Sitting of 15 March 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

MUNITIONS TRIBUNAL (IRELAND) RULES, 1916.
Copy presented of Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, as amended by the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Lord Lieutenant, as far as relates to offences and the enforcement of Orders, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 9th March, 1916, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Wales), 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (EXCEPTION TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA"
    Mr. GINNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was in obedience to instructions from the Admiralty the acting captain of the "Lusitania" on her last voyage slackened the speed of that vessel when approaching the Irish coast; and what was the purpose of that slackening?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

    ENEMY AIRCRAFT RAIDS
    Mr. BROOKESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether the responsible officers at the head of the Royal Naval Air Service at any time put forward proposals or views urging that rigid airships should be built; if so, in what year and by whom; (2) if he will say what decision was arrived at in September, 1911, by Prince Louis of Battenberg and by Sir A. K. Wilson with respect to the proposal then before them for the construction of a Zeppelin; and (3), whether at the start of the War the Admiralty was constructing a Zeppelin; and, if so, what happened to it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech of 7th March, said as much about the earlier policy of the Government in connection with the construction of lighter-than-air craft as seems desirable. He does not think that anything can be gained by reverting to pre-war controversies. The rigid airship which was under construction for the Admiralty at the beginning of the War is now being completed.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that experts are agreed as to the great difficulty of attacking Zeppelins when over

    2055
    this country, and are unanimous that effective attacks can be delivered on Zeppelin sheds; and whether the latter policy is still being followed by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord to a similar un-starred question asked by my hon. Friend yesterday.
    Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the Under-Secretary for War if the Government .will take immediate steps to request the various railway companies and river and port authorities to extinguish all signals and other lights on railways, rivers and docks during any period of active Zeppelin visitation, wherever trains and other traffic are brought to a standstill, as signal and other lights of similar description have proved a direct guide to large cities and towns that have recently been raided?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This matter is one entirely within the control of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, the Home Forces, who can, and I am sure will, issue all the instructions which may be necessary to secure the objects which my hon. Friend desires.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the hardship that has been occasioned to widows and children of civilians who have been killed by Zeppelins in recent raids; and whether he will consider the propriety of awarding them some compensation from public funds?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): The National Relief Fund is available for the purpose of granting temporary assistance in such cases, but I regret that I am unable to make any promise of assistance from public funds.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that there is every similarity between these cases and those who have suffered from death through bombardment—there is no difference in principle?
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that compensation is given for property and not for human life in these cases?

    STEAMSHIP "UGANDA."
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the steamship "Uganda," since its transfer to the La Plata Steamship Company, has been requisitioned by the Admiralty; and, if so, for what period?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The steamship "Uganda" has not been engaged as a transport since her transfer to the La Plata Steamship Company. She is now under charter to carry wheat for the Commonwealth Government to the United Kingdom, and has been requisitioned for transport service on the completion of the discharges of her cargo in England.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to take it that this ship which was requisitioned when it was owned by a bonâ-fide British owner has not been requisitioned since it was transferred to the La Plata Company, in which the capital is in American hands?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know. I do not follow my hon. Friend's question.

    ROYAL NAVY (SUPPLY OF TABLE KNIVES).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether an order has recently been placed by the Admiralty for ivory-handled table-knives; if so, for how many, and at what cost; and (2) whether the Admiralty has recently placed an order for electro-plated-handled knives; if so, for how many and at what cost?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Tenders were invited in respect of both articles in our annual requisition for 1916–17, in acordance with established practice. Meantime, our attention was drawn to the desirableness of using less expensive articles. We, therefore, at once suspended action and discussed the question of whether actual economy would result from the adoption of cheaper substitutes. No orders, therefore, have been placed, and the matter is-receiving careful attention.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Was action only taken; after the question was put on the Paper?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know about the question. I think our attention) was called to it by a Press paragraph-We at once took action.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Does it require an intimation from the Press to induce the Admiralty to take action?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The thing is not quite so obvious. The cheaper article is no doubt immediately more economical, but the article we have been using is certainly more serviceable. It can be rebladed, and it lasts longer, and consequently fetches a higher price. The argument, after all, is not all on one side. We are very carefully considering all the circumstances.

    EGYPT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of making known to the Egyptian people that Egypt is one of the small nations for the independence of which the Allies are fighting and that it will be invited to send a freely chosen representative to the Peace Conference following the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I do not consider that there is any need for making an announcement to the Egyptian Government on the points mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the Noble Lord say what are the small nations for whose independence the Allies are fighting?
    Mr. BOOTH: Serbia.
    Mr. COWAN: Do not you know?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whose authority the title of the British High Commissioner in Egypt was changed to Representative of the King, the name of the British Agency to House of Protection, the occupant empowered to travel in state as a sovereign, using special trains, a guard of honour, and passing through the royal gates; whether the Egyptian people have ever given any consent to this; and whether the Sultan has consented to the implied limitations of his sovereignty?
    Lord R. CECIL: The allegations implied in the first part of the hon. Member's question have no foundation in fact. The title of His Majesty's Representative in Egypt is that of High Commissioner; the name of the former Agency and Con-
    2058
    sulate-General has been altered to British Residency. The second part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian reserve has been called up to take part in the present War; how that is reconciled with the pledge given to the Egyptian people at the outbreak of the War that they would not be asked to take part in it; whether he is aware of the official statement published in Cairo that Great Britain would bear the cost of the Egyptian reserve in the War and the offer of the Egyptian Ministers that this cost would be borne by the Egyptian people; whether the Egyptian Ministers have power to decide such matters without consulting the Financial Adviser; whether this adviser is British or Egyptian; and whether the Egyptian Legislative Assembly will be allowed to meet before the offer is accepted?
    Lord R. CECIL: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that some reservists have been called up to look after the large herds of camels now being employed by the British forces in Egypt. As regards the second part, I can only refer to the answer returned to the hon. Member's question of the 11th November last. I have received no offer such as is mentioned in the third part of the question, and the remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in possession of any information as regards the course adopted by the German authorities in refusing to give the names of prisoners who may be in hospitals in Belgium or in that part of France occupied by the Germans; and whether he has approached the Ambassador to the United States in order to endeavour to obtain this information from German official sources?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have received no information in the sense of the first part of the hon. Member's question; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the basis of exchange of civilian

    2059
    prisoners between Great Britain and Germany was that they were incapable of military service; and whether that remains the basis of exchange?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, but it is hoped that it may be possible to secure some modification of the present rules with respect to civilian prisoners over forty-five.
    Mr. MALCOLM: If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Under-Secretary of State for War the other day told me that he could not give a guarantee that these exchanged civilian prisoners would not be used for foreign and home service?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not at all know what that refers to, but it cannot refer to those who are incapable of military service?
    Mr. KING: Does the answer imply that forty-five years of age is now taken by the British Government as the limit of useful military service?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir, it does not imply anything of the kind. It implies that we desire, so far as we can, to obtain the repatriation of those over forty-five years of age who are not likely to be of any military value.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Does it mean that those who are exchanged are exchanged on the ground that they are not fit for military service and therefore will not be used for military service?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that question arises, but I cannot imagine that they would be used for military service.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate to the House the promised explanation by the camp commandant at Groningen of his imprisonment of sixteen Royal Naval Reserve men; and whether His Majesty's Government will invite the Dutch Government in future to inform the British Minister at The Hague immediately such grave sentences are passed upon British subjects interned in Holland?
    Lord R. CECIL: The report on this subject has not yet been received. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    ENEMY (EXTENSION OF POWERS) ACT.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement is contemplated whereby British firms prohibited from trading with companies or firms blacklisted under the Trading With the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Act will be indemnified against claims to which they may be liable under the law of neutral countries?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; but any case where a British firm can show that it will be liable in a neutral country in respect of a transaction with a person or firm on the Statutory List, special consideration is given to the question of granting a licence enabling such liability to be avoided.

    SWITZERLAND (IMPORTATION OF GOAL FROM GERMANY).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that Herr Hirter holds in Switzerland simultaneously the post of vice-president of the German coal monopoly at Bâle, and that of president of the Import Trust recently organised by arrangement with the Allied Powers; and, if so, whether, in view of the conflicting duties thus imposed upon this gentleman, His Majesty's Government can properly intervene to safeguard the raw material exported under certain conditions from this country to Switzerland?
    Lord R. CECIL:I understand it is the case that Herr Hirter is President of the Societe Suisse de Surveillance Econo-mique, and is also a member of the Swiss syndicate recently formed for the importation of coal from Germany. But I am afraid that I cannot usefully make any further statement on the subject at present.

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many men of the National Reserve are doing duty in responsible positions, far from their homes, on inadequate pay, that some are of fifty or more years of age, and have left dependants inadequately provided for; and whether he can

    2061
    give such directions to the commands in this country as will secure that individual cases of hardship may be considered and, if possible, relieved?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. W. Forster): These men and their families receive the full pay and allowances of soldiers, and I fear I cannot hold out any hope that they will receive anything further from Army funds.
    Mr. KING: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to those who are serving a long way from home, and are, therefore, under peculiar disadvantages and expenses?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that a great many soldiers have to serve a long way from home.
    Mr. KING: Has the National Reserve, for instance? That is the point

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of married men in Bristol and the neighbourhood, Derby recruits, having received notice to present themselves at the recruiting office at which they attested for examination by the military doctor, settled up their affairs, abandoned their situations, and in some cases broke up their homes, only to find that at their military medical examination they are unfit and are either rejected or informed that they may return to civilian life until required; is he aware that these men are neither in the Army nor finally refused for the Army; and can the War Office take some means to prevent the suffering, loss, and uncertainty its present methods are causing?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend. The action taken by the men in question certainly does credit to them, though I cannot help thinking that they may have been somewhat premature if they gave up their situation when they knew that the question of their medical fitness for service had yet to be determined. In order to prevent any such uncertainty medical boards have been set up at the headquarters of each recruiting area, before which men may appear before they are called up, and from which
    2062
    they may obtain an opinion as to their physical fitness and consequent likelihood of being called up.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these medical boards are refusing to examine men who present themselves?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, instructions have been issued that they are to examine.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to pay the travelling expenses of these men who are called up to be examined?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will look into the matter.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could some sort of warning be given to these men that they may be rejected, because I know of several cases in which men have thrown up their employment, and then subsequently they have been held over for Home service only?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should have thought the Regulations were sufficient. I do not know really what else I can do.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the death of Private Leonard Wainwright, of the 3rd Cheshires; whether he was passed by the Medical Board at Chester for home service only and on the understanding that he would have to undergo hospital treatment; whether he is aware that on reaching Birkenhead he was put into immediate training, taking part in hard drilling and route marches; that his health immediately broke under the strain so that he died in a fortnight; that the military medical surgeon who saw Private Wainwright on the day he died expressed regret that he had been passed for the Army in his state of health; and, in view of the recruitment of unfit persons, will he say what steps are being taken to prevent the repetition of similar occurrences?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already caused inquiry to be made into these circumstances, which had been brought to my notice irrespectively of my hon. Friend's question. I am taking steps to accelerate the arrival of the report.
    Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he

    2063
    is aware that out of 1,200 men from the borough of Mossley who presented then selves for attestation during the week ended 11th December, 1915, 200 were rejected as unfit, and that the oath was not administered to them; that neither the recruiting officer nor the examining doctors were supplied with rejection certificates; that these rejected men are now being called up for military service, although the forms of attested and rejected were sent to the military authorities at Ashton-under-Lyne, and are unable to produce rejection certificates that were never supplied to them; that Lieutenant-Colonel Cheetham, at the Ashton-under-Lyne Barracks, on being written to on the subject, has replied that the rejected men must bring the certificates with them which they have not been able to obtain; that the local recruiting officer was not supplied with money to pay the 2s. 9d. to which the men sworn in were entitled; that some of the rejected men have had to pay the local doctor who examined them a fee of 2s., which they much resent; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am having inquiries made into the matter.

    ATTESTED MEN (CHOICE OF UNIT)
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether attested married men desirous of joining the Royal Garrison Artillery before their groups have been called up have been refused permission to do so by the recruiting authorities at Leeds and elsewhere, while at the same time unattested men were accepted?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand the men in question were refused because it was thought that a certain number of men who had not attested under the group system and were not liable under the Military Service Act, might be willing, if they were allowed, to go into the Royal Garrison Artillery. The Royal Garrison Artillery is being opened to group men as well as to unattested men.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it fair to this class of man that he should be denied privileges which are given to men who are unattested?
    Mr. TENNANT: That has been allowed. It was a mistake.
    Mr. HARVEYasked whether steps can be taken to carry out more fully the undertaking made in Lord Derby's scheme that attested men should be allowed to join the unit for which they volunteered, provided that there were vacancies in that unit which required to be filled?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question has been dealt with both in individual cases and by general instructions. For the last three months all the officers responsible have been instructed that, as far as possible, men should be given their preference of unit, provided they stated this preference on their attestation form and that there are vacancies in the unit which they choose.

    RECRUITING OFFICERS (ALLEGED ILLEGAL STATEMENTS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will instruct Lieutenant John Jurniper, recruiting officer for the Old Trafford district of Manchester, in his duties under the Military Service Act, 1916, seeing that this officer has informed a man who was married on the 13th of October last that, as he was a single man on 15th of August last and being an unattested man, he must make an application to the local tribunal to be put in a later group, as he has no authority to do that; and, in view of the annoyance, inconvenience, and loss of time which is being inflicted upon persons outside the Military Service Act, 1916, by the illegal actions of recruiting officers, will he make striking examples of a few officers who act illegally as a warning to other law-breakers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of the circumstances stated by my hon. Friend. If the man in question was not an attested man it would, of course, be wrong to suggest that an application, under the Military Service Act, would be necessary in the case of a man who was married on the 13th October. As to such a man the Act does not apply. If it were found that a recruiting officer was deliberately acting illegally suitable action would be taken.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the suitable action to be taken by the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Then I will find you plenty of work.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the condemnation of military representatives by Lord Selborne, and will he issue instructions to military representatives not to endeavour to mislead people?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question which I have answered related to recruiting officers and not to military representatives.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary for War if a decision has now been arrived at as to the administrative means to be adopted to give effect to the exemption of officers and men in the mercantile marine from the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, what steps he is taking to make them known?
    Mr. TENNANT: Instructions have been given that officers and seamen of the mercantile marine, whether attested or not, are not to be called up for service, and should not be acepted for direct enlistment even if they offer themselves. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions, which are too long to read out now.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he has taken to make these regulations generally known?
    Mr. TENNANT: The instructions have been issued to recruiting officers.

    BOY RECRUITS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether, in view of the official statement that a recruit would not be sent abroad unless the medical authorities considered that his physique was equivalent to that of a man of eighteen and a half, he will say whether numbers of recruits under eighteen years of age are still being sent to the front; what is the minimum age at which youths are sent abroad; if he will give instructions that no youth is to be sent to the front till he is eighteen years of age; and (2) whether he has had a sight of two letters addressed to Mr. Kitching, of No. 68, Nottingham Road, Mansfield, from the colonel commanding the 17th Sherwood Foresters and the Officer of Infantry Records at Lichfield, stating that his son, Private Kitching, No. 29731, 17th Sherwood Foresters, is to be sent abroad, though his age is only seventeen years and four months; whether he is aware that though Mr. Kitching sent his son's birth
    2066
    certificate to these officers they replied that, seeing his son's official age was nineteen years 314 days, they regretted that Mr. Kitching's request could not be acceded to that his son should be retained for Home service; if he will give instructions that this boy is not to be sent abroad till he is over eighteen years of age; and if he will at the same time issue instructions that officers are not to rely on the official age of the recruit when they have proof that this is incorrect?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have seen the correspondence to which my hon. Friend alludes in Question 36. The answers sent by the officer in command Infantry Records at Lichfield and by the officer commanding the 17th Battalion Sherwood Foresters, were in accordance with the instructions issued, the nature of which I stated fully in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November. The question is one for the medical authorities to decide on the medical facts of each case, and I am unable to promise that it will be decided merely with reference to the question whether the lad has or has not passed his eighteenth birthday, and without reference to his physical development. I cannot say what number of recruits actually under eighteen years of age are being sent to the front, but the number cannot, I think, be large. I stated in a reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 8th March that for a considerable period now recruiting officers have been required to see the recruit's registration card, on which his real age is shown, before accepting him. There is no minimum age at which youths are sent abroad; they are sent when their physical qualifications are such as to make it suitable that they should be sent.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Derby has expressed the view to the War Office that boys ought not to be sent until they are at least nineteen years of age on the ground of the waste of good material? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a regulation that boys of sixteen should not be sent, even if he cannot make the limit eighteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: It all depends on the question of physical development. I cannot give the undertaking the hon. Baronet asks for because there are a certain number of lads already serving who are under the age.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to those not now at the front that they shall not go if they are under eighteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot say more at the present moment than that no one is being accepted for the Army who is under nineteen years. The cases referred to by my hon. Friend are all of old standing, and the question is governed by the physical development of the boy.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many boys under the age of twenty have broken down at the front and have been executed by order of a British court-martial?

    ROYAL ARMY ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War by whose authority the commander of the Royal Army Anti-Aircraft Corps posted a notice in the stations of the corps informing men of military age that to save being conscripted arrangements had been made with the War Office to allow them to attest at Scotland Yard in uniform; and whether, as a matter of fact, the Military Service Act, 1916, does not apply to persons serving in His Majesty's forces at the date of passing the Act?
    Mr. TENNANT: These men, i.e., those of the Royal Naval Anti-Aircraft Corps, were subject to the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, and opportunities were given to them to attest voluntarily before the date of the Act coming into force. In this respect they received no privilege that was not equally available to everybody else coming within the provisions of the Act. The Anti-Aircraft Corps is not within the exceptions set out in the first Schedule of the Act.

    MORATORIUM FOE SOLDIERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if, when considering the matter of a moratorium for married men called to the Colours, he will also take into consideration and make provision for single men with serious domestic, business, and financial obligations whose cases have been refused consideration by the local tribunals?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All aspects of this question are being carefully considered
    Mr. ROCHasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the numerous cases of hardship which have arisen to men already called up for service, and having regard to the further cases of hardship which will arise as the married groups are called up, he will state when the promised proposals of the Government to deal with the problem will be published?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This question, which is an exceedingly complex one, is being carefully considered, but I am afraid I cannot yet say definitely when it will be possible to make an announcement upon it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any likelihood of an immediate decision, in view of the anxiety of such a large number of men throughout the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with my hon Friend that the sooner a decision is come to the better, but it is really a very difficult question. It has been discussed very thoroughly, but there are some considerations which will have to be thoroughly examined before a decision is come too.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It might have an influence on the Market Harborough election!
    Sir J. D. REES: Are we to understand that no married groups are to be called up until a decision has been arrived at?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would it not be better to raise the pay of all the soldiers to such an extent as would enable them to meet all their liabilities, and get the money out of taxation?

    MEN ESSENTIAL TO BUSINESS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the Manchester Home Trade Association a resolution drawing attention to the position that is being created by the disallowing of claims for postponement of the calling up of men essential to business; whether this association express the view that if this policy is pursued it will lead to the closing of many businesses and great loss to national and local revenue and urge the Government to give earnest attention to this aspect of the problem, in order that the enormous financial obligations of the nation may be met, that

    2069
    industry and commerce should not be I unduly crippled, and that the productive power of the nation in essential industries should be maintained; and what steps, if any, are being taken to reconcile conflicting military and industrial claims?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have received the resolution referred to and am in communication with the association. I may add that the instructions to local tribunals with regard to the exemption of men who are the brains of businesses essential to the national interest are now under revision with a view to fuller consideration being given to such cases.

    CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION (SOUTHAMPTON TRIBUNAL).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he proposes to take in regard to a decision of the Southampton Tribunal to grant exemption to a sailmaker on the condition that he remained in the employment of his present employer; and if he will communicate with the tribunal and point out that such a decision is a distinct violation of Clause 2, Section 3, of the Military Service Act, 1916?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am informed that the local tribunal cannot trace the case to which the question relates.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he proposes to take in regard to the conduct of the local tribunal for the Petersfield Rural District Council who on 6th March refused to allow a claimant on the ground of conscientious objection to make a statement of his objections or to call witnesses, but rejected the claim on the strength of a letter which had been sent to the tribunal by a stranger living more than 200 miles away; and will he say if such conduct on the part of the tribunal is carrying out the instruction which says that conscientious objectors should be made to feel that their claims will receive fair consideration?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have communicated with the local tribunal in this case. The statement that the applicant was not allowed to call witnesses is not admitted
    2070
    by the tribunal. The letter referred to was, as I understand, not read till the applicant had consented to this being done. An appeal has been made and is now pending.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he proposes to take upon the conduct of Councillor Hopwood, a member of the Shaw, near Oldham, local tribunal, who told an applicant for an exemption on the ground of conscientious objection, on 7th March, that he was exploiting God to save his own skin, that he was a deliberate and rank blasphemer, a coward and a cad, and nothing but a shivering mass of unwholesome fat; and if he will ask the council who appointed this member of the tribunal to exercise their powers under the instructions to dismiss a man who has shown himself incompetent for the duties of his office?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The question of revoking the appointment of any member of a local tribunal rests with the local authority appointing it, and I think I can safely leave this case in their hands.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board what action he proposes to take upon the conduct of the Oxford local tribunal who on 6th March refused the claim for exemption on conscientious objection by a theological student named Runacres, the ground of refusal being a letter produced by the military representative from some person whose identity he refused to disclose to the claimant; and will he call the attention of the Oxford tribunal to that part of the instructions which says that conscientious objectors should be made to feel that their case is being considered by a judicial and fair-minded body?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have no information on the subject, and I cannot undertake to interfere in the matter.

    DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYE (SPUR DOUBLING COMPANY, REDDISH).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary for War what action he proposes to take on the conduct of the Spur Doubling Company, of Reddish, near Stockport, who have dismissed an employé named Toft for refusing to attest; that the manager, in dismissing the workman, said that he was acting on the instructions given in a pamphlet issued by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee; and that

    2071
    if he continued to employ Toft he would be liable to a fine of £20; and will he say if any such instructions or statements have been made on the part of the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no information of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend. If any statement was made that, in dismissing a workman for refusing to attest, a man was acting on instructions given in the pamphlet issued by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, there is no foundation for the statement. There is a penalty for knowingly employing a Reservist who, after being called up for service, absents himself, and reference to this penalty was made in a pamphlet entitled "An Outline of the Military Service Act," issued by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee. This, of course, is entirely a different matter from a suggestion that a man should dismiss an employé for refusing to become a Reservist. I can show my hon. Friend the exact terms of the statement in the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee's pamphlet.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ON ACTIVE SERVICE (LEAVE).
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Under-Sec-retary for War under what conditions colonels in the British Expeditionary Force, and who are also Members of Parliament, are granted leave of absence from their military duties; and whether they, as Members of Parliament, have privileges greater than other colonels?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have often stated that leave to officers and men of the British Expeditionary Force is a matter within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in France. I should be loth to believe that Members of this House would either consent themselves to receive, or, indeed, would be granted leave of absence on a more generous scale than could be accorded to their brothers in arms. I know of no reason for supposing that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief would refuse, if military conditions permitted, to take account of special circumstances wherever they could be shown legitimately to exist.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it was stated the other day that men who had been at the front for twelve months or more could not get leave on account of the exigencies of our Allies?
    Mr. TENNANT: The exigencies of the Service require that leave should be granted very sparingly at the present moment.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether officers of the Reserve of Officers, including the Royal Army Medical Corps, who were recalled on mobilisation have now been given promotion according to their seniority?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reply would be in the affirmative, subject to the qualification that the officers must have complied with the conditions laid down—i.e., that promotion is given when an officer comes to the top of the list of his rank, his seniority being counted from the first day of mobilisation.

    SUBALTERNS (LIABILITY TO OPEN ARREST).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked what offences has a subaltern to commit before an officer commanding places him under open arrest; and is it usual to keep him under arrest forty-eight hours without letting him know what he is under arrest for?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will refer my hem. Friend to paragraph 469 of the King's Regulations for statement of the circumstances under which an officer may be placed under arrest. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (REJECTED APPLICANTS).
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether single men who applied for service in the Officers' Training Corps and were rejected for medical reasons since the 14th August, 1915, are being dealt with by the War Office as being liable to serve under the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, what justification the War Office has for treating rejection in such cases as invalid under that Act?
    Mr. TENNANT: An application for service in an Officers' Training Corps is not an offer of enlistment within the meaning of the Military Service Act.

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether any members of His Majesty's naval or military forces have been allowed since the commencement of the War to retire or leave the Services for their own convenience or at the termination of their naval or military engagements; and, if so, whether the Government proposes to take the necessary steps to prevent the possible recurrence of this loss of trained men?
    Mr. TENNANT: As regards non-commissioned officers and men those whose engagements have expired have been discharged as soon as circumstances permitted of their being brought home for discharge. In the case of officers, there have been one or two cases in which retirement was allowed in special circumstances. Steps have been taken by the offer of a bounty to induce time-expired non-commissioned officers and men to remain in the Army. As regards the naval part of the question, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Admiralty.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS BATTALIONS.
    Sir F. CAWLEYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether part of the 20th Battalion Royal Lancashire Fusiliers (Public Schools Battalion), who have done excellent service in the trenches, are to remain there whilst the other part, who have been kept at home, are to be converted into Officers' Training Corps units; whether some of the men in the battalion serving at the front have been refused permission to accept commissions offered them by the officer commanding; and whether he is aware that this distinction in favour of those who have seen no active service is giving dissatisfaction?
    Mr. TENNANT: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the 20th Royal Fusiliers, about which I answered several questions yesterday. There is no intention of converting any of the so-called "Public School Battalions" into Officers' Training Corps Units. I understand that a considerable number of men are wanted for commissions from these battalions, but there is no discrimination against those who have seen active service. Quite the contrary would be the case. As to the number of suitable candidates likely to be taken
    2074
    from each of the battalions in question I have at present no information. I am, however, in communication on the subject.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very wide-spread grievance regarding the treatment received and the paucity of commissions, which have been given?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, my hon. Friend has been good enough to make me acquainted with that, and I am, inquiring into it.

  MUNITIONS.

    USE OF PETROL (RESTRICTION).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to restrict the use of petrol in country districts; and, if so, why have steps not first been taken to restrict the use in London, where there are facilities for persons to travel by underground railways and omnibuses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): The question of maintaining an adequate supply and proper distribution of petrol for purposes of national importance is engaging the serious attention of several departments of Government, but so far no action of a general character has been taken either in the country districts or in London.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Why is it that in country districts supplies of petrol are only given to certain privileged persons, while ordinary persons who have had their horses commandeered cannot get enough petrol to take them to the station?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are questions on the Paper about that. I am looking into the matter, particularly the cases suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I do not know what action has been taken, and I am not aware of any authority for anyone doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he has been, engaged in considering the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, for instance, that the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Munitions have been in conference about it. It is a very difficult question. I was discussing it last week, and I hope that a decision will be arrived at soon upon the subject.
    54. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions if the Sheffield Committee of Munitions of War has been authorised to act as the local authority for the granting of permits for the supply of petrol to users of motor vehicles; if so, why has this body been given such power; and, if not, what is the explanation of the fact that persons in Sheffield requiring petrol are refused supplies by dealers unless they have the permit of this committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am making inquiries into the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that there is no information on the subject and that, the committee has received no authority from the right hon. Gentleman's Department to act as the dispenser of petrol?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am making inquiries.

    SHELL MANUFACTURE (DUBLIN).
    52. Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Minister of Munitions what steps have been taken to place contracts for the manufacture of 9.2 shells in Dublin; and how soon is it proposed to proceed with the work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I received a deputation from Ireland on Friday, the 10th instant, when this question was discussed. Arrangements are being made to extend the Dublin National Shell Factory so that 9.2 in. shell may be produced there.

    MUNITION WORKERS (MEETINGS IN GLASGOW).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is now in a position to state the total cost to the State of the two meetings of munitions workers at Glasgow attended by the Minister of Munitions last Christmas, including the loss to production occasioned by the absence from work of all who attended and the cost of bringing selected men to the meetings?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I am not able to give the information asked for.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman state why?
    Dr. ADDISON: It would be a very laborious task to make a return of the time lost by every individual man attending the meetings.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is not the reason that it would not be particularly creditable?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly not. The result of the campaign in Glasgow in favour of the dilution of labour have exceeded our most sanguine expectations.

    SPLINT COAL (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Munitions if he will give the names of the Committee controlling the export of splint coal from Scotland; whether he can state how many members of the Committee represent the interests of coal producers and exporters and how many represent the interests of ironmasters; what is the difference between the price obtained for splint coal sold to local ironmasters and the price obtained for the same coal when exported; and whether, in view of the acknowledged shortage of the supplies of splint coal to the Scottish blast furnaces, he will forthwith prohibit the issue of any more licences to export?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN:My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The control of the export of coal from the United Kingdom is in the hands of the Coal Exports Committee, which is not representative of particular interests. The Committee has regard to any recommendations made by the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committees which were recently appointed by the Board of Trade with a view to ensuring adequate supplies of fuel to important consumers. The District Committee for Scotland, which consists of representatives of the coal industry, recently recommended that in view of the difficulty they were experiencing in connection with the supply of splint coal to blast furnaces exports of this fuel should be curtailed, and action has been taken by the Coal Exports Committee in this direction.

    MUNITION WORKERS FROM IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if a fair proportion of the work connected with the War is being allotted to Ireland; on what grounds has the Local Government Board induced numbers of Irishmen to go to munition and kindred works in Great Britain, where they are now compulsorily detained; whether the Board informed them of this detention before they left Ireland; how it is that some local authorities in Ireland applying for assistance for old persons left unemployed by the War are

    2077
    told by the Board to send those persons also to Great Britain, for whose work and life they are wholly unfit; and whether relief will be provided either out of the funds to which the Irish people have contributed or by way of suitable work which they could do near their own homes?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Every effort is being made to allot to Ireland as large a proportion of the work connected with the War as can be undertaken there. The Local Government Board have never induced Irishmen to go to England on munition or any other kind of work, and consequently have had no cause to explain to them the nature of the employment, nor have they induced local authorities to send old persons to Great Britain for employment on work for which they are unfit. If it should be hereafter shown that there is distress caused by unemployment which cannot be met by the ordinary demands of the labour market, or through the Labour Exchange, applications for relief would no doubt be considered by the Prince of Wales' Fund, but in such a case it would not be possible to find suitable work for every applicant near his own home.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX (SHIPS).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view that ships have been and are being sold at many times their pre-war prices, why he has declined to tax these profits seeing that every necessity of life has risen owing to the present high freights; and whether he is aware that shipowners have in many cases escaped paying the Excess Profits Tax by selling their ships at these high prices?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): As my hon. Friend is aware, the business of selling ships falls within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty, and special provision was made in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, to prevent loss of duty on increased shipping profits in cases in which a shipping company substitutes one ship for another. I may add that a wholly isolated transaction would not ordinarily constitute the carrying on of a trade or business.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Was not the provision in the Finance Act withdrawn owing to pressure put upon the Cabinet themselves by a ring of shipowners?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes, it was.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of increasing the Excess Profits Tax in his next Budget?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that he should wait until I make the Budget statement.

    RACING (TAXATION).
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the State is participating in the profits that may be derived from certain race-horses, he will recognise the desirability of obtaining further revenue from racing, and will take into consideration the system adopted in France for securing revenue from this sport for the breeding of horses and other purposes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not a ware of the particular system adopted in France to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will my right hon. Friend inform himself of the system, or, if I supply him with the information, will he consider it?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will give me the information, I shall be very glad to receive it from him.

    PREMIUM BONDS.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any belligerent Power has had recourse to the issue of premium or bonus bonds for the financing of its war expenditure up to the present time?
    Mr. McKENNA: So far as I am aware, no such issue has been made by any belligerent Power.

    MOTOR CARS (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the imposition of the Customs Duty of 33 per cent. on motor cars has had on their import into this country; if there is any evidence that the cars are sent over in parts in greater numbers than before; and if this is being done to save a portion of the duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 21st February to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division. A comparison of the five pre-Budget months from April to August last with the five post-Budget months from October to February last shows a decrease under parts as well as under cars and chassis.

    EASTERN COMMAND (OFFICES IN PALL MALL).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will explain why, having regard to the interests of economy, £4,500 a year should be paid in Pall Mall for rooms used as offices by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is necessary for the headquarters of the Eastern Command to be located near at hand, and this was the only suitable accommodation which could be obtained on their removal from the Horse Guards. The amount to be paid has not been agreed, but rests with the Duke Commission.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Could not suitable offices have been found somewhere else in London and not opposite Marlborough House in one of the most highly-rented streets in London?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that this is the only suitable accommodation which could be obtained sufficiently near at hand.

    OAK IMPORTED.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade why, in addition to other woods, the importation of oak, with a view to secure more tonnage space, was not prohibited by the Proclamation of 15th February, seeing that the supply of home-grown oak must be ample in this country, the present sale price being so low as not to leave any profit to the vendor?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Proclamation of the 15th February was intended to cover woods which are used practically exclusively for furniture purposes, but not to affect woods such as oak which are used for other important industrial purposes and cannot therefore so easily be dispensed with.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the retail hawkers' price of coal supplied in small quantities has recently been so high as 2s. 3d. per hundredweight; and if this is an indication of failure on the part of certain coal merchants whom he called to his assistance to keep down retail prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to one or two cases in which excessive prices have been charged by small dealers. These have been dealt with by the London Merchants Retail Coal Prices Committee. The principal merchants agreed to withhold supplies from dealers who charge more than the recognised prices, and I have no reason to suppose that the arrangement is not working satisfactorily.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even at the recognised prices, there is practically a coal famine to-day in the City of London, and that it is most difficult to get a supply for household use even by giving a fortnight's notice?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am not aware that there is a coal famine in London, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will bring particulars to my notice and the districts where there is a shortage of coal, I will see what can be done.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I will do that.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue weekly from his Department the recognised prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. There are no recognised flat prices for the whole of London, as I have frequently explained to the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it generally understood that the carters of coal form a. reserved occupation under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

    INTERNED ALIEN. ENEMIES
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether German subjects interned at the Alexandra Palace who own businesses which are under the supervision of the Board of

    2081
    Trade are allowed to receive visits from employés through whom they can and do conduct their businesses and so preserve them for their use after the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such visits are occasionally allowed.

    SUPPRESSION OF NEWSPAPER "BRITANNIA."
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Attorney-General if a weekly paper called "Britannia," edited by Miss Christabel Pankhurst, has been raided and suppressed; whether it is still published regularly; whether he is aware that this organ gives support to the country in the present conflict; and if he will say why the staff are continually persecuted and if the Government attacked the "Britannia" because of its faithful and devoted pleading of the cause of our Allies the Serbians?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Attorney-General has asked me to reply to this question. Steps have been taken with regard to this paper, by order of the military authority under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I am informed that it is now only published as a leaflet. The copies I have seen contain statements which are absolutely untrue, and which are calculated to prejudice our relations with our Allies.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will this paper, "Britannia," which is sent to me regularly by post, be allowed to bring an action against the Government in respect of its suppression?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however misguided some of the statements are, it is a paper loyally attached to this country, and is it to be suppressed because it criticised a member of the Government?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is ostensibly loyal, but undoubtedly it is most mischievous.
    Mr. KING: Has my right hon. Friend read the constant attacks which are being made on his colleagues and on officials in the Foreign Office who are unable to defend themselves by this infamous paper?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I have read many of the attacks. Of course, criticisms on members of the Government are quite
    2082
    legitimate so long as they are based on truth, but many of the statements in question are absolutely false.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why is the editor of this paper not prosecuted?
    Mr. BOYTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Government, refute the gross charges which are brought against Sir Eyre Crowe?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That does not arise out of the question.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(STAFF).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether great pressure has been and is being brought to bear on his Department to reduce the Board's staff of inspectors; and can he state that he has resisted and will continue to resist the weakening of a staff which has never been large enough to cope with increasing educational necessities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lewis): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, though the desirability of differentiation between the functons of the Board's inspectors and of inspectors employed by local education authorities was referred to by the Retrenchment Committee. No occasion for resistance on my part has arisen.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education if he has consented to reduce the Board's staff under pressure from the Retrenchment Committee; and, if he has not, can he give an assurance that he will oppose any reduction in the expenditure of the Board, which has greater responsibility for the future, intellectual, and moral condition of the British race than any other Department?
    Mr. LEWIS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I appreciate my hon. Friend's estimate of the Board's responsibilities and will certainly try to secure the means of fulfilling them.

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to introduce legislation which will

    2083
    enable children to be excluded from school up to a later age than the present statutory age of compulsory education?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for North West Wilts and East Notts, which covers this question.

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the chairman of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, that it was to the credit of the British Petroleum Company's manager that they had dismissed every German subject from their employment or from their offices; will he say, in view that the register at Somerset House shows that after the outbreak of war this company was controlled entirely by German subjects, how the company was able to take this step; and whether any facilities have been given by his Department to enable the company to get rid of its German control?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has not been called to the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, but the fact of the capital of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, being registered in the names of enemies would not, of course, prevent such a step being taken by the company. No facilities have been given to enable the company to get rid of the German shareholders.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what is the position of the British Petroleum Company, the distributing agents of the Shell Transport and Trading Company; whether he is aware that the chairman of the Shell Transport and Trading Company has stated that this agency contract will expire at the end of this year and cannot legally be determined earlier; and will he say what becomes of the profits made by the British Petroleum Company arising from the sale of Shell motor spirit, seeing that this company is entirely German?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade Committee set up under the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act,
    2084
    1916, is being asked to advise on this case. Meantime I say that the British Petroleum Company, Limited, is a company incorporated in this country and is entitled to carry on business here unless an Order is made under the Act requiring the business to be wound-up. I am aware of the position with regard to the termination of an agency contract between the company and the Shell Transport and Trading Company, Limited. The profits made by the British Petroleum Company, Limited, are paid over to the Public Trustee by reason of the shares being held by a German company. I understand that a considerable part of the shares of the German company are held by subjects of States which are Allies of this country.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will my right hon. Friend bring to the notice of the Admiralty that this is a German company and point out that the profits will go to Germany after the War?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Admiralty are fully aware of the status of this company and communications have passed between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty on the subject.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that paraffin imported from America is still being sold in this country at 6d. per gallon, will he say what steps, if any, he has taken to control the price of petrol, seeing that the public are being charged 2s. 6d. per gallon; whether he has any information that, owing to the feeling created in America by the trusts charging 10d. a gallon for petrol, the United States Government contemplate taking action against these monopoly companies; and will he use the powers he possesses under the Defence of the Realm Act to prevent these monopoly companies exploiting the public in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of the supply of petrol in the United Kingdom is receiving the attention of the various Departments concerned, and I hope that a statement of the intentions of the Government in this matter will be made at an early date.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the question of the prices having the attention of the Department as well?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, price is being considered as well as supply.

    BAYER COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the enemy-owned firm, the Bayer Company, Limited, is still carrying on business in this country, with offices in London, Manchester, and other places; if he is aware that at the new warehouses and offices which are being erected in Manchester for the company a large concrete sign on the roof has disappeared, and instead of the name Bayer and Company on the windows B. and Co. has been substituted, and that the firm in their trading circulars claims to be a British company; if he has considered the fact that the entire capital of the company, with the exception of twenty-four £10 shares, is held by Germans resident in Germany, and that the parent company, the Farhenfabricken Vorm Fr. Bayer and Company, which holds 9,912 of 10,000 shares of the Bayer Company, is engaged in making poison-gas and high explosives for the German Army; and if he intends to wind up the business of this company under the powers of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I recently requested the Committee appointed to advise the Board of Trade on the application of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, to consider the case of the Bayer Company, Limited. As soon as a report is received from the Advisory Committee I will decide whether an order should be made requiring the business to be wound up.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managing director holds only twenty shares, and that practically the whole profits of the company will go into the pockets of the German shareholders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of the holding of the managing director.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will it not be a scandal if the money made in the business is handed over to the Germans who are making poison-gas for use against our troops?

    RATES OF FREIGHT.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that of the 520 steamers which loaded about 924,500 tons of coal at Cardiff for French ports during the three months
    2086
    ending 31st January, 81 were British, 191 French, 179 Norwegian, 6 Russian, 2 Japanese, and the rest neutrals, and that therefore only about 14½ per cent, were British ships; and if he will state whether 14½ per cent. of British vessels could control the rates of freight paid to all the other steamers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am obtaining exact figures as to the nationality of the ships employed in the French coal trade. A very large portion of the coal shipped to France is carried in neutral and Allied vessels, and this fact must, of course, be borne in mind in considering the question of the rates of freight charged.
    Mr. HOUSTON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in possession of that information?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are proceeding with the inquiry as rapidly as possible—I hope in the course of the next few days.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of ships which loaded coal at Bristol Channel ports for Italy during the month of February last, and the number of ships which were British, Italian, and neutral-owned, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am obtaining the figures for which my hon. Friend asks, and will send them to him as soon as possible.

    CLOSING OF RAILWAY STATIONS (SOUTH LONDON).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the announcement of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company that they are closing several railway stations in South London next month and stopping part of their local train services; is he aware of the workmen's traffic, of both sexes, during the morning and evening from many of these stations; and whether, in view of the obligations of the company under the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 to provide sufficient and suitable workmen's trains daily at reasonable fares, he will cause an immediate inquiry into the company's announcement, or see that the company shall provide some facilities for this workmen's traffic, as otherwise, owing to the overcrowded state of existing trams, tubes and omnibuses, it

    2087
    will be impossible for numbers of working people to reach their employment from South London?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have asked the managing committee of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway for their observations on this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend upon receipt of their reply.

    FOREIGN MARGARINE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that quantities of foreign margarine are being imported and sold under English designations; that, for instance, the Home Flag brand, adorned with the Union Jack, is manufactured by Messrs. Blumenthal and Kirchoven in Holland; whether the Ensign brand, flying the British naval flag, is also manufactured in Holland, and that both these brands are sold here without any intimation of their foreign origin; and whether, in view of the necessity of stopping unnecessary imports, something will be done to at least enable the public to know and distinguish between foreign and English-made margarine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will send me specimens of the labels or descriptions under which these brands are imported into the United Kingdom, I will consult the Commissioners of Customs and Excise with a view to ascertaining whether they are imported in contravention of Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.

    NATURALISED GERMANS.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is able to state the number of men of German or Austrian birth who, having been naturalised here as British subjects and of military age, have, since August last, left this country for America or elsewhere; whether, if they remain abroad until the end of the War, they will be allowed to return and claim their rights and privileges as British subjects; and, if they were registered last August, will they be called upon under the Military Service Act, 1916, to return to this country to join the Army?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot give figures in answer to the first
    2088
    paragraph of the question, but I believe the number of such cases to be very small indeed. The answer to the second paragraph would, if any such question arose, be in the affirmative, unless the persons in question had in the meantime ceased to be British subjects. The last part of the question should be addressed to the War Office.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS (LUNATIC ASYLUMS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether medical officers of lunatic asylums gazetted for service under the War Office continue to receive full pay for their asylum work; and, if so, whether this arrangement will be continued till the War is ended?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Medical officers of asylums, adapted as war hospitals, who have been granted temporary commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, receive in most cases the pay of their rank and not their asylum salary. In those instances, however, in which the pay of their rank is less than their asylum, salary, they are paid at the higher rate and this will continue as long as the institution remains a war hospital. In one or two cases, where the circumstances are exceptional, special arrangements have been made.

    RIPON CAMP.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what rent is at present being paid for the land on which the camp at Ripon is situated; for how long is the lease and what is the acreage; what money has been spent on this camp; and will it be necessary for his Department to put the land at the end of the lease into the same condition as it was when first taken?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am inquiring into the matter and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    COUNTESS MARCIEVICZ.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to a speech made by Countess Marcievicz at Cork on the 6th instant;

    2089
    if he will state the nationality of the speaker; and whether she will be interned?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Countess Marcievicz is by virtue of her marriage a Russian subject. It is not in the public interest to state what, if any, restrictions will be imposed on her.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to take any action in this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already said I do not propose to say what action I am going to take.

    EAST AFRICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (GENERAL SMUTS' SALARY).
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether General Smuts, who is in command of the Expeditionary Force in East Africa, is paid by the Imperial Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government would, of course, have been delighted to assign to General Smuts the pay of his rank as a temporary lieutenant-general in the British Army, but he decided not to draw pay from Imperial funds. He continues to receive the emoluments of his office as one of His Majesty's Ministers of State for the Union of South Africa.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary for War if the new Regulations affecting the Volunteer Forces are issued, and, if not, what is the present position of such forces, and when may the new Regulations be expected?
    Mr. TENNANT: His Majesty's Lieutenants of Counties are being invited to submit offers of service from corps within their respective counties. In the meantime the detailed Regulations are being framed.

    2ND BATTALION SCOTS GUARDS (SERGEANT T. R. WEALE).
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will inquire into the case of Sergeant T. R. Weale, No.
    2090
    4,821, 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, who has been twice wounded and lost the sight of one eye at Festubert; and whether this man, although he is spoken of most highly by his colonel and captain, has been refused a pension as he is reported to be medically fit?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am having inquiry made into this case and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    Steamship Services (Belfast).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that the steamship services between Belfast and Heysham, Fleetwood, and Liverpool have been suspended in consequence of labour disputes; and whether, in view of the damage to national interests entailed by this disorganisation of traffic as well as the serious inconvenience and loss to the general public, he will state what steps he has taken, or intends to take, to put into operation the powers he possesses to end the dispute and bring about a resumption of traffic?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Derby.

    Property Tax (London District).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether final notices for the payment of property tax have yet been sent out in the London district; if not, can he say when such will be circulated; and why other districts, particularly in Scotland, are put on a different basis by his Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on this subject yesterday.

    Training of Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a rule of the Treasury to refuse to entertain any proposal affecting the work of a Department of State, excepting from the official heads of that Department; if so, will he say at whose instance did the Treasury recently decide to withdraw certain Grants towards the training of teachers in Ireland without consulting the President, Vice-President,

    2091
    or Secretary of the Irish Department of Agriculture, to whose work the training colleges to that extent belonged; and who constituted the Treasury when that decision was taken?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member's question appears to be based on a misapprehension; the Treasury has not decided to withdraw the Grants in question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Was it not announced in this House that the Treasury had deckled to withdraw the Grants?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of that; but in any case I announce now that the Treasury have not withdrawn it.

    Margarine Sold as Butter (Glasgow Convictions).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that provision merchants in Glasgow who have been convicted for the first time for selling margarine as butter, when caught at the practice a second time give a name other than their own in order to avoid the penalty for the second offence; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this practice and the custom in Glasgow of the convicted margarine-for-butter merchants not to have their names attached to the front of their establishments, so as to be able to mislead the food inspectors when they are caught supplying margarine for butter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware that there have been attempts at evasion on the lines described. Every effort is being made to deal with such cases by renewed prosecution or otherwise.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this fraud will be stopped very quickly if the magistrates have enough courage to inflict the maximum fines?

    Court of Session (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that it is the practice of all the divisions of the Court of Session to suspend their sittings for half a day whenever a meeting of the Faculty of Advocates is called; can he say how many times this occurs in the nine months' sittings of the Courts; is he aware that this practice costs litigants large sums in counsels' fees and otherwise; and will he, in order to make litigation cheaper for the
    2092
    public in war times, introduce legislation this Session rendering this practice illegal?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, some of the Courts adjourn for a few hours on the occasion of the anniversary meeting of the Faculty of Advocates. With regard to the last part of the question, in the circumstances stated it does not seem to me that legislation is either necessary or expedient.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any estimate of the cost to the public of this adjournment for two hours, which he says takes place, in order that the Faculty of Advocates may meet?
    Mr. MUNRO: The cost is small. Where evidence is being taken the Courts do not adjourn.

    Use of English Language (Galway).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland what explanation there is of the recent case in which Mr. Kilbride, resident magistrate, tried and sentenced a Galway man who knew no-English without calling in an interpreter; why the practice in this country in trying persons who do not know English is not followed in Ireland; whether the order of the Court will be quashed; and whether the conduct of the magistrate will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have made inquiry, but cannot trace a case to which the indefinite terms of the hon. Member's question would apply.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired about the practice on this subject in Ireland, because I have other cases?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member will put a case down I will endeavour to satisfy him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES,1916–17.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I must apologise for continuing the Debate last night. The reason was that during the whole of the discussion yesterday the question of the married and single men was hardly touched upon by a single speaker. I think it is desirable that we should take the first opportunity of dealing with the question. I desire in the first place to bring to the attention of the House the actual pledge given by Lord Derby to the married men on behalf of the Government. The Member for North-West Lanark contends that the Government have carried out Lord Derby's pledge, inasmuch as Lord Derby, in his letter to the Prime Minister on the 19th November, 1915, stated that there would be men who were indispensable to civil employment, and men who for personal reasons which were considered satisfactory by the local tribunals would be exempt. But the married men of this country are not lawyer-politicians. They are plain men, who look at the question from a broad standpoint. The circular issued by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee was headed "Single men first," and the belief of the married men was that when they attested under the Derby scheme they were not to be called upon to serve until the single men had been taken. The opening statement of this Parliamentary circular says:
    "Married men are not to be called up until young unmarried men have been."
    It is in the letter written by Lord Derby to the Prime Minister on 19th November, 1915. The statement in the circular issued by the Central Recruiting Committee that married men are not to be called up until the unmarried men have been is clear and specific. It is also specific Inasmuch as the circular is headed, "Single men first." Lord Derby is an honest English gentleman, and on the faith of his character, known to many of us who sat in this House with him for
    2104
    many years, not only Members of Parliament, but the people of this country at large trusted Lord Derby. They knew that when Lord Derby had made a definite pledge to them he would stand by them and see that it was carried out. The married men would not have attested on the faith of a statement made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a professional politician. Lord Derby is not. Lord Derby is a man, despite what some hon. Members say, who has the confidence of the great majority of the country, and I believe that he is going to stick to his guns and see that the undertaking which he has given is carried out.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why did he exclude huntsmen?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon. Friend asks why did he exclude huntsmen? That statement is received with cheers by the pro-German party in this House. How many huntsmen are there in the country altogether? How many men are exempted altogether? If you take all the huntsmen and whips altogether and allow for those over military age there would be very few who are left. In the district in which I live there are very few. But if you ask the question, the answer is that there are thousands of men who have sacrificed their lives, and there are thousands of other men who have given up all they can to fight for their country, men who follow the hunt, men who have made their chief interest in the hunt. I spent the best ten years of my life hunting, and it was a much more profitable enjoyment than anything in politics. But let us come down to bedrock. Take the district in which I live. In that district there were large numbers of men who hunted who were soldiers, men who came to that district and who took their relaxation in hunting. What is to be the position when these men come back? You must consider the question in so far as it affects our Cavalry. Are you going, therefore, to encourage hunting in the country or not? I am not going into the question of horse-breeding. But in this particular case you are only dealing with a few odd men, where in the other case you are dealing with millions.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member is welcome to these thirty or forty men, whatever they may be, for the purpose of

    2105
    his party propaganda in preaching peace with Germany. The Prime Minister has said that he is going to stick at nothing to bring this War to a successful conclusion. The only thing it seems to me that the Prime Minister is going to stick to—there is no doubt whatever about it—is his Parliamentary salary.
    HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: That is an insult to the Prime Minister.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member says that it is an insult to the Prime Minister. I hold another opinion. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what has the Prime Minister definitely done in this War until he has been forced by public opinion or by this House? Every step in this War from the beginning has been a backward movement. The Military Service Act was late, and the whole unsatisfactory position has been arrived at owing to the Prime Minister.
    HON. MEMBERS: No! and Withdraw!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I will not withdraw what I have said. It is perfectly correct.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Is the hon. Baronet in order in stating that the Prime Minister is only sticking to office for the sake of his salary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing out of order in saying that, but we can all form our own judgment as to the value of it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Prime Minister made a definite statement in this House. I am only repeating what he himself said. I will leave the hon. Member who represents the Nonconformist conscience, which voted for horse-racing the other day. Public meetings have been held in numerous places protesting against the action of the Government within the last few days. Meetings were held in South-port, Lord Derby's own territory, Windsor, Leicester, Coventry, Wigan, Oldham, Enfield, Manchester, and Tower Hill; and meetings have been arranged for Bristol, Liverpool, and London, in Hyde Park, where the hon. Member will have the opportunity of giving the public the benefit of his advice on Saturday afternoon next. The proceedings at these meetings are generally to the same effect. The married men are willing to serve, but the single men should be dragged out of their reserved jobs first, and a definite
    2106
    announcement should be made as to the moratorium. Most of the resolutions also demand compulsory service for all men. At the last meeting in Manchester the delegates of the Lancashire towns decided to form a national union of attested married men. [Laughter.] There is nothing for hon. Members to laugh at in that statement. These men have come forward at the time of their country's peril on the pledge given by the Government through the mouth of Lord Derby.
    An HON. MEMBER: Lord Derby had to go!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member speaks with a little more clearness I shall catch what he says. I cannot hear what he is saying now. What has happened to cause the married men to take this step? The Government, as usual, with that wisdom which they have always shown even on this question of military service, have pursued the policy which the Minister of Munitions frankly told the House last December had brought this country nearly to the verge of disaster—the policy of too late. What has happened? The Government, to meet the wishes of the Simonite party in this House, have deliberately created these opportunities for men who wish to avoid military service. Thousands of men have gone out of their civil employment into these so-called reserved trades simply to escape the obligation of joining the Colours—and for that reason and for that reason only. Is that right? Was it the intention of the House when it passed the Military Service Bill that there should be large numbers of men, owing to certain jobs being reserved by the Government, able to evade the object of this Act? We all dislike compulsion. We all regret the necessity for it. But the object for which we are primarily fighting to-day is to win this War, and to do so as soon as possible. If you do not win this War all questions of liberty, which is, after all, the foundation of all our government in this country, fall to the ground. Therefore, all parties in the House, at all events all parties in this House who really desire this country to win the War, reluctantly came to the conclusion, probably notwithstanding all their previous declarations, that what the country wanted was men for the purpose of winning the War, and we were bound to bring in and pass a measure to enable us to get men by compulsion. I held the

    2107
    view long before the Military Service Bill was introduced, and at a time when the very worst form of intimidation was prevailing in every district in the United Kingdom, that the Government ought to have dealt with the matter much earlier. The only man who moved in the matter was the Minister of Munitions (Mr. Lloyd George); he was the only man who had got any courage among the whole lot of them.
    4.0 P.M.
    What is happening to-day? In the munition works the Minister of Munitions requires a large number of men. What has been done by the Government; have they taken any steps to obtain labour from overseas, from the British Dominions overseas, to fill these munition works with the necessary labour? We are surely entitled to expect, in a time of great national stress, that, for the purpose of bringing this War to a successful conclusion, no labour man in the country worthy of the name would say that he would not allow the introduction of labour from our Oversea Dominions for the purpose of promoting and assisting the output of munitions necessary for the safety of the men at the front. [An HON. MEMBER:" Chinese labour!"] An hon. Member says "Chinese labour." Certainly I would use Chinese labour if it would bring the War to a successful conclusion, even if I had to put them in compounds. The position of the tribunals in many cases has been made more difficult than is necessary because a large number of single men, who have not attested, and who are following the reserved occupations, are to-day exempt from military service, while a number of married men, who have undertaken military obligations by attesting, in reliance on the pledge given in Lord Derby's circular, are still liable to those military obligations. I want to know why the Government cannot take these married men and put them in the places of these single men, and so deal with this question. The Government could say to the married attested men, "We are going to put you in the place of the single men who have not attested, where you are able to do their work," and by doing that they would get rid of the main difficulty which has been created in many districts. I have asked questions on this subject, but one can never get an answer in this House without asking half-a-dozen questions before getting a simple reply. Only
    2108
    yesterday I asked this question of 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 employés to join the Army and till their places with older married men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 14th March, 1916, col. 1866.]
    Is this being done? The tribunals in Nottingham, I am very glad to say, have taken the view, or are going to act upon it, that where they are satisfied that a single man in a reserved trade can be replaced by a married attested man they will allow that married man to work in the factory. That is only reasonable, and it is the only way to carry out Lord Derby's pledge. I am sure that the Labour party do not desire to put difficulties in the way of the country getting the necessary number of men, but what happens to-day? If a man goes into a reserved trade you cannot get him out of that reserved trade for a couple of months. The employer may say to him that he does not require him, or the trade may have been wrongly starred, but it is a fact that once a man gets into a reserved trade it takes two months to get him out. The Labour party say that we will be putting into the hands of the employer the power, if he wanted to get rid of an agitator, to send him to the Army. I quite recognise that is a point which ought to be met, but the difficulty with which we have to deal ought not to have been met in the way it was by getting power under the Act to enable a man, when he gets into a reserved trade, to be exempted for nearly two months. Take a man who drinks. The employer gets rid of him, and the man walks about for six weeks, and then goes to another employer, and, as soon as he is engaged, he is entitled to exemption for another two months. Take the case of our mines. An enormous number of men go into the mines. Why? Because it is a reserved occupation, and by entering it they escape the obligation to military service. There are thousands of men in the mines of this country who are only working two or

    2109
    three days a week. It is quite clear that when the Government created reserved occupations it was only for the purpose of enabling men to go into trades essential to the welfare of the country. I submit that it is the duty of the Government to make every employer of labour present to them a list of all the men who do not do their work, except where it is due either to sickness or ill-health, or because of circumstances outside a man's control. Hon. Members may think that a great hardship. Where is the hardship in the case of a man who habitually drinks and attends to his work only two or three days a. week? [Interruption.] Why should he escape his military obligations, while a married man, who could take his place, is to remain liable to them. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) represents a school of thought which, perhaps, is beyond my comprehension. It should not be forgotten that we have set up a great organisation in this country to deal with hundreds of thousands of men, and, when you have that great organisation set up before the whole country, you are bound to have cases in which difficulties arise. I would ask the House not to pay too much attention to all those trivial points. There may have been cases "where small officers in districts have failed in their duties because they have not carried out the strict instructions that have been given by the War Office. There is always bound to be, where you have a great organisation suddenly brought together, cases where trouble is likely to occur. The complaints brought forward by hon. Members when boiled down really amount to four. It is, stated that notice papers were sent to persons to whom they ought not to have been sent, and that rejection papers had been torn up by recruiting officers, and that men have been tricked into attesting, and that men who have been rejected are being re-examined and passed as fit. As to notice papers being sent to persons who ought not to have received them, that is not surprising seeing that we have two forms of notice paper, one to those classified on the Reserve, and another to those under the so-called Derby system. Owing to the heavy pressure of work on the recruiting officers it has been impossible to keep a record of every man rejected, and until the introduction of the Military Service Bill such a record did not appear to be necessary. It must be remembered, when general
    2110
    charges of this kind are made against recruiting officers, that they have had many difficulties to meet. As to the point about recruiting cards being torn up, I think that every man who has been medically examined ought to be called upon to be examined again. There seems to be some kind of fetish that once a doctor has examined a man and gives a certificate that he ought not to be examined again. I know of cases where men have received medical certificates who ought not to have received them. If that be true, why should you allow those men to continue to escape their military obligations because they have, by means which other men have not been able to employ, obtained exemption by having a medical certificate which ought not to have been given?
    All these minor issues are beside the point. What the House ought to look at, and that which I implore the House to consider, is the main object we have in view, and that is, how are we going to carry the War to a successful conclusion? You cannot carry the War to a successful conclusion unless you get the men. All these side issues make it more difficult for the Government to get the men required, which is unfair not only to the country but to the men who are fighting at the front. The Government set up, as they always do when they get into difficulties, a Committee to deal with this matter—the Reserve Occupations Committee, which consists of a number of clerks drawn from the different Government Departments. Those clerks are practically deciding what men should be taken and what men should be exempted, and you are leaving to those permanent officials that duty of deciding who shall be exempted and who shall not. Why should we not have here a Committee such as they have in the French Government and French Parliament of Members of this House? There are many business men in the House who are acquainted with these matters, and who would be able to give the House the information which is necessary for the purpose of saying what trades ought to be exempted and what trades ought not.
    There is a breaking point in this matter, and I would ask, have the Government yet considered how many men they require and how many men can be spared? What plan has been considered by the Cabinet, and have you told the War Office that, as we have to finance our Allies and provide munitions of war, not

    2111
    only for ourselves but for our Allies, the number of men we can give to the War Office is limited? While I would like to see every man not essential for maintaining those necessary services enlisted, yet you cannot go on drawing indefinitely on the manhood of the country without settling on the definite number of men that you are able to take from industry. We were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade were going to resign because the demands of the War Office were too great. I ask the President of the Local Government Board to tell us definitely whether the Government or the Cabinet have arrived at any definite number of how many men are required for the Army, and how many in the different Government Departments that can be given to the country without detriment to the essential services which must be carried on. The Government have not set a very good example in their own Departments in this matter. In the Customs and Excise there are 1,500 salaried officials who are on the pension list, and instead of taking those old pensioners back to employment, they have insisted on claiming exemption for men under military age. In many departments of the Government we find the permanent official again fighting for his own hand. It has always been a fight, not against Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, but against the permanent officials who rule this country, and the inefficiency of the permanent official has been fully proved by the results of this War, and by the mismanagement and misconduct of the War.
    Where do we stand now with regard to the married men? I do not know where the married men stand, and I am quite sure they do not know, and I do not know whether the Government do. The Government have now, I understand, issued an Order postponing the calling up of certain groups of married men. Why have they done so? It is quite clear why. It is because there is an election pending in the Harborough Division of Leicestershire. As the Government received a smack on the jaw recently that may have awakened their tardy consciences to the carrying out of the pledge they have given to the married men. What happened yesterday? Lord Selborne is a Member of the Government. He is so I suppose because of his well-known competency which qualifies him for a seat in
    2112
    the Cabinet. We thought that Ministers were united, but this is what he said yesterday, and I think the House is entitled, and the country is entitled, to know where we stand. A fortnight ago Lord Derby made a speech in another place in which he said that some of the tribunals had done their duty and some had not. Lord Selborne said:
    "The remarks he made were intended for all the farmers of the Kingdom. He had spoken about the agricultural position before, as he was speaking then, with the whole authority of the Government behind him. There was no divergence or variation of opinion of any sort or kind, and he had always spoken with the full consent of Lord Kitchener."'
    What does that mean? Lord Derby says one thing, and Lord Selborne says another, and Lord Selborne says that he had the approval of Lord Kitchener, and if Lord Selborne is correct, where do we stand 1 Lord Selborne ought to go, or Lord Derby or Lord Kitchener. [An HON. MEMBER: "All the lot of them! "] You cannot have one of them doing all that he can to obtain all the men necessary in the Army and another Minister, a Member of the Cabinet, coming down and saying that he, speaking with the approval of Lord Kitchener, takes a contrary view to that of Lord Derby. Lord Selborne went on to say:
    "He had never advised a farmer to let his skilled men attest, and yet thousands of farmers went and attested, and allowed their skilled men to attest, merely because they saw in some newspaper, or some other Minister dealing with his Department, saying that attestation was the right thing to do. If they had kept their eyes fixed on him and had listened to his words only, they would have had no difficulty as to what the policy of the Government was. or as to what they ought to have done."
    Lord Selborne has a deputy who was known in this House by the name of "The Boy Scout." Farmers do not pay much attention to his opinion when he speaks on questions of agriculture. Lord Selborne proceeded to say:
    "The difference between Lord Derby and himself was that, on a question like this, he was speaking for the Government and Lord Derby was not."
    What an extraordinary position! Lord Derby made an appeal to the married men of the country, and the whole question of recruiting lies in his hands, subject always to Lord Kitchener, who is his Commander-in-Chief. But Lord Selborne says, "What Lord Derby says is all nonsense. You farmers have to do what I tell you. If you had only listened to me you would have not got into the difficulty in which you now find yourselves." The position of Lord Derby becomes intolerable when a member of

    2113
    the Government acts in this manner. Let us proceed with what this Noble Lord said:
    "Discussing the attitude of military representatives, Lord Selborne said it should be remembered that those gentlemen are not judges, but counsel. They were making the best case they could for the interests they represented. Therefore he did not blame them for their zeal, but he blamed them and criticised them very seriously when they took upon themselves to make statements for which they had no authority whatever. Lord Kitchener would be the first to repudiate them when they made statements which were absolutely mischievous and could benefit nobody except the Kaiser."
    He wound up his speech by saying:
    "I have brought these cases to Lord Kitchener's attention, and Lord Kitchener repudiates these men thoroughly. I hope we shall have no more of these military representatives, in their excess of zeal, arrogating to themselves statements for which they have no authority, and which are wholly against the intentions and policy of the Government."
    If a farmer has six sons who have not attested, if they are not essential to the farming work, is there any man in this House who would say that all those sons should be allowed to escape? A great deal of this work may be done by women. Other speakers in the House of Lords, with longer experience of agriculture than Lord Selborne possesses, say that women can perform, at all events, a good deal of the lighter work on farms which is now being done by men. What is happening in France to-day? The whole of the work of agriculture in France, that great enlightened country which has shown such a splendid spirit in carrying on the War, is being done by women. But you here want every farmer's son, whether essential or not, to be exempted. It is true that in regard to getting in the harvest and certain other work the French Government send back a certain number of men to help in those particular operations; but with those exceptions practically the whole of the agricultural work in France is being done by women. Surely we ought not to be too proud to do the same here. I do not think that the women of this country would be too proud to do so. They would willingly give their time for the purpose of assisting agriculture, thereby setting men free for the Army.
    I want the Government to tell us why they are going to fix up all the conscientious objectors, all the shirkers and skulkers, with the sick and disabled men who are not fit for service in the field. I am not speaking now of men like Quakers or members of the Society of Friends, who have all their lives, before there was any question of war, conscientiously held that they could not take part in warfare. I
    2114
    am referring to those men who have suddenly discovered religious convictions against the taking of life even in defence of the flag under which they live. Is it true that the War Office, with their gross incompetency, have now decided to group all the sick and disabled men and men who are not fit for service in the field with these cowards and shirkers? It is stated in the Press that the Government are going to form a corps or a number of regiments composed of these gentlemen who have obtained exemption on conscientious grounds. I submit that it is an insult if you are going to put men who are physically unfit or who have received wounds in the same class as these others. Finally, are you going to play fair with the married men or are you not? I think you are not. I believe that the only thing that will make this Government do its duty is the force of public opinion. The Prime Minister has never done anything in this House until he has been forced by public opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some hon. Members may think otherwise. The electors of the Market Harborough Division are going to have an opportunity of expressing their views on this discussion. Although the Government may twist and turn between now and the date of the election, and although the caucuses of both parties may join together in fighting any independent man who does not take his marching orders from them, I have no doubt that the enlightened electors of the Market Harborough Division will next week triumphantly return an independent Member pledged to do justice to the married men.
    Captain EDGE: On rising to address the House on my second appearance here, I do so with feelings of diffidence, and therefore I ask for that tolerance which the Members give to a colleague totally unused to the Rules and Procedure of the House. I at once express my sympathy with the married men who have perhaps received an unexpectedly early call to the Colours. I regret the very grave necessity which has led to this step. I suppose it is inevitable that the War Office should receive some criticism on this score, but I think that in this case, at any rate, the War Office is entitled to some consideration under the circumstances. There was the necessity for men, and the War Office went to the only source at that time available to it. We must have men, and I am here this afternoon to urge that the House should give what I may call the Derby administration a real and fair

    2115
    chance. If that is done it will get you all the men you require for the Army, it will get them with the least injury possible to trade, it will get them under the best possible conditions for the men themselves, and it will get the men who are the best for the Army. I say this because the War Office, for the first time in its career, is intimately associated, by means of the Derby chain, with local feeling, local industry, and local conditions. I say this advisedly, because the keynotes of the Derby administration are civilian assistance and democratic procedure. Every possible effort has been and is every day being made to bring local knowledge to bear upon local problems, so that every man and every firm shall have a reasonable chance of stating their case , before a sympathetic audience. The military representatives, the very representatives of the War Office, are in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred civilian local men with local knowledge and local sympathy. The Advisory Committees sitting with the military representatives are always local men with business knowledge and business sympathy. The tribunals appointed by the Local Government Board are generally representative of the electors, and are undoubtedly well in touch with local sympathy and local procedure.
    Why is it that the system, which has admittedly been drawn up carefully to take into consideration local needs, has not produced the results that were expected? I say at once from my experience of the working of the scheme that it is because it has been overloaded with reservations, exemptions, and badged trades. They are probably good things in themselves, but the provisions in regard to them have undoubtedly been most shamefully abused in many parts of the country by men, as the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division has said—not in all cases, but in some cases—endeavouring to avoid service. How can a machine possibly be expected to produce proper results if this is going on all the time? Too many single men have gone into the reserved trades. Young men belonging, according to their certificates of registration, to all sorts of professions, varying from solicitors down to grocers' boys, have an unhappy knack, when their groups are being called up, of suddenly disappearing and then blossoming forth armed with badges and certificates galore. I might quote instances which I have met with on the journeys I
    2116
    have unfortunately to take at the present time in connection with this administration. There was one on the North-West coast about a fortnight ago. A young man in a grocer's stores appealed to the local tribunal. The local tribunal, composed of local men with local sympathy, in fact the man's own neighbours, decided that he would be better employed serving the Colours than serving the customers. He completely lost his temper. He upbraided the tribunal, thumped on the table, and said, "If I had known you were going to refuse me this, I would have gone into munitions." I appreciate as much as anyone the need for munitions, and I yield to no man in my appreciation and personal gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that Department. But I say that if this type of man can be used, and unfortunately in many cases he is being used, the privilege, if privilege it be, should be given to older and married men. If young men are allowed to escape into the reserved occupations, we must face the brutal fact that married men will have to go to serve in the field. There is no other way out of it.
    I suggest to the Government for a start that, whatever the position was at the beginning of the war, no single young man, at any rate, is legitimately starred, badged, or reserved, unless the work he is generally doing is of equal value to carrying a gun. I see no possible chance of keeping the pledge to the married men in the spirit in which it was intended except by a drastic revision of the starred, badged, and reserved trades, and, I would add in passing, some method of expediting the dealing with the appeals which my hon. and gallant colleague near me will agree are rolling in almost like oceans. I submit that it is a very reasonable thing to ask that no single man who has joined one of the badged, reserved, or certified trades since 15th August should be allowed to stop there. Let the test of employment be the certificate of registration. If a man was not in a reserved trade on 15th August, bring him up where he ought to be for the purpose of serving in the Army. May I quote an illustration that I came across last week in Lancashire? There was a batch of six young men, textile workers, who had just received or were on the point of receiving their notice papers, calling them up under the Military Service Act. They went in a body to their employer, demanded their insurance cards, and told him that they were going to the first badged works that would

    2117
    take them in. I have no reason to doubt under the circumstances which exist today that those men at this moment are in a badged works. I would only point out that ultimately six married men from that district will have to leave their wives and families before their proper time to take the places of these young men in the field. I have a letter here—which I shall be happy to show to any hon. Member who would like to see it—from a firm of quarrymen, written to a cotton operative in Lancashire, inviting him to take service with them; and the sting of the letter lies in this, that they practically promise the man exemption from military service if he will join the firm's service.
    It is a perfect scandal that any firm or employer should be found who, at this late hour of the day, will without question take a single man who is eligible for the Army, knowing full well that some other man, possibly a married man, will have to take his place. I am not averse to the enlistment of married men. The patriotism of the married has been proved over and over again. But I do assert my sympathy with the married man who has been called up, knowing all the time that probably in the locality there are scores of young men better fitted for the work, and with less responsibilities. We hear that the Government intend to do something in this matter, but I do want to point out to the House that the Govern-men are only now taking the suggested step to deal with the difficulties which we, who have been doing our best under the Derby system, have been struggling with all the time. The Government only apparently intend to do something now to meet the difficulties that have been hampering the Derby system right through from the start. I strongly urge, in order to meet the pledge, that no single eligible man, whether he is badged or not, shall primarily be regarded as being indispensable. There are thousands of single young men who may probably be accounted indispensable; but, at any rate, in order to keep the Government's pledge, let the employer prove the indispensability up to the hilt, not to a Government Department, but to the only men who are capable of judging the facts—that is, some local committee of commercial and trade union men. Let me offer a practical suggestion. This matter cannot perhaps be done in an hour or two, but it certainly can be done in twenty-four hours. I would suggest that the Government authorities should
    2118
    co-operate with the War Office, and a visiting committee should be appointed by them to go through these works at once and put one question only, "Are these men here at the present time the men who under all circumstances must be left; if not, can they be replaced either by married men or by women?" It ought to be a point of honour in our industrial system at the present time that no employer should employ a single man without being able to show a good reason to the local committee. I have no hope in centralisation saving this situation. We have not the time. I ask for decentralisation. I ask for localisation. I ask you to trust more to the power of local opinion. I ask you strongly to trust the good sense of the commercial men and of the trade union men of this country.
    I am a democrat. I believe in democratic government. I am prepared to abide by the democratic faith. We preach democracy. Let us practise it. Amend the tribunals if you will, but, for Heaven's sake, trust them! I appreciate, and fully sympathise with, much of the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield. I know there is to be maintained the balance between industry and the needs of the Army. I am no Prussian. I am a commercial man. I have had a commercial training. I am intensely sympathetic with the many difficulties, facing commercial firms at the present moment. But it is because of this that I ask the House seriously to give a real trial to the Derby system. Give it a fair chance. After all, the Derby system in the country really means a vast voluntary organisation of commercial and trade union men. I ask the House to give more power to these men to deal with abuses when they see them, and in the matter of indispensability not to report the cases to a Government Committee, but to deal with them on the spot. In asking for this power I am not asking for power to be given to the War Office. I am asking for power to be given to a great civilian organisation run by men of all classes and of all shades of political thinking. I have in this Chamber heard criticisms of the tribunals, but I must say, from my experience in travelling about, that the tribunals as a whole, and within their limitations, are doing their work well and honestly. In their deliberations in the large towns or villages of the British Isles one cannot but feel that, after all, the members are honestly doing their best, and in the spirit they are displaying they

    2119
    are determined to save England; they are desirous of saving industry, if possible, and by all means in their power they want to win, and speedily to win, the War. In conclusion, perhaps the House will forgive me as a new Member if I express my heartfelt conviction that in this War we are fighting for freedom justice, and peace. I believe in my heart that it was one of the great days of the British people when they entered the War to keep a pledge, and to do justice to our Allies. I ask, I implore, the House to trust the machine which is ready to your hand; a machine which, if you will, amend, but trust it. It will enable you to keep, in sincerity and truth, the pledge to our own men, and to do justice to our own people at home.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: After listening to the interesting, able, and forcible speech that has just been delivered by the hon. Member, I feel it extremely difficult to realise, if we had not been so assured, that this was the first occasion on which the hon. Member has addressed the House. The congratulations which will be offered to him will not be confined to those who are in agreement with the opinions that he has expressed. But I hope he will not consider me in any way lacking in respect to him if I venture for a short while to ask the House to pay some attention to quite a different topic from that which the hon. Member has been discussing—a topic to which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary devoted an important, if not perhaps a very lengthy, part of his statement. I refer to the administration of the Army Medical Service in this War. This is a matter which, I am quite certain, every Member of this House, whether he is interested in the matter or not, will realise is one of vital importance to the welfare of our Armies in the field. On several occasions the Under-Secretary has expressed the opinion in this House that whatever other Departments of the administration of the War were open to criticism, the Army Medical Service called only for congratulations, and that in regard to it criticism was practically out of place. In his statement yesterday the right hon. Gentleman read a communication from a very eminent surgeon, who gave a testimonial, or spoke to the perfection in various respects of the medical arrangements at the front, and immediately behind
    2120
    the front. I have not the smallest doubt that every word read by the right hon. Gentleman from the report or letter of Sir Frederick Treves was absolutely correct. After all, however, a distinguished surgeon like Sir Frederick Treves, who crosses over to France on a visit to see what is going on and how things are administered, does not really have the opportunity of testing the system at work. He goes to one particular clearing station or hospital in a certain section of the line and sees things in a perfect condition, things up to date, provision for surgery, and so forth, and has explanation given to him of the way in which this scientific material is to be used. He comes back accordingly and tells the right hon. Gentleman what he has seen. What I have described must to a large extent account for such a report as we have had from Sir Frederick Treves. If it does not account for it, then all I can say is that there is a very great conflict of testimony upon this point, and that there are other authorities, hardly less eminent than Sir Frederick Treves himself, who are quite prepared to give a very different view. The right hon. Gentleman has often put before us—I have no doubt in absolute sincerity—that the Army Medical Service is really not open to criticism. I absolutely acquit my right hon. Friend opposite of any sort of responsibility in the matter. In the answers to questions which he gives on these points he has no personal knowledge whatever. He has from time to time to accept the replies which are put into his hands from some corridor in the great building in Whitehall.
    I want, if I may, really to go to the root of the matter in regard to the organisation of the Army Medical Service, in order to show what has taken place. When the War broke out the Army Medical Service, like every other department of the Army, was on a wholly inconsiderable scale as compared with the things which very quickly confronted it. It was prepared for an Army of, at the most, a few hundred thousand. Within a few months it became an Army aiming at millions, and already numbering hundreds of thousands. It must, therefore, have been perfectly plain from the outset that the moment we were confronted with such a terrible ordeal as a war with Germany—the greatest military power on earth—it must have been perfectly obvious—or it ought to have been—that in

    2121
    order to meet the great problems with which this Service must be confronted, it would require a combination of the best organising brains, of the best scientific and medical brains, that the country could produce. The remarkable circumstances is that the machinery, or at all events the most important part of the machinery, which might have made this expansion of the Service easy, and which had in itself the material for the study of those medical problems which were certain to arise in the course of experience of the coming months, was already in existence. As the House will probably remember, the Army Medical Service came in for a good deal of hostile criticism during the South African War. It was, I have no doubt, deserved criticism. May I point out in passing that the criticism in the South African War came in the main from civilian doctors and surgeons whose services were placed at the disposal of the Army, and who were able to speak from their own experience. In the present War the civilian doctors and surgeons who have been taken into the Army have been put into uniform—of course, I do not say for a moment with the intention of closing their mouths. But it has had that effect, and the consequence has been that the source from which criticism might have been expected has not been forthcoming to-day as it was in the South African War. After the South African War, owing to the breakdown of the Army Medical Service, it was resolved, and very rightly resolved, that the whole Service should be reorganised, and for that purpose a Commission was appointed under the then Secretary of State for War. That Commission, which was a very strong one, including among its members Sir Frederick Treves and Sir Alfred Keogh, produced a scheme for reorganisation, and that scheme was subsequently accepted as the basis of the reorganisation of the Service. I want to read to the House the first Clause in that scheme of reorganisation:—
    "The Royal Army Medical Corps shall be under the supervision of a Board, to be called the Advisory Board for Army Medical Services, and constituted as follows:"
    Then follow the various members of this Board, the chairman being the Director-General for the time being, and it was laid down that there should be always upon that Board two civil surgeons and two civil physicians, and, as if to emphasise the importance of those civilians upon the Board, and to safeguard their being always included, it was put in that those
    2122
    civilians should be appointed by the Crown. They were not merely nominees of any passing official in the War Office, but were to be nominated by the Crown on the advice of the Secretary of State.
    Having regard to that, I want to call the recollection of the House to some answers given with regard to this Board by the Under-Secretary. On the 22nd November my right hon. Friend, in answer to a question, said there had been no formal meetings of the Board, but all the paid members had been constantly consulted. A few days later he was asked, as a supplementary question to that, why no meetings had been held since the War began, and his answer was:—
    "I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable to modify administrative machinery created in peace to meet the requirements of War."
    I must say I think that is about as amazing an opinion and answer as it is possible to conceive. Imagine a Department of the Army bringing into being deliberately an organisation suitable for peace but not suitable for war. Why, the very purpose of the Army is war! If it is an organisation no good for war, then it is no good for peace. Not only that. The Army Medical Service had not broken down in peace, so far as I know. It had broken down in war, and it was because of this breakdown in war that this reorganisation took place. The scheme setting up the Advisory Board was deliberately set up arising out of the breakdown in war. Of course, it is perfectly clear that the War Office, even in its palmiest days of imbecility, never did anything quite so absurd as to set up deliberately after a war, in which defects had been brought to light, an organisation which the moment the next war broke out was to be cast on one side. But I think my right hon. Friend and the House will agree, from the scheme itself, that nothing is further from the truth than to suggest—suggested, of course, to my right hon. Friend—that this organisation was not intended for war. Clause 5 of the Scheme says that the Advisory Board shall report to the Secretary of State—not to the Director-General. It has a permanent and important position, and it is brought into direct contact with the Secretary of State on all matters of surgery, medicine, etc., as they affect military services. On another Clause they shall advice the Secretary of State upon adequate provision of hospitals "and whatever concerns the well-being of the sick and wounded." Does my right hon. Friend think that the

    2123
    wounded for whom provision was to be made were Tommies who broke their shins in football matches, and not the wounded in war? Clause 7 in the same way says that the Board shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the expansion of the service to meet the needs of War, such scheme dealing with questions of ambulance, transport, equipment, and so forth. Clause 14 is important:
    "The promotion of officers, or their retention in the service, shall be referred to the Board for consideration, before submission by the Director-General to the Commander-in-Chief."
    Or, in the language of to-day, the Army Council. I want to know if there has been any promotion of officers since the War began. If so, this rule cannot have been adhered to, because my right hon. Friend has said, in answer to questions, that this Board has never met from the day the War began. The Board was directed to exercise a general control over the nursing service, and it is worthy of remark that in the constitution laid down there was a woman member of that Board. Clause 17 says:
    "The Director-General shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, acting with the advice of the Advisory Board."
    Therefore, the Advisory Board in that clause was really a superior authority to the Director-General, and the Director-General derives his own authority from appointment by the Army Council, who are only entitled to do so, "acting with the advice of the Advisory Board." Finally, the last clause with which I need trouble the House is Clause 19:
    "After reference to the Advisory Board, the Director-General shall bring forward to the Commander-in-Chief the names of officers whom he may judge worthy of promotion."
    Throughout all those clauses it is quite clear that the Advisory Board, set up by the scheme of reorganisation was regarded as a vital and integral part of the administration of the Medical Service. It was a great deal more than a consultative board. My right hon. Friend, in answer to the question I have already quoted, excused the non-meeting of this Board by saying that certain members of it—the paid members—had been from time to time consulted. But it is not a consultative body, or not exclusively so. It is a governing body. It has in itself definite authority, control, and responsibility, and it was deliberately planned, as I have pointed out, to be in operation when the next
    2124
    war should arise, in order that the defects experienced in the South African War might be avoided.
    This War was obviously going to bring to the front unprecedented problems: medical, scientific, hygienic, bacteriological, not to speak of the problems accompanying them of housing, supply, commissariat, and so forth. Yet, with all those problems to confront them, and with this machinery in being, only requiring to be expanded, improved, and put to use, what did the War Office do? They scrapped it. The moment war broke out that Advisory Board, with all the authority which I have shown the House it possessed, was thrown on one side, and it has never been called together from that day to this. I hope to be able to convince the House that terrible evil results—I do not say necessarily follow from the abandonment of that organisation, but I do say that the maintenance of that organisation gave the best hope of avoiding the worst mistakes that have been made. Such a body was extraordinarily necessary under the circumstances which were arising. Take an ordinary London hospital with a few hundred beds. It is not exclusively controlled and governed by a resident surgeon or physician. It is in the hands of a governing body controlled by able laymen. How much more should a service of this sort be under the control, not necessarily of a physician or a surgeon, no matter how eminent he might be, but the best organising brains—quite a different thing—which you can find in the country, because we have never had any reason to suppose that the possession of an "M.D." degree necessarily conferred organising genius.
    5.0 P.M.
    I maintain that the smallest particle of foresight on the part of the proper authorities—even a small amount of common sense and ordinary intelligence, would have shown them that the first step to take, if they were not to come to grief, was the calling together of this Board, the expansion of it, and, above all, the improvement and strengthening of it by including among its number some of the best of the younger generation of scientific men and the younger generation of vigorous administrators. Such a Board would have been in a position to overhaul the whole of the organisation, for nothing could have been more certain to any man of foresight than that the organisation which was prepared out of the experience of the South African War would be wholly

    2125
    unsuited in many respects to deal with the problems of a European war at the present day. That Board should have met in constant—I do not say continual—session, and should have been in a position to discuss any problem that might arise. Even then there would probably have been some failures to deplore, since we could not expect perfection in such a task. But, at least, the best possible would probably have been done. What was the actual course pursued with regard to this vital service? The very first moment war broke out the Board was scrapped. Its very important functions were usurped by an individual. Any individual under those circumstances must inevitably fail in many respects, I do not care what his zeal, his industry or his knowledge may be. It would be beyond the task, I should think, of any individual to take the place of the governing body of such a service as this in face of such a war as this. Now who was the individual who undertook it? Was he a man who combined the organising skill of Napoleon with the scientific genius of Lister and Paget? I think that that would be rather an exaggerated estimate of Director-General Sir Arthur Sloggett. It is not pleasant to have to mention the names of individual officers, but I think my right hon. Friend will not disagree with me when I say that this matter, which, after all, does concern the lives of hundreds of thousands of men in our Army, is much too serious and important to justify timid consideration for the susceptibilities of individuals. Therefore I shall give my view for what it is worth of this Napoleon, who was considered sufficient by his own genius to direct the Army Medical Service and to scrap the proper governing body. I do not like to say quite freely what my own opinion is of Sir Arthur Sloggett, and I will content myself with saying that he is an officer who, both on professional and personal grounds, I am surprised to find that some short time ago my right hon. Friend expressed admiration for in this House. I can only say that so far as my judgment goes this officer in that admiration has won a distinction to which he has "very little claim. This is the gentleman who was given complete control over the administration of the Army Medical Service when war broke out. Within a week he was sick, and took sick leave from the War Office, and he left his position. Let the House recall what that moment was.
    2126
    It was the first week of the outbreak of the War, with all the awful possibilities which this War has brought into the immediate forefront. Just imagine the one man who had scrapped the governing body of the Army Medical Service, and was therefore responsible for everything and for seeing that the service was properly administered, went on sick leave, and for nine weeks, I believe, he was absent from duty, his place being filled by someone else! Those were nine critical weeks. I do not know exactly when it was that the first honours list came out, but in that list this gentleman blossomed out as a K.C.B., or something of that sort, as a result of the nine weeks he was absent from duty.
    Was advantage taken of this gentleman's disappearance to appoint to this tremendously responsible post some young, vigorous, and up-to-date surgeon of the new school of medical ability which has been brought on during the last few years? Not at all. That is not the way with the War Office, and they appointed in his place a stop-gap deputy, Surgeon-General Macpherson, undoubtedly a man of very considerable ability in many respects. I understand that he was appointed temporarily as Director-General. This gentleman was a very able man in many respects. He possessed many academic degrees, he had seen service in many parts of the world, he was knows to have a considerable knowledge of Army medical history and other branches of learning, but if my information is correct, and it comes from responsible quarters, he was recognised throughout his profession as a man with many engaging qualities, but utterly unfit for heavy responsibilities or high command. At the end of nine weeks he left the War Office, under what circumstances I am not certain. I do not know whether he was dismissed or whether there was any other reason, but he left at the end of nine weeks, and he went as Surgeon-General to the First Army in France, and in that position he was responsible for a most terrible breakdown of the medical arrangement at the battle of Festubert. So bad was the management of the medical service there under Surgeon-General Macpherson that he had to be removed, and the War Office followed their invariable rule when they dismiss a failure, and he was transferred to another command of equal importance and dignity. He was removed from the First Army in France to another Army,

    2127
    where, a year later, he was responsible for the still greater failure at Loos. I shall have a word to say about the facts of the breakdown at Loos later. A second time this distinguished officer had to be removed in consequence of his failure, and he was then removed to a place where, so far as I know, he still occupies a responsible post at the head of our Army Medical arrangements at Salonika. I can only hope for the sake of our Army there that there will not be very many casualties, because I can hardly imagine, unless this gentleman has learned a great deal by his past failures, that the arrangements there will be very efficient.
    When Surgeon-General Macpherson left the War Office his place was taken by the present Director-General, Sir Alfred Keogh. I wish to speak with all due respect of that distinguished officer. Apparently at some stage Sir Arthur Sloggett appeared on the scene again. It appears that Surgeon-General Macpherson was only appointed temporarily. I suppose that Sir Alfred Keogh was also appointed temporarily, but when Sir Arthur Sloggett emerged from his illness and had to be provided for I suppose it was not considered compatible with his dignity that he should be anything less than a Director-General, and they did not want two. Consequently they got over the difficulty by a sort of double arrangement that Sir Alfred Keogh should be Director-General in London and Sir Arthur Sloggett should be Director-General in France, and it was like having two commanders-in-chief. I do not know which of these distinguished Directors-General took orders from the other. My own information is that neither of them did this, and very great inconvenience and confusion resulted from it. I am told that Sir Alfred Keogh's arrangements and orders, devised with the wisdom of Whitehall, are sent out; they are orders as to what is to be done with this and that material and this and that organisation, but I am told that it is all a matter of chance when these orders get across the Channel whether Sir Arthur Sloggett will think it right to carry them out. I wish to speak with great respect of Sir Alfred Keogh, but there is one respect in which I cannot help blaming him. Sir Alfred Keogh was a member of the Brodrick Commission which drew up this scheme
    2128
    of reorganisation to which I have referred, and therefore he was himself one of the creators of the Advisory Board, and I say that the moment he got into the position of Director-General it was his duty at once to have rectified the neglect of his predecessor and to have restored the organisation, the value of which he himself knew because he had been one of its actual creators, the reasons for the creations of which must have been fresh in his recollection. A really efficient governing body such as Sir Alfred Keogh might have brought into being might have saved an immense amount of breakdown and failure which followed.
    Let me first of all point out the radical unsoundness which I submit exists in the present organisation. The Army Medical Service, as a matter of organisation, is based upon the combatant division as its unit. As the House can well understand, that was a very proper and wise organisation in past years. In all our past wars the British Army only took the field with a few divisions, and the troops were mobile. A divisional-general, for instance, never knew in South Africa, Egypt, or on the Frontiers of India, whether one division would be sent up one valley and another up another valley, and another might stay on the lines of communication; they never knew the direction in which they might be moved, and therefore it was essential that each division should be properly equipped and provided independently with its medical equipment. For more than a year past in France there has been no movements of divisions in that sense at all. It has been one rigid line stretching over hundreds of miles, and where a division has been moved it has generally been in a lateral direction for the mere convenience of employing one body of troops to-day and another to-morrow for the purpose of rest, and the actual position of the line has remained the same. Consequently to-day, if you have each division independently provided with medical equipment, not only is this system unnecessary, but it is inconvenient and cumbrous. Suppose, for example, that a division for military reasons is moved from the neighbourhood of Ypres to the neighbourhood of La Bassée. Its place is immediately taken by another division from England or from some other part of the line. Is it not ridiculous that when that division is moved from Ypres to La Bassée it should be

    2129
    necessary to move all its medical equipment and motor cars and take them to another part of the line, while the incoming division which takes its place has also to carry with it a similar medical paraphernalia? Why is the medical equipment not kept in its place to do the same service to the incoming division as it did for the outgoing division? That is a sensible arrangement which the experience of the War has taught to a great many very competent observers, and this would have entailed very little dislocation, and could have been done with very little more than a few orders on paper. This arrangement could be carried out in the Medical Service so long as the fighting goes on upon its present lines. Of course, if mobile warfare were to return, I agree that the medical equipment would have to be based again upon the combatant unit, but so long as the fighting remains of its present character, it is obvious that the Medical Service ought to be absolutely independent of any particular combatant unit, or should be based on nothing smaller than an Army.
    I submit to my right hon. Friend the fact that, after all this long experience of the present fighting, we should be still maintaining a system based upon South African experience is only proof of the utterly stupid conservatism amongst those who are managing this service. It really shows, and it is not the only indication, that in this as in other respects the War Office has a most persistent preference for what I might call the static wisdom of age rather than the dynamic adaptability of youth, a preference which has prevented them from making their methods up-to-date, and therefore more efficient. My right hon. Friend, I know, has told the House, in answer to a question, that this system of medical service based upon the division is not rigidly worked as a watertight system. Notwithstanding that, I believe it certainly has been to a very great extent and a great deal more than is necessary, and it has been responsible for some of the worst failures. It has not been responsible, I agree, for the absolutely scandalous failure in some respects at Gallipoli and for a failure which, if the information now coming to hand is correct, in Mesopotamia bids fair to be nearly as bad as that at Gallipoli.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): It has nothing to do with the War Office.
    Mr. McNEILL: Mesopotamia may be a matter for the India Office, but it is a matter for the Government, and when I am criticising the Government I never care in the least myself what particular right hon. Gentleman is responsible. We are endeavouring here to complain that something has been omitted or that something has been done which ought not to have been done by the Government, and although it may concern my right hon. Friend which department is responsible it does not really concern anybody else. My right hon. Friend incredulously asked where these mistakes occurred. Let me give him one or two examples. I will take, first, an example from the first battle of Ypres in the early part of the War. A clearing station in that battle was placed at Poperinghe. I do not know who was responsible for selecting that place, but it was a very unfortunate circumstance that there was only one available road by which it could be reached. The consequence was that the troops and supplies being brought to the front naturally and necessarily blocked the road to such an extent that there was interminable delay in getting away many of the wounded, and untold suffering resulted from the mere selection of a wrong place. I know of one lot of motor cars which took ten hours to cover nine miles to that place in consequence of the delay, and all that time within easy motor drive of the same place there were no less than six empty hospitals and two totally empty roads leading to them. There you have an example of mismanagement. I do not say that it depended upon the organisation of that particular division, but it is an instance of the stupid working of even such organisation as existed.
    At Hooge at the same time—this was a matter of organization—the doctors of one division whose troops were engaged were working for thirty, forty, and fifty hours on end. They were overworked, of course, but they worked as the doctors have always done throughout this campaign—with a devotion, with an energy, and with an industry which are beyond all praise as far as the individuals are concerned. They were working these thirty, forty, and fifty hours, and there were numbers of doctors of other divisions actually in the town at the time not doing a hand's turn, simply because they belonged to other divisions,

    2131
    the troops of which had not been engaged. Two hundred patients had to be taken to a convent at Ypres. A 120 of them were removed by their divisional ambulances; and eighty were forgotten, and left for seven days without any medical attendance whatever. They were simply forgotten and overlooked. Thirteen wounded were taken to a farm in that neighbourshood and absolutely forgotten, left there in the care of a peasant woman, who did the best she could for them. Thirteen is not a very large number perhaps when dealing with millions, but, after all, every man has his own life and his own suffering. After nine days, by some good fortune, the Duchess of Sutherland heard of these men, sent motor cars for them in the night, and took them away to her hospital at Dunkirk. All through this battle there were numbers of motor ambulances doing nothing at Calais and at Boulogne, and the only reason I have heard assigned for their idleness is that at that place there was some dispute going on between the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Red Cross.
    The right hon. Gentleman or the authorities of the Medical Service may perhaps say that the Battle of Ypres was early in the War, and that they had not perfected their arangements. Let me, therefore, give an example from the Battle of Loos, a year later, only last October. The arrangements at Loos, as I have already said, were in the hands of Surgeon-General Macpherson, who the year before had totally broken down at Festubert. When the fighting was going on at Loos thousands of wounded men were left lying all night out in the open in the fields and streets of Chogue, Lapoguy, Delair, and other villages there, because all the hospitals were overfull and the staffs were overworked. The saddest part of it—and this again brings it back to the question of organisation—is that within a very short distance, within a few miles, there were hundreds of doctors of other divisions, who could easily have been brought there by motor cars, doing nothing at all. I want to emphasise that I am not laying the smallest blame upon the doctors. These men were there, almost as it were within sound of the groans of dying men, doing nothing—not because they were not anxious to do every mortal thing they could for them, but because in the scheme of organisation they belonged to some other division, and were not allowed to be drawn
    2132
    upon. There were a good many doctors at the base only too ready to come, and I should have imagined that a telegram would have been sent, "Fighting is going on; let us have all the doctors we can." If that had happened, they could have been there within three or four hours. What did happen? A telegram was sent, but it was four days before the doctors there were able to get the necessary papers signed to enable them to work, and when they did get them signed and they got down there the wounded who had been suffering from want of attendance had been removed. That is the way the organisation works, and I have given those examples in answer to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, "Where do these things occur?" I can tell him, further, that during the fighting there were large hospitals empty at Haasbruck, Bailleul, and elsewhere, within a few miles as motor cars go in a lateral direction. These hospitals were empty, and within a few miles men were lying out in the open on the battlefield—
    Mr. TENNANT: Is this at Loos?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes, at Loos. Let me give a little example of the sort of thing for which these old men who have been put into command are responsible. I shall have something to say on the general principle of their selection presently. In a way I do not want to blame the wretched officer himself in this particular example. I am sure that he was a patriotic and zealous man anxious to do his best, but there comes a time in the development of a man's mind when the one thing he seeks to do is to follow rule and thinks he is doing the best that can be done in doing so. Some days before the attack at Loos some of the field ambulances, probably under the direction of zealous men with common sense, collected a large number of stretchers, a very natural thing to do, but three days before the fighting began Surgeon-General Macpherson ordered those stretchers to be taken away. Why? Because they were over and above the regulation number. No man will ever be able to tell the amount of unnecessary suffering and the amount of avoidable loss of life which occurred simply because of that bit of foolish red tape on the part of that superior officer.
    These examples show two things: First of all, they show that the organisation which was quite adapted for old-time warfare under other conditions is utterly unsuitable for the fighting of to-day. They

    2133
    show, in addition, that even with that faulty organisation there is a rigid adherence to formula and rule which prevents us making the best of it. This system would certainly have been radically changed, if as experience had shown us the way, we had introduced in the direction of the service a number of young, vigorous up-to-date men. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the fact that before the South African War the Royal Army Medical Corps was a sort of poor relation of the medical profession, and there is no doubt that the highest class of medical practitioner was not attracted to it. It was largely for the purpose of altering that sort of thing that the reorganisation of 1902 took place, and in that particular the reorganisation was very successful. Since 1902 a large number of the very best class of medical scientific men have been attracted to the Army Medical Service, and they have attained in it the highest decorations of the profession, such as the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians, and so forth. But those men when the War broke out had not yet got to the front up the ladder of promotion. They were in junior positions. They are in the prime of life and in the prime of their scientific knowledge and skill—the very class of men that are wanted, not merely to do the work under the direction of others, but to take the whole of the direction into their own hands. Unfortunately, when the War broke out, instead of employing these men in positions of command, the War Office brought back old pensioners of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who were survivors of the ante-South African régime, and they put these old "dug-outs" in commands where they are to this day drawing the full pay of their rank and the full pension they had earned before. Can anybody wonder that class of men—I do not care how well-intentioned or zealous they may be—have proved in many respects nothing more than obstructive to the younger and more scientific type of men who have been put under their control and command? Let me take an example in the vital matter of rapidity of getting to the operating theatre the patient who requires an operation. My information on this matter is obtained from very eminent surgeons. They tell me that the supreme aim of modern surgery is to get patients under operation at the earliest possible moment, before the wound be-
    2134
    come septic. Sepsis means certain death in abdominal cases and inevitable amputation in cases of compound fractures. These two classes of cases cover a very large proportion of the casualties in the field. It is clear that an immediate operation is of vital importance. It is agreed upon all hands that it must be immediate.
    I asked my right hon. Friend the other day in this House, with a view to finding out how much was known on this matter, to give me some statistics as to the number of wounds received in the hospitals in this country which were in a septic condition when they reached this country. My right hon. Friend told me that such statistics are not to be had, and that it would take far too much labour to supply them. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend had the answer given to him by somebody at the other end of Pall Mall. But I am bound to say that if it is the case it shows very bad management in the hospitals here, because everyone conversant with the working of hospitals will admit that the first thing is to keep, in the form of a chart or note, a record of every case that comes in. Therefore to be told that Private Smith was received on such-and-such a day, and that the hospital has no record whether his wound was septic or not at that moment, is to indicate a complete breakdown in the management of the hospital. I doubt very much whether it is impossible to get the statistics. I have been told from more than one quarter that in point of fact a very large percentage of the wounded when they reach this country are in a septic condition. The difficulty is that you cannot, under our present system, get the rapidity which is necessary between the infliction of the wound and the operation, and this is due to a system which is based upon experience in South Africa, in India, and in Egypt, where, owing to the conditions of warfare, the various stages were necessary which are still retained in order to move the wounded from the scene of the casualty to the hospital at the base. In former wars it will be generally agreed this was necessary and proper, but in the present War the best opinion says that it is unnecessary and mischievous.
    In fact, motor transport has now revolutionised conditions, and what was necessary when we were dependent on horses cannot be necessary to-day. It is characteristic of the methods of the War Office that when this War broke out,

    2135
    although the motor car was a well-established institution, yet the Army Medical Service resolved that they would remain loyal to the horse, and they actually went so far as to refuse the offer of a large number of motor ambulances made to them by some generous individual. Eventually they did accept them, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow (Sir J. Simon), who is not at this moment in the House, may be shocked to hear that the acceptance of these motor ambulances was due to the activities of the Harmsworth Press, and if it had not been for those activities I am not sure the Army would have had them at this moment. I do not desire to take up the time of the House too long, but my case is a very big one and a very important one, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really give it due consideration. Men with whom I have talked, and who are qualified to judge, tell me the first line in the various grades of medical equipment—the field hospitals close to the front—are perfectly useless, and that they serve no particular purpose. I can quite understand that there is no possibility of having that scientific cleansing of wounds which is so essential. The best opinions I have come across are to the effect that these field hospitals ought to be done away with, and that there ought to be in their place, combining the functions of the field hospitals and the clearing stations behind them, a system of movable hospitals all the way along the front, within easy access by motor car of the firing line, placed as far as possible off the main road so that that may be kept clear for the transport of supplies and troops, and with easy lateral communications between one part of the line and another. If that were done, it would not only improve immensely the administration from the point of view of the wounded, but it would give a system of movable hospitals, which ought to be in charge of a first-rate surgeon and thoroughly equipped with up-to-date surgery and scientific means of cleansing wounds. This would enable the authorities to do away with the so-called field hospitals or field ambulances—except so far as they are true ambulances for carrying the wounded. These field hospitals are now under the charge of a senior surgeon whose time is entirely taken up by administration, and the method I am suggesting would not only improve matters at the front from the
    2136
    point of view of the wounded, but it would also introduce economies in the use of doctors. The wounded in that case would be taken to the movable hospitals, the operation cases would be retained, and the other cases be sent to the base.
    I must refer to an answer which my right hon. Friend gave me with regard to this very matter. I asked him the other day whether the organisations were such as to enable these rapid operations to take place, and he quoted Sir Frederick Treves as saying they could now operate within two or three hours of the casualty occurring. I know it is so. Sir Frederick Treves has given the same information to me. But that is merely an exceptional circumstance. It is only done here and there, and if my information is correct there is no organisation enabling it to be done as a matter of ordinary routine of Army practice. It is only quite recently that operations in abdominal cases have been allowed at all. I recently asked as to an order forbidding abdominal surgery, and the right hon. Gentleman told me that that was merely a piece of fertile imagination. But Army doctors have told me that they have in their possession the order I refer to. I may have used a wrong term in referring to it as an order, but as recently as the 1st January this year Sir Anthony Boulby, writing to the "Lancet," emphasised the possibility of saving life by immediate operations in abdominal cases. There could have been no occasion to do that unless it was the case that the practice had not become established and he was agitating for its adoption.
    My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I have only one more complaint to make, but it is by no means the least grave. It is that the organisation and the working of it in this War has failed—as I maintain it has failed to a large extent—to make the best use possible of the medical talent at the disposal of the nation, and which might be at the disposal of the Army. Only the other day the "Daily Chronicle" published an article in which it gave a considerable catalogue of examples arising from sheer stupidity, and I could double that catalogue from instances in my own knowledge of the way in which they do not put the doctors to the best possible use. Hon. Members may remember the story of the lady who was asked the breed of a terrier belonging to her. She replied, "I think it is just dog." In the same way the War Office apparently looks on

    2137
    medical men as "just doctor." It does not appear to matter to it whether a man be a surgeon or a physician, a heart specialist or a lung specialist, a chiropodist or a dentist. They just send him to a job, and tell him he is wanted there. There is no sort of co-ordination, and no attempt to use his special qualifications at the points where those special qualifications are most wanted. I was told of an eminent Glasgow specialist that he had only been employed on work with reference to which he used a somewhat contemptuous phrase, and he added that it would take some considerable time before he would be able to get his hands into a condition to perform a delicate operation.
    With regard to dental surgery, exactly the same thing is true. There seems to be an idea that you only want a dentist for the purpose of pulling out a man's grinders. But I am told that dental surgery is of vital importance in this War, and I read of a case only the other day in which a man had half his jaw shot away and the surgeon took out a portion of the man's rib and made him a new jaw. That sort of operation is, of course, only possible by co-operation with very highly-skilled dentists. The wounds can only be filled up by the aid of dentistry. The British Dental Institution is a highly organised and respectable body which was willing to put at the disposal of the Government the whole of its resources. Quite recently the Director-General of the Medical Service refused to receive a deputation from that body, and there are very natural complaints that that is because they do not want to make full use of dental surgeons.
    I hope these are sufficient examples to show my right hon. Friend is under a delusion if he thinks that the medical service is not open to criticism of any sort. He will no doubt say I am entirely misinformed. He will tell me that Sir Frederick Treves holds a certain opinion as a consequence of the visit he paid to one part of the front. But somebody else holds another opinion, and all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that a very large body of highly-instructed medical opinion holds to-day the views which I have been trying to put before the House. The facts are becoming known to the public, and, having regard to the interest that the public have in knowing that the medical service is as good as it can be made, I will make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, an appeal
    2138
    which I do not think is unreasonable, and one which I hope he will be prepared to consider very carefully indeed. Is there any reason why the Government should not—I do not like to use the word "appoint a Commission," but why they should not ask three or four thoroughly competent persons, not necessarily doctors, but perhaps including one doctor among the number—persons quite disinterested, so far as any member of the public can be disinterested—to go to France and to visit the hospitals there, to examine practitioners who have been in the hospitals here and at the front, to investigate this matter, and to discover whether the impressions formed by distinguished surgeons by occasionally visiting a particular point at the front really present the true aspect of the general working of the whole medical service throughout the War; or whether, in the light of the knowledge so gained, they will not report to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a very considerable and avoidable breakdown, so that in the coming months, when we expect and believe that the fighting will be more serious than any we have yet seen, the people of this country may be a little reassured in regard to this matter, and may not, at all events, feel that the Government have refused to listen to criticism, have refused to try and find out for themselves what the facts are, and have refused to give to the sick and wounded in the Army the best Medical Service which the country can procure.
    Major ASTOR: We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, a speech containing very grave charges connected with the Army Medical Service. I am not going to deal with those points, although I do occasionally run up against the Medical Service unofficially, and I have had the privilege of being associated with a fairly big hospital. It has been my privilege also to see the way in which the wounded are brought over from France, the way they are landed at Southampton, and to visit some of the hospitals. Although a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said may be true, I do not think, from what I have seen, that matters are quite so black and serious as we might be led by him to believe. My hon. Friend mentioned three names. Personally, I do not know and have not seen the work of General Sloggett or General

    2139
    Macpherson, but I have had to see on numerous occasions, sometimes connected with perfectly trivial matters and sometimes on questions of policy, Sir Alfred Keogh, and all I can say is that on every occasion I have found Sir Alfred Keogh singularly accessible, particularly anxious to investigate any question whether big or small, and a man who, in spite of his age, is remarkably fresh in mind. My hon. Friend mentioned various breakdowns in the Medical Service. I am not certain that the method he suggested, namely, that when a division moved it should leave behind its motor ambulances and Medical Service, would, as a matter of fact, diminish the breakdowns. He based his suggestion, as I understood it, on the fact that we are now waging a stationary mode of warfare, and that, although the present system is suitable when warfare becomes mobile, it is unsuitable for a stationary mode of warfare. I imagine the difficulty is that in warfare you cannot say when you are going to leave the stationary and be driven or go into the mobile form of warfare. My hon. Friend mentioned a case of wounded being left neglected in farm houses and forgotten. It may be some satisfaction to know that similar occurrences happened in the early stages of the War with our opponents. I know of an officer who was taken to a farm house near Mons, looked after by the Germans, his wound dressed, his leg put right. He was forgotten entirely by the Germans, so that when his leg got right he was able to escape from Belgium and return to England. I have no very intimate personal knowledge of the Medical Service, and I can therefore only give the House the result of my experience through running up against it occasionally.
    There is another question intimately connected with this matter, that is the presence in the Army of medical unfits. We are continually having cases brought before us of men absolutely unsuited to serve as combatants finding their way into the Army. Some months ago a commanding officer told me of three men who were recently sent to him. One was obviously under age, the second had two fingers missing from his right hand, and the third was suffering from chronic alcoholism—I think the official designation was "muscular tremor." Anyway, all three were absolutely unsuited for combatant service. I do not want to deal so
    2140
    much with the question of these particular men, or with the responsibility of the medical officers who in the past have sent absolutely unsuitable men into the Army. It has been proved over and over again that this has happened. What I wish to put before the House is the fact, not that these men have been allowed by overworked medical officers to get into the Army, but that the War Office have kept these men in the Army when they have been discovered to be unfit, and that they have not discharged them. This involves a very great loss to the community. If you have a soldier, a married man, who is unfit and keep him when he is practically of no use as a combatant, you are running up a heavy bill in the way of separation allowances. You are also further injuring the country in that you prevent a man who-might get employment from now getting a job. You keep him in the Army, and if you keep him long enough you make it impossible for him to get employment, because when eventually the Army comes, back from France and sound men are available in the labour market, it will be exceedingly difficult for the unfit to get work. Therefore, in the national interest, the War Office should do all in its power to get rid now of the unfit from the Army. Let these men go and get employment. Let them increase the production of the country, but do not let us keep them in the Army.
    I can only imagine that these unfits are kept in the Army in consequence of the policy, or rather the absence of policy, of the Government over recruiting. The Government in the past have not taken us into their confidence in dealing with the men that were needed for the Army. We have often been told that there were so many million men under Arms, or so many million men in uniform. It is no good having a man in uniform when he is so unfit that he is not suitable for the mildest form of Home defence. There have in the past been thousands, tens of thousands, and I suppose even hundreds of thousands of unfit men kept nominally for Home defence, who in fact and in practice would have been unsuitable for defending our homes if the Germans had been so venturesome as to appear. It might have been thought necessary to do this in order to deceive the Germans. I suppose the German spies reported that there were so

    2141
    many men in uniform, and were not able to listen to their hearts, or thump their lungs, or ascertain exactly if anything was the matter with them. The reason I bring the question forward is that this seems to me another case of deceiving the people. It is all very well to deceive the Germans, but we do not want at the same time to deceive the people by telling them that we have a huge Army, when a considerable proportion of that Army is unfit for service. I suggest that it has been mixed up with the whole policy, or absence of fixed policy, in connection with recruiting in the past. If the Government had not been able to point to the large number of men in uniform there would have been a stronger case for dealing at an earlier date with the problem of recruiting. It is part of the general policy of sham, of make-believe, and of not trusting the people. During the last few days we have listened to numerous interesting speeches on the subject of recruiting. It seems to me that the War Office, or rather the Government—because on this we are touching a matter of Government policy—have failed hopelessly in not making up their minds what number of recruits will be needed for the Army to carry out the operations upon which they have embarked. It is no good having your barracks, camps, and huts full and overwhelmed during January and February, to have them empty during March and April, and to have only 25 per cent. of the rooms occupied during the other months. You want a steady flow into the Army. You do not want to be overwhelmed with men in one month and wait until the whole question of recruiting becomes a public scandal before dealing with it again.
    Leaving that particular point, I wish to deal with another. An hon. Member opposite speaking to-day referred to the fact that in a large number of cases the military members of the local tribunals were civilians. That is another proof, if proof were needed, of the intimate association between the Army and the people. Listening to the Debate during the last two days, a Debate which has stretched from matters of strategy to the most domestic details of the individual, I have been much impressed by the fact that a great deal of the criticism directed against War Office administration was really criticism directed against Government policy. I regret to say that I see in the War Office many of the faults that we
    2142
    are continually noticing in the Government. We frequently find in dealing with War Office administration the same indecision, the same inability to make up their minds rapidly, and the same lack of personal example. The Cabinet have never yet realised the value of personal example. They do not realise even to this day the value of striking the imagination of the people of the country.
    6.0 P.M.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to a question of mine yesterday, stated that the War Office were still considering the question of the double pay given to officers who, before August, 1914, were on the retired list, but who are now receiving the pay they were then drawing as retired pay and, in addition, are being paid by the War Office their full pay as officers on the active list. I know why it is that the War Office came to this conclusion. The point I wish to make at the present time is that the hon. Gentleman gave the same answer some weeks ago, namely, that the War Office were considering this question. We have now been at war eighteen or twenty months. This particular problem has been before the War Office presumably on and off during the whole of that time. Perhaps it is not an easy question to settle, but it is not an insoluble question. Either the War Office should make up its mind to go on indefinitely paying these officers from two sources, that is, go on giving them their pay as active officers and also the pay which was due to them when they were on the retired list, or the War Office should come to a conclusion, cease considering and announce what their decision is going to be. We have heard a good deal of abuse and criticism from outside of Members of this House because we are not setting a better example to the country in connection with our salaries. I am not going to deal with the question of the payment of Members. During the last few months, while I have been temporarily moving in military circles, I have heard very frequently the expression "those dashed politicians," though the epithet used was rather more military. The criticism has been levelled against us, is not that we are being paid more than we deserve, not that we are overpaid, because every Member of this House obviously could earn more than he is receiving by way of salary, but that we are not giving the country an example. The reason I put forward the question of the double pay of officers is not because I think

    2143
    that these officers do not deserve the combined pay they are now getting, but because the War Office, like the House of Commons and like the Cabinet, has failed to realise the importance of giving the country a personal example. I should be far from saying that officers who receive this double pay do not deserve it. I have seen many of them, and gallant officers they are. Many of them have been on the retired list for a large number of years, and they have come, like Cincinnatus from the plough, to serve their country, realising that it will never be their good fortune to go to France, and yet undergoing hardships—and the hardships in the early days of the home camps were very great—with far less grumbling often than the younger officers, and doing their best. Many of them have told me that they did not want this double pay and they thought it was ridiculous, and I suggest, if this matter really is still under consideration, it is worth while for the War Office to give the country, not exhortation, but a practical example of economy.
    I listened yesterday, going from the more domestic points to the wider sphere, to a speech from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Lambert), in which he dealt very comprehensively with the strategy not only of the War Office but of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the War Office, and of course he was really criticising the Government, for the way in which they have carried out little expeditions and were having little engagements all over the world. It seems to me that the criticism against the Government is not with the quantity but with the quality of the expeditions, not with the things they have done but the way in which they have done them. With the British Empire fighting against the German Empire and with the German Empire stretching, as it now does, from the Baltic to the Dardanelles, we cannot possibly say that we shall attack Germany only on the Western front, in France and in Flanders. We are bound to attack the Central Empire in many different spheres. Where the Government deserve criticism, where they have laid themselves absolutely open to it, is the way in which they have carried out these expeditions. Mesopotamia! They sent one expedition insufficient for the job. They sent out a second expedition insufficient for its job,
    2144
    unable even, as we are now learning from different sources, to give that attention to the wounded which the wounded in that sphere, as in other spheres, deserve. We find exactly the same policy in Gallipoli—doing it; but not doing it adequately. We find the same at Salonika.
    Before leaving this I should like to say one word on the Balkan question and on the Salonika Expedition. The right hon. Gentleman who was speaking yesterday, as I understood him, advocated the withdrawal of our force from Salonika. His reason was that our main door into Germany is in France on the Western frontier. If you cannot get into a house by the front door, you have to try to get in by the back door, and if you cannot get in either by the front or the back door, you have to try to creep in through the window. Another reason. We are pressing on the Western front, and the Russians are pressing on the Eastern front. If we were to withdraw from Salonika the first result would be that the Bulgarians, the Austrians, the Germans, and the Turks would concentrate upon Roumania and Greece, and would force them to abandon their neutrality and come in against us. If Roumania came in against us, Russia would be attacked in her rear flank. She would be attacked through Bessarabia, through the Black Sea, and through the Caucasus, and we should be looking in vain for the Russian offensive which we are all counting on in the near future when our gallant Allies are ready once again to take up the offensive.
    Another point I wish to deal with is the principle on which pensions have been given to soldiers who are discharged from the Army disabled. I am not now talking of pensions for soldiers discharged through disease. That was dealt with yesterday at considerable length. I raise this question to-day because there is a very prevalent feeling among disabled soldiers that their pension, when they get it, will depend very largely upon their skill and aptitude. That is the impression, and it is because there is this very prevalent impression that I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement which will dispel this particular opinion. A pension can be granted to a man to supplement what he can earn for himself. His earning capacity depends partly upon his skill and partly upon his physical disability. I hope that in giving pensions the Chelsea Commissioners will not take into consideration the skill

    2145
    and aptitude of the individual, but will only take into consideration his physical disability. At present it looks as if they were taking into consideration the skill which he either has or might acquire. Only the other day I saw a man who had his leg off. When he was first discharged he was granted a pension of 14s. Then he had a pension of 18s. 9d., and subsequently it was raised to 25s., and when I saw him it had been reduced to 10s. 6d. That man was not suffering from heart or lung. There was no disease which might get better or worse after a period of twelve months. No amount of waiting would make his leg grow. That man was not a loafer; he had learnt a trade, and when I saw him he was earning 20s. a week. He was firmly convinced that his pension, which once was raised to 25s., had been dropped to 10s. 6d. because he had learnt a trade. Next to him in the workshop where he was working was another man who had also lost a leg—not quite so much of it. He had no skill and he was drawing a. pension of 25s. It is most important that the policy of the War Office should not be to allocate a pension to a man according to the skill which either he has or may acquire. I cannot emphasise too empratically that it is most important that my right hon. Friend should make a perfectly clear statement to sweep away this misunderstanding, which undoubtedly exists at present. This question, of course, is involved with our Pension Bill at the end of the War. I would far rather have a huge Pension Bill and, at the same time, have the pensioners adding to the production of the country by their skill and aptitude. I would far rather have a man drawing 20s. a week and producing 15s. worth of goods every week than receiving a smaller pension and producing less. We are going to pay for this War, not by our economies, but by the increased production of this country after the War. We want to make every man realise that when he leaves the Army he can serve the State by increasing the production of the country. It is far better to give a man a pension based entirely upon his physical disability and to ignore entirely the skill which he has or which he may acquire. Further, a man should not receive the same pension if he loses an arm or a leg or a foot. The other day I saw two men; one of them had his arm taken off at the shoulder. He was getting the same disability pension as another fellow who had
    2146
    lost his foot. It is quite obvious that a man with a wounded foot is able to earn a great deal more than a man who has had the whole of his arm taken off. I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will look into the whole principle on which these pensions are being allotted.
    Another point connected with this is the grant given to a discharged disabled man for the support of his children. I ran across a case the other day of a man who was receiving 25s. and each of his children was getting 2s. 6d. The Chelsea Commissioners decided to reduce the pension to 10s. 6d., and at the same time they reduced the grant to the children to 1s. 3d. It is perfectly true that that man may have been able to earn sufficient for himself, and had only lost a foot or an arm or whatever it might be. But although the man's pension might perhaps have bean reduced, there was no justification for halving the grant he was getting for his children. They required just as much food, they will in the future require more food. I trust this will be another point which will be considered.
    There are now in this country hundreds, probably thousands, of men housed, clothed, and fed at the Government expense in hospitals, men who are going to be discharged from the Army as disabled—men being maintained at the expense of the Government. Everyone in the hospitals knows that they are of no further use to the State as combatants. They may have lost their arm or their foot. I have seen many myself spending months in hospital before they are discharged. They are undergoing treatment. During the whole of these months nothing is being done to assist them in the way of getting employment and in the way of acquiring skill which will be of use to them when they leave the Army. Why wait until they have left the Army? Why wait until the whole question becomes infinitely greater and then have again to feed and house them, and only then, when they have left the Army, begin to give them some training? This is a really important question, and one which I hope the Government, when dealing with the whole problem, will look at. The representatives of the War Office who spoke yesterday told us their sympathies were with the disabled, and that it was the policy of the War Office to help the disabled. I trust that this question of assisting the disabled will soon get beyond

    2147
    perorations, that it will soon pass from the consideration stage, and that in the near future we shall get action.
    Captain AMERY: I concur most heartily in what my hon. Friend has said about the folly and the dishonesty of enlisting into the Army by the ten thousand, and even by the hundred thousand, men who are of no possible use for any kind of military service, The subject has been a great Scandal for very many months. A certain group of Members on the other side of the House seem to have discovered the question of the enlistment of unfit men since the introduction of the Military Service Act, and they, and that portion of the Press which supports them, seem to think that it is one of the consequences of what they call conscription that men who are of no use for any military purpose should be haled into and compelled to serve in the Army. I would remind these hon. Members that for the whole of a year past, in order to conceal the failure of the voluntary system, men utterly unfit for military service have been recruited, and have clogged the whole of our military machinery right through the country. I remember very well that when some of us called attention to that matter last autumn we were accused of slandering the Army in the interests of a base conspiracy for Conscription. I wonder if hon. Members opposite have any idea of the magnitude of this evil. I have been told from various sources, in which I have confidence, that the number of men we have been keeping in the Army during the past year who are unfit for any military purpose, who are a sheer waste and a burden upon the Army Estimates, is something like 200,000. The other day the Prime Minister told us that the present cost of a soldier was something like £250 a year. If that is true, and if that is the average cost, then we have wasted in that way alone something like £50,000,000 of public money in the mere cost of keeping these men, apart from the waste involved in withdrawing them from civil occupations, and apart from the waste involved in the interference with training caused by their presence in the ranks. Why was such a large sum as £50,000,000, taken from the taxpayer, thrown away in this manner? I will tell the House. It is because the Government were not prepared last year to face the urgent decision which" they ought to have faced long ago. It was to enable right hon Gentlemen on the Front
    2148
    Bench opposite who held views diametrically opposed to each other on the most urgent and important question as to the conduct of this War, to go on sitting in the same Cabinet, to go on pooling their salaries, and paralysing each others activities in the Cabinet and outside. That is only part of the whole system of procrastination, make-believe, and muddle which has resulted in the recruiting difficulties with which we are confronted to-day.
    It is no new mess with which the Government are confronted. It is a mess which has been a whole year in coming about. It is just about a year ago that the voluntary system of recruiting began to break down. I am the last person to disparage the splendid effort of voluntary patriotism, which in the first months of the War created the New Armies. The trouble is this, that when the New Armies were created, and when their framework was established in the early months of last year, voluntary recruiting was not able to maintain the Army that voluntary recruiting had provided. From about this time last year onwards our Army, instead of increasing, was steadily and slowly beginning to dwindle. Instead of being able to perfect its training, its training was progressively being disorganised by want of men. Battalions for service at the front were broken up and converted into battalions for training, and battalions for training were so skimmed of all their men who had had anything like adequate training that men were sent to the front by tens of thousands who were utterly unfit for active service. Second line Territorial divisions intended to take their place in the fighting line were converted into mere feeders of first line Territorial units at the front, and only now, after they have been spoiled for their purpose by months and months of depletion, they are supposed to be reconverted for fighting purposes. All this time the Army at the front have been suffering from shortage of men. This was the situation, and we all realise it now. It was known to a great many of us as far back as the early months of last year, and when we endeavoured to raise it in the House, what happened? The Prime Minister, before the House separated at the end of July, assured us that there was nothing amiss, and that recruiting was better than ever. I wonder what authority he

    2149
    had for that statement. It was a monstrous statement. It was a scandalous statement. Its object was to reassure the House of Commons. Its object was to avoid dissension on the Treasury Bench. I wish we sometimes realised the true, inward meaning of these reassuring, bland statements from the Prime Minister, and realised what they mean in thousands of good men killed, and what they mean in the burden imposed on this country which we shall have to bear for generations. That is the true meaning of the bland assurances from the Prime Minister. Some of us endeavoured, in face of a great deal of obloquoy and of the accusation of being intriguers and conspirators, to bring before the attention of the House of Commons and of the country the urgency of the situation. We also tried to bring home the fact that no changes that could be carried out could be carried out over night, and that the administrative consequences of any legislation dealing with the problems of recruiting would take months to develop. It was for that very reason that we urged that something should be done early last autumn. What were we met with? Evasion and procrastination.
    At the end, the seriousness of the situation was so universally known that something had to be done, and in view of the facts and of the feeling in the House of Commons and the feeling in the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, to avoid the agony of a definite decision on the question of compulsion, snatched at the straw of the Derby scheme. That scheme was supposed to be a voluntary scheme. It was a voluntary scheme for a few days only, because the voluntary scheme collapsed from the very outset. Its appeal to the married men and to the older classes fell hopelessly flat from the outset, unless these classes could have the assurance that the younger unmarried classes were going to be called up before them. So, after the usual evasion and the usual wrigglings, we at last got the Prime Minister pinned down to a definite pledge. From the moment that pledge was given voluntary service was at an end. The pledge was compulsion, latent compulsion it may be, as indeed, is compulsion in any country that has universal service where men came forward willingly. What was the meaning and the effect of that pledge? That pledge told the single men that unless they came forward in sufficient numbers to satisfy the married
    2150
    men they would be dealt with compulsorily. Some single men under that impulsion enlisted straight away. Others joined the group system; others were content to think that if they moved about often enough they would not be discovered and would end in avoiding any compulsory service. Tens of thousands took the opportunity of drifting away, as we have already been told this afternoon, into the reserved and badged occupations, where they hoped they would be safe. Is not that a situation which could obviously have been foreseen, and which it must have been seen would occur? Why were no measures taken to prevent that happening? Was it fair to the married men that unmarried men by tens of thousands should escape their obligations to serve by going into the protected industries? On the other hand, is it fair to industry, does it conduce to efficiency, and does it conduce to economy, that after you have allowed men to go into these industries and to learn the rudiments of these industries, and to some extent become proficient in these industries, you should drag them out again? You began by enlisting skilled munition workers in the Army and you have been compelled to drag them back again. By refusing to face the question involved you allowed another lot of men to drift into munition industries, and then in order to fulfil your pledge to the married men you have to drag them out again. I think that that alone is a sufficient condemnation of the manner in which the Government have dealt with this great problem of recruiting.
    Let us take the pledge as it affects the married men. I admit that if you look at the words of the Prime Minister the pledge said nothing more than that the married men would not be called upon to serve until the unmarried men had been dealt with, whatever "dealt with" means. Certainly the married men understood it to mean that they would not be called upon to serve until the overwhelming mass of unmarried men had been called upon to serve, not "dealt with" by being protected in reserved industries, not "dealt with" by having appeals made which may be months before they are settled. When we consider the attitude of the married men at this moment we have got to take into account not only what the Prime Minister pledged in this matter, but what was said to the married men by the whole body of recruiters and canvassers throughout the country. They may not have been

    2151
    officially authorised, but the fact is that, whether the authorisation was official or not, men who, on the strength of certain representations, are staking all their interests and their lives feel very strongly when they find that those representations were misrepresentations. We know very well that enormous numbers of these married men enlisted to be an example to the rest of the country, men who were told they could not possibly be called up, that their circumstances were such that they were bound to be exempt, but that if they only attested in sufficient numbers the younger classes of the married as well as the unmarried men would be compelled to come forward, and, therefore, you would get, without the need of compulsory law, the universal service of a patriotic nation. Now we find that of these attested married men the first eight groups were called up within a day or two of the calling up of the first single men under the Military Service Act. An hon. Gentleman asks why? It is because of the bitter need of the Army for men. Do you suppose they would have been called up for any other reason in the world? They have been called up, and, in consequence, they are worse off than single men who have attested and appealed. They are worse off than single men who have gone hiding away in reserved occupations; they are worse off than single men who moved about and of whom no track was kept. They are worse off than the married men who have not attested. The feeling among married men who have attested in this country is immensely strong, I do not think that the strength of it is half realised in this House or by the Government. It is a feeling with which we have got to deal. I, personally, have always looked upon the whole question of dealing with the needs of the country by pledges as a ridiculous one; but that pledge having been given it has got to be fulfilled, and the first question, the question before this House to-day, is how the problem of the married men is to be faced and how the pledge is going to be made good.
    The other day certain suggestions were made in the House of Lords by Lord Derby, and there is one other suggestion which I would make myself before coming to those. I would suggest that the Government should, through the Home Office or the War Office or whatever means are thought proper, take steps that no man can dodge the Military Service Act by
    2152
    just changing his address and not presenting himself. There seems to be no reason why the authorities should not visit works and should not be empowered to visit houses, stop men in the street, find out where is their registration certificate, find out whether they are liable for service under the Act, and if they are so liable for service and have not got an exemption certificate and have not appealed to the tribunal for exemption, arrest them there and then. That may seem somewhat drastic, but it is certainly not drastic when you think of the case of a man on the other side of the Channel who has voluntarily come forward and who, in a moment of weariness or exhaustion or depression, shrinks from joining his battalion in the trenches for a week and hides in some village; such a man is shot, and in comparison it seems to be a very small thing to ask the Government to take measures to find out the men who are dodging the Military Service Act and arrest them on the spot. Lord Derby has suggested that we should get rid of all badged, starred, and reserved occupations for unmarried men under thirty-one years of age. Not a few of us felt when this measure was being passed through the House of Commons that the right to give Government Departments power to exclude vast classes of men even from the purview of the tribunal was bound to lead to a breakdown. I am glad to say that with a score of others I divided against the Government on the subject, and I am glad to say that the Government have now seen the force of that. At least, I gather from what has been said in the House of Lords that they have, and that now the wholesale reserving must cease and that the burden of proof should rest on the individual before the tribunal as to his really being indispensable, and that failing, that he is to be regarded as a soldier; that naturally and normally the man is to be regarded as a soldier and that he himself has got to prove before the tribunal that it is in the interests of the nation that he should be exempted.
    Another suggestion made by Lord Derby is, that all those, either single or married, who have joined reserved occupations since the 15th of August last should be taken out of those occupations and be made liable for service. I think that that is fair. I think it would have been much fairer to the men themselves and to the industries which have taken those men if the Prime Minister when he gave that pledge had

    2153
    warned men that they were not going to dodge the Act by entering into reserved industries, so that some steps would have been taken to prevent this immense waste of effort, this waste of efficiency caused by men joining these occupations for a few months and then being dragged out. Another difficulty confronts us in dealing with these men. Under one of the provisions inserted in the Military Service Act, in order to get rid of the bogey of industrial compulsion, it was provided that if a man's certificate lapsed or was taken away he was to have two months in which to look round for another occupation and to get another certificate. That means that even if by administrative measure you now withdraw all those certificates of exemption from those men, as regards those who are under the Military Service Act, you cannot get hold of them for two months, while the men who voluntarily attested before the Military Service Act, as an example to others, can be got hold of at once. The married men who attested before, who have gone into reserved occupations, of course can be got hold of. They are Reservists. They have none of the privileges of the men who hung back. The married men who held back you cannot get out of their industries. You have no legal power to do so.
    Another very serious problem which has to be faced is, "Are you, after all the promises that have been given in this respect, again to make the position of the men who attested voluntarily worse than the position of the men who waited until the Military Service Act compelled them? Are you to compel one lot to serve at once by withdrawing their certificates and give the other two months' postponement, or indeed give them total exemption which they acquire in virtue of the fact that they are married men?" There is a wider problem which has got to be faced than satisfying the married men with regard to the position of the single men. You have got to satisfy the attested married men as to the justice of their being called out now when 1,000,000 unattested married men can snap their fingers at the recruiting officers. That is a very concrete, practical question which you have got to face. I will give one instance of the kind of reasons which make it necessary to face that problem. Suppose you now haul out of those reserved industries the single men. Those industries will want to be refilled. With whom are you going to refill them? Are you going to
    2154
    refill them with older men, with women, with men who are not physically fit, perhaps with the older married men, or are you going to let the younger, hardy married men of military age, thoroughly fit for military service, go into those industries and find that in two or three months, when you want more men, you have got to haul them out again, thus causing the greatest dislocation?
    These problems cannot be put off. You have got to face the whole problem now and envisage it as a whole. Above all, I wish to press this point. We are dealing not merely with the question of satisfying the indignant feelings of the attested married men, though you have got to satisfy them. But you have got to satisfy something else—you have got to satisfy the bitter urgent need of our Army for men who will go out to defeat the Germans. That is the real point, and that is one which the Government has refused to face. It refused to face it last year. It refused to face it in the Military Service Act when some of us urged an Amendment which would have been to some extent an improvement in that Act, but which would have been inconvenient, as it was felt that forty or fifty men would go into the Lobby against the Government. Then we had the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) coming down to this House with a message from Lord Kitchener to this effect. "Lord Kitchener authorises me to say that this Bill will give him, by bringing in the unmarried men, all the men he requires. It will enable him to provide the troops that the nation requires. It will enable him to do all that we can and all that is necessary to be done to secure victory." It is impossible for me to say how far that represents the actual meaning that Lord Kitchener wished to convey or how far he may or may not have been misunderstood by my right hon. Friend. All I say is that, whoever it may be who was responsible for that statement, it was a gravely misleading statement, and one that ought never to have been made in this House, because it was not true. And the fact that it was not true has been proved already when we find that this Act is not producing the men required, and that if we take in all the single men, as I gather Lord Kitchener said in the House of Lords within the last hour or so, even then you would have to call upon the married men within a few weeks.

    2155
    And even then does anyone suppose that you will have enough to carry through this War? Why? I need not go into figures, but I have heard on every hand that we are short of troops at the front and in the training brigades at home. Only the other day I had a letter from one brigadier who told me that his brigade was still 3,600 short out of 8,000. I do not think that that is an exception or an isolated instance. Remember another thing. A tremendous battle has been going on during the last few weeks around Verdun, the whole stress and cost of which has fallen upon our gallant French Allies. The object of that battle is to paralyse the offensive of the Allies in the West within the next few months, and though the casualties are not falling upon us during these weeks, still the French Army is so many thousand men short, and will be by so much the weaker for the offensive when it has got to come; and it is upon us that the task devolves of replacing the men who are falling around Verdun. We have got to face the problem as a whole. What is the problem? To find the men who will win this War and will give us peace in the shortest possible time, who will do it consistently with the production of munitions to the highest degree of efficiency and with the smallest amount of dislocation of labour and of industry. Is it conceivable that this country can do that if we leave on one side, entirely out of account, 1,000,000 unattested married men mostly fit for active service, a very large proportion of them in industries which have nothing to do with munitions or the export trade? You cannot leave those men out of account. We have left Ireland out of account for political reasons. From the military point of view it is a serious thing. But in refusing to take account of that 1,000,000 unattested married men you are leaving out of sight three times as many combatants as are still left in Ireland. The Allies have prided themselves greatly within the last few months on the fact that they have managed to save for the future conduct of the War a considerable part of the gallant Serbian Army. But we do not face the fact that we still have six or seven times as many men fit for fighting whom we do not want to touch—dare not touch. They have left out in these unattested married men—I dare say as many as the whole reserve of untouched men in Germany, and enough to
    2156
    turn the final scale of victory in the course of the next few months. Why do they not touch them? It is because the Government are afraid to take certain steps, are afraid to go against the prejudices of the member of the Cabinet who discreetly inspired the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) in his action. The Government will have to face this question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is forecasting what may possibly need legislation, and legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
    Captain AMERY: I do not suggest that any particular universal service measure should be passed. It may be possible that the unattested married men might be dealt with by a lavish use of posters, by more vulgar posters, and by money; it may be possible to put difficulties in the way of the life of unmarried men who are unattested; they might be boycotted in the streets, and a great many things might be done to drive them into the field, so I do not necessarily suggest legislation. I do submit, however, that this problem has to be met in an adequate way, whether by administration or legislation. The Government must face the problem to-day, and not let these men get into the reserved industries, or in other ways make the problem more difficult. You cannot do these things from hand to mouth. You must prepare beforehand to enable your legislation to be followed by proper administration. The Government are still hesitating, and still unable to make up their minds. We have in this country resources in wealth, in numbers, and patriotism, which ought to make victory absolutely beyond doubt. I confess that "when one contemplates the way in which a problem like this of recruiting has been dealt with by His Majesty's Government, I doubt if any resources or any degree of patriotism would overcome the handicap of the leadership under which this country suffers.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am quite sure that the House will regret as sincerely as I do the absence of the Prime Minister, who, had he been well, would have taken part in this Debate, and obviously anything said by him would come with greater authority than it could come from any other member of the Government even speaking with his approval and even on his direction. Personally, I may remind the House—I do not suppose

    2157
    it has forgotten it—that I do not happen to belong to the particular political party of which the Prime Minister has been the distinguished chief for so many years, but I regret, as an old Member of this House, that it should be thought necessary in our Debates to make personal attacks upon the Prime Minister, especially when he is absent, and when his absence is caused by illness. I do not regard it as my duty, as one who has the honour to serve under him, to defend him from charges of this kind. That is unnecessary. I only regret that hon. Members think it necessary to make them. The speech of my hon. Friend (Captain Amery), so full of interest, and marked by that ability which he possesses in so great a degree, was marred, if he will forgive me for saying so, in my humble opinion, by his peculiar characteristics. He is always cocksure that he is right, and not only that the other fellow is wrong, but that the other fellow is certainly a fool, and may be even a criminal, and, therefore, his arguments lose some of their force, weight, and importance, because he attributes to those who happen to be so unfortunate as not to be so brilliantly endowed as he, and to differ from him, every vice on earth, and the commission of every kind of crime. Really, as I listened to my hon. Friend's speech, I wondered how he could sit in the company of men of such gross incapacity, as if their one object, and one object alone, is to lose the War and to destroy for ever the foundations on which this Empire rests.
    I will deal with some of the recruiting problems raised by my right hon. Friend later on. I want just to say this, that surely he has lost sight, in the latter part of his speech, of the fact that the duty of the Government is not only to look at this question, as he looked at it in his speech, solely from the point of view of soldiers in the field. It is our bounden duty to get soldiers to fight alongside those splendid fellows who have won undying laurels on the various fields of battle, but it is not only that. We have another duty, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to denounce us if we sent soldiers to the front and did not supply them with the munitions of war, without which they would be useless. It is not only munitions of war that have to be supplied, but every equipment of the soldier in the field, as my hon. Friend well knows, has to be provided in this country by our own people to a very large extent. My hon. Friend knows these problems in and out, and he has an advan-
    2158
    tage which is not always enjoyed by those who speak here, because he spends his mornings in the War Office and his afternoons in criticising it. He is no doubt able to speak with an authority which is not always enjoyed by the ordinary critic. I intervene in this Debate now to make a few general remarks on the topics which have been raised in the discussion begun yesterday, and also to make special references to recruiting and recruiting problems. I may perhaps be allowed to call the attention of the House to the fact that some of the questions that have been raised, notably the one raised in a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's, with some other questions, solely because my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War, who made a speech yesterday on introducing the Estimates, cannot reply to those questions concerning his Department until Mr. Speaker is out of the Chair and we are in Committee. Every topic that has been raised in this Debate can be continued when we are in Committee. No Member suffers any disability by allowing Mr. Speaker to be moved out of the Chair, while there will be a distinct advantage if my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War can soon proceed to deal with some of these topics which have been raised and which are now suspended and await his reply. Therefore I thought it right to rise, in order to make a general reply on behalf of the Government upon the Debate as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. Hobhouse), in his speech, said that his one desire was to help the Government in the prosecution of the War. He repeated that several times, and I am sure he honestly meant it, but I was irresistibly reminded, as I listened to him, of the lines—
    "It is all very well to dissemble your love,
    But why did you kick me downstairs?"—
    because my right hon. Friend delivered a very serious criticism of the Government policy, and he indulged in mysterious and sombre prophecy, especially as regards our own fate as a Government, but when he came to his remedy I found it wholly inadequate. His remedy is this: that we should adopt here a system that has never yet been adopted in this country—a secret Session of the House, and that the Government should follow, as he told us, the example of France and Germany, and take the House entirely into their confidence. I should like very much to know where my right hon. Friend obtained the

    2159
    information that leads him to suggest that this plan adopted in those two countries has satisfied the people. What does he know of the communications by the German Government to the German Reichstag? What does he know of the communications to a secret Session by the Government of France? What does he know of the satisfaction produced in Germany by this practice?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny it?
    Mr. LONG: No.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Then what is the good of your argument?
    Mr. LONG: I do not deny it at all. My right hon. Friend was not listening to me. I was proceeding to deal with the effect of the communications made by the Government of those countries to their assemblies. What knowledge has my right hon. Friend got of the effect produced by this policy? The mere information as to the fact that these things take place is no good. It is no good to follow their example unless we are shown by evidence that they are doing better than we are doing, and that we believe this to be one of the reasons. What evidence is there that they are satisfied with what they are told in those countries, that they are doing better? What does he know of the result of the policy? What evidence is there that they are satisfied at all, or that, as a nation, they are doing better than this country, where, in this great War, more has been accomplished by the unity and combination of the people than has ever been known in any country of the world in so short a time? The only difference of opinion, if there be a difference, is whether the Government is active enough, and whether it is a matter of driving them still further. To suggest that our people are to be satisfied if the collective Members of Parliament are told by the Government how everything is going on, is to make a suggestion which I submit, with all respect, is one which the Government have no intention whatever of adopting. The suggestion is strangely inconsistent with one which is frequently made, that we should be governed by a smaller body than a Cabinet of twenty-three members, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol takes a different view.
    2160
    7.0 P.M.
    He is not satisfied with twenty-three, but wants 670 collected into secret session, in order that they may be made parties with the Government 7.0 P.M. as to the policy of conducting the War. That is a suggestion which is not, I think, likely to commend itself to the people of the country as a whole. We were asked questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton), in the very eloquent speech he made yesterday, and by the right hon. Member for Essex (Colonel Lockwood) as to the wounded in Mesopotamia. Nobody can regret or deplore more than the members of the Government do the fact that there should have been any suffering in any field of war for which they are responsible which could by any possibility have been avoided. The circumstances of that warfare are very well konwn, and I think it will be sufficient for me to say that every effort that can be made, whether by the Government of India or by the Government at home, is being made to see that everything that is possible is done for those who are the unfortunate victims of warfare in that part of the world. I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who I am sorry to say is also laid up and cannot be present, to say that the Viceroy of India and the Commander-in-Chief in India decided some weeks ago to send Sir William Vincent, a distinguished Indian Civil servant, and General Bingley to Mesopotamia to conduct an inquiry into the medical arrangements, and to take the necessary steps to remedy deficiencies. The War Office have supplied to the Indian Government two Indian general hospitals, complete with personnel, and the personnel of two more Indian general hospitals, one British stationary hospital of 400 beds, and one British general hospital of 1,040 beds, and 10O doctors and 100 orderlies. I hope this will satisfy the House that the Government are doing their utmost to see that every possible alleviation is provided for the sufferings of those who are unhappily wounded. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) reminds me that the War Office here have offered to supply and to meet any demands, and believe they are fully able to meet any demands that can be made upon them. I hope, whatever reason anybody may have to believe in stories that may have reached them, that they will be satisfied that no effort has been spared, or will be

    2161
    spared, to do everything that should be done and that ought to be done under the circumstances.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask when those doctors were supplied?
    Mr. LONG: About a month ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley made a powerful appeal to the House, which I am sure impressed us all, when he told us of a version of the history of the Battle of Loos. He spoke in language in no degree exaggerated—and it would be impossible to exaggerate language in this matter—of the magnificent heroism of the 15th Division. He told us that they had suffered awfully for want of support, and he asked if the generals who were responsible for that had been brought to book. He condemned heavily the Staff work. My right hon. Friend was, I think, unduly severe upon both generals and Staff. He will forgive me for reminding him that it is very easy to be wise after the event. The responsibility resting upon a Commander-in-Chief on the field conducting a great fight is tremendous. If it be when the battle is over, or if it turns out that some disposition has been wrong and proves so by the after effects, are you going to say at once that the man in command ought to be broke, until you know what all the facts of the case are? I can assure my hon. Friend—and I am speaking for the Government and the Secretary of State—that whether it be in the case of the Commander-in-Chief on the spot or his subordinates, or the Staff as a whole, records of what take place are sent home and they are most carefully studied by the Secretary of State with his advisers here; and I can assure my hon. Friend that he need be under no doubt whatever that if lives of gallant soldiers at the front were sacrificed by the incompetency of generals, the Secretary of State would not hesitate to exercise the powers he possesses, in conjunction with the Commanders-in-Chief, to remove such men from their commands, and, as a matter of fact, as my hon. Friend probably knows, men have been removed from commands during the duration of this War, and will be again if it appears that remaining there would be injurious to the best interests of the Army and of the country as a whole. I do not believe there is really any foundation for my hon. Friend's alarm. The sentiments he expressed were highly creditable to him, and in the interests of our Army, and, as he said, in the interests of the private
    2162
    soldier, the hero of this War, who has done such splendid and wonderful work for us, it is necessary that there should be no doubt whatever that inefficiency—culpable inefficiency—will meet with the punishment which undoubtedly it deserves.
    There were two other questions raised, one by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) the rations question, and the other by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Major Astor), who referred in the interesting speech he made a short time ago to the discharge of unfits from the Army. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Plymouth exaggerated in his statements at all. There is no doubt that there has been, and is to-day, an accumulation of men here at home who are unfit for foreign service. A Committee of which I have the honour to preside has been sitting at the War Office for some weeks and taking this matter into its immediate investigation, because it is a question of finance and economy. It is bad finance to enlist and train a man for the Army and then find when he has done weeks of service that he is only fit to remain at home here. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are taking men of the same stamp still!"] I am not quite sure of what my hon. Friend says, that they are taking a great many more still, but I am afraid it is so. Notwithstanding the tremendous efforts made by the Secretary of State and those working with him in the War Office, and notwithstanding that they have given most explicit directions and the clearest orders in regard to this question, I am afraid there are still cases where men are being taken who ought not to be admitted into the Army at all. I can only assure my hon. Friend that this matter has been under my own personal investigation at the War Office from the finance point of view, and it is engaging the attention now also of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief of the Home Forces, and the Adjutant-General in the War Office. Only this morning I saw returns from various units in the country, indicating where these men under various commands have been found, and that they were being at once placed under order of discharge. I have seen the orders which have been sent out to the various officers commanding, and I know they are as clear as they can be. I hope, especially after the references to the subject in this Debate to-day, that the discharges of these men

    2163
    will be expedited, because if they can be discharged without delay it will help us enormously in this question of recruiting. Most of them are men who, though useless as fighting men, can be used in industry, whether it be on the land or in factories.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton East (Mr. G. Thorne) made a very practical suggestion yesterday in regard to our difficulties in this respect. He pointed out that we are taking married men, and that they will be very costly, and he said, Can you not so arrange their training as to make them into what I may call "half-timers." I am not in a position to say more about that suggestion than this. At all events it has this advantage over much that has been said in this Debate, namely, that it is a suggestion and not a mere criticism. I very much doubt whether it would be so possible to train our men. We have not very much time in which to train them and make them efficient. They are, as everybody admits, wanted at the front to take their places alongside of the splendid fellows who are fighting for us. I doubt whether it would be possible to establish a system of training which would allow of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend. It is, I think, closely related to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. I think it is a mistake to blame the War Office for not having discovered all these remedies and plans in a moment. They have had a gigantic task before them, and they have accomplished it in a manner which deserves our eternal gratitude. We have to learn as we go along. What we really want is that the men being taken shall be used in the most economical manner, and that when you take a man you should judge of what he is qualified for, and that you should make the best use of him from his point of view and from the point of view of the State. I believe, without any diminution from military strength or lessening of the numbers, it may be possible to apply a rather better regulated system. I am confident by getting rid of the unfit men, and by trying to put every man into his right place, when you have got the men, that you will do more to help recruiting than by some of the more violent methods which I understand some people in the country think ought to be adopted.
    Let me make one other general remark. The Government has been criticised for what is called its strategy. I am bound
    2164
    to say I should be very hopeless as to the end of the campaign if I saw that the House of Commons was called on to decide what should be the strategy of the Government in this War. We have been told we are dissipating our forces. As an old Member of this House I was rather impressed by and interested in the fact that the most emphatic Member about the dissipation of our forces, who is not now in his place, was my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert). He talked about our bad strategy and about having campaigns going on all over the world. I only joined the Government at the end of last May, and when I joined all those campaigns were going on. My right hon. Friend who appears now as a critic of the Government was a Member of the Government at that time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Not Salonika!
    Mr. LONG: Salonika is the only one which was not going on then, but I do not think it is one I should be prepared to run away from. The criticism that we are dissipating our forces and have too many campaigns going on does not come, I think, with good grace from those who were actually responsible from the very beginning of the War and in one of the fighting Departments, but, at all events, that is not a matter which we can debate here. So far the critics who have attacked us on this score have said, "The Government must remember that this country can do this or ought to do that." With great respect, it seems to me that that kind of criticism ignores the most important fact in this great War, namely, that we are fighting in conjunction with our splendid Allies. It is quite obvious that, in any consideration of our policy, whether on land or on sea, we cannot possibly approach the question from the point of view of Great Britain only and of what it would be convenient or desirable for Great Britain if she were standing alone to do. These are questions of the utmost delicacy and of the greatest difficulty. They are questions in regard to which probably the least said on the floor of the House the better. I shall certainly say nothing about them except this: Our Allies, or some of them, are separated from ourselves by many thousands of miles. The difficulties of Governments of countries so separated carrying on a joint war need no description. Yet there is this great

    2165
    fact for which we cannot be sufficiently thankful, and for which I really think hon. Members might give the Government some small credit, that after eighteen months of war, with all the different views which are held in these different countries, and all the different interests which these separate countries must have, the alliance to-day is probably stronger, more enduring, and more real than it has ever been, and the relations between our great Allies and ourselves are such as to give us full confidence, not only that to the end of this bitter struggle shall we stand shoulder to shoulder and fight as one nation, but that when it is over, when we have won the great victory, and when peace by the blessing of God has been restored, the alliance, friendship, and affection will not be ended, but will remain for ever as a proof that we have stood together as a common people and fought as if we were one nation. That, to my mind, is a most valuable fact. I venture to say that, in criticising our policy, or in suggesting that we have done this or that which is wrong, our critics are forgetful of our responsibility towards others in alliance with whom we are fighting, and that they ought, in fairness, to remember that these questions have to be decided from a broader point of view and on more general lines than would be possible if we had only ourselves, our own interests, and our own concerns to bear in mind.
    The Government have been criticised in various directions. Personally, I think that criticism is a wholly excellent thing. I have been a member of one Government or another for a good many years, and I am sure that criticism spurring on is always a good thing, and as an old Parliamentarian I welcome it with all my heart. We need it, no doubt. On the other hand, the part of critic is so easy to play that I think sometimes Members assume it with greater willingness than the part of defence. In these criticisms upon the Government and their policy it might have been remembered that great changes have been made. In the first place, no reference has been made to the appointment of the War Committee, presided over by the Prime Minister, and attended by some leading Members of the Government, who have full power and authority to do what they think right, who meet daily, and who have before them always and everlastingly the problems which my hon. Friend opposite thinks
    2166
    the Government never consider. They can and do act. That is a change which has been effective and real, and one which ought, I think, to give some confidence and satisfaction to the House of Commons. We have also made another change—that is, the arrival at the War Office, as Chief of the General Staff, of Sir William Robertson, who is an enormous addition to the resources of the Government in deciding the many problems with which they have to deal. Anybody who has followed the career of that distinguished soldier must feel that the value of his presence at the War Office cannot be estimated, by those who do not know him, what his work has been, and what his work is to-day. These are changes which have been made and which we believe have helped to a more successful prosecution of the War. I do not think that, on the whole, we need plead guilty to the charges brought against us. I am not myself ashamed of our record. When the time comes—it has not come now—I do not think that these wholesale charges are really helpful to us in prosecuting the War; I do not think that they help either the Government or the country; but when the time comes, if I am in the House of Commons then, I shall be neither afraid nor ashamed to defend the part the Government have played during the last few months. I believe, notwithstanding the criticism which has been made, that it will be found that they have made the best use of the forces at their disposal.
    In the course of the Debate we have had two speeches from new Members, who addressed us from practical and different points of view. I venture to say that all those who heard them will have felt as I felt, that both these hon. Gentlemen have proved themselves well able to take an effective part in our Debates, and that on this particular occasion we are all the better for the two speeches we heard. I believe that those speeches will have their effect, one upon the Air Service and the other upon recruiting. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing) I think that hon. Member was in error when he referred to the position of Lord Derby. I understood him to say that he believed that Lord Derby had disclaimed responsibility or power. That is a mistake. Lord Derby, when he made that statement, was referring to the air defence of London. He is

    2167
    not responsible for the air defence of London. That is under the Commander-in-Chief and the general officers responsible for London. But he has full power on his Committee and already, I am in a position to tell the House, very valuable work has been done in regard to air machines. He is now hoping to add to this Committee one or two members whose names will shortly be made public and who will carry great confidence. I can assure the hon. Member that if he likes to make suggestions to that Committee and to carry out the offers which he made here yesterday—short only of one—I am convinced that they will be warmly and gladly accepted by Lord Derby and his Committee. But I do not think the hon. Member will find that his offer with regard to bombs will be any more acceptable there than it was to Mr. Speaker here when it was made yesterday afternoon. As regards the hon. Member for Bolton (Captain Edge), I know the admirable work that he has been doing in connection with Lord Derby's scheme. We are very much indebted to him for giving a proof in this Debate that he is able not only to do good work in the country, but to make in a powerful speech some admirable suggestions here.
    There has been a great deal of criticism about the Derby scheme, the pledge, and the action of the Government. Political memories are very short. I have listened with surprise to the charge that we have broken our pledge. I have taken the precaution to have a copy of that pledge on my table, and I challenge any fair-minded man to prove that I am wrong when I say that not only in the letter, but in the spirit, that pledge has been kept. The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Captain Amery) not only accused us of not having fulfilled our pledge, but made some references to a statement of mine here when I quoted Lord Kitchener's language. I am not quite sure whether he said that I misunderstood or misquoted Lord Kitchener. I am not sure whether he meant that I was a fool or a knave. I should very much like him to tell me. I took the precaution of bringing down the statement. Does my hon. Friend think that if I misquoted Lord Kitchener, Lord Kitchener would not have taken an opportunity long before this to put the matter right? My hon. Friend went on to say that the statement ought never to have been made. I did not understand whether
    2168
    my hon. Friend challenged my veracity or my opinion. The latter I should not mind; the other I should resent very much indeed. The one is a matter which concerns myself, and does not worry me at all.
    Captain AMERY: I certainly was not challenging either the right hon. Gentleman's veracity or his opinion. I still maintain that the statement was a very unfortunate one to make, and has proved to be inaccurate.
    Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend's statement is very different from that which I understood him to make a short time ago. I understood him to say, not only that it ought never to have been made, but that it was false
    An HON MEMBER: "Misleading" and "untrue."
    Captain AMERY: If I said it was not true, I meant that it was not accurate. I meant to say that it had been proved since not to be true by the fact that the men have not been provided. I certainly did not make the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman attributes to me, and I do not think really that the House thinks I meant to make such a suggestion. All I said was that, whether the words used by him conveyed exactly Lord Kitchener's meaning or not—of which I was in doubt—unfortunately those words were used, and that statement was made, and the statement was not correct, as the facts have since proved. I leave it at that.
    Mr. LONG: I only wanted to know who was the criminal. Apparently, what my hon. Friend meant to say was that events have since proved that Lord Kitchener's forecast was not correct. Of course, that is a totally different matter. That is an issue he and I can fight out on another occasion, and that Lord Kitchener will be quite able to deal with in due course. At the time when I made the quotation I used these very words which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) has just been good enough to hand to me:
    "It will enable him to do all that he can, and all that is necessary to be done—to use his own words—to secure victory."
    I actually said at the time that I used his own words, so that really there can be no misunderstanding. Let me remind the House that we were dealing at that particular time with an Amendment in regard to men of a certain age. It is perfectly

    2169
    well known to everybody that it was limiting in its effect. Therefore, I really do not think that any such objection need be taken either to Lord Kitchener in using that language, or in criticism of me for giving that message, which it was my duty to give, to the House of Commons.
    We are asked as to Lord Derby's position. I am glad here that nobody has thrown the smallest doubt upon Lord Derby's position or action. He has, as a volunteer, done a magnificent work in working what we now know as the "Derby scheme." That has produced for this country a very large number of men who have joined the Colours, or who are joining them now. From beginning to end Lord Derby has acted, as everybody who knows him knew he would act, in the interests of his country, and absolutely straightforwardly. If there was the smallest justification for the rather offensive charge so far as Lord Derby is concerned, that the pledge has not been kept, Lord Derby would be the very first man to refuse to have any further connection with those who had broken their promise to him, and their promise to the country. If anybody will read—I am not going to quote it in the House now, although I have it here—the terms of Lord Derby's famous letter which contained the pledge, which he wrote to the Prime Minister, and which the Prime Minister endorsed, he will find that my hon. Friend is really inaccurate when he says, not to-day, but, on another occasion, that this pledge has not been kept, and that the Military Service Act provides all sorts of loopholes which have destroyed the compulsory part of the service. In Lord Derby's letter there is reference to every one of the exemptions which were given effect to in the Act—every one of them. Lord Derby makes it perfectly clear that when he refers to unmarried men he does so, excepting those required for other purposes. Therefore Lord Derby, when he made that pledge, and the Prime Minister when he assented to it, did what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Birmingham (Captain Amery) did not do this afternoon, surveyed the whole requirements of the country, and the possible needs of the country, and made his pledge in perfectly clear terms, so as to make sure that there should be reserved for the needs of the country a sufficiency of men.
    The Act gave effect to that pledge. So far as the Act is concerned, I am happy to say that up to the present there has been
    2170
    only one weak spot about it. That was the weak spot referred to by two or three speakers and by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Birmingham. I refer to the Clause in regard to what we know as industrial compulsion. The House remembers very well that our intention was to make it impossible for an employer to get rid of a man for some reason connected with his employment and then go to the recruiting officer and so get the man enlisted because of his discharge from his employment. That is what we desired to prevent. It was essential that it should be prevented. I think my hon. Friend is right when he says that that Section in the Act is rather too wide. At all events, I am quite clear of this—
    Mr. HOGGE: There is a six weeks' interval.
    Mr. LONG: I am quite clear that it is capable of some abuse. We have to watch that point very carefully. I do not think that up to the present it has been the cause of any real or serious trouble, but the Government are watching it very carefully, and if it should turn out to be true that it has been used improperly, that the Clause is being stretched in a way it was never intended to be stretched, then it will be for us to amend it. I do not see there is any anxiety on that head. There is certainly none in the figures before us. The essence of our pledge is that unmarried men are to be got to serve—subject to the other necessities of the country, as I have said. I have said that all through. The unmarried men have got to serve. Are the unmarried men of the country coming forward under this Act in the way anticipated? If not, why not? There is no doubt that in some places of industry, whether it be munitions or other factories, there are men who have gone there, not necessarily as shirkers, but who have gone in there, and these are men who ought to be eligible for the Army. But there are a great many who are not in these works at all, who are not attested, who are medically unfit, or who are actually in this new reserve, and therefore are giving potential service. It may be that they are actually serving. Many have not yet come forward, and that is one of the reasons why these numbers are short.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can we have the figures?
    Mr. LONG: How can I give the figures when the thing is going on every day?

    2171
    Apart from that, I do not think it would be desirable to give the figures. It is quite obvious you could not have them, because there are these numbers short. This is only the middle of the month, the 15th March. The Act of Parliament came into force on the 2nd March. It is quite a new principle, a new form of legislation for this country. There is no machinery here, as there is in the countries where conscription is part of the general law of the land, which fits in with the carrying out of conscription. Is that unreasonable? Should we be surprised, much less amazed, if in ten or twelve days' working of the Act it does not go quite so smoothly or so rapidly as we should like? It is the business of the Government, and of the War Office, first of all to find these men who are not in munition factories, or in reserved occupations, who are actually there to-day, and who ought to be with the Colours at once. They have been proclaimed. They have had their notices. Every condition has been complied with, and these form a very large number of those absentees who are bringing about the result to which my hon. Friend referred. May I hope that not only in this House, in Debate and in speech, and not only outside this House, but in the country, where this recruiting is going on, the Government will have the whole-hearted support of hon. Members and their friends in compelling these men to do which the law says they have to do: that is, to join the Colours and take their place in the ranks.
    The House will rest content that every step which can possibly be taken is being taken now. The War Office are on the track of many of these men. It is our determination that the law which has been passed, and which says that these men ought to be soldiers and ought to be preparing and beginning their training, shall be fulfilled; it is our determination to find these men and bring them up. Let me come to the other side of the question. I do not agree with some of the speeches made to-day. I do not disagree entirely, but I am inclined very much to agree with the resolutions which I find the married men are passing in the country. They do not talk, like my hon. Friend, about a breakdown of the whole thing, and so on. There is no whining about them. There are no wholesale charges made against
    2172
    the Government. Here is a resolution passed by a town in my own county on Monday last:
    That a very careful scrutiny should be made in the cases of single men in reserved occupations."
    Mr. LOUGH: The Act did not include them.
    Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend might allow me to continue my speech uninterrupted, for the subject is a complicated one. I want to make it perfectly clear, and I do not want to be longer than I can help. In this matter it is already known that we have what are called conferences. These conferences are attended by representatives of the Government Departments concerned and of the Secretary of State for War. We work through a Committee, largely composed, as was suggested by an hon. Member this afternoon, of permanent officials. I need hardly say that, I have known the permanent officials of this country much longer than my hon. Friend. I have been much more closely associated with them. I refuse altogether to accept his attack upon them as in any way justified. Knowing the public officials of this country as I do, I venture to say that there does not exist a finer or more capable body of public servants. All my hon. Friend suggested was that we should have a Committee of this House. What would be the very first thing for which a Committee of this House would ask? They would inquire for these very permanent officials to come and give the information without which they could not do their work. This would only mean prolongation of their labours and delay. Full power, however, does not rest with this Committee, as my hon. Friend seemed to think. The duty of that Committee is drastically to cut down these reserved occupations, and to find wherever they can men who can be released from these occupations in order that they may come to the Colours. I at least am confident that the result will be that we shall gain very greatly. This small Committee reports to our conferences, if necessary. Unless there is a difference of opinion, they make their recommendations and the men concerned are released, so that the first thing that is necessary we are doing now, and have been doing. In addition to this, inspectors both from the Home Office, from my Department, and from the Ministry of Munitions are inspecting factories, going right through in order to ascertain whether

    2173
    there are men there who ought to be released for service—men who are doing work of this kind who ought really to be with the Colours. They are making exhaustive inquiries in the factories, and also in the munition establishments. I believe the result of their work will, at all events, be to give us accurate information. We shall know better whether the statement is true that in these factories there are a great many men who ought to be with the Colours.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield made a very general charge that there are a great many men in mines who ought not to be there. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has called for a Return, through his inspectors, of the names of all men in the mines who have gone down since 14th August, 1915, and these men will lose their exemptions unless they can prove that they are essential to the employers at the present time. Consequently you will get rid of one of the sources of escape to which reference has been made, namely, mines or other places of industry to which, it is said, men have only gone in order to escape compulsion. As regards the recruiting officers, they have instructions that it is their business to investigate the cases, and to appeal against men who claim under what is called a general exemption. We were told to-day of a factory which is regarded as a reserve factory and that its men get exemption. The burden of proof is thrown upon the men, who have got to show they are entitled to have a certificate of exemption, and that they are indispenable to-day to the employers with whom they are working. Here again I am quite certain there is a wide field for improvement. That is what we are doing at the present time, and, short of a policy which, let me remind the House, nobody has suggested, and which we could not debate here if it were suggested, namely, a policy of universal compulsion, I do not know what more the Government could do to get at those men who are hiding themselves from the law. I do not know what more could be done vigorously and drastically to deal with the reserved industries. I do appeal to the employers in the country—I do not care whether they are in factories or on farms.
    I am afraid the hon. Member for Mansfield was right when he said this afternoon that they did not realise in all parts of the country what the real gravity of this War is. To say they cannot spare a
    2174
    man here and they cannot spare a man there is no answer to the country in this moment of her need. They have got to spare them, and to substitute for them men who are not eligible or women. I saw the work done by the women in France when I was there. It was wonderful work, and, if I had not seen it, I could not have believed it. What the women of France have done, the women of England can and will do. They are offering their help on all sides, but the difficulty in some cases is that employers are unwilling to take them. It is up to every employer not to be content with criticising or blaming the Government—not to content himself by saying that the Government ought to do something and pass fresh powers. If we are united in our action, we have got the men and we can get them, and we must get them without destroying our industries, without lessening our power to find the equipment which is as essential to the Army as are the men themselves. This can be done, and I believe that if Members of this House and people in the country will be as vigorous in support of our action as they have been in criticism, our task will prove to be a much easier one than it may seem at first sight. I hope the House will agree that I have made the alterations in our procedure clear. I hope the House will agree that we have not let the grass grow under our feet, but that we are taking vigorous steps to do what we are determined to do, and that is to get the unmarried men who can be spared to the Colours, and to get them there as promptly as may be possible.
    We fully understand the promise we have made to the married men. We appreciate their patriotism, but I must say I do not think their cause is helped by those who suggest that when they attested, they attested without meaning to give effect to the promise they made. I do not think that represents the case of any but a very small minority. We have a loyal and united people who have already given abundant proof of their desire to bear their fair share of their country's burden. My last words to-night will be these: If each one of us takes care to do his utmost to secure success for our arms by getting men wherever available or suitable all over the country, I believe our policy in the end will prove to be a successful one, and that you will get men in full numbers, and I have no anxiety as to the future. I realise the pressure and the

    2175
    difficulty of the present, but, relying on British pluck and British common sense, I believe we shall not only win through, but give our soldiers in the field that support to which they are so justly entitled.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The right hon. Gentleman in his very eloquent and able speech referred to the suggestion which had been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. Hobhouse) in his speech of yesterday. I heard that portion of his speech, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, in which he suggested that it would be an advantage to this House and the country if by means either of secret Sessions or secret Committees Members of this House could be kept in closer touch with what the Government are doing, and the results the Government are obtaining in the various important questions which we are discussing, than they can be at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman was very sarcastic at my right hon. Friend's expense. He said, "How does the right hon. Gentleman know that any advantage accrues either in Germany or in France by this system?" I was informed in Paris, and I believe it was true, that the brilliant success of the munitions supply of our French friends is entirely due to the fact that the Committees of the House of Deputies, which had this question brought before them, forced on the Government of that time action which we delayed for many months, and which was forced on us to some extent by newspaper agitation. Why it should be considered better by the Government that grievances or difficulties should be ventilated by the newspapers, and that newspaper editors should receive confidential information which Members of this House are debarred from having, I have never been able to understand.
    We have been discussing to-day, as on many previous occasions, the question of recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech made a number of very interesting statements. The right hon. Gentleman was not in a position, any more than the Under-Secretary for War, to give us one solitary fact or figure on which we could work. Why? Because it is not in the interests of the country that these figures should be public property. What an absurdity this House is reduced to, and what a farce the position of the private Member becomes! We had a short time ago issued to us as a White Paper
    2176
    Lord Derby's Report. On the strength of that Report this House was induced to pass a Conscription Bill, but apparently we are not to know, and we are never to be told, what is the result of the figures—whether the figures which Lord Derby estimated are or are not anywhere near the actual facts. Many of us do know the facts, and it is an ostrich-like policy that we are not to have a secret Session while privately we are to receive the information if we ask for it. It is one of the extraordinary Front Bench ideas which I have never been able to understand. The facts are that the results which were anticipated have not been secured. The facts are below what was anticipated. I am not going to exaggerate the grievances of the married men. The married men undoubtedly feel very strongly that they have a grievance, and I think one of the reasons why they think they have a grievance is that there is no intelligent statement given to them why they should be called up now at all. If anybody will examine the figures of the Derby Report, he will see, if the figures were approximately true, that the Army establishment of 4,000,000 men which we are shortly about to vote would be more than exceeded. What the married men cannot understand is how, as the establishment is not being increased numerically, they are now called up, when, according to Lord Derby's figures, they ought not to be called up at all until you increase the establishment over 4,000,000 men. That is one of the things the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us here, but he could tell us something more about it were the proceedings of the House kept confidential. Why it should be assumed that Members of this House are less capable of keeping important information to themselves than the members either of the German Reichstag or the French Chamber of Deputies, I entirely fail to understand. You are continually in this whole matter fighting in a fog, struggling absolutely with the impossible. We have days of discussion which are ridiculous. All our discussion is vitiated by the fact that we have never had a basic figure to go on.
    The right hon. Gentleman said something about the discharge of unfit men, and I am very glad he has taken this matter in hand; but he ought also to be concerned about the enlistment of unfit men, because I can give him cases of men attested under the Derby scheme

    2177
    who are now to be called up, but who are absolutely physically unfit for any kind of military service at all. And I should like to know who gave the most extraordinary instructions to medical authorities. I know one district where a man went down in the morning and was rejected because he had a rupture, and yet, if that man had gone down in the evening, he would have been passed by the doctor; and another man, with a much worse rupture, was passed by the doctor and was about to be called up. That is one of the instances, of which there are thousands, and it would be a great saving if all those men who will never be of any use to the Army could be eliminated as early as possible, because you have these difficulties: An employer has a man who has attested under the Derby scheme. He does not know whether he will have to replace that man or not, and if that man is finally eliminated from the Army it would save the immense dislocation which is taking place. There is point I would like to mention, and that is, you cannot possibly eliminate all your single men from your munitions and other factories. One reason is obvious, and it is that you cannot guarantee any manufacturer of munitions to-day that he will be able to replace any single man who leaves by a married man.
    8.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions knows better than anybody the difficulties his Department has had in finding men for munitions work, and I think it Would be fatal now to begin disorganising the work which the right hon. Gentleman has so carefully built up by taking out a number of single men, thus creating a hiatus which will be enormously disastrous to the work, simply in order to deal with a temporary agitation. That might lead to a catastrophe, and although naturally such single men as can be spared ought to be spared, the fact cannot be got away from that a number of these men are now trained in their particular job, and if you are to start taking married men and training them all over again you get into very great difficulty. I would like to say a word about Lord Derby's position in this matter which is difficult to understand. Some hon. Members have expressed anxiety about the recruiting returns, very largely on the grounds of a speech which Lord Derby made in the House of Lords on 2nd March. On that date Lord Derby complained that he was not getting the
    2178
    results which he had anticipated, and he made very drastic proposals which he said were necessary in order to enable him to carry out his programme. I might point out to the President of the Local Government Board that when he gave us his account of what the Government is doing he did not go as far as Lord Derby asked for on 2nd March. I would like to know whether Lord Derby is satisfied that all the steps taken are sufficient for this purpose, because the steps that are being taken seem to me to have been taken rather tardily. I understand the difficulty is that the number of men we are getting under Lord Derby's scheme is very much smaller than was estimated, and Lord Derby attributes this to the enormous increase of reserved occupations. Apparently Department after Department have been adding to the number of reserved occupations, and with all due respect to those in the Civil Service, whose work I do not undervalue, I think if some practical opinion had been brought in upon these points, instead of leaving them so much to the Departments, a good deal of the trouble would not have arisen. When one Department has got some trade exempted another Department tries to do the same, so as not to fall behind its competitor. I understand that some bargaining has been going on by one Department to exempt certain people if the Board of Agriculture would do the same.
    Mr. LONG: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not true, and it cannot be true. There is one Committee for the whole of this exemption work, and over them there is a conference. There is no responsibility of bargaining.
    Sir A. MOND: I think it was rightly felt that a Departmental Committee was required, and since the right hon. Gentleman has taken the matter in hand a very considerable improvement has been made. Does that not rather shake the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the infallibility of permanent officials because it has been found necessary to bring in persons who were not permanent officials in order to deal with these matters. It must have been apparent for a long time, and, indeed, it is becoming more apparent every day that we cannot carry on a war calling for such large numbers of men without some cessation of a certain amount of industries. I stated this fact many months ago, and I urged that we should have a

    2179
    register of industries and that the Government should decide what industries they wished to be carried on. One of the difficulties is that you have always scheduled your people by occupations, and the result is that you have people classified as fitters who are simply gas-fitters doing domestic work, and you have people classified as metal-workers who are merely tin-smiths mending kettles. These are all scheduled as fitters and metal-workers, although they are not doing work which is necessary for the carrying on of the country. Not only will more trades have to be dealt with, but the present list of trades will have to be largely revised, and a great deal more power will have to be given to the tribunal. With regard to munition workers, a great many people have been exempted who are not really doing munitions work at all. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties, and no one who is engaged in carrying on industries like myself can fail to realise that it is wonderful how greatly invention is stimulated by necessity, and how people find that they can get things if they have got to.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the women working in France, but if the French Government had gone on and said, "Who can you spare for the land?" and had left the matter to farmers and the Board of Agriculture to decide, those women would never have been doing the work to which my right hon. Friend has referred. It is exactly the same here. If you go to the farmer he will say that he cannot employ a woman, but if he found that he had no other form of labour he would soon discover some kind of employment for a great many women. I hope the Government will not be so much bluffed in the future by people who declare things to be indispensable, because indispensability is much more elastic than even the most inventive could imagine. With regard to Lord Derby's Air Committee, the right hon. Gentleman threw a little more light On the functions of that Committee, but I hope he will give us a little more information, because it is a very important point. I do not know whether the Committee's functions have been extended or not. Lord Derby is in no way responsible for the Air Defence Committee, but I would like to know has this Committee any kind of advisory position with regard to manufacture?
    Mr. LONG: It has.
    Sir A. MOND: Then that is all to the good, and I am sure it will be able to do valuable work, particularly now that Lord Derby has invited Lord Montagu of Beaulieu to join the Committee. He will be able to give the Committee a great amount of expert assistance, and that is most important. I am not going to join in any fierce denunciation of the Government, although I do not think they have always done the best thing. If the Government had swallowed compulsion at one bite, these difficulties would not have arisen, and I find now that those who opposed the course I suggested on a former occasion are now coming round to my view. The difficulties which the Government have to meet are many, but as long as the country feels that they are dealing with them in a practical and an energetic way, I am sure they are willing to make great allowances, for the fact that we were not organised at the commencement of the War. The people will make great efforts so long as they are not asked to do things in a manner which is not suited to the temperament of the people of this country. If you want the married men to realise that their services are really seriously required, they ought to be told so authoritatively, and informed that no amount of combing out of single men will diminish the fact that married men will be called upon to do what they have volunteered to do, and what I believe they are perfectly ready to do. If that is done a great deal will have been accomplished to put an end to agitation. There is an idea that the married men have not been quite fairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Prime Minister's pledge, but I would remind him that people will not take the trouble to read what is said in the House of Commons, and they do read the headlines in the newspapers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was circulated as a tract.
    Sir A. MOND: People do not read tracts. This has led to a certain amount of misapprehension and misunderstanding, but a good deal of that will be relieved by what has been said to-day. It ought to be emphasised that whatever yield of single men you may get, you will require in a reasonably short time the married men who have attested to come to the Colours. If that is done, and if the Government give some indication that some of the reliefs the married men have asked for will be forthcoming, I think all these questions will

    2181
    proceed a great deal more smoothly, and with less agitation than has been the case up to the present moment.
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I rise not to take part in the discussion, but to make an appeal to the Members of the House to resume the Debate in Committee. We have had a discussion with the Speaker in the Chair for a day and a half, and if we now go into Committee of Supply exactly the same questions can be raised. There will be no limitation at all which will not be equally applicable with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Then my right hon. Friend who is in full possession of the facts will be able to give any further explanations that are required in Committee of Supply, which he would not be able to do if the Debate were continued with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. It was hoped by the Government that we should get the Speaker out of the Chair last night. I am not pleading for the discontinuance of any particular discussion, because the discussion may be resumed in Committee of Supply, and there is nothing to prevent hon. Members having an opportunity of speaking again in Committee. I hope the House will see its way to do this, and it will certainly be for the convenience of the Government in answering any questions which may be put, as well as for the general convenience of the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am quite willing to respond to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, especially as he has so pointedly referred to me. The objection which I took in the early part of his speech was not made in my own interests, but in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has sat through the whole of the afternoon without being called upon, although four Members of one particular group have been called upon almost successively and have monopolised two and three-quarter hours of the time of the House. It must have been known that they represented one particular view, and were going to put that view, and that they had had the advantage of a consultation with Lord Derby on Monday afternoon.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can we have an assurance that the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill will not be taken at all to-night, and that the House will know when it is going to be taken?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I can give that assurance.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY: ARMY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 4,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
    Mr. THOMAS: I want to draw attention to various matters coming within the category of this Vote I want, first, to deal with the much-debated question of the married man, because I venture to assert that a large number of those who are now giving active support and encouragement to the development of this agitation are not fully alive to the very grave dangers that may arise from it. It is clearly evident, if we are to judge by the speeches delivered this afternoon, that the married men themselves will have just cause to feel that they have been had, not because any pledge has not been kept, but because of certain speeches delivered by Members in this House. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery), for instance, said that within his knowledge tens of thousands of men had drifted into the starred trades with a view of escaping their military obligations. If that statement goes abroad, not only will the married men be justified in continuing to protest, but there will be created in the minds of married men a suspicion that not only have they been had, but that the Government themselves are responsible for them having been deceived. The hon. Member for Birmingham evidently thinks in militarism pure and simple, and has no consideration for the relative position of things which we must bear in mind when we regard the War as a whole.
    I propose to deal, first, with the history of these starred and reserved occupations. There is an impression abroad that they date from the 15th August, whereas long before the Derby scheme was heard of, or before Lord Derby had anything to do with recruiting, the Government were brought face to face with a serious and critical position. They found, owing to the methods of recruiting then employed, that large numbers

    2183
    of men were being taken from certain industries that were not only of national importance, but that were vital to the success of the War. They found that 270,000 colliers had left the collieries of this country and had enlisted at a time when the Admiralty were taking from the collieries seven times the normal output for the British Navy alone, in addition to which we were called upon to supply both Italy and France. Therefore, the problem which the Government had to face then was not only that of these men going as soldiers, but that by allowing them to be taken even' the military side of the nation was being imperilled. When I hear the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) say, as a colliery proprietor, that so far as the collieries are concerned, large numbers of men can be spared, I can only conclude that he has not even read the history of his own collieries. A committee was set up, composed of an equal number of colliery proprietors and miners' leaders, under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Redmayne, and they inquired carefully, first, into the number of men that had enlisted; secondly, whether it would be possible to bring into the industry other men not of military age to replace them; and thirdly, whether there could be any modification of the Eight Hours Act. As a result of their inquiries, they unanimously came to the conclusion not only that not another collier could be spared, but that actually at that moment the national interests were so vital from the standpoint of the coal industry that the War Office should prevent recruiting in mining areas.
    The next problem the Government faced was that of agriculture. They not only found that there was a shortage there, but the War Office had actually to loan soldiers to deal with agriculture. Then we came to munitions. At that time we had the famous statement about a shortage of munitions. It was discovered that recruiting meetings were being held outside munition works for the purpose of persuading munition workers to join the Army. The result was that some action had to be taken, and the Government decided that it was necessary to prevent munition workers going into the Army. The same position existed on the railways, and, therefore, at this given moment it was not a question of obtaining soldiers, but it was a question of maintaining our
    2184
    trade in order to find the wherewithal to maintain our soldiers. Nothing is so calculated to injure our case as to assume that everybody is to be turned into a soldier, while trade and industry may go to rack and ruin. That actually is what is underlying the suggestion of these married men's claim. Just mark the cool assumption with which some sections of the Press and some hon. Members of this House get up and say the only way to carry out the pledge to the married men is to take single men from starred trades and replace them by married men. That is the idea they are encouraging married men in the country to believe. That is the kind of speech we are getting in this House. Will it stand the test of a moment's examination? Is it to be assumed you can take a married man and put him in the place of a railway signalman who happens to be a single man? Can you put into the signal-box a married man who may not perhaps be able to tell the difference between a railway and a steam tram? Is our railway system going to be run on that line? Can all the grades of occupation on a railway, the duty of which can only be learnt by long years of experience, be undertaken at a moment's notice by married men drawn from other industries? Is it to be assumed that from your munition factories you are going to take the men you have trained, and whom you have been able to train solely in consequence of what is known as the dilution of labour?
    Is it to be assumed you can get over the problem in that way? I am going to suggest there is only one way of testing the accuracy of these charges. It is clearly evident that the original figure of 650,000 supposed single slackers was an absolute fallacy. It has turned out to be a myth, but everything is now being done to bolster it up. Those who talk about men drifting to munition factories will, I am perfectly satisfied, not be able to support their views on examination. There is only one way of testing this thing, and that is to ascertain the number of men who, since the 15th August, have gone into starred industries. It is not such an easy matter even then to test it. You cannot assume that every man has gone into such industries to escape his duty. It must not be assumed, for instance, that every man has gone in since the 15th August. It is since that date that the Minister of Munitions came to this House and asked for 80,000 skilled

    2185
    men and 200,000 unskilled men and women. It is since the 15th August that the Minister of Munitions came to the trade unions and asked them to agree to the dilution of labour. You cannot have dilution of labour unless you employ people, and therefore I want the House to clearly keep in mind that the suggestion you can solve the problem by examining the figures since the 15th August is not sufficient. You must also keep in mind strictly how far the additional men have been brought in as a result of agreement with the Minister of Munitions.
    I submit that the time has arrived when the Government themselves should clearly indicate how many men they want. It is no use going on the assumption that you have 1,000,000 men here or 1,000,000 men there. It is no use going on the assumption that the military authorities must absorb everybody. I say with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman there will be no final solution of this question until the Government themselves have made up their mind how many men they can spare, having regard to all our obligations; and until we know that, we certainly shall not know where we are going. I want also to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the Military Service Act is being violated to-day. I agree with the general conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot for one moment assume that in an Act of this kind everything can be expected to work smoothly. Judging by the manner in which some of the tribunals, not in one part of the country alone but in all parts, are deliberately ignoring and defying the Act of Parliament, one can only come to the conclusion that it is done with deliberate intent. The first case I wish to draw attention to is reported in the "Northern Daily Telegraph" of Tuesday, 29th February. Here is a case where a weaver at Burnley applied for exemption. He applied for it on the sound logical ground that provision was made in the Act to deal with his case, because he was the sole support of a widowed mother. That fact was not disputed, but the chairman, who happened to be the mayor, in refusing to grant the exemption, although incidentally the man had offered to do munition work, as his only object was to enable him to maintain his mother, said there could be no sentiment about this job. Many a home would have to be broken up. If that is the spirit
    2186
    in which chairmen of the tribunals are going to consider applications that come before them, it is apparent there will be no attempt to give honest effect to the intentions of the House of Commons.
    The next case is somewhat further removed. It comes from the Bath district. It was a case where a man, by name Carter, engaged as a butcher's shop manager—not an indispensable trade—applied. First his employer applied, and then he applied, on the ground that he is the only son of his mother, a widow, and she is at present lying at the point of death. A doctor's certificate to that effect was laid before the members of the tribunal. This man, in addition to supporting his widowed mother, also supports two younger children. The chairman of the tribunal, in refusing the application, which was heard in camera, remarked that the man's mother would be better off with him at the front. I submit that here, again, there is a clear and deliberate attempt to violate the law. If it were wrong for the sole support of a mother to be exempted I could understand this attitude, and if the Act of Parliament never intended it one could appreciate it, but when it was clearly and definitely laid down by the Prime Minister and by every Minister in charge of that Bill that it was intended to deal in that way with cases of this kind we are justified in saying at least that here is a deliberate attempt to flout the will of Parliament. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon that an attempt is to be made to deal with the people who were previously rejected but are now being accepted by the military authorities. I do not protest on the sole ground that the attempt is made to bring them into the Army, but I protest also on the grounds of national efficiency and economy. Nothing is more wasteful. Indeed nothing is more painful than to hear day by day, as Members of this House hear, of the cases of men who have been passed into the Army whose complaints are so obvious that it is perfectly well known that they cannot stand the test of any training. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman himself, this evening, attached considerable importance to that matter, and I hope we shall hear no more about it.
    I wish, however, to emphasise the fact that complaints are coming to myself from all parts of the country on this head. On three different occasions the attention of

    2187
    the War Office has been called to the deliberate manner in which the military authorities are ignoring the definite pledges of the Under-Secretary. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) and other Members, including myself, drew attention to the scandal of the military authorities trying to bring men who had already attested within the Act the right hon. Gentleman assured us that every effort would be made to deal with that question. A few days afterwards his attention was drawn to the fact that not only were they trying to include these men, but that they were deliberately tearing up their certificates, which form the only proof they have. Again, an assurance was given that orders and instructions had been issued, and that the authorities had every reason to believe there would be no recurrence of this kind of thing. Now I find that so recently as last week a man at Crewe who had offered himself for enlistment on the 3rd December but was rejected as medically unfit received on the 9th inst. Army Form 3236 ordering him to report for service with the Colours before seven a.m. on the 11th. The man was ill at the time, but in order to show that his was a genuine case and to assure the authorities that he had already offered his services he got a friend to take his rejection paper to the military authorities with a view to assuring them that there was no justification whatever for the demand that was being made. The friend took the paper and went to the recruiting office, when one of the men there, named Taylor, turned to him and said, "I will show you what to do with this," and deliberately tore it up in the presence of the man. It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to get up from the Treasury Bench and express regret for that kind of conduct. It is useless for Ministers to get up and assure us they are very sorry, and that it will not happen again. The only way to cure this is to show these people that we are the masters of the situation. The only way to deal with them is to punish them. In view of the number of cases that have been brought to the attention of the War Office as to the deliberate way in which these people have been ignoring the instructions we ought to have at least an assurance that in these cases drastic action will be taken to punish anybody who is guilty of conduct of this kind.
    2188
    I come to what I believe is the most serious of all aspects of this question. The President of the Local Government Board indicated to-night that in his opinion the experience of the working of this Act revealed only one flaw, and that was in regard to what is called "industrial compulsion." It is significant to note that if there is a flaw in this aspect of the matter it is due not alone to the Military Service Act, but that it is also due to the Munitions Act, because, let it be observed, under the Munitions Act previously to the Military Service Act coming into operation a workman could be penalised for six weeks—that is to say, if he was guilty of any offence he was penalised by being refused employment for six weeks. When the Military Service Bill was first introduced it contained a six weeks' Clause, and, coupling that Bill with the Munitions Act, it meant not only that the employer had the right to keep a man unemployed for six weeks, but that at the expiration of that six weeks he automatically went into the Army. That was industrial compulsion of the very worst kind. The result was that eight weeks was put in as an Amendment in order to get over that difficulty. Apart from the Amendment of the Bill, it will be generally agreed that most definite and conclusive attempts were made to assure everybody that no industrial conscription was intended, that it would not be countenanced, and that, so far as the Government were concerned, it was entirely foreign to anything in their minds. What has actually happened? Here are two cases from Accrington that are worth reading. The first is a letter from a locomotive fireman employed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, who says:
    "I wish to draw your attention to my case before the local tribunal. I was not asked one question. They took the word of the military representative that the railway company did not want me. The reason the railway company were not applying for my exemption was because I did not attest. In fact, they are applying at the same Court for men who have had but a few months' service at the outside. I entered the service of the railway company in 1910. The day I appeared before the tribunal my district superintendent asked me how soon I could get back to Manchester, as they had wired to him for firemen. I have been working in the Manchester district about a month as they have nineteen main-line drivers without firemen. One fireman this week made twenty hours. I myself made fourteen, and during the past thirty-nine days I made over twelve hours on an average, and on two days I worked nineteen hours and over."
    It is admitted that foodstuffs, business and everything else, is being interfered with today because of the absolute shortage of railwaymen, and although this man was

    2189
    working nineteen hours a day the railway company says, "No, we will not appeal for you, not because we do not want you, not because we have any complaint against you, not because you have not done your duty, but simply because we have now got the power to punish you for something that we think will give us the chance of getting rid of you."
    Let me develop it for a moment. There was another man who applied, a shunter at Accrington again, and he happens to be one of the secretaries of our society—the chairman of one branch and the secretary of another. There had never been any complaint against him. It is admitted on both sides that he is a man of unblemished character. I will read his letter:
    "I appealed at the local tribunal on Friday last. I appealed on conscientious grounds, and of domestic difficulty, which they absolutely ignored, without giving me a chance to speak or asking me any questions. As regards my work, I am a passenger shunter at Accrington. I have been in the service of the company for sixteen years and the military representative, Lieutenant R. Hudson, stated that the railway company did not claim me, although they had never had any trouble with me, except that the reason they did not claim me was because I had not attested. They are claiming for all others who are junior. I am the chairman of our trade union branch and also the secretary of the approved section. As the railway company are claiming for men ten years younger than myself, who have only been in their service twelve months, I consider they are taking a mean advantage and trying to get rid of me."
    A remarkable point in connection with these cases is that a railway company is the only employer in the country which has the absolute right to veto anyone. The ordinary employer can appeal to a tribunal and the tribunal can reject his claim, but power has been given to a railway company by the War Office that before even a man need appeal, unless they get the authority for him, they can ignore the military authority and everyone else, so the railway companies have had placed in their hands the power to pick and choose. My union and myself strongly urged all the men to attest, because we felt that surely no employer would take advantage of a man at a time like this. This kind of thing is going to lead to trouble. It is no use for men in this House to say they are not going to create any agitation outside. No one could say that those of us who opposed this Bill have by word or action done anything outside which would lead to trouble of any kind. We have positively refused to use the industrial machine. But surely, if we took up that attitude, if we did it in loyalty to our country, if we did it because we know the national difficulty, we are at least entitled to demand that the Government
    2190
    also have got to play cricket. I can foresee trouble. I believe that the military authorities are deliberately ignoring the instructions of this House, and I believe they take no notice of any of the answers given from the Front Bench. I hope that, as the result of this discussion, we shall be able at last to see that, whether we like the Act of Parliament or not, it is at least administered fairly and in an impartial spirit.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Most of the Members who have preceded me have addressed themselves to the topic of the men coming into the Army. I propose to direct the attetnion of the Committee to the question of the preservation of the life and health of the men who are already in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennant) yesterday said the Government fully realised that this was a war of attrition. It is, of course, very good news that the Government really realise this. He did not enlarge upon the subject. He did not touch on the subject of the Gallipoli Expedition, the Solonika Expedition, or the Mesopotamia Expedition. I suppose we have all made up our minds now about the Gallipoli Expedition; that it was a reckless gamble, conceived in a spirit of levity, and resulting in the most disastrous and lamentable waste of men. But it would have been interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what part the Mesopotamia Expedition is playing in this war of attrition. It would be interesting to know whether we are suffering more attrition than the Turks. There is, I am sorry to say, an unfortunate similarity between the Gallipoli and the Mesopotamia Expedition. We see our forces launched against the enemy, inadequately provided with artillery and inadequately equipped. We see battalions of the finest men, officered by the keenest of officers, launched against difficult positions inadequately prepared by artillery, and we see those battalions given those orders without being told what their front is, or what their objective is, with the result that 90 per cent. of the officers and 60 per cent. of the men are mowed down at 200 or 300 yards range. That is bad enough, but what I wish specially to register a protest against tonight is the treatment of the wounded. When on the top of this terrible waste of human life we are faced with the fact that the wounded are disgracefully neglected, I confess it is impossible to conceal one's anger and disgust. The treat-

    2191
    ment of the wounded in the Dardanelles Expedition was absolutely disgraceful. I am not speaking of the later days of that Expedition, when the hospital arrangements were about as good as they possibly could be. I was in a hospital myself, and I speak from experience. During the early days the hospital arrangements were absolutely disgraceful. The wretched men did not have their wounds attended to from the time they left the front to the time they reached the hospitals in Egypt, some four or five days later. I think it is really lamentable to see the experience of Gallipoli being repeated in the Mesopotamia Expedition. We hear of a shortage of hospitals, and we hear of a shortage of nurses, doctors, medical dressings, anaesthetics and antiseptics. We hear of men being shipped down the Tigris with only one blanket for three men in these bitter cold nights. It is not in the least bit surprising that these wretched men suffer from sepsis in their wounds, and even from gangrene. Nothing surprises me more than the way in which the people of this country have treated these lapses from efficiency and these lapses from humanity on the part of the Government. I cannot understand it. I remember that during the Boer War the Government was shaken to its foundations by the revelations made by the hon. Member for Westminster as to the inadequate hospital arrangements. As much greater horrors have been experienced during this War it is a remarkable thing that public opinion in this country has taken it so lightly. I hope public opinion will take this question up and force the Government to do ten times more for the wounded than they have done in this Far Eastern expedition.
    9.0 P.M.
    There is another subject to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the waste of money. It seems a very platitudinous remark that if we are to carry on successfully this war of attrition we ought to save as much money as possible. I say this because I am not at all satisfied that we are acting on these lines in regard to our contractors. There is an uneasy suspicion in the country that the canteen contractors, for instance, are making much too large profits out of the business of contracting for the soldiers. We have the authority of the Duke of Bedford, who generally knows what he is speaking about and is generally sure of his facts, for the statement that the canteen contractors
    2192
    are charging for vegetables, milk and other perishable articles at least 25 per cent. more than the current rates of the district. We know that in the canteens the contractors return 10 per cent., but of that 10 per cent. 2½ per cent. is kept by the Board of Control to pay for their own salaries, and the result is that the soldier only gets a rebate of 7½ per cent. In other words, the soldier is paying 17½ per cent. more than he ought to pay for the vegetables and perishable articles which he buys in the canteen. Much better arrangements must have been made before the Board of Control was set up, because there were units which, under the old system, made such good bargains with the contractors that they got 4s. 6d. per head per soldier returned as a rebate. If we take a unit of 2,500 men, that rebate amounted per month to £570 and they are now getting only £290. The difference
    between £290 and £570 is £280. In other words, the canteen contractors per unit of 2,500 men are putting into their pockets no less a sum than £280 per month, compared' with the instance I have given under the old system. Perhaps this matter is under consideration. I hope it is. All I can say is that if some more satisfactory arrangement is not arrived at, the War Office may look out for very severe criticism on that point. There is another subject which is perhaps not of much interest to the Committee, but is of great interest to a certain number of my Constituents, and that is the pay of soldiers. A certain number of my Constituents at the beginning of the War enlisted in the Army Supply detachment of the Army Service Corps, and were promised pay of 3s. per day. Not only were they promised that, but it was marked on their Attestation Forms. But when they had served for some eight or ten months they were told that they were only entitled to is. 8d. per day. They appealed and got that decision reversed, and were given once more their pay of 3s. per day, but when they went to Aldershot not very long ago they were told it was all a mistake and that they were only entitled to 1s. 8d. a day. That is considered to be, and I think very rightly considered to be, a very genuine grievance. If a man is enlisted at a certain rate of pay, and if that rate of pay is marked on his Attestation Form, I really do think he ought to be paid that rate of pay so long as he serves in the Army. It is not within the competence of

    2193
    the War Office to come down and tell these men they were enlisted under a mistake and were not entitled to that rate of pay. Other Constituents of mine have joined the Army Ordnance Corps. They are highly skilled engineers. In the Army Ordnance Corps there are five rates of pay. These men, although they have been in the Army Ordnance Corps for a long time, although they were very skilled mechanics when they enlisted, and although they have done really first-class skilled work since they have enlisted, have never succeeded in getting beyond the fourth grade. It is their contention, and I have gone into the subject and it seems to me that their contention is just, that they ought to have been moved up to the second grade. There is a feeling among these men and the other men to whom I have referred that the Government are economising very unjustly in small ways in regard to the pay of the men. I hope that is not a fact, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would kindly give these matters his consideration.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: I would ask the War Office most respectfully if they cannot make some arrangement to retain in their present position the members of the Anti-Aircraft Corps of the Royal Naval Air Service who are now engaged in the defence of London. I venture to point out that while the military authorities are making such demands for more men to join the Army at the present time, their method of manning the various anti-aircraft stations up and down London are certainly very inconsistent with this demand for more and more men. In the past these stations have been manned by two officers and about ten men in each case, but now that they are under military control there are no fewer than four officers and something like thirty men at each station. The result of all this is that when the transfer from the Navy to the Military authorities is complete, about 400 Naval Reserve men will have been drafted to other places, or have been placed in the unpaid Naval Reserve, and their places will have been taken by something like 1,000 military men. In the past, with practically no exception, these men who are now being displaced have been engaged chiefly in working the searchlights, and in the handling of ammunition. They were not highly skilled trained men who were actually engaged in the training and the firing of the guns. The men who are being displaced are men who are over age or who were rejected for the Army, or they are
    2194
    married men. But in spite of this, we have had over and over again absolute testimony as to their efficiency in carrying out the services which were demanded from them.
    I am sorry to say that I think there is little doubt that at the present moment the efficiency of the air defences of London has depreciated by at least 50 per cent. It is not nearly so strong or so good to-day as it was a month or two ago. This is due to the fact that, of course, the air guns at the various stations are naval guns, and the ammunition is naval ammunition. You have put military men to work at these guns, and in many cases, these men have frankly stated that they did not understand the working of these guns. In a recent case, the facts of which I can give privately to the right hon. Gentleman, where there was an alarm—a genuine alarm and not a mere practice alarm—one of these ordinary Naval Reserve men was some distance from his. proper station, and he immediately went to a station which happened to be close to where he was, and then when he got up to it he found the military authorities in full possession. But they absolutely did not know what to do next, and they turned to this ordinary man to instruct them at this critical moment in what they should do to carry through their own firing. We have been told in another place to-day that more and more men are required, and it appears to me, at any rate, that here you could keep about 400 men employed, men who are anxious to be employed, men who want to keep on the work which they have been doing for the last eighteen months. They are willing to be put in khaki if you like, but they say, "Do not displace us; let us go on with this work," and you could at once secure the release of something like 800 or 1,000 men for service abroad, men who want to go abroad, men who say, "Why have we been sent here when we want to go to France? We do not want to stop in this country." It is a very simple matter, and I think that it is well worth the consideration of the War Office
    Mr. CAREW: As a new Member, following two new Members, one of whom, delivered an excellent speech yesterday and the other to-day, I feel rather handicapped in my first attempt at addressing this House. I listened to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) a short time ago, and I am bound to say that his sentiments are

    2195
    mine from top to bottom. I do believe that some of the criticisms which we have heard lately in this House have been rather more of an embarrassment than a support to the Government, and I think that we sometimes forget that it is difficult for the Government to show us their hand fully. They are rather like a person fighting with one hand behind his back. If they explained fully to us what they have done and what they are going to do, I cannot help thinking that it would be of more use to the enemy than it would be to us in this House or to the country. I heard the speech of the new Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Pemberton-Billing) yesterday, and I agree with all that he said. I feel sure that if he were in charge of the aircraft guns, as far as lay in his power we should find no enemy aerodrome left in Belgium or Germany. But until that time comes I cannot help thinking that England, being so near the seat of War, can never be quite immune from these Zeppelin raids.
    All of us know that an aeroplane has very little chance of dealing with a Zeppelin here in this country. The one object of the Zeppelin raids here I believe is not so much to destroy life. Certainly they do not aim at women and children. The object is to create a panic. In fact, the whole object of Germany in this War seems to be to exercise intimidation and to create a panic if possible. I was rather astonished yesterday when listening to the speech of the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. G. Lambert), a fellow countryman of mine, who said that this country was better prepared than any of the Allies at the outbreak of the War. I do not think that there is any one, except, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman, either in this House or in the country who has any other opinion except that this country was totally unprepared for the War, and that most of the lives and money that we have lost have been owing to the state of unpreparedness. I have no doubt that the country does not agree with him, but believes that our military forces were criminally small at the outbreak of the War. So far as the Navy, in which the right hon. Gentleman is most interested, is concerned, I admit that this country was fully prepared and has done splendidly. In the Army, no doubt, in proportion to its numerical strength we had as fine a force as any country could wish to put into the field
    2196
    and most nobly it carried out its part at the beginning of the War, better I believe than any other country could have done.
    With regard to the distribution of forces, there again it is easy to be wise after the event, but, apart from the operations at Gallipoli, I believe that our Government have done all that they possibly could to maintain the greatest force that it was in their power to create in preparing a new one. This country was not ready for this great War, which had distressed us for years before it broke out, and a good deal of the enormous waste can be traced to the utterly unprepared state of this country. Some ten years previous to the beginning of the War we had experience of the Boer War, and I think the country at the time, or a great many of us, hoped that we should begin to prepare a military force worthy of the great Empire we have to protect. While not wishing to reflect on the Government in any way, in the next point to which I wish to refer, I do believe that the Military Service Act and recruiting in this country have got into rather a hopeless muddle. I think it is only fair criticism to say that a great deal of the worry and waste of time of the Government could have been avoided had they adopted a bolder and more straightforward policy at the beginning. This House and the country would have welcomed a more comprehensive measure, and a great deal of this trouble that we are now experiencing would have been saved. I think that we started badly with the starring under the Registration Act. Speaking for my own Constituency, I know, as a fact, that a great many people were mostly starred improperly, as in many other places.
    I will take a simple case of starring in Devonshire, which was done from Bristol, though it might just as well have been done from Timbuctoo. Farmers were un-starred and their ploughmen were starred, and that sort of thing went on in a great many cases-in fact, most cases. I think that was the origin of the trouble, and the tribunals have not yet got over the effects of that bad starring. Another question which is now exercising the mind of this House is the shortage of unmarried men. I listened with great interest to the Debate on the Military Service Bill, and I am bound to say, like the Member for East Birmingham, that I did understand the President of the Local Government Board to say that Lord Kitchener had told him

    2197
    that morning that it would not be necessary for men who had arrived at the age of eighteen, after the 15th August, to be made to serve, because he considered there would be enough men without it. I admit—I have never forgotten it—that it struck me as rather a bold thing to say, because no one knew where the War might take us, or how many more men would be required eventually; nor did I see that to make a man serve if he were eighteen after the 15th August would be any greater hardship than it was to the men who had preceded him. But that is only a mild form of criticism.
    I have a letter which I received to-day from a constituent of mine who was medically exempted. He has experienced this great hardship: He is a young farmer who is the only support of his mother. He thinks it a great hardship that he should have been called up to be attested again after he had been medically exempted. He appealed to the Tiverton Tribunal, on Tuesday, the 7th, for total exemption, but was only granted six months. That six months' exemption has unsettled him; he does not know where he is, or whether to continue his farm or not. It is just possible that he will have to go up again to be medically examined. The man was medically exempted, and it was a very clear case. There were two reasons for his exemption, that he had ruptured both sides—and surely that ought to exempt a man—and also that he was farming 200 acres of land with his mother, who is between sixty and seventy years of age. I think it is rather a hardship on a farmer to feel for the next six months that he has got this hanging over him, and to be doubtful whether he should continue farming his land or not. I understood from the Under-Secretary for War that medically rejected men need not come up again, and I think I shall be within my rights if I say that that was what the right hon. Gentleman said in this House. I do not desire to take up more time of the House, except to say I believe that while the fate of this great Empire is trembling in the balance English pluck will still continue what it has been in the past, and that we shall get all the men we require to end this War. My one wish, and I think it is the wish of everyone I know, is to support the Government in every possible way I can until the risk of Prussian domination is destroyed for ever.
    Mr. WING: I rise not for the purpose of taking any part in the angry outbursts
    2198
    made in the last two days, but rather to approach the right hon. Gentleman in a very much more amiable mood. I should like to say to the House openly that I have found him on all occasions, as I have found the Financial Secretary to the War Office also, wishful to meet any case of hardship brought before him, and therefore I want to pay my tribute to the War Office for the way in which they have examined the various complaints that I have presented to them from time to time. I think we ought to do something besides finding fault with the Department, and that we should really express our thanks to them, all the more that I anticipate that I shall have other cases to bring forward. In regard to the married men, would it not be possible to take away an element which they regard as an injustice, in this sense: You have the attested men under the Derby scheme, and you have the men who have been brought into the military service who are unattested. The attested men want to choose their regiments, and those who are not attested can select their own regiments—that is, if a man enlists without being attested he has a free choice. The choice of the attested man is exceedingly limited, whilst the choice of the man who enlists and is not attested is entirely unlimited. I can hardly understand why this limit is applied to the attested men under the Derby scheme, because, from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, it would appear that there are regiments which are in need of men, more men, and many men. Yet when the Derby men seek to find regiments the matter seems to be in the hands of the recruiting officer, who is able to put them where he likes. If a tribunal sets a man back, say, for two months, under the Military Service Act that really means two months later than the date then fixed. But under the Derby scheme if he is put back for a month there is only seven days extra. These are things which may seem small, but men feel that they are disadvantages belonging to one section of the community which do not attach to another section. I am speaking from what I have heard from chairman of tribunals, who felt that they were not in the position to be as generous as they ought to have been owing to the rules under which they were working.
    Questions have been raised in relation to the laxity of doctors' examinations. The matter goes much further than has

    2199
    been stated. Take the case of a man working at a pit who has met with an accident. Under the employers' liability insurance by an arrangement with the insurance company he is given light employment, and is not allowed to do certain heavy work. Immediately a man of that kind is passed by a doctor as physically fit the responsibility of the insurance company comes to an end, and the man, on discharge from the Army, when he goes back to his old employment with a view to enjoying the old conditions, finds to his amazement that the insurance company is clear of all responsibility, owing to the certificate, and that he is not wanted. Thus, owing to the laxity of the doctor in the examination for enlistment, the man may be deprived of certain rights and privileges, which is an exceedingly serious thing, and for which to some extent I think the doctor ought to be brought to book. There was nothing said in the statement of the Under-Secretary about assistance for the married men who come under the Derby scheme. I should have liked a foreshadowing of some assistance to those men so as to dispel all fear of financial results, which is a very grave factor in causing married men to stand back in regard to attestation. I think if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to make some general statement it would have had a very gratifying effect. I am exceedingly gratified that the War Office has fallen into line with the Navy in recognising the claims of those men who have had to fall out on account of the intensification of? complaints which were not recognised when they were passed, but which were developed and aggravated by service, and that they are to be given pensions up to the extent of four-fifths of the full rate. I do not think that the War Office and the Government are making mistake after mistake and nothing else. The Government have had in hand a great enterprise, the greatest in the history of this country, and I do not know any other body of men who would be likely to perform the great services which they have performed any better than they have done.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: We have had a very interesting discussion yesterday and to-day upon very many topics concerned with this Vote, and with the affairs of the Army. We have discussed the expedition in Mesopotamia and the
    2200
    question of the care of the wounded, and various other questions, all extremely important and interesting, but we have always come back to the one question which seems to me to be the most vital at the present moment, and that is the question of recruiting. Yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was making his speech I ventured to interrupt him with a question as to whether or not he considered that recruiting was satisfactory at the present moment. My right hon. Friend said that he would prefer to answer that question later on in Debate, if the question arose. That is my recollection of what he said. To-day I have had the privilege of hearing the Secretary of State for War in another place, and his statement, which was, if I may venture to say so, extremely clear and explicit, was to the effect that if the country was to obtain all the single men under the Derby scheme, and under the Military Service Act, that it could reasonably expect to obtain, that notwithstanding that, and in the course of a few weeks, it would be necessary to call up a considerable, number of the married men. I think the Noble Lord went on to say that the result was disappointing. That is a very important statement, but I do not think that we gain anything by minimising the serious position in which we are now with regard to recruiting. It may be said, and I think it has been said, that there is no use discussing these things least of all in this House, because it will do injury to ourselves by revealing to the Germans certain things. As a matter of fact, all these questions have been discussed in the papers for at least a week or a fortnight, and we do not, I think, gain anything by not discussing in this House questions which have been over and over again discussed in all the newspapers of the country. I only speak as an amateur, but I believe that the Germans know a great deal, and that there is not very much that we can tell them.
    Under those circumstances I venture to say that the situation revealed by the Secretary of State for War in another place this afternoon is an extremely serious one. First of all, we have got to make up our minds that the married men have got to come whether single men come or not, and that they have got to come within a very short time. If that is so, what will the effect of that be upon the industries of the country? It has been said, and I think I have heard one or two hon.

    2201
    Gentlemen this afternoon say, and I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) said with regard to agriculture that the proper course to pursue was to employ women. I should not like to speak for all parts of the country, because the country differs very much in this matter. I was informed yesterday by an hon. Member who is a Scotsman that in Scotland women do a great deal of work upon the farms. No doubt that is true; but in the part of England in which I reside women do not do a great deal of work upon farms. I myself farm about 700 acres, and I have endeavoured to get women, but cannot get them. If I did get them I am certain that they could not learn within a few weeks or months how to plough. We are told that we ought to keep as much land under cultivation as we can. Everybody knows that to keep land under cultivation it is necessary to plough. [An HON. MEMBER: "Women can plough!"] I do not know whether the hon. Member has tried to plough. He is an extremely capable man, but I think he would find it very hard. If a woman who has never been accustomed to plough is taken from anywhere and is put on the land, how long would she take before she could plough? There are some things, no doubt, which women can do. I myself last Saturday tried to carry a certain amount of straw on a fork. It is a difficult thing to do, and it took me a long time because I carried very little each time. All these things want skill, and however able and willing women might be you could not teach them in less than some months even if they had sufficient strength to do the work. No doubt in the summer they could do weeding and a variety of light work if you were able to get them to do it. But there is considerable difficulty. They have their children to look after and their house to keep clean. It is very easy to talk about women being able to do this, that, and the other, but it is not so easy to get them, especially in those parts of the country where it is not the custom for women to do this kind of work.
    I do not think anybody will deny that the two most important industries which should be kept going are munitions and agriculture. The effect upon these two industries of calling up all the unmarried men you can and a large proportion of the married men, I feel sure is going to be very serious. What steps can we take to meet that difficulty? The hon. Baronet the
    2202
    Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) said that he would be in favour of importing labour. In my opinion, if we are going to win this War, we have to get all the labour we can to carry on the essential industries, and if it is necessary to import labour from abroad the Government ought to face that necessity and import the necessary labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "From where?"] From wherever it can be got. I was told yesterday, I believe on good authority, that the Germans are employing something like 1,000,000 Poles in the various industries in Germany. Whatever prejudices may have existed in the past—I am not saying that those prejudices may not have been right in times gone by—what we have really to consider now is that we must do everything in our power to win the War. We have got to forget all our past prejudices and to ask ourselves what is the best way to win the War and what is the best way to get the necessary men and labour in order to achieve that result. We have the command of the sea, and we can get men from anywhere we like. We ought to utilise that power and import all the labour we can in order to free our own people to fight for their own country. I came down this evening because I felt that this ought to be said. I do not know whether the Committee will agree with me or not, but I feel certain that this question has got to be faced. I know that we are up against the trade unions. I am told that the trade unions have said that they will not allow any labour to be imported. I hope that that statement is not correct. I do not think there are any Labour Members present. If there are I hope they will get up and contradict the statement. But if it is correct, all I can say is that if we are convinced that it is necessary we must do it. I am sorry there are only three or four members of the Government present, but I trust my right hon. Friend opposite will convey what I have said in all sincerity and earnestness to the Prime Minister and his colleagues.
    Major C. H. GUEST: From listening to the speeches which have been made in this Debate I cannot help thinking that the Government follow a false course in not taking the House much more fully into their confidence. In all questions the House is vitally interested, and if we private Members knew more of the difficulties which the Government have to face, I am confident that there would be far less of the criticism of which the Government

    2203
    complain, and possibly far more useful suggestions than have been made in this Debate. With regard to the provision of men for the Army, which I think is the most important question we have to face, I believe the Government would be wise to take the Committee much more into their confidence. When one looks at the information they might give from a purely military point of view you cannot say that any statement that they made in this House would be of advantage to the enemy. It would be of far greater advantage that this country should know the real facts and the real difficulties, and that we should run any slight risk that there might be of the Germans obtaining information—which, I think, the House realises the Germans already have. On this ground alone I hope the Under-Secretary of State, when next he makes a statement, will take us fully into his confidence, let us know exactly where he stands, and what difficulties he has got, and ask the House of Commons to help him out of them. From the information we have received so far it is difficult to know whether one's anxiety with regard to the question of men has been increased or decreased by this Debate.
    The Under-Secretary made no statement which elucidated the facts to any great extent. The statement made in another place by Lord Derby and by the Secretary of State for War undoubtedly shows that there is a grave anxiety on the part of those who are responsible for collecting the men for the Army-an anxiety which, on the other hand, the Government seem to be taking measures to try to meet. It depends on whether the remedies are sufficiently strong as to whether a sufficient supply of men can be obtained. There is no doubt to my mind that the situation is an anxious situation, and unless it is faced with courage, and assistance from every branch throughout the country, we may again be landed in the same trouble in which we were about a year ago, of not having the men to maintain the necessary divisions in the field. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question about a fortnight ago, put, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, said that he did not propose to make any statement in regard to the results achieved by the Derby enlistment. I very much regret that, because we have already published the figures that we hope to get, and the country is uncertain, and
    2204
    we Members of the House of Commons are uncertain, as to what results are likely to be obtained. I do not know, and possibly many hon. Members do not know, whether the figures quoted are going to realise 75, 50 or 25 per cent. of the numbers stated. I think we ought to know. On the result of those must largely depend what action is taken in the future.
    I think there is another thing which cannot help confirming the opinion of the ordinary man who has not access to official information—that is, the attitude of the attested married men throughout the country at the present time. The attitude of the attested married men shows to me, or leads me to believe, that there are still available a considerable number of single men of military age who have not yet come forward. I believe that the proposals put forward by Lord Derby, and supported by the Government, will largely bring in these single men. But I do not know whether they are going to do so or not, because, when I read the publication of the War Office yesterday, it seemed to me that List D applied only to a very limited number of trades. There are a large number of trades which are still excluded from any regulation which the Government has yet proposed to take. Men working in munition factories are omitted. Agriculture is entirely omitted from List D. Coal miners are omitted, as well as men engaged on the railway work, the men of the mercantile marine, and those employed in public utility services. I should like to think that a very close examination was going to be made into all the men employed in the manufacture of munitions. I believe it would pay us well. The more closely that examination is the better it will be. Personally, I am afraid of the time when the supply of munitions may become greater than the supply of the men. We may not have) reached that time yet; but you can produce in factories faster than you can produce men to use the munitions. We must never get to that stage, because, after all, in war it is the human factor, the human element, and the trained soldier that is eventually going to decide the contest.
    The subject of coal mines has already been dealt with by an hon. Member who is far more closely associated with that industry than I am. But take the police forces throughout the country. Is there the same necessity to maintain the police forces of trained and physically fit men that there was before the War began?

    2205
    Cannot all those services be cut down to the absolute minimum in order to give us men? After all, a policeman is not making munitions, and he is certainly not assisting in export! Surely, if we can get these men, we ought to cut these services down to the lowest possible figure! I know that it would be much too drastic a suggestion to make that the single men of the country should be taken regardless of who they are or where they are. That might involve the taking of men from factories who are absolutely indispensable to the making of a particular thing. But I believe we can go further than we are proposing to go. If we were to take much more stringently from the factories we should find that the traders of the country would hunt high and low throughout the length and breadth of the country and labour to carry on their work. The whole thing is based on the fact that the military consideration is the first consideration, leaving to the factories what you do not actually need for your Army—provided you do not interfere with the output of munitions. While the War is going on the military case must come first. I press the Government to make the question of taking of the single men much more sweeping than they are proposing to do at the present time. The House well knows what is the wastage of an Army in war. It has been stated, and I do not think it has been overstated, that the wastage of an Army amounts to practically 100 per cent. per annum. If we are going to maintain the forces in the field that we have got now, and the Forces which we need to carry on the War, we shall have to keep up a supply of men in this country far greater than at the present time we are hoping to see obtained either under the Derby scheme or the Military Service Act with regard to the single men.
    I think there are one or two things possibly that the military authorities might do to assist in this matter. It is essential that any soldier who becomes unfitted for service should be immediately returned to civil life. I do not mean to say returned to civil life without thanks or gratitude, or the pecuniary reward which is due for his services. It is not that we want to get quit of the men. We want to get that man back into the factory to help to turn out supplies. I think, too, much might be done by a drastic review of the existing forces of the Army by saying that no man who is capable of more active service than he is performing shall do service of any less active nature. Undoubtedly there are,
    2206
    even in France—for I have seen it myself—men who might be in the ranks of an Infantry battalion, who are doing most strenuous work of a semi-combatant nature. These should be drafted, quite regardless of wherever they enlisted, into the corps for which they are most suitable. The officers, if necessary, should be dealt in this way too, because this is not the time when any difference should be made between officers and men in this respect. I do not think there would be any harm in pointing out to the House, what the House must realise, that is that as this War goes on the fighting will and must become far more desperate from the British point of view. The great losses of the War, so far as we are concerned, are yet to come. The experience of the fighting at Verdun shows you may lose thousands of men in the space of a few days and yet achieve no decision. That decision can only be achieved by the expenditure of life such as this War so far has never seen. Then, when you come to the question of producing men for the Army, it is like the old days of the treatment of your naval programme. You have to get back your men, and train them, and if there is some time before you want them I would allow the men to come back and assist in civil life until they are required. If we can by some means of that sort prepare the men for the future, men we shall undoubtedly need, at the same time allowing them to serve some purpose in civil life until they are wanted, we may do something to help on this question.
    Mr. ASHLEY: For a few moments I would ask the Committee to leave the subject of the married men and the single men who are wanted to defend their country, and to consider the question of our Air Service, which was referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for War and also by the hon. Member for East Herts. In this matter I think the present Government is most terribly to blame. The mistakes of the Government go back to the very beginning of aviation. They go back to the time when Lord Haldane was Secretary of State for War. In an easygoing way he stated then that aviation was progressing very favourably in this country, and that we could afford to wait until the mistakes of others had enabled us to profit by their experience. I will only trouble the House with one quotation from Lord Haldane's speech in introducing the Army Estimates in March,

    2207
    1910, exactly six years ago. He had been talking of dirigibles, and he said:
    "The whole subject is, I think, so much in its infancy that I am never alarmed when reading of the progress of other nations. No doubt we are behind, but so we were at first in motor cars, and we afterwards went ahead very quickly. So much of the material that has been produced by foreign nations has already turned out to be so unsatisfactory that I have really not much fear, if we address ourselves in earnest to the task, that we shall be left behind."
    Mr. TENNANT: Was that with regard to aeroplanes or dirigibles?
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Dirigibles. He had been talking of dirigibles, and that was his summary of the situation at the end. We know now to our bitter cost. The Government may say they were advised by their responsible expert advisers; that is no affair of ours. We know the Government chose the course of giving up all idea of having airships of the Zeppelin type, and of concentrating entirely upon aeroplanes. I would be the last man to deny that, at the beginning of this War, in the field the provision of aeroplanes was not unsatisfactory. It was very fairly satisfactory. Our airmen showed great pluck and great enterprise, and undoubtedly the Government can take this to their credit that, till about May or June of last year, we held our own very well in the theatre of war in Flanders, and were able to do reconnaissance, and by means of aeroplanes to direct our artillery fire very much better than the Germans. But it must be remembered that this is not command of the air. That was purely a local command of the air, which came about as an adjunct to our Army, and it did not give us that general command of the air which this nation desires, and which this Government ought to have given us at the beginning of the War, and much more so at the present moment. Consequently, though we had this command of the air up to the middle of last year, I do not think anyone in this House will get up now and say that the command of the air at the front at the present moment is ours. The position is precarious. If anybody has command of the air I am afraid it is the Germans and not ourselves. I am not going to apportion the blame. Whether that is owing to the Government having given a poorer sort of machine to our airmen to use or because they received orders, as the hon. Member for East Herts said yesterday, that hazardous and enterprising expeditions should not take place, the fact re-
    2208
    mains that anyone who comes back from the front will tell you that the local command of the air is not to-day what it was six or nine months or even a year ago. What has been the result of this local command of the air which we had for six months, and of which we have now still got a precarious hold? The result is that we have these air raids in England because the Germans find that, owing to our excellent air guns and aeroplanes, it is dangerous—almost impossible—to use their aeroplanes to scout over our lines. They are not able, as we all know, to use their Zeppelins with their Fleet, because their Fleet does not come out, and therefore they use them exclusively and entirely to raid our shores, and do as much damage as they can to our towns and to our munitions, and the result is they have got what we have not got, practically an air service, and not an air arm of the Army and Navy. They have an air service of Zeppelins which comes over here and does incalculable damage to our people and to our towns, and may do great damage in no short time to our munitions industry. I would press upon the Government not to delay any longer this subject, but to start what Lord Montague and other people have pressed upon the Government, namely, a proper Air Service with a Cabinet Minister responsible for it, because it is intolerable that this Island, which for centuries has been protected by our Fleet from foreign invasion, should now be open to these raids, which do so much damage to our towns, and which, though we are told no military damage is done, have undoubtedly caused great alarm and great damage to life and property.
    What I want to ask the Government more particularly is what they are going to do meanwhile to protect this country. The right hon. Gentleman told" us yesterday that since his Department had taken over the Air Service of this country the organisation of the defence of London was complete, and the organisation of defence in the country was approaching completion. That does not carry us very much further. Organisation will not protect us against these raids. What we want is the guns, and we want the men ready to protect us from these raids. If he will tell us that the men and the guns are shortly going to materialise, then, of course, I have not so much to say, but he

    2209
    has not informed us of that. May I give the Committee an instance of the organisation of the War Office in this matter? The War Office as soon as they took over the Air Service very properly and very wisely sent a circular letter to the Press, and asked the various great newspapers if they could enlist the services of their correspondents in different parts of the country in order to give the War Office early and detailed information of where Zeppelins were seen, and exactly what hour they appeared in certain places—information no doubt which would be of great use to the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The newspapers, with that patriotism which always characterises them—they have nothing to get out of it—instructed their correspondents in every part of the country at once to wire the newspaper offices, who would then at once communicate with the War Office by special messenger. During last Sunday week's air raid a considerable number of messages were sent to the various newspapers by their local correspondents on the East Coast, giving very valuable details of the air raids. What happened to the telegrams? Most of the telegrams arrived next morning. Some did not arrive until the Monday afternoon, and in every case the name of the place in which the Zeppelin appeared was deleted by the military censor. I ask the Committee, is that an example of organisation? When the right hon. Gentleman's Department asked newspapers to co-operate with him, as they willingly did, surely his Department might have taken the trouble to inform the military censors that these telegram should have been sent through, and then a ridiculous situation would not have arisen. What I chiefly rose to press in a very humble way upon the Government is this: Do not rely so much and chiefly upon local and fixed defences in warding off Zeppelin attacks, but have mobile defences on the East Coast to keep off the Zeppelins before they arrive in London. Whoever heard of forts being placed in the middle of and on the outskirts of towns in order to ward off artillery attacks? You have to place your forts well out in order that when the enemy arrives the bombardment should not reach the town. In the case of air raids, you should not place guns in the middle of London, because the best way to defend this country is to continue your defensive line in France by means of mobile aircraft corps along the East Coast, where you can
    2210
    in nine times out of ten ward off a Zeppelin attack. I believe there have been four Zeppelin attacks upon London. The Eastern Anti-Aircraft section have been in action twenty-two times against Zeppelins with the miserable equipment of guns which the hon. Member for Brentford shocked the House by describing on the 16th of February. With that miserable equipment of guns dating from the Boer War they were able on the East Coast to ward off a number of Zeppelin attacks, and surely if you give them decent guns like those you have in London, which I am told are very good ones, you will serve London well and secure it.
    Remember, however, that London is not the only place in England, and other towns have just as much right to be defended as London. You cannot have guns round every munitions factory in England. The way to defend this country is not so much by local defences round every town, but by having mobile corps upon the East Coast to ward off the Zeppelin attacks. You have an excellent corps on the Eastern Coast which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not know much about, because it was under the Admiralty, and some of the War Office officials are not well disposed towards these people because they happen to belong to the Admiralty, and naturally there are jealousies such as those which often exist between high officials in Government Departments I am afraid, in consequence of that, since the right hon. Gentleman took over the thing no encouragement has been given to these men. If you have this anti-aircraft gun section between the Thames and the Wash, why not have other sections between the Wash and the Humber, and the Humber and the Tyne, which would guard the North of England from attacks. On this matter I am speaking from information which I have received. I believe there are only two experts in this House on this subject, the hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) and the new Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing). If one tries to get information and talks to people who carry on these things, one may obtain a certain amount of facts, and I have been told that these Zeppelins when they come to this country nearly always descend quite low. If you have the defences I have suggested you would either be able to drive them back or compel them to fly so high that when they got over England they would not know where

    2211
    they were. I apologise to the Committee for speaking upon a technical subject which I do not pretend to have much knowledge of myself, but having met a good many officers during the past fifteen months, not only on the Eastern Coast but in London, who have done a lot of hard work in the Air Service without any praise from the Government, and a good deal of abuse from the general public, I thought it was necessary for someone to recognise that they have done their duty, and I wish to express public appreciation of their services.
    Mr. MORRELL: I wish to call attention to the present method of recruiting for the Army, and more especially to the administration of the Military Service Act. My right hon. Friend, in his speech yesterday, said he was afraid that cases had occurred in which men had been tricked and cajoled into the Army. He might have added that a good many cases have occurred and are now occurring in which men are being bullied and intimidated into the Army, and he might also have said that the Military Service Act is being administered by local tribunals in many places in a way which has given the impression of illegality, straining the law, and disregarding the rights given to the subjects by this House, and this is producing a very unfortunate state of things in this country. In making that statement I do not want to bring charges in any wholesale way against the local tribunals all over the country, because I have no right to do so, and I am certain that in a great many places the local tribunals are doing their duty in the very difficult task which has been put upon them to the best of their ability and in a fair spirit. I am quite sure that is so, but I am also certain that there are a great many cases in which the local tribunals are giving a very poor hearing to the men who come before them, and more especially cases in which the military representative is arrogating to himself rights, powers, and authority which he was never intended to have, and which he ought not to have if the Act is fairly administered. My right hon. Friend says that the military representative has no authority, no status, and that he is not recognised.
    Mr. TENNANT: He has the same authority as counsel in Court.
    Mr. MORRELL: If my right hon. Friend makes inquiries he will find that in local tribunals in some cases the military representative actually sits with the judges on the bench; he sits with the tribunal and he dominates and dictates to the tribunals, and I am informed that that is so on the best authority. I am told that in some cases the military representative actually supersedes the chairman, and imposes his will upon the tribunal almost without reference to the court. In many cases the applicant who comes before the tribunal is not allowed to ask questions of the military representative, although he may ask leave to do so. I will give a case which was reported in the "Oxford Times" last week. This is the case of a man called Runacres, a theological student. It is a peculiar name, but he is an Englishman. He claimed exemption as a conscientious objector as he was entitled to do under the Act, and he was supported by two witnesses who said that he was a man who could be trusted in every way and who ought to be exempted. In the middle of the proceedings the military representative came in, and he proceeded to read a letter which he said he had received about the man, and in which it was said that the man was a conscientious objector of the worst type, being engaged in giving Socialistic lectures, but he refused to give the name of the writer of the letter. The result was that the court, which had been previously inclined to grant exemption, absolutely refused it. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair of a military representative to read a letter without giving the name of the person who wrote it or the applicant an opportunity of asking questions about it?
    Mr. TENNANT: All that the military representative, according to my hon. Friend, did was to read a letter. I do not think that there is any point in the keeping back of the name of the writer. I do not think that mattered a bit. A military representative can submit evidence just as counsel in any case properly does.
    Mr. MORRELL: My right hon. Friend would find that if counsel did that in any Court he would be stopped by the judge. It is contrary to all the rules of evidence to read any document without giving the person who is being tried any idea who has written the document or any opportunity of asking questions about it. The

    2213
    man who wrote that letter might have had a personal spite against the applicant. It was a most unfair proceeding, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend should endeavour to defend a military representative when he takes such action. I will give another instance brought to my notice from a little village near Accrington. It is a case in which two conscientious objectors—one a weaver and the other a schoolmaster—claimed exemption. The military representative came in as one of the cases was being heard, and he proceeded, as I should say, to insult the conscientious objector. He said, "If you can walk down the street and meet a wounded soldier, who has been fighting for you, and look him in the face you have no conscience at all." The man said that was not relevant, and obviously it was not. Then the military representative, Lieutenant Hudson, remarked that he did not think the Court ought to waste any time whatever on conscientious objectors. The other man's case was then heard. He said that he was unwilling to go and fight the Germans, because he believed that killing in war was as much murder as it was in peace. I do not hold with that view myself, but the man, under the Act, was at any rate entitled to raise his objection. This is what the military representative said, "There is no murder in killing Germans." The man replied, "The German is a man." Lieutenant Hudson said, "The German is proved to be a beast." That may be so from Lieutenant Hudson's point of view, but that is not the way to treat the conscientious objector. After this had been said the applicant remarked that, "Mr. Bonar Law has told us that if a man has a conscientious objection he is entitled to exemption. I wish the law to be carried out." After much insolence, as I should term it, and brow-beating on the part of Lieutenant Hudson, both of these claims for exemption were refused. I say that this attitude on the part of the military representative is intolerable. He arrogates to himself authority to dictate to the Court, and to continually cross-examine witnesses, in the Judge Jeffrey's style, and this ought not to be tolerated. I am not saying it occurs in all cases. But it does occur in some, and I assert it ought to be put a stop to by the War Office, in the interest of English justice and fair play. Let the conscientious objector have a chance of putting his case before the tribunals; let him have a fair hearing; let him feel that justice is being done.
    2214
    I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman shortly to the fact that the assurances he gave us with regard to the cases which come within the exceptions in the First Schedule are still not being carried out. Men who come within those exceptions are still being summoned by the recruiting officers, and their certificates of rejection are still being destroyed. That is a very serious matter in view of the assurances that were given. I will give the right hon. Gentleman some cases.
    Mr. TENNANT: Give me the dates.
    Mr. MORRELL: I have a letter written on 4th March, a considerable time after my right hon. Friend gave his assurances.
    Mr. TENNANT: Not after I gave instructions that no further certificates of exemption should be destroyed. It was, I think, about the same time.
    Mr. MORRELL: I cannot give the exact date, but my impression is that that letter was written after the assurances were given. But I will not press that point. A week after my right hon. Friend had spoken in this House I went myself to a recruiting office and placed before the recruiting officer the certificate of a man in my employ who had offered himself for enlistment and had been rejected, and the recruiting officer said, "It is no use bringing that to me; I cannot look at it; the man must come again."
    Mr. TENNANT: Who was the officer?
    Mr. MORRELL: The recruiting officer at Oxford—a personal friend of my own. I am not complaining of him, but the incident shows that the right hon. Gentleman's instructions had not reached him a week after the assurances were given in this House. What I complain of is that the authority of this House is disregarded in a great many cases by the recruiting officers and the military authorities, and it is making a very bad impression in the country. There is only one other point I wish to touch upon, and that is an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me yesterday on the subject of the death penalty. It was an answer which filled many of us with surprise. I propose to read the answer as well as the assurance given by the Attorney-General. The question asked was:
    "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

    2215
    from the Reserve for service with the Colours, extends to a person taken by force under the Military Service Act, HUG, 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?"
    My right hon. Friend replied:
    "I think my right hon. Friend's assurance was limited to the conscientious objector. 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1916, cols. 1860–61.]
    As far as I understand my right hon. Friend's answer, the meaning of it was that the assurance was only applicable to those who are found by a local tribunal to be conscientious objectors and whose conscientious objection has been admitted, but not to the man who claims to have a conscientious objection. If that is so, it means that the assurance that was given in this House is worthless, because the man who satisfies the tribunal that he has a conscientious objection will not, in all probability, be called upon to do service which is against his conscience. The difficulty will arise in the case of a man who has not been before a tribunal through not having made an application in time, or in that of a man who, going before a tribunal, has failed to satisfy the tribunal, but still feels it against his conscience to take part in military service. I want to know whether that man, who objects on the ground of conscience, is to suffer the death penalty? That is the really crucial case. I should like to read the Attorney-General's answer. On the 18th January he said this:
    "I can give my hon. Friend the assurance, on behalf of the War Office, that, under no circumstances will the death sentence be pronounced or carried out on persons who come in any way within the class of 'conscientious objector,' as defined by this Bill. That in my judgment meets the only case that is exceptional."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1916, col. 204.]
    A little afterwards he said:
    "It is intended that no man who is deemed to have enlisted and is transferred to the Reserve under this Clause shall be liable to suffer the death sentence in respect of failure to obey an order calling him up from the Reserve for service with the Colours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1916, col. 278.]
    Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear!
    Mr. MORRELL: If my right hon. Friend agrees with that I do not know what is the meaning of his answer.
    Mr. TENNANT: May I explain? I hope I can give an explanation quite briefly and satisfactorily to my hon. Friend. The point is the difference between the period at which the man has been called up to the Colours and after he has joined the
    2216
    regiment. If my hon. Friend will look at the Attorney-General's words he will see that the latter statement which he read referred entirely to being called up to the Colours, and was that a man who refused to be called up to the Colours as a conscientious objector should in no case suffer the death penalty.
    Mr. MORRELL: A conscientious objector?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, certainly. That is in accordance with the answer I gave yesterday, absolutely and entirely. What I said was that after a man had joined the Colours it would be intolerable, and in my judgment it would still be intolerable, that you should have two sets of laws, one for the voluntaryists and another for the compulsory service men. That is absolutely borne out, not only by my answer, but by logic and by the Attorney-General's assurance.
    Mr. MORRELL: It seems to me that the meaning of the assurance that was given and as it was understood was that there should be at any rate a law to protect the man who was compelled from suffering the death penalty afterwards if he was compelled to serve against his conscience; and that he should be liable to imprisonment but not to be shot for not doing acts which in his conscience he believes—
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry to interrupt, my hon. Friend. If a conscientious objector who is an agreed conscientious objector—we cannot deal with those whom the tribunals have declined to admit are conscientious objectors—was given orders to. take part in combatant service, I should say that order would be ultra vires, and therefore need not be obeyed.
    Mr. MORRELL: From that point that seems to me satisfactory, though what my right hon. Friend says now does not seem to be consistent with what he said yesterday. Of course I absolutely disagree with his interpretation of the words that it only applies to men whose conscientious objection is admitted. If that is so it narrows down, it seems to me, the assurance which was given. What the Attorney-General said was that under no circumstances will the death sentence be pronounced or carried out on persons who come in any way within the class of conscientious objectors. It seems to me that people come within the class of conscientious objectors who claim that they have a conscientious

    2217
    objection to taking part in military service, and I think my right hon. Friend will find that there will be a storm of indignation in the country if a man who claims to have conscientious objections is liable to be taken out and shot, after the assurance which has been given, for refusing to do actions of which his conscience disapproves. I have raised these points more by way of warning, for I do not believe that at present the Military Service Act is being carried out in the spirit in which it was intended by the House. I have raised them because I want to see the Act fairly administered. I do not want to see new divisions being made in this country. I am as anxious to see the War carried to a successful conclusion as anyone, but it is most unfortunate that there should be an impression, as there now is, that the military authorities are willing to disregard old legal traditions, legal rules, and legal forms—that they are willing to strain this Act to the utmost in order to drive every man, even men who are physically unfit, into the Army. That is an unfortunate position, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take steps to see that, as regards his own military representatives on the tribunals, the acts of which I complain are not repeated.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I am sure the Committee is very much pleased that this question has been brought before the House, and with the temperate way he has brought it. I believe the answers the right hon. Gentleman has given will go a very long way to remove misapprehension. After all, we must trust to the honesty and sense of fair play of the tribunals we have established. It is only within the last week or ten days that I read in the public Press proceedings in a trial before the High Court in this country in which personalities were interchanged between the judge and the lawyer in a way that was quite unprecedented in my experience, and perhaps surpassed those which may have occurred in these improvised tribunals. The questions I wish to refer to are the question of aviation and the question in relation to married men. In regard to aviation, I will not attempt to pile Pelion on Ossa by repeating arguments which have been very much better delivered than I could possibly deliver them, but it seems to me that as regards that question we are in the presence of an extremely serious situation, and that the strain which
    2218
    has been put upon that question has by no means transcended the necessities of the case. It certainly must be an occasion for very acute consideration on the part of the House and the Government, and, above all, the country, that in the early stages of the War, in the field, we appeared to have an ascendancy in aviation which we have lost. As early as July last, when I was at the front myself, and had the opportunity of seeing what was going on as a spectator with some privileges, it was then whispered about by those who had a right to know that Germany had a superiority over us in the navigation of the air, and particularly in rapid ascents and escape from attacks. Some time has elapsed since then, and we are now in the presence of this situation, that a tremendous air fleet can pass over the sea, which was our natural protection, and by hovering over our great cities and towns and the countryside are capable of dropping instruments of destruction. For the moment they may not attack military property, but we never can tell when they may strike military property, even the House of Commons itself or any of our great public institutions. Surely that imposes upon us the most serious consideration as to the way to meet the emergency. I do not say that the Government is not taking every step that they can take to meet the difficulty. That it is a serious and momentous difficulty is beyond dispute. I regret exceedingly that the Government does not see the necessity to establist a Department for the control of this particular arm of the Service. It has been a sort of annexe of two different arms of the Service. I think it has acquired a real importance that demands that it should have independent control. It seems to me very much that the time is not far distant when the battles that were previously fought on land and on the sea may be fought in the air, and may be decided in the air. I think the true way to meet an air fleet is by meeting it in the air, meeting it before it arrives over our great towns and our small villages, meeting it at the coast and thereby protecting the country in the earlier stages of the invasion.
    The reason I wish to refer to the subject of the married men is not because it has not been sufficiently well stated, but because of the questions now agitating the country and causing real disturbance, that of the attested men is very prominent. The married men are very disturbed in

    2219
    their opinions and great public dissatisfaction has ensued in consequence. They may be right or they may be wrong—I think in the main the attested married men are right—but whether they are right or wrong the idea has got a very strong hold of the country that an injustice is being done to them. What the Government should direct itself to first and foremost in that connection is to remove the impression in every way in their power that any injustice is being done to the married men. How is that to be done? In order to consider that we must consider the pledge to the married men. I have read over the statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not restrict the subject to the pledge that was given by Lord Derby. I take, for instance, the statement that was made by the Prime Minister. I am not making any reproach whatever. I am dealing with it regretfully as it is. That pledge was not in general terms that single men will be taken first, and then if they do not come they will be dealt with in a sort of indefinite way. That is not really the statement at all, because, first, the Prime Minister re-stated what the difficulty was, and, considering his statement by the context, it is perfectly plain that what he put before the country was that there was no obligation on the married man, even if he had enlisted, to be called upon to serve until the single men had been dealt with. I will read one sentence of what he said on that occasion—
    "I am told by Lord Derby,"
    the Prime Minister says,
    "that there is some doubt among married men who are now being asked to enlist"—
    The Committee will observe, "who are now being asked to enlist"—
    'that having enlisted or promised to enlist they may be called upon to serve while younger or unmarried men are holding back and not doing their duty. Let them at once disabuse themselves of that notion. So far as I am concerned I should certainly say that the obligation of the married man to serve ought not to be enforced, ought not to be binding upon him, unless and until the unmarried men are dealt with."
    Clearly that means that the single men will be called on first, and that the married men will not be called up for service until the single men have been called for service. The pledge here implies that the unmarried men are to be so dealt with as to be called to the Colours before any attested married man is called. That is the meaning that the Earl of Derby attached to it, and that is the meaning that he put before the people of this
    2220
    country. It was on those terms that the married men enlisted, and that pledge is not being kept. I fully recognise the difficulties of the Government with regard to it. They say now that there is need for the married men. I sympathise with them in their difficulty, that they want the married men to come forward now. If that is so let them say, "The pledge was given as you interpret it, but we ask you now in the interests of your country to come forward and serve with the Colours." The difficulty is not that the married men are not patriotically inclined. On the contrary, from what I know of the married men in the district in which I live they are all perfectly willing to come forward, but they object to being tricked. They think that a trick has been played upon them. The attested married men object to come forward on another ground. They say that a whole lot of mere slackers and shirkers are waiting to take their jobs, and, while single men are making £2, £3, and £4 per week working at munitions, they ask what obligation is there on the married men to go and fight the battles for the country and for the shirkers and slackers at a shilling a day. Under those circumstances I do think the Government must come forward and make a much more direct statement than they have made so far. There is no use in telling us that they are doing the best they can, that they are going back to recover lost ground, and that they made a great mistake about it in the beginning. That is not carrying out the obligation. I hope that they will be able to do that without injury to the Service, but they must go beyond that and take the position frankly before the country that these men who should have come forward, whom they undertook to bring forward, before the married men were required to come forward, are brought forward. We have these prolonged appeals before the tribunals, and unless they are facilitated and dispatched these appeals by single men may go on for a year. Some means ought to be found by which they can be rapidly determined, so that the single men will be bound to come forward and the married men be satisfied that the Government have done and will do their full duty. Married men who are not attested are not under the obligation to come forward, and they may be dealt with in another way, but we must recognise that they are not in the same position as married men who have attested. Whatever the necessities of the situation, we must deal with it as it is,

    2221
    and deal with it promptly, so that there may be justice done between married men and single men in the circumstances.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken read the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister. A day or two after that a hon. Gentleman on this side of the House asked a question of the Prime Minister in order to elucidate the matter still further. This was about the 4th or 5th of November. There then ensued a correspondence between Lord Derby and the Prime Minister, and Lord Derby's letter was dated 9th November. In that letter he made it very clear to everybody that the pledge which Lord Derby understood the Prime Minister to give related only to those single men not required for other services. Men who were the sole supporters of widowed mothers, and the men who were engaged on munitions were to be exempted from the obligation to military service. As to the residue of the unmarried men—that is to say, the men not required for other national purposes—if they did not come forward in sufficient numbers, then the Prime Minister pledged himself to use compulsion to bring them in before calling on the married men to serve. That is the plain pledge given by the Prime Minister, as interpreted by Lord Derby only this afternoon in another place.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Can anyone understand the Prime Minister's pledge better than he himself?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Prime Minister, in accepting the interpretation put upon the pledge by Lord Derby on 9th November, adopted that interpretation. One fact has emerged from this discussion. It is that the military value of the Compulsion Bill passed last January is nil, or practically nil. I think almost everyone agrees with that statement. Those of us on this side who objected to the Bill did so on the ground that it would not really help the military situation at all, because the 650,000 unmarried men spoken of in Lord Derby's Report did not exist in fact, and therefore it was idle to bring in a Compulsion Bill in order to conscript men who were not there to be conscripted.
    What has happened since? The President of the Board of Education went down to Bristol, I think on the 27th January, and he made certain observations in that city. He wanted to justify
    2222
    the Military Service Act. The way he attempted to justify it was by pointing out that since 11th December, when Lord Derby's scheme ceased to operate, and the date on which he was speaking, the 27th January, I think, something like 120,000 unmarried men had either attested or enlisted. He was trying to justify the Bill by saying that it had forced 120,000 men into attesting or enlisting. Having made use of that figure in order to justify the Bill, then it is surely most unfair that the fact that very few single men remain should now be used in the contrary direction. We pointed out that this Bill was not necessary to get the unmarried men into the Army, and that if the pledge of the Prime Minister was to be carried out as interpreted by Lord Derby in his letter of the 9th November, that the number of unmarried men to be brought into the Army by the Bill would be infinitesimal. We were flouted; we were jeered at; we even went so far as to say, "Extend the Derby period for another month and you will get every unmarried man that you would get under the Bill." That request was refused, and the Bill was passed. I quite agree that once the Bill was passed it became the duty of every good citizen to see that it was carried out in the letter and in the spirit. We predicted that this Bill would not satisfy our Conscriptionist friends, and the speeches made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery), by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Guest)., and by others have demonstrated that our prediction is absolutely verified. We made another prediction. We said that, so far from the country remaining in a state of unity and solidarity in which it was before the Bill was introduced, the very beginning of Conscription would create turmoil, confusion, bitterness, and anger. Who can say now, looking at what has happened, that that prediction has not been verified? You cannot go to any village, to any parish, almost to any house where you do not find suspicion and anger prevailing on account of that Bill.
    There is one other matter. An hon. Friend behind has drawn attention to the question of military representatives, and I should like to refer to Carmarthen. I do not know who appoints them. I suppose it is the War Office. In three constituencies represented by Liberal Members, who were returned by a majority of

    2223
    nearly 10,000 voters at the last election, there is not a single military representative in any part of the county who is a Liberal. In one Division he happens to be the Conservative election agent. In another town the military representative is now the Conservative candidate for that very Division where he is acting in the capacity of military representative.
    Mr. TENNANTmade some observations which were inaudible in the Reporters' gallery.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In another case in the same county the military representative is the ex-Conservative candidate. In Carmarthen a stranger has been imported. Let me quote a sentence from the report of the application of a theological student for exemption as a conscientious objector. In answer to a hypothetical question which ought never to have been put, the student invoked the name of Christ. This is what the military representative said: "He is not here to help you." Does my right hon. Friend approve of that? If he does not, is he going to have this man removed? There is another case in the same county. I saw a letter to-day from a member of the local tribunal objecting to the military representative sitting with the tribunal as one of themselves. This gentleman, a magistrate of the county, refused any longer to sit on the tribunal if the military representative remained. He was allowed to leave the the room, and the military representative continued to sit with the tribunal. This gentleman said he would not sit again
    2224
    as long as the military representative was acting not as counsel, as the Under-Secretary of State suggested, but as one of the judges, indeed, the dominant judge. I hope my right hon. Friend will see to this matter at once, as the local tribunals meet again next Friday, when I suppose the same procedure will be adopted.
    Mr. TENNANT: I may inform my hon. Friend that I received his communication. I at once caused inquiry to be made, but it may be a day or two before I get a reply.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There were one or two other matters I wished to bring forward, but at this hour I will not detain the Committee.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS TO EX-CABINET MINISTERS AND OTHERS.
  PENSIONS TO EX-CABINET MINISTERS AND OTHERS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  TRANSPORT WORK.
  TRANSPORT WORK.
  MILITARY SERVICE
    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
  UNFIT AND DISABLED MEN.
  UNFIT AND DISABLED MEN.
  ARMY DISCHARGES.
  ARMY DISCHARGES.
  GOODS REQUISITIONED (ARMY ACT).
  GOODS REQUISITIONED (ARMY ACT).
  OATS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  OATS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  SOLDIERS'SAVINGS.
  SOLDIERS'SAVINGS.
  COAL SUPPLIES AND PRICES.
  COAL SUPPLIES AND PRICES.
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  AGRICULTURAL TENANTS.
  AGRICULTURAL TENANTS.
  Irish Professors' Salaries.
  Irish Professors' Salaries.
  Teachers' Salaries (Ireland).
  Teachers' Salaries (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following substituted Bill have been complied with:
North British Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday next.
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5564. Cuba (Island of Cuba, years ended 30th June 1913 and 30th June 1914):

No. 5565. Brazil (Pernambuco, 1914);

No. 5566. Denmark (Faroe Island and Iceland, 1914)

Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ministry of Munitions—The Munitions Tribunal (Ireland) Rules, 1916, for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland, made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, as amended by the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Lord Lieutenant as far as relates to offences and the enforcement of Orders, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Wales) 1916, dated 9th March 1916:
Navy (Pay)—List of exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay and Allowances, sanctioned
388
by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty with the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to the Order in Council, dated 19th December 1881, during the year 1914–1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE DANISH AGREEMENT.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries.

2. Whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement.

3. Whether in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement it ought not to be abrogated.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already occupied your Lordships' time at considerable length in regard to the Danish Agreement, but since the subject was last discussed certain matters have arisen which I venture to say fully justify the action that was taken by speakers in this House in the former debate in condemning the advisability of this Agreement. It will be most convenient, I think, if I deal separately with each of the three Questions standing in my name.
With regard to my first Question, your Lordships are aware that under the Danish Agreement agents were to be appointed in Norway and Sweden who were to be responsible for the re-exports to those countries; they were to be there as a security that these re-exports would be used exclusively for Norwegian and Swedish consumption, and would not be passed on for German consumption. Since the Danish Agreement was discussed in this House, Norway and Sweden have both declined to permit the appointment of these agents by the two Danish associations which were named in the Danish Agreement, and they have done so for reasons which appear to me, and which I think will so recommend themselves to your Lordships, as of a very reasonable character. Norway and Sweden take up this position, first of all, on com-

389
mercia1 grounds. They say that such agents, if not actually Danes, would be associated with Danish trading or commercial companies, and they would thereby obtain an unfair commercial advantage over Swedes or over Norwegians as the case may be. I do not think it is necessary to labour that point. The position would be exactly this, that the importers of a foreign country would be in possession of privileges which were denied to local importers. That is the objection on the part of the Norwegian and Swedish Governments to accepting the setting up of these Danish agents. Then there is another point, one which affects the amour propre of the countries themselves. They regard this—and I think it is difficult to regard it otherwise—as an infringement of the sovereignty of their countries. They say—it seems to me with good sense and reason—Why should England make an arrangement with Denmark as to what goods should go to Norway and Sweden from England? I am informed, and I believe it is the case perhaps the noble Marquess, in his reply, will be able to throw some light upon this matter—that the Swedish Ministry are contemplating introducing, if they have not already introduced, a Bill to prohibit any corporation or individual from carrying on business under an Agreement with a foreign country without the sanction of the Swedish Government.
In my second Question I ask whether an goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. The goods that were allowed to pass into Germany under those provisions are generally known to comprise cocoa, coffee, and fruit, among other articles. I do nut want on this occasion, except incidentally, to refer to the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, but I am not stating what is untrue when I say that the issue of that Order in Council a year ago has had the effect for a long time of completely deceiving the public. The fact is that certain distinguished officials in the Foreign Office thought much more of their intellectual abortions, like the Declaration of London, than they did of the interests of the war and of the country in this matter. I am not exaggerating when I say that they invented, with consummate ingenuity, a system which should give to the Navy the appearance, and at the same time prevent them from getting the substance, of what they asked.
390
I rejoice that the whole of this blockade business has been placed in the charge of Lord Robert Cecil, with a distinguished Admiral to help him. I do so if it means —and I have every reason to believe that it does—that this matter will be taken by the Admiralty out of the feeble hands of the Foreign Office. A change of policy and not a reshuffling of officials is the really vital and essential point in this matter. But, my Lords, a great deal has to be done. I am going to give your Lordships only one set of figures. They are extremely eloquent, and I have every reason to know that they are accurate; and if the noble Marquess cares to ask me privately I can tell him the source from which I got them. These figures show that during November last the actual imports into Denmark of cocoa, coffee, and fruit—three articles mentioned in the Danish Agreement—amounted to about 14,000,000 lbs., whereas the normal imports for that month in an ordinary year never exceeded 7,000,000 lbs. There is, therefore, still a great deal of leeway to be made up in meeting the real necessities of the case and excluding all articles from either entering or leaving Germany.
I now conic to my third and last Question, in which I ask whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—"denounced" is the technical word, but I used "abrogated" because I thought it would better convey my meaning to people outside. I understand that at the present moment there are two Danish gentlemen in London actively engaged in negotiating in regard to the Danish Agreement. May I ask the noble Marquess whether Parliament will be consulted before anything is finally concluded in regard to these negotiations? It will certainly be very disquieting to feel that again negotiations are being carried on, and that Parliament and the public, who have such a great, and vital interest in this question, should have no means of knowing what is going on or of being consulted until the thing has been settled and done with. As regards the antagonism referred to in my Question, I understand that Sweden and Norway have refused to allow Danish agents to be appointed in their countries to control the re-exported goods. What I want to know is, As Norway and Sweden object to the appointment of these agents what. remains of the Danish Agreement?

391
Is it to be the case that in future Denmark is to be allowed to re-export goods to any one in Norway and Sweden, who will probably, I should say almost certainly, see that the goods, in view of the inducement of higher prices, go direct to Germany instead of being used, as was intended, for Norwegian and Swedish consumption only? These three Questions I beg to put to His Majesty's Government, and I trust that the noble Marquess may be able to enlighten the House and the country upon this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should reply at once to the three Questions which the noble Earl has put upon the Paper. It will be in his recollection and in that of your Lordships that this subject was very fully debated not many days ago on two separate evenings in this House. Upon that occasion we made it perfectly clear that we had no intention either of publishing the Danish Agreement or of allowing ourselves, by the kind of cross-examination to which the noble Earl likes to subject us, to be led to make disclosures which would give to the public the very information which, for the present at any rate, we desire to withhold. Negotiations are proceeding at this moment—the noble Earl himself is evidently well aware of the fact—and I venture to say that nothing could be more detrimental to the public interest than that we should be required to discuss the details of the matters which are under negotiation or to make a statement which might possibly throw a doubt upon the sincerity of oar policy.
The noble Earl asks me, in the first place, whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries. I really do not know where the noble Earl collects the kind of information which he has been pouring forth upon your Lordships' House during the last few minutes. He told us that we must be aware that it was sought to appoint Danish agents in Norway and Sweden who, he said, were to be responsible for re-exports. He went on to inform us that the Norwegian and Swedish Governments declined to permit the appointment of these agents, that they regarded these proposals as an encroachment upon their autonomy, and that he believed legislation was in contemplation in order to prevent anything of the kind occurring. The
392
noble Earl is apparently supplied with this information from the same sources that throughout this affair have been publishing garbled and incomplete accounts of the Agreement and of everything connected with it. The noble Earl apparently swallows with avidity the kind of stories which are told him, and then comes down—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: MY information comes from most responsible sources.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl, of course, will not tell us what the sources are. I am able to tell him that his information is of the most suspect character and that we have excellent reasons for believing that the kind of information with which he is supplied is purveyed by people who are by no means the friends of this country. I will tell the noble Earl this, that it is the case that there was a question of giving facilities to certain Danish firms having branches in Norway and Sweden to continue re-exporting to those branches in the same way as they had done heretofore, but in point of fact no such arrangements have been made, although I believe there has been some discussion with regard to the possibility of them. I have said enough, I hope, to show that in regard to his first Question the noble Earl has discovered what I can only describe as a first-rate mare's nest.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Can the noble Marquess categorically tell me that no agents were contemplated to be appointed in Norway and Sweden under the Danish Agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Not only have they not been appointed, but I may tell the noble Earl that in the Articles which he has in his mind the word "agent" does not even occur. Is that enough for the noble Earl?
I pass to the noble Earl's second Question. He asks whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. I am able to tell him that no goods are passing from Denmark to Germany under the exchange provisions of the Agreement.
The third Question which the noble Earl puts is whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—or, as he now suggests, denounced. I venture

393
to tell the noble Earl that this is an improper Question, and one which he ought not to have put upon the Paper of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl has never made any secret of his profound dislike of the Danish Agreement, and I say fearlessly that I believe his object in putting down this Question is to try and discredit, and if possible wreck, that Agreement. His question contains an assumption and a suggestion. The assumption is that Sweden and Norway are in antagonism to the Agreement. That is not an assumption that His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit. His suggestion is that we should abrogate the Agreement. We are not prepared to entertain any such proposal. On the contrary, we believe that the policy upon which this Agreement and others of the same kind are based is a sound policy, and we intend if we can to develop it and to reinforce it, and we are engaged at this moment in trying to do so. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the Danish associations are to the best of our belief carrying out their obligations with perfect honesty, and it is satisfactory to note that quite lately several successful prosecutions have been instituted against firms who sought to evade these obligations, with the result that the firms in question have been mulcted in exemplary damages.
The noble Earl has asked me three Questions. I am going to put one to him. What useful purpose does he think he can serve by putting down Questions like these? Here is a policy which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government and defended by them, a policy to which they are pledged, and which is at this moment producing promising results. It is a policy intended to give advantages to the honourable trade of the neutral Powers and to place hindrances in the way of the trade of our enemy. Does tie noble Earl really expect that the result of his intervention will be to make us drop that policy? The only effect of his speeches, if they have any effect, would be to embarrass the Government of his own country. The destruction of this Agreement is desired by our enemies; it would be most discouraging to our friends; it would involve a slap in the face to a friendly Power; and I say without hesitation that I think it is much to be regretted that the noble Earl should have identified himself with an agitation which seems to me to be inspired by sentiments which are neither wise nor patriotic.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the debate on Disabled Soldiers' Pensions on Tuesday, 29th February, whether they can now state if disabled soldiers will receive their pay until such time as pension is awarded; whether the gratuity of £2 awarded under Royal Warrant No. 1117 will now be paid to the soldier instead of to the paymaster; whether back pay will be paid in future sooner than it is at present; whether arrangements will be made that no incapacitated soldier shall go to the workhouse; whether an incapacitated soldier may be empowered to apply to the Lord Lieutenant of his county in case of distress; whether men disabled by consumption after service at the Front shall invariably receive a pension; and whether the question of appeals from men may now be put upon a inure satisfactory footing.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, on February 29 Lord Peel brought certain matters before your Lordships' House concerning the pensions and allowances of soldiers discharged from the Army on account of wounds and of diseases contracted or developed on service with the Colours. During that debate I asked Lord Newton, who then represented the War Office, several definite questions. The noble Lord was not able to give me replies on that occasion, and asked me to put the questions at a later date. I have now placed them on the Paper, and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to answer them.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has correctly stated the circumstances in which he asked these Questions, and I think it will be convenient if I answer them categorically. Pension dates from the time of discharge. There should be no period of time during which a man is not in receipt of pay or pension. In fixing the date of discharge a short interval of ten days is allowed, during which the man receives pay, to enable the arrangements to be made for the payment of the pension. The £2 gratuity on discharge is credited to the man's account by his paymaster and issued as part of his balance. It is provided that a, man going on pension shall have at least 20 s. in his pocket on discharge, even though the account is in debt. All men should be settled up with on discharge, and in the

395
very great majority of cases this is done. In some cases, owing to loss of documents on active service or other causes, the exact amount due cannot be immediately ascertained and then an approximate balance is paid. No discharged man whose incapacity is owing to the war would have to go to the workhouse. This does not apply to men discharged as unfit for reasons not arising from the war. It would not be desirable to impose the responsibility suggested in the Question on the Lords Lieutenant, who have no funds for the purpose nor any staff to assist them. Assurance was given in another place that men disabled by diseases aggravated by but, not wholly due to service will receive an increased allowance, though not necessarily at the full rate. All appeals from men receive careful consideration, and the appeal is not submitted to the same medical board from whom the appeal is made. Another board of medical officers considers the appeal, and if necessary the Director-General himself goes through the papers and advises on professional points.

WAR RISKS (INSURANCE BY TRUSTEES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of trustees to insure property against war risks.
1. The power of a trustee to insure against loss or damage by fire under section eighteen of the Trustee Act, 1893, shall, during the continuance of the present war, include, and shall be deemed as from the commencement of the present war to have included, a power to insure against war risks up to the full value of the building or property insured; and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured.
In this Act the expression "War risks" means loss or damage attributable to hostile aircraft or to bombardment or to any operations of war or defence, whether executed by or against the enemy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): The first Amendment standing in my name is a short Amendment which was suggested by Lord Muir-Mackenzie on the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday. It consists in introducing the date of August 4, 1914, instead of the words "the commencement of the present war." The date of the termination of the war may be uncertain, but the whole world knows when it began, and I quite agree with Lord Muir-Mackenzie that it would be better to introduce the actual date instead of the phrase now in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ("commencement of the present war") and insert ("fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The second Amendment is to leave out the word "accordingly." Lord Wrenbury suggested yesterday that the word as it stood might be mischievous. I think it is unnecessary. As no one seems to have anything to say in favour of the word, I ask your Lordships to leave it out.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("accordingly").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 9.)

EXEMPTIONS FROM MILITARY SERVICE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to ask the Earl of Derby whether he can inform this House what steps have been taken by the Government to deal with—

1. Men who have entered exempted occupations since the 15th August 1915; and

2. Unmarried men under 31 years of age now in exempted occupations;

with a view to rendering such men available for military service.
The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships listened so recently to a statement from my noble friend on the question of married men and the position of exemp-

397
tions, I should have hesitated to trouble the House by again raising the matter, but it is probably within the knowledge of everybody that in the interval this has become perhaps the most important of all domestic subjects at this moment. We have even got to the point when a Parliamentary by-election is being contested by a well-known individual as a "married men's candidate." I ask my noble friend the Question which I have put on the Paper with the intention, not of intensifying discussion, but of allaying the anxiety which has arisen in the course of the last few weeks. Your Lordships' House is by far the fittest place in which to raise these questions, for we not only have the advantage of the presence of my noble friend Lord Derby, who is responsible for this particular scheme, but I am also glad to see the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in his place, because, after all, the last word rests with the Government in this matter. In saying that I am by no means suggesting that there is the slightest doubt in any quarter that the pledge given by my noble friend behind me (Lord Derby) will be observed, and that the confidence which the country justly reposes in him will be equally shown by the Government. But I feel that this question requires to be set at rest. I venture to say that the prolongation of this Parliament for eight months would not have been carried last December without great difficulty had, it not been that the operations which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal regards as essential to keep the ranks full were at that moment in process of being carried out under the pledge given by my noble friend, which the country felt certain would be fulfilled. That being so, we have a special interest in hearing what is now the position of exempted men, as regards the numbers of whom Lord Derby expressed great anxiety when he last addressed your Lordships.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am very glad that, my noble friend has asked this Question, because it affords me an opportunity of explaining what has taken place since his previous Question. Much has happened in the last fortnight. There is one phase which I cannot help mentioning because it affects me personally. There has been much personal abuse of myself and much accusation against me for having failed to fulfil my m promise. My Lords, I hope I am right in saving that I can afford to pass by such attacks upon my
398
honour. The result will only be to show those who have made them without any inquiry as to what one was doing, and still less without any suggestion as to what one ought to do, that they were absolutely unjustifiable attacks.
But I want to differentiate between those who make personal attacks and, those who are creating this agitation with ulterior motives and those who, quite correctly and rightly—those who have attested—seeing their position to a certain extent jeopardised, wish for an explanation of what is taking place to secure the fulfilment of the pledge that the single men should, go first. I do not propose to make any defence of myself. I propose to give an explanation of what has been done, and I feel that this explanation will be sufficient justification for my statement now that everything that I could do has been done, is being done, and, will be done to secure the fulfilment of that pledge.
There are three classes, if I may say so, of complaints from the married men. First, from the married men who attested and frankly say that they would not have attested, if they had thought they would ever be called upon to fight. It is a naïve confession, and it is based on a statement of my own—I admit perhaps a too optimistic one—in November last, when I said that I hoped it would be possible to have yet sufficient young men to bring the war to a successful conclusion without having to put the older and, married men into the field of operations. I cannot think that this could be taken as any pledge to the married man who attested that he would never be called upon.
Another type of married man's objection is best shown in the form of a resolution—one of two resolutions which apparently have been adopted, throughout the country. It is in this form—"That this mass meeting is strongly of opinion that in view of the large numbers of married men who have attested, a great injustice will be inflicted unless all other married men are compelled to attest; and strongly urges the Government to make adequate provision for the financial responsibilities of married men who have attested before requiring them to serve." I am not going into that question. I am one of those who have always, long before the war, been for all men playing their part, whether married or single, in defence of their country. I have never deviated from that for one minute, and

399
although I have done all that I possibly could do to make the voluntary system a success, I have always felt, and always shall feel, that it is the duty of every man to do something for his country. If, therefore, there had been such a general extension of the Military Service Bill as to include all men, I for one should not have opposed it. But that is very different from asking me to read into the Prime Minister's pledge something which certainly never appeared there, and that is that all married men should be brought under the scope of the Act. That is a matter of policy for the Government, just as dealing with the financial liabilities of the men is for the Government, and as far as I am concerned it is to the Government I must leave those two questions. They do not in any way come within the scope of my work of endeavouring to the best of my ability to see the pledge carried out.
Then there is the third and the last class, that of the man who is willing to serve, who is making great sacrifices to serve, and who has a legitimate reason for asking whether we are doing all we can to get the single men. Various suggestions are put forward to me as to my personal attitude. Some tell me I ought to resign; others that I ought to stay on; so that whichever I do I should, therefore, be equally blamed by the opposite party. I have no doubt whatever as to my proper duty, and that is to remain at the War Office as long as I can be of the slightest assistance to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in trying to put this particular aspect of the recruiting question in the position in which both he and I feel that it ought to be.
But I confess that my position is made a little difficult by a speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, yesterday. Lord Selborne is an old personal friend of mine. We are both striving in different ways for one object, and nothing that he says will in any way affect my personal friendship for him. It is in virtue of that personal friendship that I would ask leave to express to hint, although he is not here to-day, my deepest sympathy with him in the loss that we know he has sustained, a sympathy which I am certain will be extended to him by every member of your Lordships' House. In his speech yesterday Lord Sel borne made two statements about myself which I think will show the difficulty of my position. If I thought that it really represented the considered view of the Government, there
400
could be no alternative but to ask them to I relieve me of any responsibility and to I accept the whole of it themselves. Lord Selborne said—
"Directly somebody like Lord Derby, who did not speak with authority, expressed their opinion, the farmers got into a panic."
All I hope is that I have the authority, not only of Lord Selborne but of the whole of the Government, in saying that it is the duty of the Government to see this pledge fulfilled to the fullest extent.
I am sorry that I shall have to be somewhat lengthy, for which I hope your Lordships will forgive me, in laying before the House and the country what has been done with regard to this particular question of single men first. In the first place, I think that very few of those who are making the present accusation of breach of faith can have really read the pledge that was made. It is assumed by them that the pledge given by the Prime Minister was to the effect that all single men should go before the married men were taken, that there were to be no exemptions, and apparently no appeals. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to read that part of the pledge which bears particularly on this question. To the letter which I wrote to him the Prime Minister sent an answer, and said that my views correctly expressed the intentions of the Government. In it there was this paragraph—
"I think it should be taken to mean that the vast majority of young men not engaged in munition works or works necessary for the country should offer themselves for service, and that men indispensable for civil employment and men who have personal reasons which are considered satisfactory by the Local Tribunals for relegation to a later class should have their claims examined for such relegation in the way which has been already laid down."
In that pledge it was clearly shown that it was absolutely imperative that there should be some exceptions to the rule that all single men should go first. The letter of that pledge was, to my mind, carried out by the Military Service Bill. It is with regard to its operation that we have to take further steps in order to carry out the pledge as we would all wish it carried out. What we ought to have in mind, therefore, is to get from the various trades all those men who have gone into those trades for the sole purpose of endeavouring to avoid military service, and further, even of those who may be actually and legitimately in those trades, all such men as we can

401
properly ask the industries to supply us with.
When making my original Report I had a fairly clear idea of the number of starred men, but any question as to the number of men in reserved occupations was a matter of guess-work. I frankly admit that I entirely underestimated the number of men who were able within the last few months of last year and the first two or three weeks of this year to secure for themselves berths in reserved occupations. As I warned your Lordships, I view with great anxiety these lists of reserved occupations. I warned your Lordships; I could not do more, as I had nothing definite to go upon. I would like to ask your Lordships to consider what these reserved occupation lists were and how they were framed. They were framed by an inter-Departmental Committee which existed for the purpose of being the mouthpiece of the industries of this country as to what trades and what men in those trades were indispensable for the keeping up of the industries of the country. Anybody is indeed foolish if he disregards any such lists entirely and attempts to put aside all restrictions on recruiting which may be necessary to secure the minimum number of men necessary for the upkeep of those industries. To upset any such arrangements as were made, as had to be made, under the reserved occupation lists was not possible until one was perfectly certain of one's ground, and certain also that the reserved occupations were the real cause of our not getting the number of men that we thought we ought to get. I am not usually accused of not being impetuous enough, and in this particular instance I admit that I acted with extreme caution. That was essential. You may destroy the industries of this country by one false move, and I, for one, was not the person who would like to take such a step. I was also not sure whether the exemptions were due to laxity on the part of the Tribunals.
But as time went on it was perfectly evident that the whole cause of the shortage was the reserved occupation lists. I therefore felt it my duty, with Lord Kitchener's consent, to appeal to the Reserved Occupations Committee to do all that they possibly could to take out of the list certain industries and to reduce the number of men who were starred and exempted in other industries. The result of that appeal was a proposal by the Committee to delete certain
402
individual exemptions—that is to say, the particular occupation of a man in a trade was to be exempted—if the Board of Agriculture would also take some action with regard to men whom they exempted. I am not going to deal with that matter now. I dealt with it when I last spoke. However, the result of this was nil. The Board of Agriculture did not see their way to agree to the Board of Trade proposal, and the whole scheme fell to the ground.
It was evident then that far more drastic action had to be taker than was possible for any individual in the War Office or an inter-Departmental Committee such as the Reserved Occupations Committee. I therefore made a direct appeal to the Government, on the last occasion that I bad the honour of addressing your Lordships, to take certain action. I asked them to lay down these two broad rules:—(1) That no single man who had not attained the age of 31 should be, allowed to plead for exemption on the ground that he was starred, badged, or in a reserved occupation. (2) That all other single men and all married men should not be considered as starred or in a reserved occupation unless they had held their present post or one of a similar character with another firm previous to August 15. I do not for one minute say that this is the whole of the demand that we may have to make on His Majesty's Government. But it was a step in the right direction, a step which I believe could be taken and one which would result in giving us many single men and at the same time allow the industries from which those men were taken—slowly, perhaps, but at all events without undue disturbance—to adapt themselves to the new conditions.
It is now for me to state what steps the Government took to meet my two proposals, and I think I cannot do better than read a letter from Mr. Walter Long which gives fairly fully what has been done in the direction I suggested. Mr. Walter Long writes—
"The position is as follows. The Prime Minister desired me to summon a Conference of all the Government Departments in order to ascertain if more men could be released from the reserved occupations. The conference was attended, as you will remember, by the Secretary of State for War, the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, yourself, and other representatives of Government Departments. The President of the Board of Agriculture was unfortunately unable to be there, but he sent his representative. We found that the

403
Committee already sitting at the Board of Trade, and charged with the duty of examining into certain trades, was not sufficiently representative to cover all the ground. We therefore added further representatives, and authorised the Committee to proceed at once to make drastic alterations in the reserved lists and report to the Conference from time to time, any head of a Department having the right, if he sees fit, to appeal to the Conference, whose decision is to be final. The Conference is a Committee of the Cabinet. The Board of Trade Committee is sitting regularly and will, I am confident, deal promptly and effectively with the situation, and I have no doubt this will result in giving us a great many more men."
That was satisfactory, and it is still more satisfactory to gather—
LORD WIMBORNE: What is the date of that?
THE EARL OF DERBY: It was written this afternoon. I do not quite understand the point of my noble friend.
LORD WIMBORNE: I only wanted to know on what day the letter was written.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The letter was written to-day. The Committee sat the day after I spoke. That, I think, was very satisfactory. I was mentioning that it was also satisfactory that the Board of Agriculture was represented there, and I understand from my right, hon. friend Mr. Walter Long that agriculture is just as much subject to revision at the hands of this Committee as is any other trade or industry in this country. The result, on the whole, is satisfactory as showing a really earnest endeavour on the part of the Cabinet Committee to meet the situation. It will want to do more, but I have no fear that this Committee means to go further, and means to do all that it possibly can to weed out what I will call superfluous single men from all works throughout the length and breadth of the land.
The Reserved Occupations Committee issued in the Press yesterday a statement to this effect—
"The Reserved Occupations Committee has already reviewed the exemptions for which it was originally responsible, and the following recommendations have been considered and approved."
I hope your Lordships will note the next statement they make, because it is an ample justification for everything that I have said to the effect that men were wrongly starred and exempted and were
404
getting shielded falsely from military service—
"As evidence has accumulated to show that men have been entering certified occupations in order to avoid military service, it has been decided that men in these occupations will be exempted from military service only if they can show that they were similarly occupied at the date when the National Register was made—August 15, 1915."
Your Lordships will see that one of my points is granted, as I take it, practically in its entirety. The Committee go further and say—
"With the same object of preventing abuse of necessary reservations, it has been decided as far as possible to limit exemption of those claiming to hold positions implying considerable experience and responsibility, such as departmental managers, foremen, overlookers, and the like, to married men aged 30 or over."
That, again, is a distinct advance. This Reserved Occupations Committee deals only with a certain portion of the industries of the country.
There are large bodies of men employed in other industries which come under other Departments. The mining industry, one of the largest in the country, is under the Home Office. The mining industry—I can speak only for my own part of the world, Lancashire—has given a splendid contribution to the Army. I do not wish for one minute to urge anything further on what I will call the legitimate miners in the way of contributing to military service. But I feel—and I hope it will be proved that I am right—that even in the mines there are a great many men who are not really miners, but who have gone into them in order to avoid military service. I hope these men will be given up to the Army. The Home Office have agreed that any men challenged by the military authorities who cannot be shown by the employer in the Colliery Courts—they are separate Courts front the ordinary Courts—to be indispensable shall cease to be exempted. That is a step in the right direction. At the same time I hope to get a little more from the Home Office when they have more fully considered the question.
Now I come to a branch of industry which is new in this country, at least on the scale on which it now exists, and that is the making of munitions. There is not the slightest doubt that at the present moment there are more men hiding from military service in munition works than in any other

405
industry. But I ask the married men who are affected by the present position to agree with me that, for the moment, at all events, munition workers stand on a somewhat different footing. To disorganise munition work at the present moment, to take away suddenly and by a stroke of the pen all the single men from such works might be doing justice to the married men at home, but it might be dealing death to the married men who are fighting at the Front. We cannot disturb this great industry; we cannot stop the flow of ammunition without its having perhaps a terrible effect on those who for many mouths have been our battles. But at the same time, while I feel that in t his respect one has to work rathee differently from what one would do in other industries, there is nobody who recognises more keenly what I have said as to the desirability of abstracting as many single men as possible from these works than the Minister of Munitions himself. The matter is being gone into most thoroughly, and I can say with absolute confidence that from the Minister of Munitions I shall receive every assistance that he can possibly afford me.
I have a statement here with regard to munitions which I have been authorised to make to your Lordships. The list of occupations starred as important for the supply of munitions necessarily stands on a rather different footing from the other lists. The Minister of Munitions and the First Lord of the Admiralty are jointly considering its revision. They have to take into grave account their several responsibilities for the efficiency of the Fleet and the safety of the Army in the trenches, but they are examining with great care the list of occupations starred for Admiralty and munition work. They are not in a position to state precisely the form which that revision will take, but they hope that in the very near future they will have removed exemption both from the classes of men who have accidentally been shielded by the lists and from men whose work, in the light of recent, experience, no longer justifies the retention upon it of men fit for active service in the trenches. As regards badged men, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions have all issued badges to men engaged on war work, but the Minister of Munitions now acts in some measure as trustee for the three Departments in this respect. I am glad to say that, the three Departments are joining heartily in an
406
active supervision of badges. Inspectors have been instructed to scrutinise most carefully the work at present being done by badged men who would, in ordinary times, be classed as unskilled, and to report all cases in which it appears to them that the work could be equally well done by women. To take one example among many, active steps are being taken to replace with women men who are at present engaged on the lighter forms of shell work. Already women are being drafted into munition works at the rate of 15,000 a month, and there is good reason to hope, in view of the steps which the Ministry of Munitions are taking in this respect, that the number will be very greatly increased during the next two months. This has been time effect of the sitting of time Cabinet Committee a fortnight ago, and I think it justifies me in saying to your Lordships that they are evidently taking the matter so seriously and going into it so closely that we shall secure the single men that we require to extract front these works.
I desire to urge upon the Government the absolute necessity of bringing the Registration Act up to date. Every single man of military age should be challenged to produce his registration card, and if he cannot at the same time show an exemption form he should be considered as belonging to the Army. There is no doubt that with the formation of this great Army there has come in this country a great revolution, and the revolution has not vet taken the full effect that I hope it will take before very long. Up to the present in the competition between industry and naval and military service the presumption has been that a man belongs to industry and that the onus of proof that he is not required in industrial work falls upon naval or military shoulders. Personally I think that this ought to be reversed. As regards all single men, at all events, the presumption ought to be that they belong to the Army, and the onus of proof that they are more useful, from the national point of view, in industrial work should fall upon the industries in which they are engaged. I wish I could think of any other way of getting men whom the country is determined we should get for service in the ranks. I have done, as I hope I have shown your Lordships, all that I possibly can do. I believe that the Government are doing all that they possibly can to second the efforts of the War Office. But it takes time.

407
There are two ways, and two ways only, in which one can safely say that the pledge has been absolutely kept—not in the letter, as I firmly believe it has been, but in the spirit. The first way would be absolutely to disregard the industries of this country and to take from those industries, regardless of any appeal, all the single men and put them into the ranks. That would be disastrous to this country, and is most certainly not a proposition I would ever put forward. There is the second—that the calling up of the married groups should be postponed until such tame as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal could say that he had got all the single men that he fairly thought he could take. There is not the slightest doubt that this would be the easiest way, but it must take time. Your Act of Parliament passed only a few weeks ago under which all these men can claim the same privileges gives even greater time to some than we should otherwise have given under a voluntary system. Had this been done a year ago it might have been possible to wait. Unfortunately, the Germans will not wait while we are putting our house in order. It is not for me to speak as to the necessity for men. I understand that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal is going to follow me. It is his voice, the voice of real authority, that will be able to tell the country what the position is. But I venture to express the hope that any appeal I may make to the married men, with whom I feel deeply, for whom I assure your Lordships I am doing everything I possibly can, will not fall on deaf ears, and that they by coming forward will prevent it being said that in our preparations for the reinforcement of our men in the field we were too late.
I thank the House for the kindness with which you have listened to, I am afraid, a somewhat lengthy explanation. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that everything that can be done is being done. In conclusion, let me say to your Lordships and to those outside who are interested in this question that if there is any other way in which we can facilitate and expedite the work we have in hand we shall be only too glad.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Derby, who has given me so much valuable assistance in the Recruiting Department of the War Office and has worked so whole
408
heartedly for the good of the Army, has been able to explain in detail to your Lordships what has been going on in his Department. Your Lordships will remember that last month I sounded a note of warning as to whether we should obtain the number of men from the groups and classes that we require for the Army, and I then asked all employers of labour to assist us by releasing young men from their employment. Since then we have been following the output from the group and class system, and I regret to say that my fears have been realised during the last month. The original estimate of our requirements for April necessitated the calling up of some of the younger married attested groups, and the deficiencies of March will require the calling up of more groups earlier than we had hoped would have been necessary.
The production and maintenance of an Army of the magnitude we now possess has naturally revolutionised the whole industrial conditions in the country, and the Tribunals have found it necessary to grant temporary exemptions to prevent the disorganisation of industry so as to give time to employers to provide substitutes either from men incapable of military service or from women. These time exemptions have naturally delayed our obtaining many men whom we shall eventually get. But, as your Lordships will agree, this does not help us in providing for our immediate needs. In addition to this delay in obtaining men there are unfortunately many men of those who have voluntarily attested, as well as of those who come under the Military Service Act, who are for the present evading military service in the various manners described by my noble friend. My noble friend has suggested various means by which the services of these men may be obtained, and the country may rest assured that I shall support him in his efforts, and that I endorse his statement that he has done and is doing all that is possible to obtain these men, whom I have not the slightest doubt we shall eventually bring in. But this will require time.
Meanwhile we need men whom we can train to meet the calculated requirements of the war. Married men who have attested should realise that, even if we had obtained all the single men that it was anticipated we should secure from the group system and the Military Service Act,

409
we should still require a large number of the married men within the next few weeks. Men have to be trained. The mere fact that a man comes up on a certain date does not mean that he is at once available. It requires many weeks to make him efficient to take the field. I would therefore earnestly appeal to the married men who have attested to place their patriotism and the national cause before any personal considerations and to come forward without hesitation and join the ranks. The position is an anxious one owing to the disappointing numbers joining for general service. As I have said, we are taking every step we possibly can to secure the single men, and we shall not rest in our endeavours until we have secured all those single men who cannot rightly be said to be indispensable in the national interest in their employment.

THE AIR SERVICE.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask the Earl of Derby, as representing the Inter-Departmental Committee on Air Service, what the functions of that Committee are, and whether he can give any information as to the work it has done.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question to-day because the noble Earl, not being in the House the other night when I made a speech on this question, was not able then to inform the House and the country what was being done by the Committee over which he presides. I am sure we shall be interested to hear what he has to say on this subject, and I trust that he will be able—as I am sure he will—to reassure us as to the work that is being done by the Committee, and also hold out hopes that its scope, powers, and responsibilities may be enlarged.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, again I have to trouble your Lordships with a somewhat lengthy answer. I thank the noble Lord for giving me in his Question my proper designation as representing an inter-Departmental Committee. I very much regret my absence on the occasion of the debate last week. It was not due to discourtesy to the noble Lord, who I think knew the reason of my absence. I am also sorry that I gave in what I said on a former occasion any impression that I minimised the importance of the Committee of which I have the honour
410
of being chairman. I did not wish to minimise it, but only to prevent the public from magnifying it. So many statements had been made with regard to one's position and one's powers that I thought it was very desirable to put at all events briefly my position. I am able to do it at greater length at the present moment. I am glad to think that the noble Lord will know the functions of the Committee as well as, or perhaps even better than, I do myself, because he has consented at the request of the Prime Minister to come on the Committee. I am sure nothing could give greater confidence to the country at large that the Committee will endeavour to do good work for the Air Service than the appointment of Lord Montagu as one of its members.
This Committee is quite rightly called an inter-Departmental Committee. The chief ends to be attained by the Committee can practically be summed up in one paragraph—namely, to ensure that the manufacture, supply, and distribution of material required by aircraft are in accordance with the policy of aerial warfare laid down by His Majesty's Government; to avoid clashing or overlapping demands upon the manufacturing resources available, while securing the full and harmonious use of the same; and to eliminate correspondence between the Departments upon points which affect more than one. This Committee, as I have pointed out, has nothing to do with the defence of this kingdom against aircraft. That is quite rightly left in the hands of Lord French. Air policy is not framed by the Committee, but may, of course, be affected to a certain extent when we go into the question of production of aircraft by the information we are able to give to the War Committee. The air policy has been laid down by His Majesty's Government. Each branch of the Service has its own duty to perform, and the duty of the Committee is to see as far as it can that all that each branch requires to carry out the policy laid down is placed at its disposal.
It is to prevent overlapping, to provide closer intercommunication between the two Departments, that this Committee has been formed; and I am glad to say that even in the short time we have been in existence we have been able materially to help the joint work of the two branches of the Air Service. For instance—I must

411
not give figures—there was an urgent need from one branch for a certain kind of aircraft. By discussing the matter that particular kind was put at the disposal of that branch and was of great value to it, while in return the branch was able to release other machines which were more useful to the naval branch. I hope we shall increase the output. We have at the present moment no executive work; the executive work is carried out by the two branches of the Air Service. But I feel that this Committee is only the beginning of what may be a very large departure in this kingdom. I hope that we shall be able to bring the two branches so closely together that there can be no question of competition between the two, and I am strongly of opinion that we shall be able to justify the confidence that has been placed in us by His Majesty's Government.
It is impossible to say what is in the future. All I can say is that I personally should not have the least hesitation in asking the Prime Minister to relieve me of my post of chairman if I felt, that the work was beyond my scope or necessitated my abandoning my work at the War Office. And I should do that all the more readily since I know that I am going to have as a colleague my noble friend Lord Montagu, whose experience in matters connected with the air will now, I hope, be given that full scope which ought to be, and which can be, of such benefit to the nation at large.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his full answer to my Question. At the request of the Prime Minister I have become a member of the Committee. I feel it to be my duty to help in every way I can at this crisis, and any service that I can give to this Committee will be gladly and freely given. I trust that what the noble Earl has said as to the extension of the functions of the Committee will take place before long, because I feel, with him—and I said so last Thursday—that it, should be the nucleus of something much larger which should be able to do more than the present Committee is doing. No doubt His Majesty's Government in course of time will reconsider this question very carefully and see whether they cannot make this a Committee of extended usefulness.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, in venturing to address Your Lordships' House this evening I feel that I can claim that indulgence which your Lordships are always generous to afford to one who addresses you for the first time. My reason for venturing to intervene in this debate is this. Through a great number of years I was in complete sympathy in almost all respects with the Party to which I belonged in another place, but there was one point upon which I was at variance with them—namely, the position which was taken up with reference to military service; and as this Committee has now been formed with reference to the Air Service perhaps I may state that, in co-operation with the noble Earl opposite, who has taken such an interest in the question of the universal liability of the citizens of this country to military service, I have always held the view that it was immaterial what amount of training the man was subjected to, or whether this general liability to military service was exercised through local and municipal councils or through the War Office, but that it was imperatively necessary that the Government of this country should have the power of demanding the service of every citizen in time of need. However, prœterita revocare non possumus. But I do say that the moment has now arisen when in the interests of the country some further steps should be taken to give the Government complete power over the fighting manhood of the nation. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Earl for what he has done so self-sacrificingly in the interests of filling up the gaps in the ranks, and I believe the people of the country are deeply grateful to him also. There was a time when we were led to believe that this country was absolutely safe as long as we had the Navy. I have no desire to under-rate what has been done by the Navy—
THE EARL OF DERBY: May I interrupt the noble Lord, who was a personal friend of mine in the old days in the House of Commons The rules of order in this House are rather different from what they are in another place, but I am afraid the noble Lord is speaking on a question beyond which we have passed. We are now on the Air Service.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I thoroughly understand, and I purpose dealing with the Air Service. I desire to point out that the noble Earl's great difficulty is

413
this, that at the present moment there are large numbers of single men, many of whom are not suited for the Air Service, who undoubtedly joined it for the purpose of sheltering themselves behind that Service and thereby avoiding the military service which they ought to have joined. What I was about to point out was that the necessity for developing the Air Service has become greater than ever owing to the fact that formerly we could have relied on our Navy to a large extent to defend us. We have had great disasters in this country—large numbers of raids; and we have had men, women, and children killed
414
and grievously injured without the Navy being in a position to do much to assist us. Now if the Government of the day would take to themselves the power of drawing upon the entire manhood of the country, married and unmarried, and if the Air Service were able to select from the best and most skilful mechanics throughout the country the men they require both for construction and for flying, we would be in a far better position than we are at the present moment.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.