very much different from what it is in this House. There is no mistake about that. The speech of the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Pemberton Billing) shows what a grave feeling of dissatisfaction is surging up in the country. Take the question of the air raids. A year ago Lord Montague told us in the House of Lords that we had an absolute superiority. General French said the same at the front. To-day we are told that we have lost it, although there has been a large output of machines, orders have been given to manufacturers, and the manufacturers have been very vigorous in carrying out the orders. The reason that we have lost our superiority is that we have scattered our aircraft in alt parts of the world, and because we have-scattered them in all parts of the world we have not got aircraft here to defend our own shores. Twelve months ago, when I was at the Admiralty, I remember several raids took place on German soil. For my own part I have no sympathy with this namby-pamby nonsense about non-reprisals.
      Sir W. BYLES: It is not namby-pamby at all.
      Mr. LAMBERT: We want to stop these air raids here, and the only way to stop these air raiders coming is to attack the aeroplanes and the airships in their own homes.
      Sir W. BYLES: You want to kill babies.
      Mr. LAMBERT: No, I want to prevent the Germans from killing our babies. I return to the question of the division of our energies, and I maintain that it is really dangerous. The effect upon our Navy is most serious. We had the First Lord of the Admiralty telling us what a very magnificent work the Navy had done. That was corroborated by the Commander-in-Chief in France, who expressed his great admiration for the manner in which all his reinforcements, his food and ammunition, had been convoyed over to France. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that the Navy has to guard 5,000 miles, from Archangel in the north to Alexandria in Egypt. It has had to transport 4,000,000 combatants, 1,000,000 horses and other animals, and 2,500,000 tons of stores, and 22,000,000 gallons of oil. That is a wonderful record for the Navy. It is prodigious what they have done. They have justified every confidence we had in them, but I do ask the Government not to strain this magnificent machine to breaking point. The Navy has to convoy huge supplies to Salonika, Egypt, and I presume, also to Mesopotamia. I cannot imagine a finer theatre for German submarine activity than the perfect armada of convoys and troopships at present going through the Straits of Gibraltar to Egypt and Salonika. It seems to me we are straining our Navy to too far great an extent. There must be, at the present time an enormous number of ships in the Mediterranean, passenger ships and mercantile ships, and they all have to be convoyed by the Navy. I do not wish to make any suggestion, but it would be of most serious import to this country if the Navy for the purpose of defending the Mediterranean had to be weakened in the North Sea. There is another point which I think equally serious. That is the dissipation of our mercantile marine. The mercantile marine of this country—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that on the Motion now before the House.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I am very sorry, but I was trying to prove that the use of the mercantile marine, in conveying troops and stores and all these things to these various outposts like Salonika and Mesopotamia, is a direct cause why our shipping resources are being very severely strained.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to this Vote. The War Office is not re-
      1982
      sponsible for the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. Therefore, it is only beating the air to argue this question now in presence of the representative of the War Office.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I suggest, with very great respect, that the War Office are responsible. If they did not send the men to these places the mercantile marine would not have been required to carry those stores.
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the War had not broken out there would have been no necessity for it either.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I suggest, very respectfully, that this is a very serious question. The fact that the War Office have sent. these troops to Salonika and to Egypt is gravely imperilling the mercantile marine, and the ships that ought to be bringing food to this country are engaged in carrying stores to these outlying posts. What has been the effect here? Freights have gone up—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing whatever to do with this Vote. We have had that question raised on the Naval Estimates and on other occasions, and on those other occasions the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been quite relevant, but it is not relevant in reference to the War Office Vote.
      Mr. ROCH: May I call attention to the fact that on the Naval Estimates, when this point was raised, we were expressly told by the Admiralty that while the steamers were requisitioned by the Admiralty the War Office was responsible for the use that was made of them and the number which they called on the Transport representatives to requisition, and we were, therefore, prevented from raising this very point on the Naval Estimates, and we were told that the War Office was responsible.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Surely that is not so. This question was discussed on the previous occasion.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Of course, I bow respectfully to your ruling. I am sorry if I am not allowed to go any further, but I thought that it was strictly relevant to the Vote. I may now say a word on the question of recruiting. There is a tremendous agitation with regard to this question, which has got in a most hopeless tangle. We have got sometimes attested married men of thirty-five who are called up before

      1983
      the unattested men of twenty-five. Of course, there is very grave dissatisfaction at that. The Government must take this dissatisfaction into account. They must sift the single men first and see if it be not possible that the single men may be replaced by the married men, so that the single men may be useful for service. For my part, I entered this House as a strong supporter of the voluntary principle, but I have voted for conscription, and having voted for. conscription, I do not think you can stop at this measure; you will have to go much further, and you will have to have general conscription for the whole of the men required for the Army.
      I had proposed to say something about financial matters. The resources of this country, of the British Empire, are mighty, but not limitless, and, on this question of recruiting, we cannot keep up a supreme Navy, we cannot supply our Allies with munitions and with money, and also maintain a huge Army in Flanders, in Egypt, in Salonika, and in Mesopotamia. That is more than this country can do, and by frittering away our resources, by trying to grasp too much, we fail to grasp anything. The decisive theatre, in my judgment, is in the North Sea and Flanders, and in spreading out our military operations and our strength we are actually playing the German game. The very fact that the Germans are advertising to-day that their navy is coming out is a sign to me that they will not come out now, but certainly they will come out some time and when it suits them, and if we dissipate our Fleet in protecting troops sent to these outlying theatres of war, I say we are risking that which is most vital to this country—a naval disaster. I may be told that I am a barren critic, but I propose to make a suggestion which I have thought about very carefully. Our military non-success, I will put it—I will not say disaster, though the Gallipoli affair was a disaster enough—has been due to lack of concentration, and if there has been disaster it has been due to the scattering of our forces. I wish that the Government would realise that Germany is our enemy, and Germany alone, and that the naval and military forces of the country should be devoted to attacking that country. We had some revelations made—this is strictly germane—by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He told us that big guns had been taken from battleships to put on the monitors.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing almost entirely with the Admiralty. He must see that he cannot expect a defence of the Admiralty from the representative of the War Office. The test by which we can judge whether his remarks are relevant or not is who is the Minister who answers. The Minister present to-day is the representative of the War Office: we are discussing War Office problems.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I am sorry that you will not allow me to go on, but my point is absolutely a military one. I say that these monitors were designed for a special military purpose, but they have been used by the War Office for another military purpose. They were—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The monitors were discussed last week. The right hon. Gentleman is making a naval speech. He ought to have made it last week, and it would have been strictly relevant.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I am sorry, but I will pass away from that point. In my judgment—I hope that this may be relevant—there must be a change in the War Council. I hope that I may not be ruled out of order on this. We have got a War Council consisting of the most gifted political leaders, but they are not military strategists. I make the suggestion with all humility to the Government that they should reconstitute the War Council. There must be the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, as the leaders of the two great political parties in the country. I think that there should be the greatest naval strategist. Of course, the House knows my opinion as to who that gentleman should be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"] Why, of course, Admiral Lord Fisher. Then I would suggest that they should have the greatest military strategist, and I understand that that is Sir William Robinson. Then I think that it is quite indispensable that they should have on that War Council a representative of the great commercial mercantile interests and shipping—a man who will be the counterpart of Herr Ballin, who is at work on transport in Germany—and also that they should have a representative of finance.
      Mr. HOGGE: There is the Minister of Munitions.
      Mr. LAMBERT: The Minister of Munitions will always find a place when there is work to be done. I would make that suggestion with all seriousness. We have

      1985
      been suffering from a fatal lack of concentration in this War. It is perfectly certain that if we are to win this War—and I do not regard the situation to-day with that calm confidence of many of my hon. Friends—we must concentrate on the Western theatre. That is where the War will be won, and unless we do that, and unless the Government do that, they will lose the greatest asset which they have at the present moment—that is the confidence of the country.

      DISABLED SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).
      Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, the State should accept the responsibility for the payment of pensions and allowances to all soldiers discharged from the Army on account of diseases contracted or developed during service with the Colours and, in the case of death, pensions and allowances to the dependants, if any."
      7.0 P.M.
      My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary this afternoon made certain concessions to meet the acknowledged difficulties with respect to soldiers disabled by disease, or accident, contracted during service, but I respectfully suggest that those concessions are not adequate to meet the case. I understand that at present pensions of from 4s. 8d. to 7s. a week are granted to meet cases where disability arises through sonic cause which is supposed or alleged to have been in existence to some extent before. The Under-Secretary of State for War bas made the concession that at the discretion of the authorities the pension may henceforth—in cases where disease has only been developed during service—be any amount up to four-fifths of the present limit of 25s. for cases where the whole liability rests upon the State; but this leaves to the authorities the determination of the question which, to many who have dealt with this subject and have had to meet the various parties' concerned, is one of great importance—that is, that the men who have enlisted have actually been medically examined, they have been passed into the Army, and, so far as I am concerned—and I am sure this feeling of mine is shared by the members of the party to which I belong and a great many others outside that party—the mere fact that enlistment has been permitted after a proper medical examination places, or ought to place, an obligation upon the State, in case of disability
      1986
      arising, to meet the whole liability and pension the soldier in full if he is disabled owing to sickness which was not detected on the medical examination. Because we have to bear in mind the fact that a man who may be able with care in civilian life to go on month after month and year after year earning his living, when he has passed into the Army is subject to circumstances so different as to make it impossible for him to maintain his health and strength as he would have done in the ordinary circumstances. I submit that liability under these circumstances clearly belongs to the War Office, who ought to take that responsibility after having withdrawn him from civil life and put him into the Army. Indeed, this principle is recognised in our present law, for, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer is not entitled to claim, where a man has met with an accident, that it was on account of his unfitness for the employment to which he had been allowed to devote himself. If the employer takes the responsibility of employing a man who may be unfit for his particular work, the Workmen's Compensation Act in no way absolves the employer from paying compensation in case of accident. It is only in the case of wilful neglect on the part of the workman, after his engagement and during the term of his employment, and when, the employer is able to say that the man, through contributory negligence of his own, is responsible for the accident, that the employer escapes the obligation of paying compensation.
      The right hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary of State for War, has to-day stated the concession which is to be made, and I submit that, clearly, if that concession is just, it should apply not only to future cases but to the cases of those who are already suffering by reason of an adverse decision on the part of the War Office. I trust my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office will assure us that the terms of the promised concession will be made retrospective and that it will not merely cover cases which occur in future. I will await the hon. Gentleman's reply to that. May I pursue the subject by giving a few examples of what has been happening up to now; they are the kind of cases which it is clearly the duty of the War Office to meet. Let me interpolate, if I may, this remark, that among all the tasks and

      1987
      duties that fall to Members of Parliament during the present trying period of this nation's history, there is none which can be regarded as so unsatisfactory as that of dealing with the cases of disabled soldiers who have returned to civil life through sickness. We have heard it said that Members of Parliament in these days have not much to do, but my experience is that they have more than ever to do. Any Member who takes a serious interest in his Constituency, day after day has to go through a large mass of correspondence relating to Army grievances, and of all the duties which fall to Members of Parliament owing to this War, those which relate to the cases of these men of whom I speak are the worst. Let me give several cases. I take that of a private of the 3rd West Yorkshire Regiment. He was in business for himself, but through patriotic fervour he enlisted in the early part of the War—on 1st September, 1914. After serving one year and 129 days, he was invalided from the front, and discharged from the Army as medically unfit. Owing to terribly bad weather he contracted what is known as trench neurasthenia. He has a wife and two children, and the authorities granted to him 4s. 8d. per week. That man, at the present time, is the inmate of a workhouse.
      Another case, that of a private in the South Staffordshire Regiment, was brought to the notice of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, of whom I wish to sax, and I think all Members will agree with me, that he is at all times invariably courteous and anxious to assist; I have no fault to find with him. This private received a gun shot wound in the ankle, and, after being in the hospital, he was discharged. He was in the South African War, and wears the South African medal. He was in the retreat from Mons in the early part of this War, and he repeatedly slept in wet clothes on wet ground. His hardships were such as we can all understand—they were extremely great, and what is more likely then that the particular complaint from which he suffered, rheumatoid arthritis, was caused by the hardships, exposure, and sleeping on the ground in wet clothes while he was on military service? Yet the decision of the medical board was that the disease from which he suffered was not due to his military service. I cannot
      1988
      understand how, under the circumstances which I have described, any body of men, medical or lay, could undertake the tremendous responsibility of saying that the man's disablement through sickness was not caused by his military service. But it is the fact that this man, in spite of his long service, in spite of the fact that he was passed into the Army after medical examination, is only receiving 4s. 8d. per week, and he is entirely disabled front ordinary work in civil life. The next case is that of a private in the Seaford' Highlanders, who joined on 15th June last year. He was invalided home from the front suffering from bad feet. On the 23rd January this year he was admitted into the imbecile ward of a Poor Law hospital. Here let me ask why this malt should be put into a lunatic asylum or imbecile ward? Surely it might have been expected that he would be placed amid associations different from those of a lunatic asylum or imbecile-ward until it was clearly established that such a course was necessary. This man's mother is a widow, and she has received notice that she is liable to the Poor Law authority for his maintenance and support at the rate of Hs. per week, notwithstanding that she has another son in the Army who has been wounded and has returned. Still another son has attested and is waiting his turn to be called up. I am sure. I need say no more about this case, and that the details will fall on sympathetic ears.
      The next case is that of a private in a Welsh Regiment disabled by bronchitis and rheumatism brought on by exposure. The man was a stoker in civil life, habitually working in front of a hot furnace. It is not an extravagant thing to expect that a man so employed and normally healthy would break down by living in tents, sleeping on damp ground, and other necessary forms of exposure. That was actually the case. This is one of the reasons why we say that the medical examination carried out by the War Office should itself be the warrant for the responsibility of the State in the case of any illness not due to the act of the man from that time forward, but due to the changed circumstances of living. This man of whom I have been speaking had never previously received a penny of sick pay from the society of which he is a member and of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge) is the secretary. It must therefore follow that he enjoyed good health

      1989
      before he joined the Army. In that case he gets no pension at all. The next is the case of a soldier in the West Yorkshire Regiment who enlisted in September, 1914, and was discharged 1915, vomiting blood from the stomach. He has received no grant from the Army authorities. He had no illness previous to enlistment. It may well be that there may have been in certain cases incipient phthisis. A man under those circumstances might have gone through civil life engaged in a civil occupation without a disease of the kind developing. That in itself, along with the medical examination, throws the responsibility for what happens on the State. We contend that the Department which is responsible for making such a violent change in a man's life after medical examination should be responsible for compensation if he returns to civil life disabled. The next case is that of a man who enlisted on 7th November, 1914, and who was discharged suffering from gastritis and enteritis, and who has suffered from no previous illness. I could give any number of other instances, and at least fifty are here available if required.
      The question for the Financial Secretary to face here and now is, what changes are going to be made? This sort of thing cannot go on. I do not think there is a Member of the House who has not been brought into contact with numerous cases of hardship arising from this cause. It is creating much bitter feeling and I can say with full responsibility that it is having a serious effect upon the attitude of the ordinary members of the public towards the Army and the military service. Every one of those cases where a man is sent back to civil life, broken in health and unable to work, creates a centre of dissatisfaction and complaint which it behoves the Government not to allow to exist any longer. I recognise that the concession under which twenty shillings per week is to be paid where total disability has been contributed to by the Service. We are thankful for that concession, but what we want to know as well is, what is to become of the cases that have accumulated up to now. Are they not to have the same justice dealt out to them as is to be dealt out to those cases that are considered in future? There is then the question as to the body that determines these matters. We have the Chelsea Commissioners. Who are they? They are some kind of a mystery board, or as an hon. Friend here suggests, a
      1990
      secret society. It is not satisfactory that these cases should go before a body of that kind. I respectfully suggest to the Minister in attendance that some body ought to be entrusted with this work which is more accessible and the existence of which is known, and the members of which are known and responsible. Why not put this work in the hands of the Pension Committees. Those Committees have done the work entrusted to them up to now very well. At any rate some change should be made so that the body responsible for this work should not be so far away from the persons concerned as are the Chelsea Commissioners.
      Let me also refer to the medical boards and again I ask, who are they? They are, I suppose, creatures of the War Office, or the War Office, at any rate, appoints them. The safety of anonymity is not quite the thing in a matter of this kind. Whoever is to determine questions of this sort should be responsible and known and it should not be persons who are hidden away behind a screen and who cannot be brought to book for their actions. Surely in cases of dispute there should be a right given to the aggrieved person, the injured man, to produce his own doctor to give evidence. The testimony of the man's own doctor would be very valuable towards securing justice. We await with considerable interest and anxiety the statement that is to be made on behalf of the Government, and we trust that the hon. Gentleman who is to make that statement will meet the necessities of the case, not only by proposing to deal with those cases that have already occurred, but also, and I lay great emphasis on this, that he will make it perfectly clear that when a man undergoes examination before enlistment and is passed into the Army with the knowledge of the great difference of conditions under which Army life is conducted as compared with civil life, that, save and except when and where the man himself has brought on his illness, in cases of disablement he should be considered to be disabled by reason of his employment, that is, by reason of his military service.
      Mr. HODGE: In rising to second the Amendment, I would seek to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend that justice cannot be done unless any concession made by the War Office is retrospective. I do not intend to give any examples in addition to those given by my hon. Friend, but, if need be, we have here over fifty cases equally as bad as those cited

      1991
      by him. The examples given must have convinced the House of the strength of the case which we are presenting. I am sure that one of the things at which every Member of the House wonders has been the lack of consideration by the War Office for the soldier who has come back disabled, not only by wounds but by disease, as compared with the treatment of similar cases by the Admiralty, which has been much more humane than that meted out by the War Office. My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of the examination by the medical officers before a man is enlisted. We know that in the early days of the War the examination was very severe and rigid. That of itself is a demonstration that when a man breaks down as a result of the hardships of the training and the difference in his method of living and housing as compared with civilian life, it is easy to undertand how a man contracts disease. We have many complaints. The fifty cases I have here are cases upon which no representations have yet been made to the War Office, although I think I must have made myself a bit of a nuisance to the Financial Secretary by the number of cases I am continually putting before him. I cannot say that in very many instances I have received satisfaction, but we will hope that, the Department having come to realise their sins and turned over a new leaf, much better treatment will be meted out in future. At any rate, we must emphasise the point that justice will not be done unless every man who has been discharged has his case re-heard and re-dealt with.
      When all is said and done, the War Office have been casting on a section of the community a burden which ought to have been a national burden. The national insurance societies have had this burden put upon them. When a man is discharged from the Army, and immediately declares sick, he gets 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks from the approved society, and if no pension or only a partial pension is forthcoming, he becomes a burden on his society in respect of invalidity pension. The Financial Secretary, who is inch an expert so far as the National Insurance Act is concerned and who took such an active part in the Debate when that measure was passing through the House, must realise that the actuaries never took into their consideration the question of men coming back broken or wounded as a result of war. The present
      1992
      custom of repaying to the approved societies one-half of the twenty-six weeks' sickness benefit is inequitable. It is unfair to put upon any section of the community a burden which should be borne by all, and more particularly to put that burden upon the workers, who are the subject of compulsory thrift so far as sickness and invalidity are concerned. We on these benches, at any rate, will never be contented until these moneys have been refunded in full to the approved societies by the War Office. While we get many complaints from the rank and file with regard to this kind of treatment, up to the present I have not had a single complaint so far as officers are concerned. Is it that you have a different standard for the rank and file as compared with the officer? I do not grudge anything that is given to the officer any more than I grudge it to the man. I have already said from my place in the House of Commons that never have we had better leadership, so far as our officers are concerned, than we have had during the present War. Nor have we ever had a closer relationship between the rank and file and the officers than we have to-day. There is real comradeship between them. We have heard of many episodes where the officer has sought to save his private's life and lost his own; and we have also heard of the gallantry of the private seeking, at the expense of his own life, to save that of his officer. These are deeds in which we all glory, because they are a demonstration of the courage of our race.
      Reference was also made by my hon. Friend to the Chelsea Commissioners. Is it not possible for that body of gentlemen to be reinforced by perhaps some members of this House, who would bring a new view of the position to the consideration of these cases on the question of pensions? We are all conscious of the fact that bodies of this kind get into a rut, and it becomes necessary that new blood Should be introduced to get them out of it. I, at any rate, hope that something may be done in that direction. Those of us who listened to the Under-Secretary of State for War this afternoon must have realised that his speech demonstrated a change in the policy of the War Office in the direction we are now advocating. In the early days of the War there was a. wave of enthusiasm as well as of decision in all ranks and classes that never again should our broken-down warriors require to seek the shelter of the workhouse. But

      1993
      my hon. Friend has given one case where a broken-down warrior who deserved better of his country has had to take that course. It is not the only case in those fifty of which I have spoken. There are various others. One very bad case occurred in South Wales, where a man came back broken as a result of his service, having a wife and four children to keep. He has had to receive 11s. per week parish relief, which, plus the 10s. sick benefit for twenty-six weeks, was all that stood between him and having to find the inside of the workhouse with his wife and children. In these days of high prices for commodities we can appreciate that 21s. per week from these two sources is not sufficient to maintain a man and his wife with four children. I do most earnestly urge that the Department should treat the men with more consideration and humanity. If they err at all, let them err on the men's side.
      We have also to realise that the occurrence of numerous cases of this kind has had a most evil influence on recruiting. Why is it that to-day we have a demand for a moratorium? Why is it that married men are hesitating about coming forward, particularly men who are in rather good positions? Because they have come to hear that those who come back broken in health are being so badly treated. That of itself ought to be an inducement to the War Office to treat these cases with greater concern, more care and more generosity. When the Under-Secretary was making his speech he paid a tribute to those members of the House who had been taking part in recruiting. He thanked and lauded them for their services. I think the reward we have received for our services is poor indeed if the men who came forward as the result of our efforts are, when they come back broken from the War, to be treated in the way indicated by my hon. Friend. With respect to the small amount of pension given in some of the cases, there seems to me to be a lack of appreciation of the amount necessary to keep the home of a working man going. I am afraid amongst the Chelsea Commissioners there is no representative of the workman—not one there who can put forward the point of view of the workman's home. Such a position reinforces the claim we have made that that particular body of gentlemen should be added to as I have indicated. I believe the House is not only absolutely sympathetic with the Motion
      1994
      which has been made, but one might say is determined that justice shall be done to those who have come back as the result of having been broken in this great struggle. There is another point which I think has not been stated either during this Debate or on any previous occasion. What are we doing for the nurses who come home broken as the result of war service? So far as I understand it, nothing is being done for them. I sincerely hope that if the War Office has not so far taken notice of this subject that they will do so.
      Colonel YATE: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House was quite right when he said that the subject on which he spoke has the full sympathy of the House. The question of invalided soldiers was one raised by myself the other day on another Vote, and I do not want to repeat what I then said. But I do wish to join with the two hon. Members who have just spoken in urging this question on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who to-day represents the War Office. So far as I could gather from what the Under-Secretary said, it appears that he has already agreed to give four-fifths of their pension to men who come back invalided by disease aggravated by service. We ail rejoiced to hear that statement. It will go a long way towards allaying the anxiety which has been caused throughout the country. The Financial Secretary, who will speak subsequently, will no doubt be able to give us further assurances, but from what the Under-Secretary said I think we may all rest assured that these men will now receive the treatment they deserve.
      Mr. BARNES: I should like to supplement what has already been said by my hon. Friend, and I also want to open up further ground. I would like to direct the attention of the House to a warrant which is dated 19th February last, and which deals with cases of pensions to dependants other than wives and children. This warrant is of such a character that really it has been drawn up without any proper advice as to how it would bear upon the cases dealt with, and without any connection as to the possible income of the persons dealt with. In paragraph 2 of this warrant the dependants in question are described as "Dependants, Class (A) parents and others." I will only deal with the father, because I want to make the thing as simple as possible. What I say in

      1995
      regard to the father will also apply to the others. In the first sentence of this paragraph all parents are dealt with who are totally dependent upon a soldier. Divested of its official language—no figures are mentioned here, but we know what the person is entitled to under certain circumstances—it means—at least I take it so—that if a man has been totally dependent upon a son who gets killed, that dependant may get 10s. per week pension. The second sentence of the paragraph sets out the position of those who have been only partially dependent. As I read it, it means that that person shall be entitled to 5s. per week. There is no intermediate step. It is either 10s. or 5s. Let us note the bearing of this.
      Mr. HOGGE: Take the father and the mother!
      Mr. BARNES: I am making it as simple as possible. There may be no mother. I am taking the position of the father by way of illustration. In this country there are, perhaps, between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 of working-class people who belong to friendly societies, trade unions, and various voluntary organisations. These men have paid into these voluntary organisations during a long working life. I belong to one—the Hearts of Oak—from which, should I be so unfortunate as to be dependent for a few shillings when I get to be old—or shall I say older?—I shall be entitled to 4s. per week. There are other societies, I believe, which have a system of reduced sick benefit, by which a person when he gets old, and is no longer able to work, though he may be able to potter about, gets 2s 6d. a week. Take the Odd-fellows, or the Foresters. The man gets 2s. 6d. per week for either of these, and he gets it because he has paid for it. Let us not forget that. I want to emphasise that. The man has paid for this 2s. 6d. during a long life of industry. Then there comes along this warrant. Consider the position of the man who does not belong to any society at all, but who has probably earned just as much money as the man who has. The roan -who has been thrifty and has paid his money week by week into his society, who has saved, and saved by collective savings and putting his savings with those of his fellows, gets 7s. 6d. per week—that is to say, 5s. from the Government and 2s. 6d. from his society, while the man who has never saved at all and belongs to no society gets 10s.
      1996
      That is, as I read it, the meaning of this document. There is no 10s. mentioned, and there is a lot of official language with which I am not going to trouble the House, but I have given the common sense of the document. Will the right hon. Gentleman when he gets up to speak defend that document? Can anybody defend it? If he cannot defend it will he undertake to get it redrafted in such a way that the man who gets 2s. 6d. per week, or whatever it may be, shall not be worsened because he is getting that 2s. 6d. a week? I put forward that claim. I think it is a reasonable claim. I suggest that the man should be left that 2s. 6d. in addition to the 10s. I do not want to put forward any immoderate claim, and I shall be quite satisfied if my right hon. Friend will say that at all events the man who has saved that 2s. 6d. shall not have that 2s. 6d. put against him as part of his income, but that he shall be regarded in the same way as a man who had been totally dependent upon his son, and gets 10s. Passing from that I want to mention the matter of accidents. I came in while my hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford was speaking, and therefore I do not know if any mention at all has been made of accidents.
      Mr. JOWETT: None whatever!
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. BARNES: Then I will proceed to say something. I am not going to weary the House with a lot of cases. They are all well known. There have been numerous cases. They have been before the House, and they have been the subject of newspaper comments. It is, however, well known that there are a large number of men who have come back from the front having met with accidents in France and elsewhere. I know there are a number of cases about which the less said the better.;The tragic circumstances under which men have lived in France are such that possibly there may be some cases which will not bear very close examination. On the other hand, there are a large number of cases where men have met with accidents in respect of whom no complaint can be made. These men, I think, ought to get something in respect to those accidents. I have here a case about which I have been written to by a town councillor of Glasgow. The letter points out that if a soldier is killed from an accident of any kind, even while on service in France, there is no pension granted to the widow or children. This man was a driver in

      1997
      the 119th Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, and he met with injuries which caused his death by falling out of a troop train, shortly after leaving a certain railway station in France. He was attempting to go from one horse-truck to another when the train was in motion. Let me quote from the War Office letter:
      "The death of your husband was due to his own fault. It is regretted that yourself and children are not liable for a pension. The case has been noted that it may be considered in due course by the Statutory Committee. Any claim for a dependant's pension should be put forward when the proposed Statutory Committee is in a position to deal with it."
      I happen to know, because I am a member of that Statutory Committee, that these poor folk may be grey-headed before that statutory Committee may be able to deal with the case. I submit, however, that the case is not one for the Statutory Committee. The Statutory Committee will deal with charitable funds. I submit to the House that we have no right to allow men who meet with accidents of this sort to be dealt with by charitable funds. I am going to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he might adopt the principle of the Compensation Act. This has been mentioned before, but no reply was given. The Compensation Act lays down the reasonable, plain, common-sense principle that a man who meets with an accident in or about or in the course of his employment is entitled to some solatium. Now why should not the War Office adopt the same principle in regard to accidents which happen in France? I see no reason why they should not. Of course, there are cases where an accident has occurred through serious or wilful misconduct, and I think the widow and children of a man, even if he meets with his death through serious and wilful misconduct, are still entitled to the full amount. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us plain, straightforward reason, if there is any reason, why the War Office should not adopt the same principle with regard to accidents which happen in France, or anywhere else for that matter, that we have already imposed on private employers of labour throughout the country. Coming to the matter which has been pretty fully discussed already—that is, the question of disease—I join with my hon. Friends here in welcoming the change that has been made. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that a man who develops a disease in contradistinction to having
      1998
      contracted one, shall in future be entitled to four-fifths of the pension. Of course, that is better than nothing at all; in fact, it may be said to be a very great improvement on anything which had been in operation prior to this War even in regard to disease contracted during war, and we are grateful that so much advance has been made towards meeting those eases in the spirit just enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge). But there are difficulties in the way, and I would like to point out one or two. First of all, will there not be a disposition on the part of those disbursing funds to be less generous than they would otherwise be with regard to the 25s.? Human nature is human nature after all, and the Medical Board, or whoever it is who has to decide as to the eligibility for a pension, and what the amount of that pension shall be, having in their mind that there is a sort of second-degree pension, will not be so much disposed, as they otherwise would lie, to give the man a full pension. Let me give an illustration from my own experience recently. I was in France trying to get men from the Army into the workshops, and we got a good few. First we had to deal with men as to whether or not they were eligible to come hack for the workshops—that is to say, whether they had sufficient skill or not, and there was no second course in dealing with men who were not up to top-hole standard. After a little while there came along a man from the Flying Department, and he offered to take men who were not quite up to our standard, but, being young men, could be trained sufficiently, from his standpoint. After that we were not so exacting as we had been, and we put men into the second standard, so to speak, so that that shows what, I think, may be present in the minds of those who disburse these pensions when it comes to the question of a second standard being set up, and many men, who might otherwise get the 25s., will only get the 20s. I should like to have some assurance that that, at all events, will be safeguarded in some way, and if you are now giving 25s. in cases of extreme aggravation, or to men who have developed disease only after a few months abroad or in camp life at home, those cases shall be still met by the 25s.
      Then I should like to be assured on another point. What standard are you going to set up as to when a man is to be

      1999
      entitled to this 20s.? Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty last week put the case of men who might be examined this week and break down the week following, and he put it to us whether we demanded a full pension for those men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, certainly!"] After all, we have to look into the matter in the light of common sense. But a man might be examined this week and, although he might not know it, there might be some latent disease, and a month in the trenches might develop that disease, and I should like to be assured that, at all events, the man shall get 20s. if he breaks down within a reasonable time of being passed by the doctor. I think you ought to have regard to your own doctor having passed a man into the Army, and, therefore, he ought to have a pension—four-fifths, as it may be.
      We are grateful so much advance has been made since we first discussed this proposal. We are still somewhat sceptical as to how it is going to be worked out, and I should like to be assured on those points I have mentioned, and particularly I should like my right hon. Friend to reconsider that Warrant, dated 19th February—less than a month ago—and which seems to me to he a Warrant we cannot look at for a single moment. We must. make an emphatic protest against that. It is a Warrant not yet understood—in fact it is not yet known—but as soon as it gets known throughout the length and breadth of the country and by the rank and file of the trade unions and friendly societies, if it is not altered there is going to be a. row about it, and. T should like my right hon. Friend to avert that row if possible, and to say quite frankly that he will reconsider the Warrant with a view of preserving for the man the 2s. 6d., 3s., 4s or whatever it may be, which accrues to him as a result of his own saving. Then I want to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton as to the change being made retrospective. I have numerous cases. Let me mention one. I began last week when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty stopped me. I know it is the ease with the Army. This is the case of a man named James Gardner, belonging to one of the Scottish regiments who joined somewhere about the back end of 1914. He had rheumatics, so the doctors say—latent rheumatics. He went into the trenches and was there for some months,
      2000
      and was afterwards somewhere in the .south of England. He made complaint to a doctor in the Army, and the doctor actually said he was shamming, but after some little time the man had to be put in hospital, and after some months the man was discharged from the Army. After the Army doctor had actually charged the man with shamming, the Medical Board, before whom his case was put, say that not only was he not shamming but that he had latent rheumatics before going into the Army, and he is refused any pension. I mention that case to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said as to the absolute need, from the point of view of justice, of reviewing these cases, so that that man and hundreds like him shall come under the terms of the new arrangement. I should like some reassurance that such a man may have the benefit of the change about to be made.
      Mr. BUTCHER: I desire to express my warm support of this Amendment. The Under-Secretary this afternoon concluded his interesting speech by paying the warmest eloquent tribute to the splendid gallantry which our men have shown in the fighting in the field—an eloquent and well-deserved tribute. In this House we are determined that our admiration and gratitude shall not end in words, more especially for those of our men who have come home after their gallant display disable? from further service in the field. And let me associate myself entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, that, if we are going to err in this matter, let us err on the side of the disabled men. This War is costing us a great deal, but of all the cost that is being incurred in this War, or will be incurred after it, I believe there is no cost which the country will pay more gladly than the cost of seeing our disabled soldiers saved from penury and want. This is an Amendment which will command the sympathy of every man in this House, and I think every man outside, but I venture to think that some of us who are perhaps better off in this world's goods—it may be better off than we deserve—have not quite imagination enough to realise what the fate of these disabled men is when they come back to their homes. They are not only broken in health when they come hack to their wives and families, but if they have not got sufficient to enable theta to keep—I will not say starvation from the door, but their families in reasonable comfort, then their fate is bitter indeed. I

      2001
      was glad to hear from the Under-Secretary that the Government had taken the matter into their consideration, and I have no doubt we shall hear from my hon. Friend presently that they are going to treat it in a generous manner.
      There is one point which has already been referred to, and I hope my hon. Friend may be able to give us an assurance upon it, and that is, that the alterations indicated will be retrospective. There can be no reason I can see why a man who is disabled after this date, 14th of March, should receive a certain allowance, and a man who was disabled before should receive less. The thing is inconceivable. It may have been clue to pressure of work in the War Office, to indecision, or to other causes, but no one could suggest that the disabled man should suffer because of that delay or indecision, and, therefore, although the Under-Secretary was unable to assure us this afternoon that this change will be retrospective, I do trust he will be able to give us that assurance, and be able, on the general question now before the House, to comply with the demand not only made in this House, but throughout the country, for generous treatment of those men who have become disabled in the service of their country.
      Mr. GILBERT: As a recently elected Member of this House I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett). I have taken part in a number of recruiting meetings, and when we addressed those meetings we promised those present that if they were disabled the country would give them adequate pensions, in order that they would be able to live if they were so disabled. I do not think there were any recruiting meetings held in any part of the country where similar promises were not given. I would like to mention one case brought before my notice from my own Constituency, to show how the War Office treat some of these cases. 'This is the case of an Army Service man, who was a motor transport driver and belonged to the Special Reserve, which was formed before the War commenced, and he was called up at the outbreak of war as a motor transport driver. He served abroad for over twelve months, and last September he was sent home ill, suffering from a nervous breakdown, and he was sent to the military hospital at Napsbury, where they deal with
      2002
      such cases. He was there until February, and then his wife was informed that his case was hopeless and that he had been sent to one of the county asylums, certified as a lunatic. Three days after she had received notice that her husband had been sent to the asylum she received notice from the paymaster that she would receive no further allowance. She told me when her husband was at Napsbury they told her that the best thing she could do to help to bring her husband to his normal condition was to go and visit him and bring her four children to see him as often as possible. She told me also that any savings she had managed to accumulate from the money allowed her by the War Office while her husband was on active service had been spent in fares taking herself and children to see her husband while he was at Napsbury. Her husband's certificate is marked "very good," and he had performed all his duties in a satisfactory manner. I think this is an extremely hard case which I am quite certain this House and the country does not wish the War Office to treat without a pension.
      I took this case up, and I sent it to the War Office and to the new Statutory War Pensions Committee, and I was told by a distinguished member of that Committee, whom I know personally, that this was not a case for them to deal with, but one in which the War Office ought to allow a pension. I believe the Statutory Committee have sent this case to the War Office, telling them that it is a case with which they ought to deal. I said to my friend on the Pensions Committee, "What is to become of this woman and her children, while this case is being sent back from the Statutory Committee to the War Office in order to find out whether they should allow this woman a pension or not?" I have other cases, but this is the worst one that has come under my notice from my own Constituency. I want to put it to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office, that we do not want cases of this kind to happen. I do not know the reasons why the War Office took the view they did of this case, or whether they took it from the point of view of economy. If that is their view, I want to tell them I do not believe the country will support them. We are spending a great deal of money on this War. Up to the present the country has cheerfully borne that expenditure, and I am sure that people do not

      2003
      mind if it costs £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year more, as long as these men get an adequate and proper pension.
      I will mention another case which is not quite so important as the one I have just dealt with. A woman complained to me that she had got no pension, and she said that living in the same building as herself was the wife of an alien enemy whose husband was interned in this country, and who was receiving through the guardians an amount which I believe is paid by the Government of this country. She complained that although her husband had fought for his country and done his duty, she was cut off without a pension, while the wife of an alien enemy was receiving a grant from the country. I think the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office ought to realise that the electors outside—and I can speak with some recent knowledge, having fought a contested election only two months ago—do want these men who have gone to fight our battles recognised and treated generously, and in cases like the one I have mentioned I do not think you ought to turn these men down and you should provide them with adequate and proper pensions.
      Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I rise to support very heartily the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bradford, because I think it is a proposal which ought to be carried and which the Government ought to accept. There is one remark made by the hon. Member for York about which I think there ought to be some explanation. I understood the hon. Member to say that there was a date fixed for the new pension coming into force which the Government had suggested.
      Mr. BUTCHER: I was only illustrating my point that the change should be made retrospective.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understood the hon. Member to say that a date had been fixed. If that had been the case it would be most serious, because we are most anxious that if this proposal is going to be brought into operation and the Government are going to act, it should be retrospective. Like the last speaker, I have had a number of cases brought to my notice of men suffering from disease, or who have died from the effect of disease, whose families are not in any way benefited or pensioned; in fact, in one of these cases the War Office refused a pension. Before I
      2004
      mention this particular case may I say that when this matter was debated the year before last, the present Colonial Secretary undertook to discuss these points from the other side of the Table, and he raised over and over again the case of the man who suffered from disease, and we understood—or at least I understood, and I am quite certain that those who addressed meetings asking for recruits also understood—that the men who suffered from disease would receive a pension, or in case of death their families would benefit. I called the attention of the War Office to a particular case some time ago of a man who was for many years—in fact I think for teens of years—a Volunteer. He continued with the Territorials, and he was in camp when the War broke out. He was passed by the doctor; he served for fifteen months in the Territorials, and he died. His wife applied for a pension and her brother-in-law brought the case to me, and I submitted it to the War Office. It is because they allege that they were suffering from some disease before the outbreak of the War that they refused the widow and the family any pension. She has a number of children, and it is an extremely hard case. I have called the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whom I have always found to be very generous and very fair in his treatment of these cases, to it. but it is a principle that has been laid down by the War Office, and I think it is a matter which the House ought to take up. I contend that in these cases the widows and the children are as much entitled to a pension as if the man had died on the field of battle. I hope the Government will take these cases into their consideration. There are a very large number of complaints in the different constituencies about them, and I am quite certain that unless there is a remedy found those complaints will continue to grow.
      Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It is only a month or two ago that the Prime Minister stated, with some heat, that the Army was not represented in this House. I never had an opportunity of answering that until to-night. The Army now is the nation and the Army is represented in this House. I say that for the purpose of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office that if this Amendment under any circumstances is pressed to a division, which I do not believe it will be, he will find that the House is so sympathetic and so absolutely

      2005
      in favour of it that when the pressure of the Government Whips will not have the slightest effect. For my part, at almost every recruiting meeting I addressed—and they were very numerous—I told them that we should never let the men who were offering their lives for us in our emergency go into the workhouses, and that pledge I intend to keep in spite of any Government Whips. The Under-Secretary of State for War, I think, has almost met the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. He has announced that although a man may have had some latent disease before he enlisted yet if it has been developed or aggravated by the War he is to have a pension, and the amount is to be four-fifths of the ordinary pension for wounds or injury caused by actual belligerency. I do not know whether that is sufficient or not, or whether it will meet the views of the Labour party, but I think on the whole it is a compromise which this House might accept.
      There is outstanding the question of whether these pensions on this more generous scale, or rather more just scale—this ought not to be a question of generosity, but of justice—are to be made retrospective or not. I hope the Financial Secretary of the War Office will assure us that those who, before a particular date when this subject had not been properly considered by the Government, were only to get the miserable pension of 4s. 8d. per week, will now be put in the position in which they ought to have been put if the Government had considered this question earlier in the War. I think there will be no doubt about it, but of course one has to make sure. The House ought to remember, and I am sure it will remember, the pleas that have been made by the members of the Labour party regarding the hardships inflicted upon the insurance societies, the trades unions, and the friendly societies by reason of the refusal of these pensions or by reason of the small amount of them. It will also remember that this money should not be regarded as a charge upon the public purse, because the Poor Law is largely and will be largely relieved by the pensions given to these men who have been fighting for us. All those who go into the workhouse become a charge upon the local rates, and I can never see much distinction between the payment of rates and the payment of taxes.
      I should like to say a word on the question of accidents. I had a very extra-
      2006
      ordinary case brought to my notice from Egypt, where the Territorials of my constituency were stationed for a time. One of them, a young fellow, went up to the Pyramids, and when there fell off one and was injured. He was refused the pension. The Financial Secretary to the War Office very kindly said that he was putting his case before the Statutory Committee for the exercise of their charitable consideration, and I have no doubt that he will do so. That is a case upon the line. It is very difficult to know whether accidents of that kind ought to be the subject of a pension or not. In another case a man who was in charge of horses on a train in France was killed whilst passing from one coach to another, and his widow was refused a pension. That is a case in which the pension ought certainly to have been granted. He was not doing it for his pleasure, but with the idea of doing his best for his country. He was trying to get from one truck to another to meet some emergency that had occurred in the other truck. He had not been forbidden to do it by the military authorities, and a soldier is always obliged to do everything that is needed of him, even although he may endanger his life in doing it. It could not be said to be serious or wilful misconduct, and had it been a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, knowing as I do so well the decisions given under that Act, I can cay that it would not have been called serious or wilful misconduct, and his widow would have got the full pension. I quite agree with the members of the Labour party with regard to the constitution of the Statutory Committee. They are altogether out of touch with the ordinary affairs of the working classes. They have little or no knowledge of what constitutes a sufficient sum for the support of a working man and his family, and, besides that, it is tainted with charity. We are the most charity ridden country in the world. I should like' to see charity obliterated, at any rate in all cases concerning these men who have risked their lives and their limbs in the service of the country.
      Mr. RAFFAN: I desire to join with my hon. Friends in expressing my appreciation of the concession announced by the Under-Secretary of State for War this afternoon. It is a very real and a very substantial concession, and if it is administered in a generous spirit there is no doubt that it will meet the vast majority

      2007
      of the cases which will arise in the future. I desire to say that, very strongly and very frankly, but I am bound to say I cannot understand why there is this hesitation to give a plain answer to the repeated question as to whether the cases which have arisen in the past are to receive the benefit of this concession. I am glad to hear that cheer from the Front Bench to the view that this should be administered in a generous spirit, but there could be no more niggardly way of applying the concession than to say that while the man who may be broken in the War in the future is to receive the benefit, the man who has been broken in the War in the past is not to receive it. I cannot imagine what the Government can hope to gain by adopting any such attitude.
      Mr. TENNANT: I would ask my hon. Friend not to be in quite such a hurry.
      Mr. RAFFAN: When I put a question in the House this afternoon the Financial Secretary to the War Office informed me that he could not answer at that moment, but that he would to the best of his ability deal with the matter in the Debate.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): And that is what, with permission, I shall do.
      Mr. RAFFAN: I do not want to waste time. If we had had any indication that the concession was to be made it would have saved a very great deal of time and argument this evening. In view of the indication now given I will not amplify my argument. There is no doubt that agitation has helped forward this matter, and it will be absolutely necessary for the Government to give way on this point. There are one or two little matters of detail, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them. I am bound to say he is very courteous and very sympathetic in giving information. I want to refer to the case of a man not physically broken by the War, but one who is suffering from mental weakness. His parents were told he would be sent to an asylum unless they could make a home for him. They have done so, but all applications for anything in the nature of a pension or allowance have been refused. On the advice of the hon. Gentleman, I applied to one of the public funds, and got a donation of £2 but it has been quite impossible to obtain any
      2008
      regular allowance, and I would like some assurance that in cases of this kind where it is not mere physical disability, but where the trouble is the result of mental weakness, allowances will be made to the wife or mother or whoever may be maintaining the unfortunate soldier. With the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) who introduced this matter, I regret that it has been found necessary or desirable to send soldiers suffering from nervous shock to lunatic asylums, and especially to workhouse lunatic asylums. I hope the hon. Gentleman and his advisers will consider the suggestion that suitable homes should be provided for such cases, without their being sent to lunatic asylums.
      I hope also we may have some definite assurances with regard to cases of accident. A number of such cases have already been cited. I have mentioned the case of a man who was drowned when, technically speaking, he was off duty. He was drowned while bathing. Application was made for a pension for his widow, but so far it has failed. I am sure it is the desire of the country that in such a case the man's widow should be generously treated, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will deal generously with cases of accident as well as cases of disease. When all these cases are dealt with—and no doubt the great majority of cases will be covered, if the Regulations are generously administered-there will still be a residuum of cases which will be dealt with under the provisions of the Naval and Military Pensions Act when the Statutory Committees get to work. But that cannot take place for some months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not want to argue that point, but I venture to say it will not be before the end of June. I know that the county council with which I am connected will have its preliminary scheme settled by the end of April, and after that there is to be a supplementary scheme for setting up district committees. When we have got the supplementary scheme agreed to the committees will have to be set up, and it will probably not be until their August meeting of the county council that the committees will be actually arranged. It is true there is no money at the moment, but a Bill is being pressed forward for the purpose of getting funds at the disposal of these bodies.
      While these cases will no doubt receive consideration when the committees get to work, great hardship may ensue in the

      2009
      meantime. In fact, homes are in process of being broken up, and I have letters in my pocket in which it is stated that a home is only just being kept together because the wife and mother go out to do work in order to maintain the husband, and the children and the father are left at home during the daytime. There is, I am sure, no desire on the part of the people of this country that this should occur. They would wish that broken soldiers should be properly provided for, and if it be true that these cases cannot be dealt with for a few months, then I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the separation allowance should be continued in the meantime to these widows until their, cases can be heard by the new tribunal and a decision arrived at. It is not right these people should be left absolutely penniless, and therefore I do urge that the separation allowances should be continued beyond the six months during which they are now paid, thereby avoiding little bits of furniture having to be taken to the pawnshop, and the home gradually being broken up. While I am grateful for the concessions which have been made, I would like to press upon the Government my view that they will gain very little by dealing with these matters in a haggling and niggardly spirit. They will in the long run have to pay, and it would be far better if soldiers' wives and dependants could be made to feel that there has been no blot on our escutcheon, and that we have redeemed our promises made at the beginning of the War, that no home should be broken up in the case of a soldier who is broken in his country's service, and that no widow should want because her husband was killed while fighting for his country.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: Like almost all Members of this House, I have had many cases reported to me from my Constituency coming within the grievance that has been discussed to-night. I do not intend to weary the House by giving. details of those cases, but I want to say that while I recognise the excellence of the change which has been announced to-night, there are two warnings given which I would like to repeat from the point of view of my own experience in, perhaps, a slightly different way. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is, of course, always very sympathetic. It seems hard to blame him or the other officials of the War Office in a matter of this sort, but, after all, we must hold
      2010
      somebody responsible, and we must hold the people who are officially responsible as being really responsible: otherwise we can never get anything done. Therefore, we must look to them to see that it is done and that it is done in the right way. A good deal has been said this evening as to the necessity of making this retrospective. We are told that we are in such a hurry. It is not right that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench should make a criticism of that kind. We are not in such a hurry, for this matter has been going on ever since the beginning of the War. Shortly after the War broke out men began to come back hopelessly disabled for life, yet after eighteen months of war we are simply told that a change will be made, bringing the pension up to four-fifths, and when we ask whether that will apply to all cases from the beginning or only to new cases occurring after to-day, we are told that we must not be in such a hurry. That is not a fair way of answering the criticism. I am perfectly sure that if this is not made retrospective it will be most unsatisfactory to the country, not only to those of the poorer classes who will get the pensions, but to the vast majority of the people of this country, who desire to make the necessary sacrifices in order that the broken soldiers of the country may be treated in a proper way.
      I should like to see the words of the new Warrant, or whatever the document is called, which is to embody this new principle of pensions, because everything will depend upon those words. They will be interpreted by officials who will feel it their duty not to spend. a penny more of the country's money than is clearly included in the words of the Warrant, if it is a Warrant. Therefore, we should like to see the words of that document and know, for instance, whether cases of blindness will all be included. Yesterday I saw a soldier who is nearly blind, who attributed his blindness to having had to live in very damp places and to sleep in damp blankets. He had been a miner, and was one of my own constituents. Before the War broke out he had never suffered in any way with his eyes. How it is to be proved for certain whether the blindness is due to his having slept in wet blankets and general hardship, or whether it can be attributed in any way to something before the War, perhaps something in his ancestry, I do not know. The case of accidents has been referred to. I am not going to repeat that case, but unless some-

      2011
      thing like the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act is followed and something like the principle of insurance is adopted, namely, of putting the State in the position of being an insurer of the life, limb, and health of the soldier, then there will not be a satisfactory solution to this question. If a man after a reasonable amount of service is found to be disabled there ought to be a very strong presumption that the State is responsible for compensating him according to the amount of his injury, whether he is absolutely disabled or partially disabled, or, in the event of his being killed, for giving compensation to his widow and those dependant upon him. At the beginning of the War the financial treatment of our soldiers was such as we had occasion to be ashamed of in a rich country like this. Fortunately, it has been very greatly improved, both as to the separation allowances and the dependants' allowances, though the question of the dependants' allowances is certainly not yet upon a wholly satisfactory basis. I hope the Financial Secretary to whom we must give a great part of the credit for the advance which has been announced tonight, will go forward and see that the hard-and-fast report of the Committee which ties him down in the matter of dependants' allowances is put upon a much better basis, just as the pensions are being put on a better basis to-night. If that is done, and if the new Warrant for pensions is properly and widely enough worded, then we shall have a system of which we may, I will not say be proud, but of which we need have no shame in regard to the treatment of those who have served the country. There must be enormous hardship arising out of a great war like this. You could not wage such a war without it. But there is no reason why there should be hardship and injustice in the matter of money in a rich country like this, which can amply afford to pay what is right to those who have served it.
      Mr. HOGGE: I believe that the House has got to realise that this is probably the largest social question with which it has to deal in connection with the War, because this is a problem that is not only with us to-day but one which will be with us to-morrow and the next day, and for many Parliaments to come Members of this House will be continually sent to Parliament pledged to one thing or another in regard to those who are in receipt of
      2012
      pensions. It is significant that on so important a topic the House has been empty for so long, and that so little interest has been taken in the Debate except by those of us who have been waiting our turn to speak. One of the most interesting episodes in connection with the Debate has been the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), with regard to a Royal Warrant dealing with the pension that is to be paid to the fathers and mothers of soldiers who have no other right save the fact that they were dependent upon that soldier to secure a pension, to know what exactly it means. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Select Committee that dealt with pensions. He was one of those who put out the first White Paper, the second White Paper, the third White Paper, and the fourth White Paper, and all that is in the Warrant of the Financial Secretary is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division asked him. to put into it because he was a member of that Committee. Here you. have a prominent member of the Labour party, supposed to be interested in looking after the interests of his constituents, getting up and putting a ridiculous question like that to the Front Bench. Surely when the Labour party appoints one of its members to be a member of one of these Committees on special reforms they should take care that they would not be put in a difficulty like that in which they have been put to-night by one of their number asking a question of that kind.
      Mr. WARDLE: Better put you on the Committee.
      Mr. HOGGE: That is the trouble. My hon. Friend who now leads the Labour party, and who may be right hon. before he has finished leading it, suggests that it might be better to put me on the Committee. I have the common sense to stop off every Committee. As soon as a man, goes on to a Committee in this House he destroys his whole value to criticise the work of that Committee, as has been exhibited in the incident we had to-night of the nominee of the Labour party not knowing what was in his own report.
      Mr. BARNES: May I ask my hon. Friend to be a little more definite. He has made a charge against me that I do not know what is in our own report. In what respect have I exhibited. that ignorance?
      Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Member wants me to say it over again I can do so, if Mr. Deputy-Speaker will not call me to order for needless repetition. What I said was that in the fourth White Paper issued by the Pensions Committee the very material is contained which my right hon. Friend complained about to-night as to the interpretation of it in the Royal Warrant, and all that is done in the Royal Warrant is that the conclusions arrived at by that special Committee were transferred into the Royal Warrant, and my right hon. Friend ought to have thought of that.
      Mr. BARNES: That is not quite definite.
      Mr. HOGGE: I will try to make it more definite. The fourth White Paper says that a father and mother who are entirely dependent upon a son, who otherwise would not be able to give them anything, shall get 10s. or fifty-two times the separation allowance, whichever is less. That is to to say, that 10s. must be the maximum, and if the disablement is partial, then 5s. That is exactly what you recommended in the fourth Paper.
      Mr. BARNES: It is not what we recommended in the Paper. What we recommended in the Paper was that a dependant should get an amount of money based upon the degree of pre-war dependence, which is not in the Paper.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) is going a good deal beyond the Amendment now before the House, which deals simply with the question of pensions or allowances in the case of soldiers contracting or developing disease through service.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree, and I would not have taken the point except that my right hon. Friend made it and was not called to order, therefore I assumed that if it was in order to raise the point, it was in order for me to deal with it, but as you rule that we are both out of order I will not pursue it further. To come to a case on which we are in agreement, I happen to have a letter concerning the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend with regard to the accident to a driver who lost his life when moving from one place to another in France. It has been referred to already, but I hope to emphasise some other aspects of the accident side of the story. My right hon. Friend said this man had lost his life by
      2014
      moving from one truck to another, and as a result his widow was denied a pension. I have a letter signed by his own Major, and the circumstances of that man's death were these:
      "In answer to your letter of 29th February, I beg to inform you that the late driver Smith of this battery met his death by being kicked out of the train by one of the battery horses. I regret that I could not write to you at the time, as I had not your address. Private Smith died doing his duty, and his death should be mourned as if he had fallen on the actual field of battle. He died for his country, and I beg you to accept my sincere sympathy."
      That is a letter from his commanding officer. His wife had been informed that she was not eligible for a pension because it was an accident. Is it an accident when a battery horse kicks a driver out of a train and the man is killed? Is it any worse to be killed by the kick of a horse than by the kick of a shell? When you come to examine this question of accidents you have to come to some clear decision. I do not want the House to be satisfied to-night by what, after all, may be a concession, but that does not meet all the circumstances and may prevent the House from dealing with other necessary things which require to be settled. Everyone has said, up to the present, that the fact that you are going to get four-fifths of the pension which you ought to get, instead of the 8d. a day which has been usual in the case of the Chelsea Commissioners, is a great concession, and we ought to be very thankful for that, and everyone has taken the line that because that has been met we might let my right hon. Friend off on this occasion. I want my hon. Friend to say definitely where we stand in that matter.
      Here is another case illustrating the kind of thing. It is the case of a driver in the 2nd Scottish Horse who was run down by a motor, and his widow is told that "in view of the circumstances of the death of her husband neither you nor your children are eligible for any pension from the Army Fund." The continuous reply that we get to that is, "We are going to have a supplementary pension by a Statutory Committee as soon as it is set up." There is an Order on the Paper to-day for the Second Reading of a Bill which will supply £1,000,000 in some form or other for that purpose. I do not suppose we shall reach that Order to-night, but it is not good enough to refer us to the fact that because this kind of accidental death does not at the moment bring the person within the purview of the Chelsea

      2015
      Commissioners, and therefore within the purview of a pension, they may get something from a committee which is not set up. As a matter of fact, everyone knows what the size of the problem is. We have had casualty lists given in this House. We know that altogether there are getting on for something like 150,000 men killed, in addition to 250,000 odd casualties by wounds, and every one of these, except those which actually recover and go back to the trenches, leaves a man in some kind of disability. That will require to be met, and it cannot be met out of a paltry provision such as we hope to provide in the Statutory Committee's Bill. Where do we stand then with regard to accidents? Is a man who is an attested soldier on board a transport, about a camp, on the lines of communication, if he is killed otherwise than by shell fire or by rifle fire, or by any of the arts and devices of warfare, entitled to an Army pension or is he not? The broad, general answer at the moment is "No, he is not entitled," I want to know why that man is not entitled, and why his widow and children are to be deprived of the perpetual support which he otherwise would have given to them in civil life, with the only amelioration that he may or may not apply to the Statutory Committee? I do not think that that meets the case at all. Let me go a little further in regard to this increased allowance. We are told—and the House seems to be very well satisfied at the moment—that the pension will be increased to four-fifths of that amount. Does that. carry several other things? For instance, in the original provision for pensions, if a man dies within seven years of having received his wounds, his dependants are entitled, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) knows, to a pension as if he had received his actual death in combat. Does that apply in this case? You cannot determine at once in regard to a man who has developed a disease while he is in the forces how much his pension is going to be. Is he to get the benefit of the seven years' extension? Supposing he dies, can my hon. Friend tell us whether the widow and children of that man who, in other circumstances, would be entitled to the Smaller pension, are to get the pension at this increased rate? That is a very important point, and it has not been put at all. It is a point of great interest to the women and children of these men. You are going to increase the pension in that case to four-fifths of the ordinary pension.
      2016
      If the men die from that same disease for which you are going to increase the pension, will the pensions and allowances to the widows and children be brought up to the four-fifths level? Hon. Members will see exactly where these people are going to be unless that is done. If you are going to give a man simply because he has developed a disease in the Army four-fifths of his pension to live on you are only dealing with a very partial part of the problem. You must address yourself to the other point, namely, if the man dies of disease which has been developed by his being put into the Army, what are his widow and children going to get? In May or June of last year I raised the first case that was debated, and it is one which will illustrate the point I now make. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Morton) knows the case well. It is the Gordon case.
      Mr. MORTON: It is known an the Gordon-Sutherland case.
      Mr. HOGGE: There is the case of a man who was accused of having developed disease during his service with the Army. I need not go through the history of the case, but he was finally discharged, and a few days after discharge he died. He left a widow and, if I remember rightly, five or six children, for whom no provision has been made. They live in the Highlands, where the conditions of making a livelihood are not so varied as they are in our towns, and because the man developed a disease while he was in the Army his widow and dependants are treated in this way. The point I wish to make is this, and I hope the House will support me in it, that if you are going to increase the pension to four-fifths of what is being given in a normal case, obviously if a man dies from that particular cause for which you give the pension, you ought to make provision on the same basis for his widow and children. It was in order to emphasise that point that I have remained to the end of this Debate. It is really wasting time for each hon. Member to give cases, because we have all got them from our own constituencies. We have all been saying very complimentary things about my hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is very courteous to all of us. He does everything we ask him to do, if possible, but we cannot get away from the fact that he is the voice of the Government on this question in the House, and I tell him quite

      2017
      frankly and plainly that until this matter is settled we must keep at, and we will keep at the Government.
      We will not be content to have pensions left in this unsatisfactory way. We have brought the Government up to a point tonight which is very far removed from their first position, and I am perfectly certain that if my hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) were an ordinary Member he would be making the same point as we are making. He quite understands that we are not up against him so much as up against the system. With regard to our suggestions as to what ought to be done, his defence may be, "I have got the Treasury to deal with." If that is his defence, we will all go with him as a deputation to the Treasury. Every Member of the House will go with him as a deputation to the Treasury. The Treasury is paying out £5,000,000 a day just now for wasting life—apart altogether from the reasons, we agree on that—and we are going to be asked in this Bill, which is to provide a paltry million, to deal with the wastage of life. It is preposterous. The nation can afford this money. The nation can afford the money which is required by this Motion, because we ask the Government to take over the control of a great many more classes than they have taken over. Do not let the House be deceived. All that the Government is proposing to do is to deal with cases of developed disease. They have said nothing about accidental death. Cannot they settle that to-night or are we to wait again for another agitation before we bring them up to the scratch on that point? In every case, as my hon. Friend knows, it has got to be retrospective. If he agrees, as he probably will do to-night, that it is to be retrospective in regard to disease, he is bound to agree that in the near future it will be retrospective in regard to accidents. It has got to be done finally, therefore why make two bites at one cherry? Why not be generous and straight away deal with this enormously important social problem which affects so many of the widows and children of these men who have endured so much for us?
      Mr. ROCH: I think that everyone in the House welcomed the statement of the Under-Secretary for War that he was going to deal with the cases raised by this Motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who was going to reply (Mr. Forster) will make more clear some of the points which have arisen on that statement. I
      2018
      do think that it is somewhat of a reflection on the great Department of which he is spokesman in this House that it is only now, at the end of eighteen months of war, that these very hard and urgent cases have at last got the attention of the War Office. I think that the statement of facts made by the War Office a short time ago that 35,000 men have been discharged from the Army, and that out of that total more than one-third were discharged without any pension, is in itself a very grave reflection on the War Office as to the way they have looked at this problem. I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear upon what basis this question is going to be put. Is he going to bring the Royal Warrant up to the Admiralty standard, and is he going to alter the words of the Royal Warrant and include the words "or aggravated by disease"? What on earth is the reason for saying that these people who are disabled in this way are only going to be entitled to four-fifths of the normal pension. After all, the pension was given because of the need and necessity of the man who was disabled. In regard to the man who is disabled by tuberculosis or disease, the liability for which is recognised, his need is just as great and his necessities are just as urgent as those of the man who is injured in any other way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to reply, so I will only shortly put one or two points, and make one or two suggestions. First of all I would like to ask him to give his very earnest attention to the delay in the payment of pensions. In many cases these men are discharged from the Army, and month after month goes by before their pension is paid, and these men are discharged out of the Army and turned on to the streets without any means of subsistence at all.
      I will give just one specific case, showing the really incredible delay which arises in some of these instances. The case was that of a man—I have given the facts to the Under-Secretary—who joined on 2nd September, 1914. He was then sent to Brecon. That was in the early days of the War, and he was put for five nights to sleep in the barrack square without even a blanket. The result was that he very soon got a severe cold on the lungs, and the natural result was that ultimately, after going to and from hospital, he contracted tuberculosis and was discharged from the Army in February,

      2019
      1915. For many months the War Office would not recognise his claim at all. Month after month went by. He was completely dependent upon the charity of friends, and even public subscriptions were got up for hint. I then got into touch with the matter only in August. He had heard then that if he could get a peer to intervene for him he would be able probably to get some little compensation. He was unable to get a peer, and he was only able to fall back on me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Much better!"] As a result, after endless letters to the War Office, it was only in January that he was awarded a pension of 19s. 6d. I really think that that was an outrageous case. Here was this man, who had contracted this fatal disease which has made him quite incompetent to earn a living, solely owing to the neglect of the War Office in putting that man for five nights to sleep in a barrack yard without as much as a rug to cover him, and yet it was only just short of a year before he could get, the pension which was ultimately awarded him.
      Then there is another point to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will give his attention. The public have got the impression that while 12,000 of these men are unpensioned—and that is serious enough in all conscience—yet that the remaining 23,000 have been given adequate pensions. That is not the case at all. The hulk of these men have pensions of from only 4s. to is. 6d. a week
      Mr. FORSTER: Not the bulk of them.
      Mr. ROCH: A great many of them. I could give endless cases in which men seriously injured were only given pensions of from 4s. to Ss. a week. What is the position of these men? In the labour market to-day it is perfectly true that, owing to abnormal circumstances, they may be able to earn higher wages than will be at all possible when the War comes to an end. Can they have those pensions revised when the War is over? When a pension is awarded the man should be able to register the fact that he has got a claim, and that his position will be very similar to that which constantly arises under the Workman's Compensation Act, where a man perhaps is able to work, and he has no claim because his wages are not decreased, but the Act takes cognisance of the fact that circumstances may arise when that disability may get worse, and he will
      2020
      not be able to earn his wages, and therefore the device has been settled that he registers the fact that he has got a claim for compensation and that at any time he can get it reviewed. While we have an absolutely abnormal state of the labour market to-day, yet great industrial stress is certain to follow when the War comes to an end, and these men will be faced with the ruthless competition which only fit men can face. I do hope that they will be able then to see that their claims can be registered and that their claims for pensions can be reviewed.
      I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be advisable in these cases to fix once for all the pension to which the man is entitled for his injury. That course has been adopted in France. There they tried the sliding scale of making up the difference between his wage earning capacity and what he is able actually to earn, but they have found it is much better in the long run to fix absolutely once for all the pension to which a man is entitled. It is obvious, I think, that when a man's pension is fixed on the basis of what he is able to earn it often gives hint a direct interest in saying that he cannot earn money at all. Twenty-five shillings a week pension is better than 30s. made up partly of wages which may not last." So, by not fixing the maximum pension to which a man is entitled, you offer a deliberate incitement not to work. That is bad for the State and for the individual as well. I would also like the hon. Gentleman to give consideration to the question whether these pensions cannot be taken from the War Office altogether and brought into the great machinery of local government which exists all over the country. We have got the Pension Committees which now have to deal with numerous cases of pensions, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability of placing the dealing with these. pensions with these local authorities.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Gentleman is raising a much larger question than is raised by the Motion now before the House, which is to extend the existing pensions to cases arising from disease contracted or developed while on service.
      Mr. ROCH: I am much obliged. I realise that I have been travelling somewhat far, but I think that I have made the point quite clear, and I will not delay the hon. Gentleman any further.
      Mr. FORSTER: We have discussed this question on three separate occasions recently, and I think that I have heard every speech that has been made in the course of the Debates that have taken place. I am bound to say that I do not remember one speech with the tone of which I could quarrel, and certainly I am not the individual to take as directed against myself, personally, any criticism that really is directed against a system which I may have to administer for the moment. In my view, the House of Commons could not be better engaged than in discussing problems of this kind, and I can only hope that I shall be able to deal with it in the calm, dispassionate manner of those who have preceded me. The object of the Motion which has been made tonight is really to give a pension to everyone who is discharged from the Army on account of disease developed in the course of his military service. We are told that we are responsible for passing him by means of the medical authorities into the Army as fit for service, and that if we pass him out of the Service as unfit the responsibility for it should rest upon us and our system is condemned as harsh and inadequate. I hope that the House will bear a few minutes with me if I discuss very briefly what our system is, because I think that I may be able to remove some misconceptions which prevail both within and without the walls of this House. Before I come to the question of pensions, I should like to refer very briefly to the system of administration of pensions. First of all, I should like to say a word with regard to the question of medical examination. On previous occasions I have pointed to the fact that the medical examination which the recruit has to undergo is directed rather to seeing whether he is fully equipped with the requisite limbs and eyes to fit him for a soldier, rather than to detect whether he bears within his body the seeds of latent disease.
      And I must now ask the House to look back upon what was done by the medical authorities in the early stages of the War, where you have all the complaints as to those who were passed into the Army. I really ask the House to look on this question from the common-sense point of view. At that time we were taking recruits under a system which provided no means of registration, because it was not possible in those days to register a recruit, and send him home, and then call him up
      2022
      when he was required. Recruits brought into the recruiting office had to be medically examined, and obviously it had to be done in a great hurry, with the result, no doubt; that a great number of men were passed into the Service who ought not to have been passed into it. You may say, that is the fault of the authorities for not making adequate and proper arrangements beforehand. But supposing anyone in time of peace had been able even to dream of calling into existence, within the space of time in which it happened, an Army so gigantic and so vast as has been called into being in this country—supposing anyone had foreseen the possibility of that having to be done, of course more adequate preparations would have been made. If anyone had realised that we would want an Army of four millions of men, can it be doubted for a single moment that we should have gone in for a system of universal service years before? With a system of universal service we should have had a system of more thorough, more complete, and more satisfactory medical examination. I say that not in regard, to the criticism that has been directed against the War Office, but really to remind the House of the conditions under which a large number of these men were taken into the Service. Then, having taken a man into the Service and having passed him out of it, the question arises, Is he or is he not entitled to pension under the Regulations of the Royal Warrant? I have been twitted with having allowed the House to believe or think that the Royal Warrant is like the laws of the Medes and Persians.
      I have no doubt it is to the fault of my poverty of expression that this is due, but obviously to anyone who has any knowledge of the system at all the Royal Warrant is merely the verbal expression of the pension policy adopted by the Government. I was endeavouring to point out, when I referred to the question before, that so long as the Royal Warrant remains as it is it ties the Lands of those who administer pensions. The fact is that for them it prescribes the limits within which the pensions may be given. Of course, the Royal Warrant changes as the pension policy changes, as I hope that we are going to make a change in consequence of our Debate to-night. It has been suggested that in the administration of pensions under the Royal Warrant we have restricted it and brought it within narrower limits than those which were recommended

      2023
      by the Select Committee and adopted by the House. If that be true—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] If it was not adopted by the House, the House would have taken steps to show that it was not.
      Mr. HOGGE: We asked for an opportunity to be heard on this question over and over again, but the Prime Minister refused. But in the sense my hon. Friend means, the House did agree.
      Mr. FORSTER: I did not mean that a Motion was made, and that the recommendation of the Select Committee was adopted by the House. In my view it would be an improper thing for any Government Department to narrow or restrict the definite policy which has been adopted and laid down by the House of Commons. I only mention this matter because I wish to recall to the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) that the terms of the Royal Warrant were before the Select Committee at the time when they made their recommendations. The question whether or not pensions should be given in the very cases which we are discussing to-night was before the Select Committee also. I think I am giving correct expression to the then views of the Committee when I say that the feeling was that the experience which was in their possession at that time was insufficient upon which to form a judgment which might have such far-reaching consequences that it was desirable, in the interests of everybody, to wait for further experience before coming to a final decision upon so important a question.
      Mr. BARNES: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the general principle upon which the recommendations of the Select Committee are based is the amount or degree of pre-war dependence being taken as the amount to which the person is entitled, and I have endeavoured by showing the succeeding paragraphs issued only last month that effect has not been given to that recommendation.
      Mr. FORSTER: I will come to that later. I am at present dealing with the point whether or not the language of the Royal Warrant really restricts the policy which the Select Committee laid down. I do not think the War Office can fairly be charged with having unduly restricted the pension policy of the Select Committee. I come to the question of the
      2024
      machinery by which this policy was administered. The pension is fixed by the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital itself. I have heard one of my hon. Friends refer to the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital as a body consisting of comparatively, if not wholly, unknown persons, and I think another of my hon. Friends referred to that Committee as a mysterious body. I do not think it is really unknown or mysterious to anyone who wishes to inform himself. As to the personnel of the Commission, it is composed mainly of distinguished soldiers. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself also had the honour of seats upon the Board. The Board of Chelsea Hospital, composed as it is mainly of soldiers, has full and free discretion untramelled by the red tape of the War Office, if you like to call it so, or at all events untramelled by active interference on the part of the War Office, has free discretion in the interpretation of the Royal Warrant, and it rests with them, and with them alone, to decide what pension the man is entitled to in each particular case. I have the advantage of rather a long connection, not continuous, with the Board of Chelsea Hospital, for when I was a Whip in another Government, I am afraid it is a good many years ago now, I was for three years a member of the Board of Chelsea Hospital as one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury. I then took great interest in the work which they did, and that interest has lasted ever since. I was glad to find myself once more a member of the Board of Chelsea Hospital when I was appointed to the office I now have the honour to hold. I can testify from experience to the careful, fair-minded, impartial, and yet sympathetic manner in which these difficult questions are administered by the Board of Chelsea Hospital.
      I should like to make a passing reference to a question that was mooted by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), and that was his reference to the question of delay in the payment of pensions. Perhaps the House will allow me to describe what happens, as it will be simpler and much more easily understood than by making general references. What happens in the majority of cases when a man is discharged from the Army is this: The man is examined in the locality where he is by a medical board composed of three medical officers. They report what his

      2025
      condition is and they recommend him to be discharged by a certain time. Their recommendation is made so long before the date of his discharge as to give Chelsea the opportunity of fixing his pension, and in the great majority of cases the man's pension is fixed and settled before he is discharged from the Army and he receives the first payment the first week after he is discharged.
      Mr. WARDLE: Why not that system in all the cases?
      Mr. FORSTER: Under the present system, although I would not like to commit myself to precise dates, it takes a comparatively short time to get this thing through Chelsea Hospital, and therefore it is found if the Invaliding Board allow, say, a fortnight or three weeks, or something of that kind, the pension is fixed. Those are cases that are straightforward. There may be cases where there is either some doubt, where there is insufficient evidence, or where Chelsea Hospital, wishing to give a man the benefit of the doubt and put him on a higher scale, in which it is necessary to make further inquiries, and in those cases there is delay while inquiries are being made. Then it may happen that the man is discharged before the pension is fixed, and there is delay in making payment. I do not think there ought to be, and I hope that the arrangements we had in contemplation will at any rate enable some payment to be made to the man between the time he is discharged and the time when his pension becomes payable. We are looking closely into that, and I hope we shall he able to have something done on those lines. Under the existing system most of the cases of the men who have served at the front are covered, and fully covered, by the Royal Warrant as it stands. Of course, all cases where the disease is wholly and directly due to war service are wholly and completely covered at present. There is nothing in the Warrant at present which says explicitly that any pension is to be given in a case where the man's disease is aggravated by the service, but Chelsea has been able, by exercising its discretion, to deal with cases of aggravation of disease by calling in aid another article of the Royal Warrant which enables a lower scale of pension to be given. In that way it has been able to deal with cases of aggravation, and as to the scale I will have a word to
      2026
      say in a moment. In all these cases Chelsea must be guided, and the pension often depends, upon the medical opinion.
      Let me take a typical case and trace it from the start to the time when the pension is given, and I think in that way the House will see the system more clearly than in any other way. The man is examined with a view to his discharge on account of disease which has developed. He is examined in his own neighbourhood by a board composed of three medical men. The case then comes to Chelsea. If it is a straightforward case Chelsea deals with it at once. Chelsea may have reason to think that the medical men have taken an unduly unfavourable view of the man's case. We then discuss it at the board, and we have the advantage of the presence of Sir Launcelotte Gubbins, the Director-General of Medical Service. We discuss the case and see whether we cannot take a more favourable view to the soldier than the medical authorities have done, and where we think such a course is justified we order another medical board to examine the man, not the same medical board, to see whether or not there is any reason for taking a more favourable view of his case. He is examined by the second medical board, and again his ease comes to Chelsea. Again the Chelsea Commissioners inquire into it, and, if necessary, again we take the direct opinion of the Medical Commissioner at Chelsea or of the Director-General of the Army Medical Service himself. That happens before a final judgment is formed. I want the House to remember that in these cases the man has been examined personally by not less than six different doctors. Their decisions have been reviewed by the Director-General of the Medical Service. These medical men have had before them the whole of the man's military history and his medical history, which is of particular importance. I say, and I say it with some confidence, that these men are in a better position to judge of a man's medical condition than the philanthropist who, after all, very often hears only the man's story of what has happened.
      Mr. JOWETT: Is there any means of getting to know the identity of the medical men who form these various boards?
      Mr. FORSTER: They are all over the country. A man is examined by three local medical men in his own neighbour-

      2027
      hood. We have not a specially constituted medical board to whom all these cases are sent. What we have got are scattered all over the country in the various localities—boards made up of one, two, or three doctors drawn from the medical men in the neighbourhood.
      Mr. JOWETT: If I understand rightly, there i5 no published list of these individuals?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, I do not think there is any published list.
      Mr. MORTON: How do you know whether or not these medical officers are qualified men?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is any doubt about that.
      Mr. PRINGLE: How much do the examinations by these six medical men cost?
      Mr. FORSTER: These are men in the Royal Army Medical Service, and this is part of the duties they are constantly giving. There is no special cost about the medical board at all. The House will see that the great bulk of the men who have been , invalided out of the Army are covered as things stand—all the cases of disease wholly and directly due to service, and a large number of cases where the disease has been aggravated by service, although the pension given in the latter case is inadequate. I do not want to weary the House with figures—they were quoted by my right hon. Friend this afternoon—but I might give one figure which I hope will relieve the minds of some hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the subject. The number of cases of tubercle contracted abroad is 1,226. Out of those, 1,180 have been pensioned, and only 46 rejected. I think it is quite likely that my hon. Friends have heard of a very large proportion of the cases where no pension has been given. My right hon. Friend quoted the cases of other diseases where the full war pension has been given. It is not true, and it does not even approach the truth, to say that it is no use for a man who has not suffered from an actual wound to apply to Chelsea Hospital, because everybody who suffers only from disease has been thrown away like an old glove. That is not true, and it does not approach the truth. I am glad that in this House this afternoon such wild and unfounded statements have not been made.
      2028
      There remain the residue of men who have war service and no pensions, and men who have neither. The Amendment as it stands on the Paper will include both. The difference between the present 'practice and the Amendment as it stands on the Paper is that the present practice makes the pensions depend on something due to war service, while the terms of the Amendment would make enlistment practically the only qualification. My hon. Friends have called in aid the analogy of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I speak as a layman. I am not a lawyer, and I speak with considerable trepidation in the presence of so many Members who are experts in these matters, either from practical experience of the working of the Act, or from experience of it from the legal point of view. It seems to me that our practice of dealing with cases of injury or of disease is really closely analogous to that under the Workmen's Compensation Act. We have men who suffer from wounds or injuries, and we deal with them almost precisely as cases of accident are dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think my hon. Friends want us to go rather further than we are able to go under our present system, and I think rather further than we ought to go. They rather look upon the fact of a man being in military service as practically being in his employer's works the whole time. I do not think we can do that. I do not think we ought to do that. Let me take an instance or two. Suppose a man is playing football in France and breaks his leg. Do you say that in that case we ought to give him a pension? [HON. MEMBERS:"Yes!"]
      Mr. ROCH: You have done so.
      Mr. FORSTER: He would not get a pension under those conditions under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Because he is not employed all the time.
      Mr. MORTON: You encourage and recommend football.
      Mr. FORSTER: Then we are going beyond the Workmen's Compensation Act. Take another case. Suppose a man has an accident while bathing off duty. He would get no compensation for that under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Do you say that in every case we ought to give it under our system of pensions? I

      2029
      honestly do not think that you can regard the mere fact that a man is in military service as making him within his employer's works. I do not think the cases are really analogous.
      Mr. BARNES: May I point out that the man would get compensation under the Compensation Act in the case of the bathing, for it would practically be in the case of his employment.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask him—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Would it not be better to allow One Member to speak at a time?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask if he is aware that in the case of a man who meets with an accident going to his employment over a private road that his employer is liable?
      Mr. FORSTER: Surely that is quite a different thing, a man meeting with such an accident, to the one who was either bathing or playing football? Honestly, I do not think the contention can be sustained. I hope hon. Members will not press me on this point, because if they do I shall have to refer to other questions as to why I think it is clearly impossible that in all cases of accidents the same rule should apply. One knows they are accidents of a very curious kind in the neighbourhood of first line trenches. Any hon. Member who has been out at the front will know what I mean; and I think it will occur to other Members of this House. I do not think you can give compensation in all cases of injury merely because a man is a soldier, and is not always on military duty. I would really ask the House not to press me unduly upon this point. The argument adduced by my lion Friends is one which is specious and attractive, and one which it is not easy to meet except in a rather unsympathetic fashion, because it is quite obvious that no one can think without a thrill of pride of that devotion to duty, that heroic endurance, that willing self-sacrifice and splendid response to the call of arms that has given us the enormous Army that we have to-day. No one can look on the halt, the maimed, and the blind without being almost passionately resolved, come what may, cost what it may., that none of these men shall ever feel the pangs of hunger or of want, or without the feeling that it is up to this country to see to it that this matter is properly attended to. These
      2030
      men have been described, and truly described, as noble heroes. They ought to be treated as such. We hope that they will be fully and generously dealt with. But, Sir, I am afraid that is not the whole of the picture. If we look in the background we may see whole categories of men—I hope they are not very numerous—who cannot be described in that way, and who ought not, in my view, to be dealt with as we hope to deal with the men whom I have earlier described. I leave out of account the case—because no one has suggested it—that the man whose disease is due to his own fault should be brought within the ambit of this Motion. Upon that we are all agreed. I honestly do not think that we ought to include men—I find it difficult to use a word, for I do not want to suggest fraud—who enlisted knowing that they were not qualified, men who knew they were already diseased, men who had actually been notified as suffering from consumption, men actually in receipt of sickness benefit on account of consumption, men who having been discharged from the Army as over age who re-enlisted, and men who having been discharged from the Army on account of disease hid that disease and again re-enlisted. Whole categories of men there are to whom you cannot apply this Motion, and to whom this Motion ought not to apply. I will, I think, carry the House with me when I say that the categories of men to whom I have made reference ought not to be, and do not deserve to be, treated in the same way as those who have shed their blood for us. After all, we are not all saints—even in war time!
      10.0 P.M.
      I want to mention two cases showing how impossible it is in my judgment to lay down hard-and-fast rules, and to bring everybody in. I know a man who was cruelly wounded. In course of time, after he came out of the hospital, he was examined by a medical board and told he was medically unfit for further service. He would not go. The medical board reexamined him, and said they were afraid he was unfit. Nothing, however, would persuade him to go. He might have gone with a good pension, but he would not listen to it. His one aim and object was to fight the Germans, to get out again to France, because for the moment he did not feel that he had "done his bit." He only had five wounds. That man, owing to his pluck, resolution, and clean living, who

      2031
      had been passed out by the Medical Board, and might have had a pension, is, I am glad to say, fully restored to health. I can give a further instance of this astonishing patriotism. It is a case we have at Chelsea Hospital. This man was also invalided out of the Army and discharged with a pension. He would not draw it. Why? He was the son of a poor mother, yet he would not draw his pension. He would not draw it because he was afraid if he did the authorities would look upon him as a marked man, and he would never be able again to enlist. He was told that he was in receipt, or might be, of a disability pension, and that therefore he could not be fit for further service. The man was determined, as soon as he felt able, to serve again. He was determined to fight. Again, as in the other case, this man's pluck, determination, and clean living was responsible for an extraordinarily rapid recovery, and I am glad to think that this man also is serving his King in the ranks of the Army. Both of these men are possessed of the spirit of patriotism that we can all appreciate, and that we cannot reward as it deserves. But, as hon. Members know, there are others who look at this matter from a different point of view. There is the man who joins the Army knowing he is diseased, and because he wants to get free hospital and free medical treatment. They make no secret of it.
      Mr. SUTTON: Why did the doctors pass them then
      Mr. FORSTER: I have already reminded the House of the extraordinary rush—[An HON. MEMBER "Not at the beginning! "] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. When we were taking recruits at the rate of 30,000 and 40,000 a week it was absolutely impossible for the medical authorities to do more than give a very hurried examination. Let my hon. Friends remember that where a man is exceedingly anxious to pass the doctor, unless the medical examination is extremely thorough, it is very difficult for the doctor really to find out whether the man is sound or not. My hon. Friend, I am sure, has had cases in his own experience where he knows how difficult it is. I think we ought to deal fairly and generously with those who are really deserving, but I do not think it is fair to them, and I do not think it is fair to anybody else, that by adopting too wide a system we should give
      2032
      pensions to those who do not really deserve them, or that we should take the Amendment in the terms in which it stands, and I do not think my hon. Friends could really-wish to press it in that form. But I quite agree, as my right hon. Friend has told the House this afternoon, that the terms of the Warrant as they stand are not wide enough. I think we should adopt the principle, where there can be shown—where indeed, we admit—some measure of responsibility for the man's disease and his-condition, in that case our responsibility should be reflected in the man's favour. Where our responsibility is full; where we ourselves through our medical authorities admit that the man's disease is wholly and directly due to service, in that case he should get the full pension; but where the measure of our responsibility is less, there, I think, it is only fair and only logical that the pension which he draws from our fund should be lower that the full war standard. The matter has been very carefully considered by the Government, and it has been decided that in these cases where the man's disease is aggravated, though not wholly and directly due to service, we should give explicit authority for a pension up to 20s. a week.
      Mr. JOWETT: What about the cases that have already occurred?
      Mr. FORSTER: I was just coming to that.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Might I ask if that wilt apply to dependants as well?
      Mr. FORSTER: To children, yes. This is a question of where a man is enjoying a pension himself. Under the terms of the Warrant the full scale is 25s. a week for himself and 2s. 6d. for each child. Under the scale we propose, where the disease is aggravated by service, though not caused by it, we propose he should get a pension of 20s. for total incapacity and 2s. for each, child.
      Mr. SAMUEL: In case of death, will the widow and children come within the four= fifths of the existing pensions?
      Mr. FORSTER: They would be on the lines of other cases which are due to. disease. With regard to the question whether the pensions should be retrospective or not, yes, I think they ought to be. My hon. Friend asked whether these cases of men who were rejected should be reexamined. I think clearly they ought to. be re-examined, but I was in some doubt

      2033
      as to what my hon. Friends mean by retrospective. I mean retrospective in the matter of examination of their claims. Where those men have been put on one side as, having no claim, it should be open to them to resubmit their case for examination again. But do my hon. Friends really suggest that we are to make the full scale of 20s. in each case retrospective? [HON MEMBERS: "Yes!"] All I wanted to know was what my hon. Friends had in mind when they said "retrospective." I understand what they mean by retrospective is that you should not only re-examine the cases already dealt with, but that you should actually bring the scale of payment from 4s. 8d. or 7s. a week, at which it stands, up to 20s. from the time of the pension over the whole period. I am not in a position to-night to say that can be done, but I am in a position to say tonight that the cases of the men who have been ruled out shall be re-examined, and I think my hon. Friends will not press me to go further than that on this occasion.
      Sir J. WALTON: Would my hon. Friend also say that in cases where they have not been absolutely ruled out, those cases shall be dealt with?
      HON. MEMBERS: He has said so.
      Mr. FORSTER: They do not want re-examination. Under the Warrant they will go up automatically from 4s. 8d. or 7s., or whatever they are now, to 20s. in case of total disablement. In case of three-quarter disablement, of course the pension will be graduated down, just as war pension is graduated down according to the degree of earning capacity. I hope I have made that clear. My hon. Friends have referred to hard cases. I admit there are hard cases. Whatever Regulations you make, whatever scale of pensions you fix, unless you give pensions to everybody, deserving and undeserving alike, there will be always borderland cases—those which fall just outside the Regulations and cannot be drawn into them. I hope that by careful, systematic administration, we shall make those borderland cases few and far between; but where they exist the Government must set up a Statutory Committee, an authority which will be able to deal with them. It is suggested that the Statutory Committee will have only charitable funds at its disposal. If my hon. Friends will make haste and pass the Bill which has been introduced there will be placed at the disposal of the Statutory Com-
      2034
      mittee a million sterling of public money. They will have that with which to deal with cases of hardship which cannot be dealt with under the terms of the Warrant even as they are extended and amended. We can never hope that any office or any institution, either public or private, can deal with so difficult a problem on so gigantic a scale without giving rise to some hard cases. What I am anxious the House should understand is that in cases where claims are rejected there is perfect willingness on the part of Chelsea to reconsider the case on appeal, whether the appeals comes from a peer, a Member of Parliament, or the man himself. Attacks have been made upon our system outside the House of Commons, but I am glad to recognise that inside the House we have had nothing in the nature of an attack of which the most sensitive administrator can complain. Attacks outside the House do not help the soldier or the general community, and they spread mistrust and dismay broadcast to an extent which cannot be calculated, and by so doing they create a sense of insecurity in the minds of the poorer portion of our community which is greatly to be deplored. These attacks are generally founded upon cases of individual hardship. If you could see as I have done the care, the sympathy, and the determination to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt which has characterised the administration of Chelsea Hospital ever since I have known it or have had anything to do with it, you would realise that the attacks upon our system have been ill-founded. I hope that what has been said from this bench by my right hon. Friend and myself will satisfy the House that this subject, which has evoked, most properly, such widespread' interest, has been and is being dealt with in a way that is fair to the community and sympathetic to the soldier, and I hope my hon. Friends will not think it necessary to press their Amendment to a Division.
      Mr. PRINGLE: After listening to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the. War Office, I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the hon. Gentleman is much better than his Department, and I think there will be general agreement that his speech represents a considerable advance upon the attitude of the War Office in the past. On the last occasion upon which we debated this question we had on the part of the spokesman of the War Office an out-and-

      2035
      out defence ","of the Royal Warrant. On that occasion the Under-Secretary for War said:
      "So far as I can sue the justice of the matter, the terms of the Royal Warrant are quite adequate and quite just."
      That is from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the 16th February, 1916, column 180.
      Mr. TENNANT: I did not say that.
      Mr. PRINGLE: My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman did say it, and the OFFICIAL REPORT agrees with me.
      Mr. TENNANT: I absolutely repudiate the whole of it. What I said is, "Does the hon. Gentleman wish the Royal Warrant to be altered?" It was an interruption.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I have taken the trouble to take the words from the OFFICIAL. REPORT. I know from my own experience of 'the Official Reporters that very often they say directly the opposite of what you have said in the House, and in these circumstances I do not wish to bind my right hon. Friend to those words.
      Mr. TENNANT: I may say that I have no time to read the reports of my speeches.
      Mr. PRINGLE: That is a matter in which I sympathise with my right hon. Friend. I wish to point out that while these may not have been the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman, up to the Debates we have had, first of all on going into Committee on the Navy Estimates and these Estimates to-night, we had no indication from' any spokesman of the Government in this House that there was Any intention of modifying the terms of the. Royal Warrant.
      Mr. FORSTER: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty referred to it.
      Mr. PRINGLE: What I said was that until the debates on going into Committee on the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates we had no intimation that there was to be any change of policy on the part of the Government. I regret that I was misunderstood. I wish to point out that even the change which has been admitted does not bring the policy of the Government into line with the statements of principle laid down by Lord Lansdowne in another place. In the course of the Debate in another place, Lord Lansdowne said:
      "But on the other hand,1 am certainly not here to say that when a wan has been formally accepted
      2036
      for the Army by responsible officials of the State, he can afterwards be mulcted because those officials failed to perform their duty with the amount of care which might properly have been expected of them."
      That is the principle which we wish the Government to apply. He goes on:
      "If, as Lord Peel put it, the State has 'winked at undue leniency of that kind,' the State has to suffer for it, and it is most unfortunate that that may be so.".
      We know that the State has winked at it The Financial Secretary gave a somewhat hesitating account of the action of the War Office in regard to medical examination. He spoke of medical examination simply meaning to see that a man had the normal number of eyes, limbs, and ears. Then, in response to a correction from his right hon. Friend beside him, he spoke of the enormous pressure which existed at one particular period during the rush of recruits.
      Mr. TENNANTmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. PRINGLE: The apparent inconsistency between the two statements is not easily explained, as I had imagined. I could have understood the inconsistency if it was due to some external stimulus, but I can hardly understand it as a result of the operations of the right hon. Gentleman's own mind. His two propositions were, first, that medical examination only consisted in allowing a man to go through if lie had the normal number of eyes, limbs, and ears, and then, that of course mistakes might have been made owing to the enormous pressure during the rush of recruits. How can you reconcile these two statements There should be no difficulty, no matter what the pressure is, as to the normal number of eyes, limbs, and ears.
      Mr. FORSTER: If my right hon. Friend wants an explanation, I can give it. The medical examination, in the rush of recruits, had to be reduced practically to seeing that the men had the proper number of eyes, limbs, and ears. There was no time for anything more.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Gentleman's explanation is not sound when tested by experience. As a matter of fact, while it is true that a number of men were passed on the first medical examination they were in nearly every case subjected to a second examination when they went td Aldershot. In any number of cases I knob "men,' when they got to Aldershot,

      2037
      were sent back right up to the North of Scotland because they wanted half an inch on one of their fingers, or something of that sort. As a matter of fact, it was not in the enormous rush that we had this difficulty in the medical examination. It was when there was a dearth of recruits. It was in the days when the harvest had fallen off. It was after the first fat weeks had gone by and they had fallen on lean weeks of recruiting that they began to pass men with bad hearts, bad eyesight, and without hearing. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are doing that to-day!"] Yes, I am coming to that. It is the policy of the War Office to pass men who are medically unfit.
      Mr. TENNANT: No.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is so. My right hon. Friend contradicts me. I regret to have to differ from him. He cannot speak for the recruiting officers throughout the country. When friends of mine refer recruiting officers to statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House they are told by the recruiting officers that the right hon. Gentleman has no authority, that he is merely a political officer making a statement in Parliament for political purposes. That is the fact. There was a report in one evening paper only last night in which the recruiting officer is quoted as using those words, and I have a letter in my own pocket in which the same thing was said by another recruiting officer. The words are:
      "We do not pay any attention to what the representatives of the War Office say in the House of Commons."
      Mr. TENNANT: I should be very much obliged to my hon. Friend if he will give me those references.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I will give both to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very glad to do it. I am very anxious my right hon. Friend should have authority in the War Office. I am quite sure that if the two officials of the War Office who sit on the Front Bench here had real authority in the War Office we would not have so much to complain of, for they really show a sympathetic attitude in all the Debates in this House. But our complaint is that these Gentlemen have no power to make their will felt by the bureaucracy in the War Office. I still maintain, in spite of what has been said, that men are coming into the Army and are being passed today for general service who are not
      2038
      medically fit for general service. I had a letter two days ago from the father of a recruit who is chronically asthmatic. He produced before the medical officer who examined him a certificate from his own medical man to the effect that he had had recurring attacks of asthma every two months for something like a year, and yet he was passed for general service. Why should it be so? I cannot understand, it. The only explanation I have been able to get is that these people are being passed into the Army in order to justify Lord Derby's Report. Undoubtedly whatever may be said by the spokesmen of the War Office in this House, medically unfit men are being passed into the Army to-day, and I think if they are so passed they should be dealt with on the basis laid down by Lord Lansdowne in another place:
      "I am certainly not here to say that when a man has been formally accepted for the Army by responsible officers of the State he can afterwards be mulcted because those officials failed to perform their duty with the amount of care that might properly be expected of them."
      Is that to be the policy of the Government? We are entitled to know that. That is the real basis of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to-night, and it is that statement by the leader in another place which justified us indeed in pressing the Amendment to a Division. We have been told a great deal to-night about the procedure which is followed in these cases by the War Office. The hon. Gentleman told us about six medical inspections to get Army pensions. I should have thought there would have been more care about getting men into the Army than about settling the pensions. Why should it be necessary to go before six medical boards before you can settle the liability of the State?
      Mr. FORSTER: Two.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Six medical men or two medical boards. I do not know how many medical men there are on these boards and why all this amount of medical inspection should be required when your medical man in the first instance has passed a man as fit for service. The hon. Gentleman has said that they are quite willing to accept the principle of the Workmen's Compensation. Act, but even to-night they have not accepted the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the first place, under the Workmen's Compensation Act the man can go to a Court of Law, while in regard to these pensions the War Office is the judge in its own cause.

      2039
      That is one serious difference. The concession that has been made to-night in respect of the amount of pension does not equal what is given under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Where death or disablement is accelerated by an accident, there is no difference in the amount of the allowance made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The man is entitled to exactly the same payment, whether his death or disablement is due entirely to the accident or is only accelerated by the accident. Consequently, I say that on the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act the War Office are not entitled to reduce the amount of the payment by one-third where the disease has only been aggravated by service. If they accept that basis, then this reduction is not in accordance with the principle they themselves have laid down. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about only exceptional cases being quoted in this House. But they are not really exceptional. Of course the cases are possibly not numerous relatively to the number of pensions actually granted, but the cases are likely to become infinitely more numerous in the future. We have the statement of Lord Newton in another place with regard to recent recruits. He said:
      Vast numbers have been recruited who were physically unfit. It is not the smallest use my attempting to deny the fact. It is perfectly plain and everybody realizes it."
      Lord Lansdowne, on the same day, said:
      "Medical examination has been conducted with culpable negligence."
      This relaxation of medical examination did not take place, as the representatives of the War Office would have us believe, in the days when recruits were numerous, when they could pick and choose the men they wanted, in the days when they raised the standard of height and increased the chest measurement. Those were not the days when the medically unfit were passed. It is now in these days, when they are seeking to swell the numbers in the Derby Report, that we have more medically unfit men than we ever had before, and it is precisely at this time, more than at any other, that we should insist that the War Office should admit their responsibility for the recruits they are taking into the Army. It has been difficult indeed to raise this matter. During the past months there have been few opportunities of doing so in this House. When it was done, only a comparatively small number of Members took any interest in it, indeed, the con-
      2040
      ditions of the House to-night shows how little interest Members, as a whole, take in what is likely to become more and more a burning question throughout the country. It is only an index and symptom of the moribund character of the present House of Commons. When attempts have been made outside to draw attention to the matter what has been the result? One gentleman who had the temerity to say at an open-air meeting in Hyde Park that there were two men in the workhouse as a result of the niggardly treatment of the War Office was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour for making statements prejudicial to recruiting. That was reported in the "Pall Mall Gazette," 8th March, 1916, although no one would have thought it mattered very much what anyone said about recruiting now, as we have the Military Service Act in operation, but apparently it is still the conviction of many magistrates that it is so. Then we know that a former distinguished Member of this House, Sir Frederick Milner, endeavoured to draw attention to the matter by writing letters to the Press in September. What was the result? In his own words in a letter to the "Times" on 26th February, 1916, he said:
      "Last September I prepared a long statement giving proof of the callous and capricious way in which the men had been treated. The principal London papers had arranged to publish this simultaneously, but the Censor, having received information of the letter from the Press Association, sent a hurried message around to suppress it."
      Prejudicial to recruiting, I suppose. It is not surprising that in view of all the difficulties which have been placed in the way of having this matter brought to the test, not only by discussion in this House but by discussion in the Press and at meetings outside, we should insist that the War Office should accept its full responsibility in regard to these men.
      My hon. Friend referred to certain accidents which occur in the front line trenches in which he said hon. Members would not insist that compensation should be given. I fancy I know to what he refers. I agree; but if he adopts the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act those cases would have been covered under wilful misconduct, and he knows it. Then he quoted the cases of men bathing and men playing football, but after all it is a part of the policy of the Army to encourage men to do everything to keep themselves in a condition of physical fitness. Consequently when a man goes bathing and

      2041
      when he plays football he is doing something to keep himself physically fit for military service, and if he meets with an accident while he is doing these things it is as much in the course of his employment as if he were a workman in the mill in which he works. It is in the course of his employment for the purpose of the Army if he meets with an accident under either of these conditions, and indeed a Noble Lord in another place, Lord Newton, who is in the habit of speaking for the War Office, admitted that in one case the liability had been accepted where a man had been injured by accident when he was playing leap-frog. Why should not he be compensated if he met with an accident playing football at the front for the same purpose—of keeping himself in condition? All these things are surely accidents arising out of and in the course of the man's employment. After all, the War Office retains absolute control over these men for twenty-four hours of the day. The workman is employed for eight or ten hours in his factory, and when he leaves the factory he does what he likes. But he cannot do that in the Army. He is under the control of the military authorities the whole of his time. The War Office encourage these games for the purpose of training, consequently accidents occurring while the men are engaged in these games ought to be dealt with in the same manner as accidents occurring while the men are going to or from the trenches.
      Mr. HOHLER: I know of the case of a man who played football and was injured; he has been compensated.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I was dealing with the argument of the Financial Secretary, in which he denied liability for these cases. I was pointing out that it had been admitted in another case by Lord Newton. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that compensation should be given in these cases. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) deny that the men were entitled to compensation in such cases. I cannot understand who has instructed him to take up that position. I believe that if he had been fully informed of the practice of the Department he would not have selected football as an illustration of a case where compensation ought not to be paid.
      Mr. FORSTER: I mentioned it to show the difference between the Army system and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
      Mr. PRINGLE:I do not think it proves that there is a difference. The difference is as to what may be deemed "arising out of and in the course of the man's employment." If it is the policy of the Army authorities to encourage men to indulge in sports to keep up their physical power, then accidents arising out of these sports obviously are accidents in the course of or arising out of the employment. That surely is admitted. It really is not a distinction; it proves the case which I have been endeavouring to make. While this Debate has been fruitful in compelling the authorities to relax the rigid rules which have been in the past embodied in the Royal Warrant, the relaxation which they have made is inadequate to meet the situation, especially in view of the new situation arising out of the methods of enlistment going on at the present time. Had there been a reasonable medical examination; had it been the policy of the War Office only to accept men who are medically fit; and had their instructions to the medical officers been only to pass men whose physical condition is sound we might have been satisfied with the answer which my hon. Friend has given. But, as we now know that medical officers in every part of the country are every day passing men into the Army, not only for garrison duty and for sedentary occupations, but even for general service, men who in the past would have been regarded as medically unfit, we believe that provision should be made in accordance with the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bradford.
      Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Gentleman who has replied for the War Office to the Amendment of my hon. Friend has given a. reply which is partly satisfactory and partly not satisfactory. We are very much obliged for the progress which we are making in the direction of the War Office recognising its responsibility in a greater measure than it has done hitherto. At the same time not all the ground has been covered by the promise which up to now has been made. I would like specially to refer to that part of the question which deals with accidents, and to the case which has been made out on the floor of the House on this occasion and on previous occasions for the application of the methods employed with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act, in large

      2043
      measure to the Army; and I do not think that the War Office would lose anything, but I believe that they would ,gain immensely in clearness of decision if they would accept the standard and methods of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
      With regard to the question which is immediately the cause of the Motion now before the House, I should like still to press for a rather clearer statement—at any rate, if it cannot be made to-night, I hope that we shall have it on some occasion—of the responsibility of the War Office to retain the soldier until the actual time when his pension is ready to be paid to him. That is to say that there should be no discharge of the soldier, when it is a question of pension, until he is ready to receive it. I cannot see why that cannot be done. I know that in regard to another class of soldiers who have lost their limbs, and who go to Roehampton, the War Office, I am glad to say, do retain them on their list until they have actually got their limbs, and axe ready to be discharged from hospital. What they do in that case they could do in the case of pensions. I submit that that course would mitigate many of the hardships which occur at the present time, and would materially assist in a solution of the question. With regard to the charge in the Warrant I hope that the House will have an opportunity of considering that charge before it is actually and finally made. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that in some way or other this might be laid upon the Table before it actually comes into operation, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing it, and, if possible, criticising it before it becomes, again, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, very difficult to alter.
      On the question of retrospective effect we do feel that we should press the War Office that in the case of men who are now being paid from 4s. 8d. to 7s. pension, and who would be entitled under the new Regulation to £1, it is really only fair that the arrears should be paid. There are in civil life many examples of arbitrators in which back payment is always awarded, and we think that in this case also it ought to be awarded. The hon. Gentleman talked about border line cases as if the whole of the cases that we brought forward were border line cases. But that is not so. I cannot understand how a case like this could be called a border line case. It is that of a private in
      2044
      the South Wales Borderers, No. 19184, who joined on the 3rd September, 1914. . He was discharged on the 17th April; 19150 as unfit for further military service, suffering from double pneumonia, contracted while training. He has received no Army pay and his wife and four children are irk receipt of 14s. 6d. parish relief. I cannot understand how a case like that can be Called on the border line. Either it has been aggravated or occasioned by military service, or it has not, and we think that in a case like that it is a disgrace to the country that these men who have been accepted, and have been serving in the Army, should be in receipt of parish relief.
      I do not follow my hon. Friend who preceded me all the way. With regard to his point about the acceptance of men into the Army who are not medically fit at the present time, I believe the testimony is all on one side. I myself have known cases quite recently of men passed into the Army, and we know that these eases are occurring. If we are going to accept men for sedentary service, or garrison service, if we accept men knowing what they are, then we ought to be prepared to accept responsibility, otherwise, it is a farce to take them into the Army at all. I want to say a word about the Charity Commission. I have nothing to say against the gentlemen who are members of the Charity Commission. But it is most anomalous that this body—granted it has upon it distinguished Members of this House—should {have the power to spend money which has to be voted by this House. It is an anomaly in our Constitution, and one very difficult to defend, that they should be able to spend money and simply come to this House to vote that money. I submit that the control and spending of money ought to be more within the control of the House of Commons than it can possibly be under existing circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "The War Office!"] I am not sure that we have that control of the spending of money by the War Office that I should like to see. I think that if there were a little more control there would be less waste than there is at the present time. I do not think that the decision of the question as to who shall get the pension, and what the pension shall be, should lie with a body which has no responsibility directly to this House.
      Mr. TENNANT: They are responsible to the Army Council, and the Army Council are responsible to this House, and my hon. Friend and I are responsible also.
      Mr. WARDLE: That does not help me. I do not see how the Charity Commission is responsible to this House, but I will refer to the subject on a future occasion. I do not wish to argue that question on the floor of the House at this moment. If I prove to be wrong, I will admit I am wrong, if I am right, I will stick to my point. I have no desire to press, the Amendment to a Division. We are not fully satisfied with what we have received. We are thankful for what we have received, and we shall press on until we get what we think to be the full satisfaction of our needs. On those grounds, as I do not see that we can do any good by pressing the Amendment, I shall ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member ask leave to withdraw his Amendment?
      Mr. JOWETT: No.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Mr. JOWETT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
      HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Main Question again proposed.
      Mr. TENNANT: May I appeal to the House to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair We have had a full Debate to-day, and we have two more days. To-morrow there will be a full discussion on Vote A and Vote 1.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that it is possible to get. Mr. Speaker out of the Chair near eleven o'clock, because a number of us want to speak, and we shall be very confined when we get into Committee.
      Mr. TENNANT: No, no!
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Much more confined than on this Motion.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is mistaken as to the point of Order. The Debate will be exactly the same on the first Vote. I only wish to correct him in case misapprehension did arise.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: When the House is in Committee the rulings are not quite so certain as when we are on this par-
      2046
      ticular Motion now before the House as to what we can say and what we cannot say. I prefer to take my chance of being able to say what I want on the Motion before the House. Therefore I propose to deal with a variety of subjects which I wish to bring before the attention of the House, and I shall only be able now to indicate them Very briefly and make a commencement. In the first place, I desire to know what is the position of the Ordnance Department and the Munitions Department of the War Office. I want to know what, in the first place, is the position of Major-General von Donop. We were told that this officer, in the early stages of the War, had the complete confidence of His Majesty's Government and of Lord Kitchener. Notwithstanding this fact, the whole of the Ordnance has been removed from the direction of Major-General von Donop, and has been placed in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions. That was done at the time Lord Kitchener was abroad and during the period he made his visits to the East. Where do we stand?
      It being Eleven o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SUPPLY [1st March].—REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.

    Class VI.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Ministry of Munitions, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

GREAT OUSE AND LITTLE OUSE.

  EXTENSIVE FLOODS.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to an Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Sir RICHARD WINFREY: This afternoon I put two questions to the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and I am afraid I cannot regard his replies as satisfactory. They had reference to a very serious flood which has taken place in my Constituency, and which has assumed such importance that I consider that it is now a question of national interest how quickly this flooded land can be brought back into cultivation. The first flood occurred in January, 1915, when there was a burst in the Little Ouse bank. No less than 25,000 acres of agricultural land were flooded, and the water reached a depth of between 7 ft. and 10 ft. before the breach in the bank was made up. The result was that the whole of the tenants of that 25,000 acres of land, including a colony of small holders, lost the greater part of their crops. At any rate, they lost all the corn that was still in the stack, hundreds of tons of potatoes, and hundreds of tons of roots and other agricultural produce. It was a very serious loss. The water remained on the land for no less than eight months, as the land is below the level of the river, and every gallon of water had to be pumped off. Therefore, they were not able to plant any crops or to grow anything in 1915. 'They lost part of their crops for 1914, and were not able to cultivate the land in 1915. Indeed, the 200 tenants had to go out of their houses. Owing to the water remaining there for such a length of time many of the houses are complete wrecks. In some cases the roofs have fallen in, in others the walls, and so on. The water was got off at a cost of £10,300. That is what it cost the three drainage authorities to clear the land of the water. In October last these tenants resumed possession. We got up a subscription in the city of Norfolk of something like £3,000 to help the small holders and some of the tenants to get reinstated in their holdings. Since October they have recommenced to cultivate the land. The wheat crops upon the land were looking in excellent condition up to a week last Sunday. But I regret to say the Little Ouse bank burst again very near the spot where it burst in January, 1915, and
  2048
  the water has since been pouring in there at a very great rate. I am informed that the whole of the land which was flooded in January, 1915, is again flooded, although not quite to the same depth as previously. The whole efforts of these tenants during the six months has once again been spoilt. They are hopeless and are again living in schoolrooms and in the surrounding districts wherever they can find a place to lay their heads. The Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in reply to my questions, said it was no part of the business of the Board to help drainage trustees to protect their banks. No doubt that is so, but unfortunately in this case the innocent are suffering with the guilty, because the bursting of the bank in one district called the Hockwold Fen has not only flooded the district which belongs to the Hockwold Commissioners, but it has also flooded two other districts. Therefore the victims are these tenants who rented land from the county council and other landowners. They are suffering from the faults—if there are faults—of drainage commissioners over whom they have no control. and no power of interference with in tin,' way. This matter, during this War especially, is of national importance. The Board of Agriculture should assist us if possible to get this land back into cultivation before it is too late to sow spring crops. I have made some estimate, anti consider that if it were possible to get this land back into cultivation within the next six weeks, we might be able to grow something like 30,000 quarters of corn and 40,000 tons of potatoes on that land during the coming season. If that is so, surely it is a matter of national importance that we should help these poor people to reclaim this land!
  There is another question arising out of this: not only is the water of the Little Ouse flowing into this lane, but unfortunately the waters of the Great. Ouse are coming back, and instead of flowing seaward at a point where the Little Ouse and the Great Ouse join the Brandon Creek, the Great Ouse is flowing back with the Little Ouse. These poor people are getting not only the water of their own river, but the water that is coming down from Huntingdon, St. Ives, and Cambridge. The Board of Agriculture recognised, when the last flood took place, that something ought to be done, because they established a new authority to deal with the out fall of the Great

  2049
  Ouse. There is no doubt these periodical floods are due to the fact that the water does not in times of excessive rainfall get sufficiently down to the sea. That is really the crux of the whole matter. If this authority which has been set up, and of which I understand Lord Ramsey has been appointed chairman, had fortunately got to work and been able to do something, or, at any rate, have made a beginning, I think these 200 tenants of whom I speak would probably have felt a little more satisfaction; but, up to the moment, so far as I can understand, it has not grappled with this question. The result is that, especially at spring tides, Danver Sluice has to be closed a great number of hours out of the twenty-four, and the water in the Great Ouse and Little Ouse is held up. These banks are not strong enough to hold the pressure, and the consequence is there is a bursting of the bank and the water overflows into this fen land, which has sunk a great deal during the last fifty years. It is peat land, and, owing to cultivation, it is certainly seven or eight feet lower than it was when I first remember it. Therefore, when there is a burst in the bank the water naturally rises and covers this land to a great extent.
  I know the difficulties of the Board of Agriculture, but I do feel this is a case when, if assistance can be rendered, it ought to be rendered. As I have previously pointed out, the last break in this bank caused the various Commissioners £10,300, and they are at the present moment at their wit's end to know where to get the wherewithal to combat this new water, every gallon of which will have to be pumped out if this land is to be cultivated. I trust I have not exaggerated the case, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be able to give me a little more satisfactory reply than he gave this afternoon in answer to my question.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): My hon. Friend has made out an entirely Truthful case with regard to this area of 13,000 acres or so which is now unfortunately flooded. I think I can answer him—and I think he will accept my assurance—that the Board of Agriculture has no desire, if I may so put it, to increase the jurisdiction of the fishery part at the expense of the agricultural part of its
  2050
  operations. We do need every single acre to be under cultivation during this forthcoming agricultural season, and everything that can be done I feel quite certain we shall do. But I must make it clear that the Board of Agriculture has not, so to speak, a bottomless purse of its own. It is rather tempting—I know I have done it myself—to talk about the Government, or a Department of the Government, having money, whereas really it is the taxpayers' money, which cannot be spent without special and definite authority given for that purpose, and the Board of Agriculture, unfortunately in this case has not had at its disposal any part of the taxpayers' money for making good damage done by flood any more than it has money for making good damage done by hail, lightning, or any other of the dispensations of Providence. The difficulty is undoubtedly made worse by the fact that the bursting of the dam which runs alongside of the Little Ouse has flooded not only the area which ought to be looked after by the authority which is in control of the piece of the dam opposite the flooded area, but has flooded the area on certainly one, and I think my hon. Friend is right in saying two other drainage authorities. Of course that might have been kept out if the cross-bank between the area of the one drainage authority and that of the other had been high enough to keep the flood water out. That perhaps might have been done, but it would mean an expensive and big business, involving the strengthening and raising of a dam which I find, on looking at the map, is about four miles. Of course, it would have been very much better if the authority whose dam has already burst more than once, I think at nearly the same place at which it has burst this time, would or could have increased the height and strength of the dam, and in that way have kept the water off their own area and from flowing on to the area of the neighbouring authorities. We are in one or two small measures in a slightly better position than perhaps we might have been. First of all, the people of the district were able to obtain the help of soldiers who sank barges full of sand or gravel in the gap which the raging waters had caused, and I believe it is true to say that the actual breach will be closed to-day or to-morrow thanks largely to their efforts. I believe pumps are now in the area, part of the expense of which, I

  2051
  think, was borne by the Development Commissioners, which are very much stronger than any they have had before and which can deal even with this very great weight and volume of water which has flooded over this area. Anything which can be done under our Parliamentary powers and which the Development Commissioners can do I believe will be done, and certainly there will be no want of inquiry and good will and investigation into the matter if it is not done. But I cannot undertake to introduce any new principle in these matters. These various commissioners have been appointed to deal with their own area as best they can, and if they neglect their task after several warnings and floods have occurred and they do not raise the bank which is very vital and important I do not think the Board of Agriculture has any compulsory powers of making them attend to their work to prevent these occurrences in the future or any power of granting out of the taxpayers money any relief to the people affected. It is an engineering proposition, but I am sure that it is not so much a question of clearing the mud out
  2052
  of the Ouse as of increasing the strength and height of the dam where the breach has taken place. It is a fact that at spring tides particularly the Ouse has some difficulty in finding its way to sea and the sluice has to be closed, and with spring tides and the heavy flood water coming down the river and the water backing up from the Great Ouse it is a very difficult job. The water floods up and unless the bank is sufficiently high and strong this area is liable to flooding. We have had a report on the occurrence itself. The next thing will be to get a further report on how quickly the damage can be repaired, and these people can be put, as is most desirable in the national interests, in a state with which they will still be able to make something out of their agriculture in the coming season. I would ask my hon. Friend to trust us to do our best in that direction, and believe me when I say that we realise the extreme importance of getting every possible acre we can under cultivation in the present season.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE(REPORT).
  RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE(REPORT).
  WAR LOANS (GERMANY AND AUSTRIA).
  WAR LOANS (GERMANY AND AUSTRIA).
  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  INOCULATION (ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT).
  INOCULATION (ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT).
  MACHINE GUN CORPS, GRANTHAM.
  MACHINE GUN CORPS, GRANTHAM.
  SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY, HYTHE.
  SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY, HYTHE.
  DYMCHURCH REDOUBT.
  DYMCHURCH REDOUBT.
  ARMY PAY OFFICES.
  ARMY PAY OFFICES.
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
  NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
  RAIDS ON ENEMY AERODROMES.
  RAIDS ON ENEMY AERODROMES.
  VACANT SLIPS.
  VACANT SLIPS.
  MEDITERRANEAN LEAVE (FARES).
  MEDITERRANEAN LEAVE (FARES).
  ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
  ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
  REQUISITIONING TONNAGE
  REQUISITIONING TONNAGE
  ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT.
  ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT.
  JOINT WAR AIR COMMITTEE.
  JOINT WAR AIR COMMITTEE.
  BULL POINT DEPOT.
  BULL POINT DEPOT.
  ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
  MUNITIONS.
    EMPLOYMENT FOR BOMBAY STUDENT.
    EMPLOYMENT FOR BOMBAY STUDENT.
    SOLDIERS RELEASED FOR MUNITIONS WORK.
    SOLDIERS RELEASED FOR MUNITIONS WORK.
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM LOSSES COMMISSION.
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM LOSSES COMMISSION.
    IRON ORE.
    IRON ORE.
    CONTROLLED FACTORIES (CANTEENS).
    CONTROLLED FACTORIES (CANTEENS).
  PAPER SUPPLY TO SCHOOLS.
  PAPER SUPPLY TO SCHOOLS.
  MESOPOTAMIA (DISTINGUISHED SERVICE).
  MESOPOTAMIA (DISTINGUISHED SERVICE).
  INDIAN ARMY (FAMILY PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES).
  INDIAN ARMY (FAMILY PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES).
  POLICE WITH COLOURS (WIDOWS).
  POLICE WITH COLOURS (WIDOWS).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES
  ASYLUM ATTENDANTS.
  ASYLUM ATTENDANTS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS RELEASED).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS RELEASED).
  ALIEN ENEMY FIRMS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  ALIEN ENEMY FIRMS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  COST OF LIVING.
  COST OF LIVING.
  FREIGHT RATES.
  FREIGHT RATES.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT LOST.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT LOST.
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  BRITISH TONNAGE SOLD.
  BRITISH TONNAGE SOLD.
  SAILORS AND FIREMEN (DISPUTE).
  SAILORS AND FIREMEN (DISPUTE).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING OF TRAINS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING OF TRAINS.
  ANILINE DYES AND OILS IMPORTED.
  ANILINE DYES AND OILS IMPORTED.
  STERLING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED.
  STERLING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  PAPER PULP (PEAT BOGS).
  PAPER PULP (PEAT BOGS).
  EGYPTIAN NEWSPAPERS SUPPRESSED.
  EGYPTIAN NEWSPAPERS SUPPRESSED.
  British Plain Spirits (Scotland).
  British Plain Spirits (Scotland).
  Midshipmen (Swimming).
  Midshipmen (Swimming).
  Tobacco Leaf Stems.
  Tobacco Leaf Stems.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Small Holdings (Ireland).
  Small Holdings (Ireland).
  Technical Classes, Somerset Coalfield.
  Technical Classes, Somerset Coalfield.
  University for Burma.
  University for Burma.
  Budge Budge Riots.
  Budge Budge Riots.
  Ballyreagh Post Office.
  Ballyreagh Post Office.
Preamble
The Earl of Kilmorey—Took the Oath.
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Charity Commission—Sixty-third Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales:
British Museum (Bloomsbury and Natural History)—Regulations made by the Trustees for the partial closing:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.—
Loan Societies—Abstract of Accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies for the year ended 31st December 1914:
National Debt Annuities—Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid, to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended 5th January 1916:
Trustee Savings Banks—Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks for the year ended 20th November 1915, with Appendices:
High Court of Justice (Ireland) (Court of Probate Division)—Annual Account of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LARCENY BELL. [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate and simplify the Law relating to Larceny and Kindred Offences—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 22 nd instant. (No. 7.)

THE WAR—ENTRY OF PORTUGAL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): Your Lordships are aware of the entry of Portugal into the war, and it would no doubt be with the approval of the House that I should say one or two words on the subject on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The immediate cause of the entry of the oldest of our Allies through a declaration of war on the part of Germany was the decision of the Portuguese Government to requisition the German ships which, since the commencement of hostilities, had been lying in the home and colonial ports belonging to Portugal. Had Portugal been a purely neutral nation, without ties or alliances with any combatant country, her action would still have been completely justified. The war, as your Lordships well know, has been the cause of a rapidly-increasing shortage of tonnage in all parts of the world, and it became clear that in the interests of their country it was the duty of the Portuguese Government to make use of all the available ships in their harbours. This was their own view, and it was also urged upon them by His Majesty's Government. They accordingly proceeded to requisition the German ships in their ports, and they explained to Germany the reasons which prompted them to take this action and promised eventually to indemnify the owners of these vessels. The German ships had been lying in the Portuguese harbours for upwards of eighteen months; they therefore fell within the broad principle, well known to International Law, that a State is entitled in cases of emergency to take the property of all individuals within its jurisdiction and to convert it to public uses. That right is

371
inherent in the sovereignty of the State, and it cannot be challenged by any other Power. But the case is stronger than that, for Portugal was not a neutral nation in the narrowest sense of the term. At the beginning of the war the Portuguese Government had declared that in no circumstances would they disregard the duties of their ancient alliance with Great Britain; and now, as always, they have remained faithful to their obligations to their Allies. They were but following a course of action which would have injured no third party, for requisition would have been followed by payment in compensation; but the German Government thought fit to precipitate matters by making a peremptory demand for an explanation, shortly followed by a declaration of war, thus altering the whole position as regards the payment of any compensation for these vessels. It is to be remarked that Germany, who now charged Portugal with a breach of neutrality had herself in October, 1914, and again in December of that year, violated the territory of Portugal by raids into the Portuguese colony of Angola, and later by seeking to stir up a native rebellion in Portuguese East Africa. Portugal, my Lords, may rest assured that Great Britain and the Allies will afford her all the assistance that she may require, and that, having been compelled to range herself on the side of the Allies, she will be welcomed as a gallant coadjutor in the defence of the great cause for which the present war is being waged.

WAR RISKS (INSURANCE BY TRUSTEES) BILL. [H.L.]
SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, this is a small and unambitious measure which I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval. By the Trustee Act of 1893 a trustee of any property is at liberty to effect insurance of the trust estate up to two-thirds of its value, but that insurance would not cover insurance against loss due to hostile aircraft or bombardment or any of the risks incident to the war. This measure is intended to give trustees power to insure against those risks as well. As I have stated, the limit under the Act of
372
1893 is two-thirds of the value of the property. By this Bill the insurance to be effected may be to the full value. An ordinary outbreak of fire does not necessarily involve complete destruction, but a bomb from aircraft generally devastates the whole property and leaves nothing standing. It is proposed in this Bill that trustees should have power to insure up to the full value of the building or property against any damage that may be caused by hostile aircraft or bombardment, and also against any damage that may be caused by missiles from our own guns in attacking hostile aircraft. I trust that your Lordships will think that the Bill merits a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor).
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: My Lords, as no noble and learned Lord has risen to make any observations upon the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope your Lordships will allow me, only a comparatively learned person, to say one or two words. In the first place I feel sure that your Lordships must be well satisfied that this Bill has not been introduced in the manner with which we have become familiar in the case of other measures that are sometimes called War Bills, but that it is apparently to proceed according to the well-established rule and practice. It has not come up in the dead of night to be passed through all its stages the next day without either consideration or comprehension. That this Bill ought to be read a second time I do not think anybody can doubt. If it is right for other persons to insure their property against war risks, and especially against damage by hostile aircraft instead of being adequately defended against attacks, surely it should apply in the case of trustees. It is an absurd thing that under the law as it now stands trustees cannot insure without first getting the permission of the beneficiaries, who may sometimes be very numerous and may not be easy to get at. I therefore wish, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and to say that there can be no doubt that it ought to pass.
I should like; if I might be allowed to do so, to mention one or two small points which perhaps the Lord Chancellor will consider before the Committee stage is taken. In the first place, I presume that

373
there is no doubt that the Bill applies to the Public Trustee. That official must hold a great deal of property which he would think right to insure in this way. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would regard it as undesirable to mention the Public Trustee in the Bill, but I think there might be some advantage in doing so. The second point which I desire to raise is whether the words "from the commencement of the present war" are happily chosen. Of course, there is not here raised the same kind of difficulty which has been felt when words have been used in other Acts about "the end of the war." Still one knows how very minutely Bills of this class are considered and how much they are contested, and it would be quite open to anybody, I should think, to say that he did not know exactly what was legally meant by "the commencement of the war." I venture to suggest that it would be advisable to insert a date. Next I desire to refer to the words at the end of the first paragraph, "and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." There can be no doubt that any one who studied the Act of 1893 would understand what that meant, but I should have thought it would have been better to state more precisely and exactly the meaning of this without reference to the other Act. The last point with which I will trouble my noble and learned friend is in connection with the next paragraph, which may be called the definition clause. I would ask whether it corresponds with any other definitions that exist as to what constitutes war risks. I feel almost ashamed to ask him this, for if I had studied the Acts I could probably have found it out for myself, but other people equally ignorant with myself might be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord at the next stage of the Bill whether that is so or not.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, it occurs to me that the last sentence of the first paragraph of Clause 1 is redundant. Nothing is added by the words "and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to consider whether the operation of those words is not entirely included in the preceding sentence. I take further objection to these words in this sense.
374
Section 18 of the, Trustee Act, 1893, consists of three subsections; the first is that which has reference to insurance against risks by fire, and subsections (2) and (3) refer to different matters. It seems to me that the word "accordingly" in the concluding part of Clause 1 of this Bill might well be taken to mean that Section 18 shall apply so far as relates to the subject-matter before mentioned in this clause, which would exclude subsections (2) and (3). I take it for granted that this is not the intention. I think that if any such words are to stand it would be better to say "and the whole of that section shall apply," adding, if it is thought requisite—though I should have thought it was already provided for by the previous words in the clause—"with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." I hope that before the next stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord will consider this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will do my best to consider the various suggestions that have been made, but at the moment I cannot say that I am convinced that any amendment of the Bill is necessary. Between now and to-morrow, however, I will see whether it is possible to meet the views of the noble Lord who spoke first and those of Lord Wrenbury. As to Lord Muir-Mackenzie's point regarding the Public Trustee, if the Public Trustee is not a trustee it is difficult to know what he is. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be better to introduce a date instead of the phrase "from the commencement of the present war," and I think that "from August 4, 1914," would be convenient words to introduce. Lord Muir-Mackenzie wants to expand the words at the end of Clause 1, and Lord Wrenbury wants to leave them out. I think it would be better for the noble Lords to put down Amendments and then the matter could be discussed. As to the definition of the expression "war risks," I do not think it matters what the definition of these risks is which appears in any other Act. The question is what is the definition here, and here the expression is defined to cover the particular kind of loss against which insurance is desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I move the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee. We have to regret the loss of Lord Jersey, Lord Cadogan, and Lord Welby. The only changes in the Committee as appointed last year are that the names of these three noble Lords, of course, disappear, and I substitute the Marquess of Bristol, the Earl of Wemyss, and Lord Muir-Mackenzie.
Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

M. Crewe. (L. President.)

D. Bedford.

D. Marlborough.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

M. Bath.

M. Bristol.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Derby.

E. Denbigh.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Howe.

E. Camperdown.

E. Dartrey.

E. Lytton.

E. Cromer.

V. Churchill.

L. Clinton.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Wemyss. (E. Wemyss.)

L. Wigan. (E.Crawford.)

L. Kintore.(E. Kintore.)

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Kinnaird.

L. Hylton.

L. Reay.

L. Newton.

L. Ludlow.

L. Ritchie.

L. Haversham.

L. Desart. (E. Desart).

L. Ashton of Hyde.

L. Emmott.

L. Muir-Mackenzie.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, viz.:

M. Crewe. (L. President.)

D. Bedford.

D. Devonshire.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Camperdown.

E. Craven.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Herschell.

L. Hindlip.

L. Newton.

L. Colebrooke.

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Devonshire.

D. Rutland.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Bath.

M. Cholmondeley.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Essex.

E. Stanhope.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Onslow.

E. Camperdown.

E. Halsbury.

E. Plymouth.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

V. Churchill.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

I. Colchester.

L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

L. Poltimore.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Monk Bretton.

377

L. Burghclere.

L. Atkinson.

L. Sanderson.

L. Colebrooke.

L. Desart. (E. Desart.)

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Report from, with an Appendix made, and to he printed. (No. 8.)

OFFICERS AND INCOME TAX.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I desire to call attention to the amount of Income Tax paid by the officers of the Navy and Army, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether some reduction cannot be made. I consider that the burden which is at present imposed upon these officers is grievous and unfair. They had to pay Income Tax before the war, but they now have to pay at double the prewar rates, with an addition of 20 per cent. upon that increase. After pressure in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to allow officers whose income was under £300 a year to continue to pay the old tax at 9d. in the £ as long as their income remained below that figure. In July, 1914, the Income Tax was 9d. in the £ then it was raised to 1s., and later to 1s. 6d.; and the last Budget added a further 20 per cent., which makes the tax which the officers of the Navy and Army have to pay amount to a little over 1s. 9½d. in the £. I look upon it as very unfair that officers who are risking their lives in defence of the country should have to pay a War Income Tax. In other words, their pay is reduced from the sum which the Admiralty and the War Office considered necessary during peace.
The position of the soldier and the sailor is totally different from that of the civilian. I know that there is hardly any family, hardly any man or woman, in the country who has not bad some very hard and terrible stress to endure during this war. But the civilian does not risk his life. As a matter of fact, he pays the soldier and the sailor to defend the country. The soldier and the sailor on active service may lose his health, he may be wounded and incapacitated, or he may lose his life. I plead for these officers that they should not be required also to pay the War Tax. With regard to the Naval Service, two orders have been issued regarding allot-
378
ments. First, an order was issued stating that in no case had instructions been given for a stoppage of allotment; but the order which succeeded that one was in these words—
"Immediate steps are to he taken to reduce the allotment in any case where an officer's net pay—"
that is, after deducting Income Tax and providing for mess charges—
"is insufficient to meet the amount of that allotment."
Those apparently are contrary orders, and I invite the noble Duke to be good enough to explain which is the correct one.
As I said just now, this War Income Tax which is now imposed upon officers constitutes a reduction of their pay. The Government contracted with these officers to pay them a certain income, and I submit that to call upon them to make this additional contribution to the war in money—for they are already risking their lives—is really in the nature of breaking the contract entered into with them. If through being penalised in this way the officer has to pay more than he has allowed himself, the allotment to his wife and family will be reduced, and this will add further to his anxieties. He must pay for his messing and his washing. Therefore the money must come out of the allotment, and his family must suffer. I contend that this is a very unfair use of the powers of the Treasury. Another point is that these officers, being away on active service, have no means of protesting; and there is an order—a very right order—that officers on active service are to hold their tongues, to obey orders, and not write to the newspapers or make speeches.
A large number of cases are known to your Lordships in which the accounts of Officers at the bank are overdrawn, and that comes very hard on the families at home and on others dependent upon them. Therefore in addition to risking their lives officers have to think about their wives and children at home, who may be pinched owing to this unfair tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a few Treasury officials were to spend three months in a destroyer or in the trenches, we should find this tax considerably reduced. Officers are underpaid in peace and are mulcted in war, and some of them have to leave their families in absolute poverty. It must be remembered that officers in the

379
Army and Navy, with very few exceptions, have nothing but their pay. There is no abatement allowed after £700 a year, and your Lordships are aware what the abatements are up to that income. The claim for abatement has to be put in by these officers in the usual way. Here is an officer fighting in the trenches or in the North Sea, or somewhere at the other end of the world. How on earth can he find time to put in an abatement claim? That would be considerably relieved if the War Tax were taken off. It is most unfair that while officers are fighting for their country they should be charged the War Tax. The naval officer may have under his control a ship costing £2,000,000, and have under his orders a thousand officers and men. The commander of a battleship has not a moment to himself day or night. His mind is full of anxiety, and this War Tax is going to add to his anxiety. Normally the expenditure on board ship is exactly the same in time of war, but in the homes of these officers the expenditure is abnormal; yet they are called upon to pay this inequitable taxation.
I do not think the nation wants to see officers penalised in this way. I believe that the nation would wish that they should be fairly, if not generously, treated. In addition, there are the Death Duties, which I regard as an unfair tax. An officer goes out to fight for his country and is killed. Death Duties have to be paid. That is another question which should be looked into. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day made what I can only describe as a futile remark, because he knew that the course he suggested could not occur. He said that the right remedy would be to raise the rate of pay. If the pay of officers in the Army and Navy was raised to a fair rate compared with other institutions in the State, it would cost the country an enormous sum of money, whereas the grievance could easily be adjusted by taking off the War Tax. Personally I do not think that officers should pay any Income Tax at all. They certainly should not pay in respect of the war in which they are fighting. That is really what it amounts to. I have not calculated what the cost to the State would be if the War Tax and the 20 per cent. addition were taken off in the case of officers, but I think it would be roughly about £1,250,000. I believe that if the country realised the case they would agree
380
in respect of officers to the abolition of the Income Tax altogether, but I am certain they would demand the abolition of the War Tax and the 20 per cent. I have brought this matter before the notice of your Lordships in the hope that the case will receive consideration, because I really think that at present officers and their wives and families are placed in a very unfair position.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, this is a question which my noble and gallant friend has made very much his own. It is one to which he has devoted a great deal of attention in the past, and in connection with which, as far as one can judge, he has already achieved a considerable amount of success. In November of last year this question was brought up in the debate on the Finance Bill, and under the pressure which was applied from all sides of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a concession. That concession took two forms. By the clause which the Chancellor himself introduced in fulfilment of the pledge which he gave in that debate, it was enacted that if an officer's total income did not exceed the pre-war exemption figure of £160, he should be exempt from taxation altogether. The general rule is that only persons whose income does not exceed £130 are exempt. A still further concession was made, that if the officer's total income is over £160 but does not exceed £300, he was entitled to an abatement of £160. The general abatement in respect of an income not exceeding £400 is £120; so that this represents a considerable concession given to officers.
I do not wish to remind my noble and gallant friend too much of his past speeches, but I think he will recall that in November of last year he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done. He also said he thought it a generous offer, knowing what the Chancellor's views were; and he made the suggestion that the limit of £300 then named by the Chancellor should he increased to £400. The words which he used were—
"I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that £300 is rather too little. I think if he said £400 it would really meet the ease."
I am not prepared to argue the question whether there is any peculiar merit in this particular figure. Certainly £400 a year

381
has rather a familiar ring about it. Neither am I in a position to say what were the precise reasons which actuated the Chancellor of the Exchequer in fixing the limit of £300, as he did at that time. Indeed, I am afraid that I am unable to give my noble friend very much consolation. If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment, I should have to fall back upon the old and familiar observation frequently made in another place at this time of the year—namely, that I was anticipating making a Budget statement at no very distant date and was afraid it was impossible for me to make any reference beforehand to what that statement might contain. But I shall be glad to see that the observations which my noble and gallant friend has addressed to your Lordships are conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My noble friend also raised the question of allotments. I hope that the position in regard to this matter can he now cleared up. Certain observations have been addressed to the public Press with regard to this subject which are not strictly in accordance with the facts. In no case have instructions been given for the stoppage of allotments. Officers can allot at their discretion any part of their pay to their dependants within a limit which leaves a margin for the recovery of Income Tax and messing charges. Only in those cases in which the increased tax would, if the allotment remained at the previous level, bring the officer in debt to the Crown, has it been necessary for the amount of the allotment to be reduced; but the amount of such reduction in no case represents more than a comparatively small portion of the allotment. In the collection of this tax the Accountant-General for the Navy does realise how important it is that this burden should be spread as evenly as it possibly can be, and the fullest precautions are taken to prevent any large sum being collected at one no particular moment. It is true that complaints have been received since these new orders came into force; but if my noble friend is able to furnish me with any individual cases of hardship which for obvious reasons it would be undesirable to mention in your Lordships' House, I shall be glad to undertake that they shall be at once inquired into. As to the question of further exemptions up to £700, I must fall back upon the answer that this could only be done by legislation; and whatever may be the intentions of the
382
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future, I am afraid we must keep our minds in waiting until he makes the important Budget statement which we anticipate at no very distant date.
LORD BERESFORD: The noble Duke is quite correct in saying that I stated in the House of Commons that if the figure were fixed at £400 it would meet the case. But that was last November. Since then I have had an immense number of letters showing exceptionally hard cases, and I now ask that the whole matter should be reconsidered and the War Tax removed.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As I have said, I will bring the point to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, this is a matter which I have pressed upon the Treasury on many occasions, and I do not think there is any subject on which the House may legitimately feel more strongly. I had some cases in the last war which really went to one's heart. I had cases of officers being shipped back from South Africa, who had been sent there from India—they had been unable to break up their establishments in India, or had done so in the greatest haste and at great loss—and who arrived at Southampton without any money at all, and had they not been succoured by some of the numerous organisations which have worked so quietly and admirably on behalf of officers, and to which many members of this House have contributed, they would literally have been in the greatest difficulties. All questions of sickness and disease have, I believe, now been dealt with generously. But there is no class of persons who have suffered by this war who have been treated less generously by the State than the officers who were in the Army at the time the war broke out. The War Office have made great concessions in the case of all those who have come in since. They have provided equipment for them, and a young officer who has his equipment provided and gets the improved rate of pay which was granted by the present Secretary of State to junior officers has a great advantage.
But take the case of the numerous officers who have not had the advantage of the grant for equipment. Officers have been brought from India to France in the middle

383
of winter, having in the greatest haste to equip themselves fully with winter clothing. Officers have been ordered from France to the Dardanelles in the heat of summer, and have had to provide themselves with a completely new kit. They have had no allowance of any sort or kind made to them. Many men, out of their daily pay, cannot afford to find the sums that have been necessary. Then on top of this comes the increase in the Income Tax, which, even with the concessions which the noble Duke has just explained, constitutes a great hardship on officers who have little private fortune. I venture to say that what is due from us as a country and from your Lordships as a House of Parliament is to demand at the hands of the Government that this question should be considered—not simply from the point of view of what concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to make, but what is due from the country to its officers—by a Committee which should inquire into the whole question of the position of officers in time of war. Personally, I cannot help sympathising with what fell from my noble and gallant friend. When an officer is fighting in the trenches or in the North Sea, to subject him to a tax that should be paid surely by those who are unable to go to the Front rather than by the man who is risking his life for a mere pittance, does seem to me an extraordinary want of fairness quite apart from generosity.
There is one other point which I want to raise. It is pretty well known that in time of peace there is hardly a post in the Army which pays its own way. I doubt whether of any other department paid by the State the same can be said. I have gone into the question in regard to all the higher posts which are made to figure in the Estimates for comparatively large sums, and I have never found one—at least, I think there is hardly one—in which the actual sum paid to the officer meets the charges to which he is put. Therefore I do not think that the mere selection of small incomes and the determination to subject them to a less charge than in the case of ordinary civilians altogether meets the case. I know we have not the Secretary of State for War, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the First Lord of the Admiralty here, and I know it is not in the power of the Government to give any pledge; but I would ask them to consider whether it is not possible for some Committee to
384
be formed to consider the whole position. I do not think the public charge would be a very serious one, and I am quite certain that of all charges which could be put upon the country at this moment this is the one which would fall most legitimately, and for which a great amount of public sympathy would be felt.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very little to say in reply to my noble friend opposite, except that His Majesty's Government will certainly take into consideration the suggestion that he has made for a more formal consideration of this question. He will understand that it is not possible for us on this Bench to make any kind of promise as to the appointment of a Committee such as he proposes. There are, as we know, a great number of Committees sitting on different subjects, and I am not able to say that the Government would be prepared at the moment to appoint another for this particular purpose. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, the question is one not only of great difficulty but one of very large magnitude indeed. The fact is—this applies more, of course, to the Army than it does to the Navy—that there has not been a pretence in the past, with our small Army, of fixing the pay of the officer on a scale which would enable him to live and possibly to carry on all the expenses of an establishment out of the pay which he receives. That has been the system on which our Army has been conducted. The Army, generally speaking, has been officered from what are called the upper classes, with a considerable proportion of well-to-do people, and for a man to enter the Army as a profession from which he could make a living has hardly been a possibility. It has sometimes been barely possible in India, but it has never been possible in this country. After the war and in the entirely new conditions which we now observe, when the Army is both manned and officered, as we see it, in such a different manner from that to which we have been accustomed, the whole question will no doubt have to be faced. Whether it will be found possible or desirable to make the Army in that sense a really self-supporting profession it is, of course, altogether impossible for me to say at this moment; but I quite agree with the noble Viscount that the question is one which will have to be faced at the

385
proper time, The case of the Navy, as my noble and gallant friend (Lord Beresford) knows very well, is also one of urgency. In former days it was more or less possible for a naval officer to live on his pay, but for some little time past that has definitely not been the case; and, as we know, certain advances have been made, particularly in the pay of the junior officers, in order to meet the difficulty. The
386
whole question, I quite agree, is one which will have to be taken into consideration, although, as I have already observed, we cannot promise on behalf of the Government to engage now in the particular form of inquiry for which my noble friend asks.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.