Sitting of 30 May 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Aberdare and Aberaman Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Irvine's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      OFFICIAL INQUIRY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the American Ambassador and the representatives here of other neutral countries to arrange for the attendance of a special representative of each of their respective countries at the full and searching inquiry promised into the recent incidents in Dublin?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the shooting of untried prisoners in Portobello Barracks; and whether, in view of the fact that the officer responsible for the shooting of Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre remained in authority in Portobello Barracks up to 6th May, and that the military authorities in Dublin were not aware of the conduct of this officer for nine days after the shooting of these untried prisoners, he will order an impartial public inquiry into all that took place in the Portobello Barracks during the period following the deaths of Skeffington and his companions while the officer responsible was retained in a position of authority?
      Mr. DEVLINasked what will be the constitution of the tribunal which will conduct the public inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths of Messrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre, and what will be the method of procedure?
      The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I am aware, the three persons named were the only prisoners shot in Portobello Barracks. The officer who is alleged to be responsible is about to be tried by court-martial, and the proceedings will be public. The matter is therefore sub judice, and until the trial is over I cannot determine the precise scope or method of the inquiry which I promised.
      Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider the question of ordering a full public inquiry into the circumstances under which fourteen men who did not take any part in the recent revolt in Dublin were shot during the occupation by the military of houses in North King Street; and, if so, whether the relatives of such deceased persons will be entitled to be professionally represented?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have just received the report of the Court of Inquiry which has been held into what took place in North King Street, and a dispatch from Sir John Maxwell dealing with this and other incidents of the rising. Until we have had an opportunity of considering these documents it is impossible to say whether any further inquiry is needed.
      Mr. DILLON: Will these documents be made public?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.

      EXECUTION OF JAMES CONNOLLY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state the number and nature of the wounds which James Connolly when he surrendered was found to have sustained; whether the military authorities first decided that he should not be tried until his wounds were healed; whether on the surgeon reporting that Mr. Connolly was dying of his wounds they tried him; whether, being too ill to walk to or stand for his execution, he had to be carried on a stretcher to the place of execution, propped up in a chair there, and shot in that condition; and if he will give the date and place of any precedent for the summary execution of a military prisoner dying of his wounds?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The medical authorities were consulted before the trial of James Connolly took place, and they certified that he was in a fit state to undergo his trial. He was wounded just above the instep, and although he was unable to walk there was no reason why in the interests of humanity the execution should have been delayed. The House will thus see that the hon. Member's question is characterised by the inaccuracy and exaggeration to which the House is becoming accustomed.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two clauses of the question—was this man certified to be dying of his wounds when put on his trial, and what is the precedent for the summary execution of a dying man?
      Mr. TENNANT: I have already said that the medical authorities certified he was in a fit state to undergo his trial, therefore the other question does not arise.

      PRISON TREATMENT OF REBELS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the late Mr. Sean MacDermott while in prison, including the night between sentence and execution, was confined in a cell without bed or stretcher of any kind, with no clothing but what he wore on his body, except two extremely small light blankets; whether he had to wrap his boots in one of these to form a pillow; why the priest he specially desired to attend him was not
      2536
      sent for; and whether in all these particulars this was the treatment of all those executed?
      Mr. TENNANT: This man received the same treatment as all other prisoners. He asked for more blankets, and these were supplied to him. He asked to see one of the Capuchin Friars, but, on being visited by Father McCarthy, he expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and if he had not done so the Friar in question would have been summoned at once, as has been done in all cases where a special priest has been named. This is another instance of the hon. Member's inaccuracy.
      Mr. GINNELL: Was the prisoner treated as described in the question, or was he not? I hold in my hand a letter from a gentleman who visited this prisoner on the night in question, and I am willing to put it into the hands of any independent Member.
      Mr. TENNANTThe statement as to the blanket is the only one which seems to be correct.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is it a fact he had no pillow and wrapped his boots up in one of the blankets to make a pillow. I am willing to put this letter into your hands, Mr. Speaker—or into the hands of any independent Member. If you will allow me—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask a question.
      Mr. GINNELL: If you will allow me, as a matter of personal explanation, in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: If a Minister, after answering a question, proceeds to comment on the question, is not the Member putting it a right of reply?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It depends on whether the hon. Member brought the comment on himself by reason of the nature of his question.
      Mr. GINNELL: The nature of the question was the truth of it.
      Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister if he will lay upon the Table of the House of Commons the Reports of the medical officers regarding the sanitary accommodation provided for, and treatment of, prisoners awaiting trial in the various prisons and hospitals under the military authorities in Dublin?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary answered this yesterday. It is not desirable to produce these reports, but the sanitary accommodation and treatment of these prisoners have been most carefully considered. I myself visited one of the most important places of detention and I asked for complaints and invited complaints, but received none. If my hon. Friend has got any cases to bring to my notice I shall inquire into them.
      Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister, in view of his statement that the Irish political prisoners are allowed the ordinary facilities extended to prisoners of war, he will give instructions that all political prisoners incarcerated in connection with the late rebellion in Ireland shall be treated on the same terms as the German prisoners of war are treated in England?
      The PRIME MINISTER: This was answered yesterday.
      Mr. GINNELL(at the end of Questions): In the course of questions your attention, Mr. Speaker, was called to the fact that while you ruled out criticisms of answers, you allowed Ministers to criticise the questions on the Paper, and you appeared to justify that ruling by saying that it was due to the nature of the question on the Paper. The question referred to was No. 10. I hold in my hand a short letter from a gentleman who was in the prison and in the cell on the night preceding the execution. It is only one of the documents of evidence on which this question is based, and no question has been put on the Paper by me without evidence as good, sometimes even better. This gentleman writes:
      "There was no bed, or stretcher of any kind in the cell. There was no clothing, except what Mr. MacDermott wore on his body, and a light raincoat and two extremely small blankets, one of which Mr. MacDermott was obliged to use by rolling it about his boots to form a pillow. Mr. MacDermott specially asked to have Father Augustine, of Church Street, with him while being shot. Father Augustine declares he never got the message."
      So much of the letter applies to the question on the Paper, and it fully justifies the putting of it. It shows that the Minister was not justified in criticising it, and that you were not correct in sustaining him in that. The character of the question on the Paper has no other defect than this, absolute truth, and that it shows to
      2538
      all concerned who are, indeed, the Huns. I invite you and the Minister to justify yourselves.

      ARRESTS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say where Messrs. James N. Nolan, James MacLoughlin, Thomas MacLoughlin, Bernard Maguire, John Daly, Thomas Gilgun, and Bryan Gilgun, arrested by the military in North Leitrim, now are; no charge having been made against them, and nothing illegal found in their possession, for what supposed offence are they prisoners; and whether they will be immediately released or given an opportunity of meeting in a Civil Court any charge that can be made against them?
      Mr. TENNANT: Lists are published periodically in newspapers giving places of detention of all prisoners. All such cases are now being investigated as rapidly as possible.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether two citizens, both Protestant Unionists belonging to the landowning class, namely, Octavius Hardy and Joseph Hardy, were arrested at their residence at Rathmines during the recent disturbances in Dublin, and that some old fowling - pieces which were taken from their house were found to be utterly useless and returned in a few days, and notwithstanding this the gentlemen themselves were detained in custody for a fortnight; whether for three days and three nights of that period they were confined in a room at Richmond Barracks with about forty other prisoners, most of whom had been taken from the slums of Dublin, and that during the period mentioned they were left unprovided with sleeping accommodation or bedding or bedclothing of any description, and were obliged to sleep without any covering, in company with the other prisoners, on the floor of the room aforesaid; whether the Messrs. Hardy were then marched through the streets of Dublin in custody and placed at night on board a cattle-boat, with some 300 other prisoners, for conveyance to England; that they were then placed in solitary confinement for about ten days in Wakefield Gaol, from which they were ultimately released in a bad state of health, without reparation or apology for the treatment to which they have been subjected;

      2539
      whether, during the time of their incarceration, testimony as to their character, social position, and non-complicity in the rebellion had been tendered to the authorities both in London and Dublin and substantial security for their appearance whenever called upon was offered by relatives, who were denied all access to them or knowledge of their whereabouts; and whether, as these offers have been refused consideration and Messrs. Hardy were held in custody until after a question as to their fate had been asked in Parliament, he will say what compensation it is proposed to offer them for the damage which they have suffered?
      Mr. TENNANT: I answered a question regarding these two men on 18th May, by stating that inquiry was being made, and I received, a day or two ago, information that both men were released when it was discovered that they had been arrested by mistake. In the meantime my right hon. Friend's question has swollen to double its previous dimensions, and it now includes a large number of new points. I fear, therefore, I must plead for time to make further inquiries. I would seriously ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers that any good purpose is served now that the men have been released, which, I think, is the main thing he desired?
      Mr. LOUGH: On the contrary, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take steps, especially in cases like this, where evidence of the innocence of these gentlemen was offered, both in England and in Ireland, to clear the gaols of these innocent people who had been so harshly treated?
      Mr. TENNANT: That is quite a different question.
      Mr. LOUGH: It is in the question.
      Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend is surely aware, from all the answers which have been given by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and myself, that the most urgent steps are being taken—
      Mr. LOUGHindicated dissent.
      Mr. TENNANT: It is no good my right hon. Friend shaking his head. If he would like to know, I will give him the figures. Up to now 339 have been released.
      Mr. LOUGH: Out of how many?
      Mr. TENNANT: About 2,000, I believe. I have received a statement to-day to say that another thirteen have been released.
      Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Is it not now confessed that these mistakes—many of them are very gross mistakes—are numbered by hundreds?
      Mr. TENNANT: Of course, if we were aware of mistakes, the men would be released at once. They have been released in all cases where a mistake has been discovered. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every step is being taken to try and discover such cases.
      Mr. KING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated that 150 cases a day were being dealt with, and how then does it arise that only 339 have been set free?
      Mr. TENNANT: The rest have been detained.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of cases of Irish prisoners detained in this country whose cases have not been inquired into?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that that is a necessary concomitant of the situation.

      CENSORSHIP OF NEWS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary, seeing how obediently all Irish daily newspapers have since the outbreak of the insurrection suppressed statements the publication of which might be inconvenient to the rulers of Ireland, will he say what was the nature of the restriction imposed upon English newspapers during the same time on the same subject; and, if there was any doubt of the accuracy of the statement in London newspapers of 8th May that fifty bodies of insurgents had been buried without identification or inquiry as to the cause or manner of death, what action did the Censor take with reference to that fact either before or after its announcement.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister what action has been taken to ascertain the cause and manner of death and the persons responsible, if any, for the deaths of the fifty persons whose bodies were announced to have been buried unidentified and without inquiry; and, seeing that all those deaths occurred within the walls of a military barrack, will he explain the delay of the military in accounting for them?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The control of publications in Ireland while martial law prevails rests with the military authorities, not with the Press Bureau. In Great Britain Press messages from Ireland during the first two days of the rebellion were held up by the Bureau, and were afterwards passed freely except where there were military objections. The particular statement referred to by the hon. Member was passed, with the intimation that the Bureau could take no responsibility for its accuracy. It is now known that there was no truth in the statement. Question 46 therefore does not arise.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whose authority he has for the statement that there is no truth in the statement made in these papers?
      Mr. SAMUEL: General Maxwell.
      Mr. GINNELL: The very person accused!
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the fact that the interview with the German Chancellor which appeared in the "New York World" has not been published in full in this country is due to any action for which he is responsible; and (2) whether the fact that the speech recently delivered by President Wilson at Charlotte, in which he stated that the time had come for the Government of the United States to come forward in the cause of peace, has only had a few lines devoted to it in the British Press is due to any action for which he is responsible?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to both is in the negative. There has been no prohibition by the Press Bureau, and newspapers were free to publish in full the interview and speech to which the hon. Member refers.

      DESTRUCTION OF FURNITURE (COMPENSATION).
      Mr. DEVLINasked if the Government will consider the question of compensating those working-class families whose furniture has been destroyed as a result of military action during the recent street fighting in North King Street and other areas in Dublin?
      The PRIME MINISTER: This question was answered yesterday by the Home Secretary. The matter is under consideration.
      Sir J. D. REES: Would the Prime Minister consider rather the compensation of the families of the Sherwood Foresters whose breadwinners lost their lives in this rebellion?

      POSSESSION OF ARMS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether there are any but political reasons for the present discrimination between different sections of the Irish people alleged to be connected with the illegal acquisition and possession of arms and military enterprise; and whether anything will be done to inspire confidence in the impartiality of the law by dealing in precisely the same manner, irrespective of politics, with all involved in illegalities of this nature in Ireland within the last three years?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the general statement I made last Thursday, to which I can at present add nothing.

      TREATMENT OF DETAINED PERSONS.
      Captain S. L. GWYNN(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government on the question of Irish suspects to establish, so far as possible, uniform treatment in the various places of detention; and, if so, whether he will cause the Governor of Galway Prison to be instructed that such persons may be visited by their friends?
      Mr. TENNANT: I will convey the request of my hon. Friend to the General Officer Commanding in Ireland, and I hope he may be able to give the necessary instruction to carry out the desire of my hon. Friend.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Mr. DILLON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement that on Saturday a Proclamation was issued by the Lords Justices of Ireland, extending the application of martial-law to the whole of Ireland for an indefinite period; whether he has approved of this Proclamation, and, if so, on what grounds he justifies the application of martial-law long after all disturbance has come to an end, for an indefinite period, to the whole extent of Ireland, nine-tenths of which remained perfectly peaceful throughout the recent insurrection; and whether he considers the issue of such a Proclamation calculated to

      2543
      promote an atmosphere favourable to the settlement of the Irish difficulty by general government, will and assent?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I said in my statement, last Thursday, that martial-law is being continued for the time as a precautionary measure, and in the hope that its disappearance will be speedy and complete. In the meantime it will not be resorted to except in cases of urgent necessity, and with the minimum of inconvenience to law-abiding persons.

  BRITISH CIVILIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the United States Ambassador in this country to furnish, if possible, through the good offices of the United States Ambassador at Berlin, a weekly statement of the diet supplied to our civilian prisoners interned in Germany at the Ruhleben Camp and elsewhere?
  Sir E. GREY: Dr. Taylor, of the United States Embassy at Berlin, has recently drawn up an elaborate report on the feeding of the British civilians interned at Ruhleben. This report will be laid before Parliament in a few days. There are a small number of civilians at Hameln, Schloss Celle and Havelberg as to whose weekly diet inquiries have been made.

  MAGNESIE CAMP, SMYRNA.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the United States Ambassador in this country to furnish, if possible, through the good offices of the United States Consul-General at Constantinople, a statement of the general conditions and the diet supplied to the captains, officers, and seamen comprising the crews of the steamers "City of Khios" and "Assiout" who are interned at the Magnesie Camp, near Smyrna, Turkey?
  Sir E. GREY: The last report on the condition of the crews of these vessels was received in February. It indicates that there was a lack of proper exercise, only a few men being allowed out each day to buy provisions. The food supplied was
  2544
  being diminished in quantity and was inferior in quality. For seven weeks only one leg of goat was supplied in the way of meat. The usual rations were horse beans, olive oil and flour, and sometimes olives. Very little oil for lighting or charcoal for heating in the cold weather had been supplied. On the receipt of this information a protest was addressed to the Porte on the subject of the inadequacy of the rations supplied, and the United States Consul-General at Smyrna was requested to increase the allowance to the prisoners from 8d. to 1s. a day for each man. Inquiries are being made as to the present condition of the crews.
  Mr BUTCHER: Has any answer been received to the protest we sent?
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I am aware we have received no reply as yet.

  RUSSIA AND CONSTANTINOPLE.
  Mr OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an interview in England with Professor Paul Miliukoff, leader of the Constitutional Democrats in the Russian Duma, in which he stated our supreme aim in this War is to get possession of Constantinople, which must belong to Russia entirely and without reserve; and can he say whether this statement represents the views of the Russian Government as regards its supreme aim in the War?
  Sir E. GREY: Professor Miliukoff is a distiguished member of the Duma, but it is not necessary or desirable to make official comments on unofficial statements.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did Professor Miliukoff correctly interpret the views of the Russian Government; does it follow under the pact of London that this country cannot consider terms of peace until Russia has secured Constantinople?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member is asking for a statement which I do not think it desirable to make.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if

  2545
  any diplomatic visit to the United States on behalf of the British Government has been determined upon; and, if so, is he in a position to make an announcement upon it?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Sir C. Spring Rice, His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, possesses the full confidence of His Majesty's Government.

  FODDER EXPORTS TO DENMARK.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have issued and are issuing licences for the export of fodder to Denmark?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN(representing the War Trade Department): Licences for the export to Denmark of fodder in the form of certain kinds of feeding-stuffs for which there is little demand in this country have been issued from time to time.
  Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what use is made of this fodder? Is it for feeding cattle for the German markets?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No doubt it is used for feeding Danish cattle.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    UNATTESTED MARRIED MEN.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many unattested married men were secured by direct enlistment during the four weeks ending 27th May?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no record immediately available.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he has yet received a report upon the case of Jack Foister, a school teacher, of 17, River Side, Cambridge, who, after applying for exemption on grounds of conscience, was recently enlisted for non-combatant service, and particularly if he will say whether, on 8th May, a notice was sent to this man from the Cambridge recruiting office calling him
    2546
    up for service with the Colours on 23rd May; whether on 25th April, nearly a month before the date on which he was due to join, he was arrested as a deserter and taken before the Cambridge bench of magistrates; whether, as the result of their order, he was handed over to the military authorities, although his application for exemption had not then been finally disposed of; whether, on 3rd May, while still not liable to military service under the Act, he was sentenced by a court-martial to twenty-eight days' imprisonment for refusing to sign a paper, and kept in solitary confinement; whether, on 8th May, he was removed under escort to France along with sixteen others who had also refused service; and whether he is still there?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question was deferred, but I wrote to my hon. Friend at length on this case on 24th May, so that there might be no delay in his obtaining the information he desired.
    Mr. MORRELL: How was it notice was served on this man on 8th May calling him up for service on the 23rd May?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will look into the facts in order to give my hon. Friend an adequate answer.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of four conscientious objectors, Messrs. Carter, Jones, Knight, and Mandale, of Kendal, who, being recognised to have conscientious objections by their local tribunal and having failed to obtain permission from either the local or Appeal Tribunal to undertake service of national importance, declined to undertake military service and were arrested and handed over to the military authorities; whether the officer commanding the district expressed his desire to refer these men to the Friends' ambulance unit, which was willing to accept them; whether the men in question are now in detention in a camp in North Wales; and whether he will take steps to allow these men to engage in useful and necessary national service, in accordance with their religious convictions, which they are anxious to undertake, instead of retaining them in useless inactivity at the expense of the nation?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, my attention has not been called to these cases, but I have asked that an inquiry may be made.

    LIABILITY OF MINISTERS TO SERVE.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has received a communication from the religious denomination known as the Scottish Baptists of North Wales in reference to the liability of their ministers under the Military Service Acts; whether he is aware that they administer the sacraments of the Church and perform all the duties usually assigned to ministers; and whether he can give an assurance that under these circumstances they will be regarded as regular ministers of a religious denomination?
    Mr. TENNANT: Disputed cases—where there is a dispute—as to whether certain individuals do or do not come within the conditions of the Military Service Acts, can only be settled authoritatively in the Civil Courts. I have, however, received the communication referred to in the question, and I should be much obliged if my hon. Friend would see me about this matter or await the receipt of a letter which I am sending to him.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are theological students in colleges, studying for the ministry, exempt or not? Can we have a straight answer to that question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend misunderstood the question. It does not apply to theological students; it refers to unordained clergy, if I may so describe them, who administer the Sacrament.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether of the seventeen men who were recently taken from Harwich to France as members of the Non-Combatant Corps, while refusing on conscientious grounds to obey the orders given them, fifteen are now undergoing punishment in a field punishment barracks; and whether, in view of the fact that these men have shown by their endurance the genuineness of their conscientious objection, he will take steps to have them transferred to the civil power in accordance with the undertaking of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that fifteen men are undergoing punishment in field punishment barracks. Field punishment is a not uncommon incident of active service, and it was never intended that every irregularity for which field punish-
    2548
    ment was awarded should lead to the delinquent being handed over to the civil authorities.
    Mr. MORRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of these men who were sent abroad under detention on 8th May now being brought back to this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I imagine that would depend upon whether the conscientious objectors whom my hon. Friend has in mind were awarded a punishment equivalent to imprisonment. If they were only awarded detention that would mean they would not be handed over to the civil authority, but if they were awarded punishment equivalent to imprisonment they would be.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any recent report as to the position of these seventeen conscientious objectors and the punishment they are now undergoing?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the House that all the information that has reached me is to the effect that these conscientious objectors are working peaceably and doing valuable work for the Army.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman confusing the members of the Non-Combatant Corps who have accepted that service with those who are conscientiously resisting this and other forms of military service?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, it is impossible for me to be fully acquainted with all the personalities involved in the question. I cannot be certain that the seventeen or sixteen men of whom I am thinking are the same men of whom my hon. Friends are thinking.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right Gentleman obtain a report?
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how far the promise given is going to be carried out and when, namely, that these conscientious objectors who are being punished shall henceforth be punished by the civil and not the military authorities?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the House as to the conditions required in order that these men shall be handed over to the civil authorities. I do not think I can say more.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Would it not be possible to take steps to prevent these men receiving a perpetual series of punishment by detention, and so defeating the intention of the new Army order?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes, I will certainly see to that.

    MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether instructions were issued by him prior to the 18th April that Private Jack Bannister, of 11, Chippingham Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield, a medically rejected lad who had been forced into the Army should obtain his discharge; and whether these instructions have been carried out?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the receipt of my hon. Friend's letter, I caused a telegram to be sent inquiring as to the actual situation of this youth, but I have not had a reply. I will not fail to let my hon. Friend know the result.

    LIFE POLICY HOLDERS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked if it is the intention of the Government to deal at an early date with the position of life policy holders who may be called up for military service and unable to protect their policies; and, if so, can he say when action will be taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Insurance premiums are included among the obligations in respect of which assistance may be granted under the Government scheme for enabling men serving with the Colours to meet their civil liabilities.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ELIGIBLE MEN).
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister if he will state, in view of the Return made up to 1st April, what steps, if any, are being taken to secure for military service any portion of the 17,305 men in the different Government Departments, other than the Post Office, who, in so far as they have not been medically rejected, may be deemed available for military service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As has several times been stated, heads of Departments have from the outbreak of the War done their best to release for military service those of their servants not urgently required by reason of their training and ex-
    2550
    perience for the business of the Government, and have, whenever possible, substituted women and men ineligible for military service for eligible men who could be spared if thus replaced. I can assure my hon. Friend that this process continues and will continue, but I would remind him that there are obvious limits to it imposed by the additional burden which the War has placed on civil Departments, the efficient performance of whose duties is essential to the successful carrying on of the War.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will my right hon. Friend see that, as far as possible, these men should be replaced by men beyond military age?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said so—by women and men who are ineligible.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Government appoint a Committee of this House to comb out these people?
    Mr. HOGGE: Are these the same men whom the Treasury were afraid to make work more than seven hours a day?
    Colonel YATE: Can any man in a Government office under twenty-five years of age be considered indispensable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very sorry to say so.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this scandal on Thursday.

    EXEMPTIONS (SMALL TRADESMEN).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked if the instructions to be given to local tribunals that small tradesmen having three dependants were to be exempt from service under the Military Service Act will be retrospective in its action; and if married men with three dependants who have attested under the Derby scheme will be allowed the same option?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The new Regulations will be issued immediately, and will deal with the question of serious hardship caused by the call to the Colours of men who are the sole heads of businesses. The Regulations will not be retrospective, but the same provision will apply to voluntarily attested men.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases tribunals have granted exemption for fixed periods,

    2551
    say for two months, with the stipulation that no appeal can in those cases be reopened under this Regulation?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will send me any cases of that kind I will take care that consideration is given to them.

    TRANSFERENCE OF EMPLOYES.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board concerning the advice given to tribunals by the Committee on work of national importance, which is to the effect that, even if an applicant for exemption from military service is already employed on work recommended by the Committee, as a general rule he should not be allowed to remain with his present employer; whether he has himself approved of the advice referred to; and, if so, what advantage is to be gained by the transference of a man from one employer to another when the work is the same in both cases?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The matter in question has not been submitted for my approval, but I certainly consider that it is not unreasonable that generally a man who is exempted from military service on conscientious grounds should be required to make some personal sacrifice.

    SCHOOLMASTERS.
    Major Sir EDWARD COATESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make arrangements for the duration of the War to release masters out of schools who are of serviceable age and replace them by pensioned schoolmasters?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. C. Roberts): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. The local education authorities have been informed that during the War special arrangements for staffing schools may be made, and the Board have reason to believe that large use is being made of the services of teachers who have retired. The selection of such persons in the first place is a matter for the local education authorities and managers of schools.

  TURKISH AMMUNITION (FLAT-TOPPED BULLETS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has any informa-
  2552
  tion which can be safely imparted about flat-topped leaden bullets used by the Turks in Mesopotamia, at Aden, and on the Egyptian front; and whether these bullets are identical in character with certain bullets in cartridges captured during the rebellion in Dublin?
  Mr. TENNANT: It has been necessary to telegraph to Mesopotamia on this matter, but the reply to the telegram has not yet reached me. The question raises an interesting point, and I will give my hon. Friend an answer as soon as I am able.

  CAMP VOLUNTARY INSTITUTIONS.
  Mr. HINDSasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Young Men's Christian Association and other similar societies which provide institutions and huts in camps for the sale of refreshments, etc., to soldiers are required to surrender 10 per cent. of their takings; and, seeing that the effect of such a regulation, if enforced, will be to close down many of the institutions, will he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. At the end of last year it was decided that, owing to the special conditions of the time, the payment of the 10 per cent. rebate by the Y.M.C.A. and other philanthropic bodies should remain in abeyance during the War, and this arrangement is still in force.
  Mr. MALCOLM: If contractors are at a camp, do they still have to refund the 10 per cent.?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, ordinary contractors do.

  HOME BATTALIONS (LEAVE).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions to commanding officers of battalions in this country that leave be given to men serving under them in special cases caused by business pressure and claims, and thus minimise the loss unavoidably befalling men called upon at this national crisis to leave all and serve their country?
  Mr. TENNANT: Officers commanding are already in possession of instructions on this matter which meet, I think, the hon. Gentleman's point. I will send him a copy of the instructions.

  SUNDAY PARADES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the very different life that recruits have been accustomed to in civil life, he could see his way to order the abolition of all parades on Sunday other than church parades, so that the men might have that day to themselves?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend will doubtless agree that in time of war the customs of peace cannot invariably be observed, but I can assure him that training is carried out on Sunday only in very exceptional circumstances, and when the urgent necessities of the case render such training essential.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to avoid as far as possible the parades, even although they have the training?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is very desirable that there should be a church parade on Sundays.
  Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men work several Sundays running, and have hardly any time to themselves at all?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that. I am informed that this is done only in very exceptional circumstances, when the urgent necessities of the case render such training essential.
  Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that Sunday is the very best day for parades?

  MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the Report on the breakdown in the medical arrangements in Mesopotamia will be published; and if the Report will say who were the medical officers or other authorities in India responsible for the shortage of medical supplies?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Commission has not concluded its inquiry, and I am unable to give any date for the submission of the Report. The terms of reference require the Commission to ascertain and assign the responsibility of individual officers for
  2554
  any inadequacy or failure of relief, or shortage of personnel, equipment, vehicles or stores.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of an interim report, if possible?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am entirely opposed to that suggestion. I invited the Government of India to appoint this Commission on my own motion, and without pressure from anybody. I did so because I thought it was very desirable that we should ascertain the facts, and I think that when the Commission report they should report with the presentation of the whole of the facts.

  GERMAN PRISONERS.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary for War by whose authority funerals with processions, flowers, and military honours are from time to time accorded to German prisoners of war who die in internment camps in this country; and whether, in view of the frequent brutal treatment of our prisoners of war in Germany and of the complete disregard by the Germans of the provisions of The Hague Conventions, he will give directions that in future German prisoners of war who die in internment camps in this country shall not be accorded military funerals?
  Mr. TENNANT: Article 19 of the Annex to The Hague Convention says that the same rules shall be followed as to the burials of prisoners of war as for soldiers of the national army, and that due regard shall be paid to their grade and rank. The custom in this country is based on the Article of the Convention quoted. The general custom as regards the burial of prisoners of war in Germany is not known, but the War Office is aware of cases in which military honours have been accorded.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are not military funerals usually given as a mark of honour to those who deserve honour?
  Mr. TENNANT: Not necessarily.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no desire in this country that we should enter into a competition in meanness?
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether German prisoners of war at Donington Hall are to be allowed to take walks outside the wired enclosures there and, if so, under what conditions; and whether, in view of the treatment to which British prisoners in Germany have been and are being subjected, the luxuries accorded to German prisoners at Donington Hall and elsewhere in this country will be curtailed rather than extended?
  Mr. TENNANT: In agreement with the German Government officer prisoners of war are permitted to give a temporary parole for the purpose of taking occasional exercise outside the places of internment. Certain detailed instructions have been issued, of which one is that they are to be escorted by an officer of the camp staff. It may be added that this concession, which is much appreciated by the officers now interned in Germany, was in operation at several camps in that country some time before it was adopted here.
  Mr. FABER: Are not luxuries accorded to German prisoners at Donington Hall?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not admit that there are luxuries at Donington Hall. I have already informed the House what is afforded the prisoners there.
  Mr. FABER: So far as the right hon. Gentleman's official knowledge goes, do British prisoners anywhere in Germany receive anything like the generous treatment of the German prisoners at Donington Hall?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not decided to close Donington Hall?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know to what the hon. Member (Mr. Faber) is alluding. The scale of rations is not excessive and is not inadequate. It makes a just middle between what would be either excessive or inadequate. It is the proper ration. If that is considered wrong, I really do not know what the hon. Member desires.
  Mr. FABER: It may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question. May I put it again? So far as his official knowledge goes, do British prisoners anywhere in Germany receive anything like as good treatment as the German prisoners at Donington Hall?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think probably the scale of treatment here is a good deal better. I regret that, but I do not know what the redress is.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Are German prisoners interned in Donington Hall allowed the privilege of smoking while Irish prisoners in Wandsworth Prison are denied the right of smoking?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand the Home Secretary answered a question about that yesterday.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the same privilege be given to the Irish prisoners in Wandsworth Gaol as is extended to German prisoners in Donington Hall? Will the Home Secretary be kind enough to answer?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I answered that question yesterday. The fact is that the Irish prisoners are allowed to smoke generally in all the prisons, but not in Wandsworth because of the large number of other prisoners there. I am inquiring to see whether they cannot be allowed to smoke in some secluded place.

  PRESBYTERIAN TROOPS (RIPON).
  Major PIRIEasked the Under-Secretary for War is he aware that no church accommodation has been arranged for the many thousands of Presbyterian troops in Ripon, although a request was forwarded by the officer commanding the third-line group, Highland Division, for the use of the cathedral and Holy Trinity Church for services between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Sundays, the vicar of the latter consenting, but which the highest legal and spiritual authorities refused; and, seeing that the. Presbyterians of Scotland are therefore singled out to worship in dining huts, whether he will confer with the ecclesiastical authorities to secure a dispensation of a temporary nature, so that at a time like the present those professing the Christian faith could hold their services in sacred edifices built for Divine worship?
  Mr. TENNANT: I appreciate the difficulty which appears to have arisen at Ripon in the provision of opportunity for Divine worship for the Presbyterian troops. I do not, however, think that they can rightly be described as being singled out to worship in dining huts. In hutted camps special buildings for military services are not provided, and the different denominations make use of the sacred edifices built for Divine worship which

  2557
  already exist in the neighbourhood. If, as appears to be the case, there are no such buildings for Presbyterians in the neighbourhood, a difficulty obviously arises. I will consider whether the ecclesiastical authorities cannot be approached, with a view to the nave of Ripon Cathedral being made available.
  Mr. PRATT: May I point out that in Salonika the ecclesiastical authorities of the Greek Church have placed their churches at the disposal of the Presbyterian troops, while the same has been done by the authorities of the Catholic Church in France?
  Mr. TENNANT: A very interesting and creditable fact.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Driver David Lees has only been awarded 8d. a day by the Chelsea Commissioners; whether he is aware that he enlisted on 14th October, 1914, at Coldburn Street, Edinburgh, and was discharged on 19th March, 1915, on account of chronic bronchitis; whether he is aware that on 14th December, 1915, he was sent to Woodburn Sanatorium, Edinburgh, suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis; whether he is aware that he has now left that institution, having made progress, and has to maintain himself and his only child on 4s. 8d. a week; whether such a case falls within the category of disease contracted in or aggravated by service; whether, in that case, he is entitled to four-fifths of the full pension plus 2s. 6d. for his girl; and, if not, will he give the medical evidence which induced the Chelsea Commissioners to refuse to increase his pension?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am inquiring into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Royal Warrant embodying the proposals for four-fifths pensions is yet ready?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is hoped that the Royal Warrant will be brought out very shortly.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS).
    The following questions stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS:
    27. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the fact that he has agreed that in the case of controlled firms depreciation allowance accepted by the Ministry of Munitions will also be accepted by the Treasury for Excess Profits Tax purposes, whether he is aware that anxiety still exists amongst controlled establishments as to whether settlements made with the Ministry of Munitions with a view to ensuring the maximum output of munitions are liable to be put aside and set at naught by any other authority; and, if so, whether he will state immediately in clear phraseology, with a view to ensuring the position of manufacturers and enabling them to devote their funds without hesitation towards the maximum output of munitions, that all arrangements made with the Ministry of Munitions regarding taxation or levies under the Munitions Act will be upheld by the Treasury in connection with assessments for Excess Profits Tax, and will give manufacturers a clear assurance that contradictory assessments will not be made by the two taxing authorities?
    39. To ask the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that uncertainty now exists amongst producers of munitions throughout the country as to whether financial agreements made with his Department will be rendered nugatory in consequence of contradictory assessments for taxation which may be made by the Treasury for Excess Profits Tax, and is he aware that this state of uncertainty must cause delay and difficulty in the production of munitions, and will necessitate manufacturers making provision in their tenders for such unusual contingencies and so cause unnecessary increase of cost to the nation; and whether the proposes to take any action in the matter?
    70 and 71. To ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he will state what the position will be of controlled firms who may effect settlements with the Ministry of Munitions of their liability to taxation under the rules framed by the Ministry; if such settlements are to be accepted as final for the

    2559
    purposes of Excess Profits Tax assessments under the Finance Act, and if not, whether it will be necessary for manufacturers, for the protection of their legitimate interests, to decline any settlements with the Ministry of Munitions; whether he is aware of the effect of the present state of uncertainty in this connection upon the production of munitions of war; and (2) whether he is aware that uneasiness and perplexity exist to-day in view of the uncertainty of the financial position, as between the Munitions Act and the Finance Bill, of manufacturers desirous of producing materials urgently required for the War, and that manufacturers are in a state of indecision as to whether they are justified in expending further money or increasing output in consequence of the uncertainty as to how money devoted to facilitating and improving the production of munitions will be regarded for taxation purposes; and if he will state, for the information of the manufacturing world in general, what their actual financial position will be as between the Treasury and the Ministry of Munitions?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): A controlled establishment shares with all other trading concerns the liability to Excess Profits Duty, which is a tax of general application, but I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Clause 32 of the Finance Bill, which provides for an adjustment of the payment of this duty and of the Munitions Levy. As I have already stated, it has been arranged that in assessing controlled firms to Excess Profits Duty, in cases where new capital has been put into their business for the special purpose of making munitions of war, the Inland Revenue authorities will accept the depreciation allowance agreed between the firm and the Minister or awarded by the Board of Referees set up by the Minister.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we to understand, apart from the question of new machinery, that the arrangements entered into with the Minister of Munitions have been set aside by the Treasury?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand that there are any other arrangements entered into by the Minister of Munitions except those to which I have referred.
    Sir A MARKHAM: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the controlled
    2560
    firms are all unanimous in the belief that the arrangement entered into with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is contrary to the statement he has made?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand. I have made no arrangement.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that controlled firms were distinctly under the impression that they were not to be charged Excess Profits Tax beyond that fixed by the Minister of Munitions?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am utterly unable to say what is the impression of the controlled firms, but I am sure they have no reason for being under any impression of the kind.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements under the Munitions Act were made at the suggestion of two or three of the large armament firms and were accepted by the Ministry? They were suggested on the understanding that they should continue during the War.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand the arrangements referred to all dealt with the question of the allowance for depreciation. I am not aware of any arrangement which relates to anything else. If the hon. Member will be so good as to bring any other circumstances to my notice I shall be very happy to consider them.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Munitions and find out what arrangements were made.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have consulted with the Minister of Munitions and I understand no arrangements have been made, except relating to depreciation.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What about the different lot of auditors distinct from Somerset House?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am quite unable to understand that question.
    Sir A. MARKHAMrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet had better ask the Minister of Munitions, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: In the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, will his answer clear up this interesting point

    2561
    whether the arrangement made by the Minister of Munitions is going to be upset by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe it will settle the difficulty entirely. Once the controlled firms know that for the purpose of depreciation they are to come under the arrangements made between them and the Minister of Munitions they will be quite satisfied.

  DEUTSCHE BANK, LONDON.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Germans and how many Englishmen are still employed at the Deutsche Bank in London; and if he can say how much longer it is anticipated it will take to discharge the pre-war liabilities of this concern?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are still employed at the London Agency of the Deutsche Bank nine German subjects and one Austrian, mostly managers and heads of departments, whose knowledge of the outstanding transactions makes their services indispensable, and seventy-eight British subjects. The work necessary to discharge the pre-war liabilities of the London branch and to vest its remaining assets in the Public Trustee is being actively pushed forward, but I am afraid I cannot say how long it will take to complete.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many British subjects of military age have been kept employed at this bank?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not got the figures, but if the hon. Member will put a question down I shall be glad to find out. I have no personal knowledge.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, in view of the statement he made in answer to my question many months ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not control the establishment. I will inquire into the matter.

  PRISON POPULATION.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the present total of the prison population of Scotland, and what the equivalent figure was for 1914?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Excluding criminal lunatic, inebriates, and Borstal departments and legalised police cells, the total of the prison population in Scotland on 23rd May was 1,307. The equivalent figure for 1914 was 2,477.
  Mr. WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the closing of English prisons owing to the decline in the number of prisoners since the outbreak of war; and whether he contemplates a similar measure of public economy in Scotland?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative. As regards Scotland, portions of our two largest prisons have been handed over to the War Office for use as military detention barracks. If the circumstances, which are not quite the same as in England, should be considered such as to justify the entire closing of any prison, this course will be followed; but so far, while the question has been carefully considered, both from the financial standpoint and otherwise, such action has not been found expedient?
  Mr. HOGGE: In these cases are they using the warders from the Scottish prisons for the purpose of looking after the military prisoners?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a matter of detail.

  FRUIT CROP, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what steps are being taken by the Scottish Board of Agriculture to secure that adequate estimates of the probable fruit crop in Scotland and of the seasons at which it will be ready for preserving will be laid before the Sugar Commission, in order that the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that sufficient sugar would be supplied to preserve the total fruit crop may be fulfilled?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board are taking steps to ascertain the area under fruit, and to form an estimate of the yield and of the seasons at which the fruit will be ready for preserving for the purpose indicated by my hon. Friend.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    ARMY RECRUITS AND WOMEN LABOUR.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the number of labourers employed on the land who have been recruited for the Army; the number of women who have gone to work on the land since the outbreak of war; the probable reduction in the amount of Home-grown food supplies this year; and what steps it is proposed to take to increase the food supplies in view of the enormous demands of Army, Navy, and civil population?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): No actual figures are available which I can quote in reply to any of the first three points raised by the hon. Member, though, if he will kindly refer to my statement on the subject as reported in column 1863 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 22nd instant, he will find an estimate with regard to the first of them. In reply to the last part of the question, may I refer to the answer given on the subject to the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 11th instant? It is not possible, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, to make any fuller statement, but I should be glad to talk to my hon. Friend on the subject.

    OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received from the Durham County Council Old Age Pensions Committee a resolution urging that in view of the hardship which many old age pensioners are now suffering in consequence of the increased cost of living the Government should be urged to give favourable consideration to the question of increasing the rate of pension; and will the Government take steps to accede to such request?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I understand that he has received the resolution referred to. I fear I can add nothing to my previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. WING: Is it not possible for the Department to concede what is the general desire, and that something should be done for the industrial portion of the community, who are very heavily hit by the present prices of food?
    Mr. McKENNA: The question simply relates to the matter of increasing the rates of pension. The hon. Member's supplementary question should be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.

    MILK PRICES.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the information at his disposal shows that an increase in the cost of milk to the consumer in London is about 8d. per gallon more than the price ruling a year ago, and that the increased price paid to the farmers in few cases reaches an increased price to-day of 2d. per gallon compared with a year ago; if so, is he satisfied that the increased price of distribution during the last twelve months reaches 6d. per gallon; and, if not, can he say where the difference goes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, there has been a general allowance of 5d. to 6d. per gallon on the contract prices paid to farmers before the War. It would appear from the statistics at my disposal that up to May last year the increase of contract price paid to the farmers had not, generally speaking, been passed on to the consumer, so that a comparison with a year ago is really misleading.

  TIMBER SUPPLIES (REAFFORESTATION.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what steps have been taken to secure that new planting will keep pace with the present unprecedentedly large cutting of timber?
  Mr. ACLAND: Large numbers of plants are now being raised from seed and many more will be grown next season. By this means a substantial proportion of the plants required for planting operations after the War will be provided.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to secure that there will be planting in these cases where large areas have been cut?
  Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is not time to attend to this after the War?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is the fact that labour difficulties make it almost impossible to proceed with any large operations of re-afforestation.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question, whether any steps are being taken to secure that there will be planting commensurable with those areas which are cut?
  Mr. ACLAND: No. The question of the policy of the Government in regard to the afforestation after the War is being considered very carefully. I do not think anything further than that is being done, and I do not think it would be a good thing to do it, because, quite clearly the work cannot be tackled until the War is over and labour is available.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are we to understand that during the War, however long it lasts, no steps whatever are to be taken to secure the replanting of areas which are being felled now?
  Mr. ACLAND: It cannot be done.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has taken full advantage of the fall of timber in March last; whether he will undertake that in the coming autumn measures will be adopted for the reafforestation of all woods in which, under the orders of the Board, there has been a wholesale felling of trees; and what steps he proposes to take to secure for this country in the future a supply of home-grown timber by no means less, but if possible greater, than the supply now being destroyed?
  Mr. ACLAND: Large quantities of blown timber have been purchased, or are the subject of negotiations for purchase, by the Home Grown Timber Committee. The Committee cannot undertake to deal with small or scattered lots of timber, but if any landowner has a considerable quantity of blown timber—say, 40,000 or 50,000 cubic feet—to dispose of, the Committee will be glad to hear from him. In reply to the second part of the question, any comprehensive scheme of afforestation must, in view of the shortage of labour, be deferred until after the War, though such work of preparation as is practicable before that time will be undertaken. In reply to the third part of the question, I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to my answer to the preceding question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can Members of Parliament sell their timber to the Government?
  Mr. ACLAND: There are difficulties about that, but I think sometimes they can be got over.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that the Government intend to introduce legislation in case any Member of Parliament is hauled up for selling timber? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Members have been approached by the Government to sell timber, and that I am one of them?
  Mr. ACLAND: I know that direct sales are impossible.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that the Government are going to wink at such sales?
  Mr. ACLAND: The sale can sometimes be done through a third party.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If legislation is involved the hon. Member should at least give notice of the question.

  CEYLON.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Robert Chalmers, former Governor of Ceylon, now Under-Secretary for Ireland, has caused any reparation to be made to Liyanage Peries Perera, of Ampe, Ceylon, for the loss of his only son, Romanis Perera, who, on the 8th June, 1915, was, without trial or accusation, taken by the British soldiers, tied to a tree, and shot in the presence of his father and twenty-five other villagers; whether he has read the deposition in this case showing this young man's absence from the village on the day of the disturbance, and therefore not a participant; and will he say why the twenty-five other witnesses to these facts have never been given an opportunity of testifying to them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have read what purports to be a copy of the deposition in question, and I have no reason to believe in its accuracy.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the twenty-five villagers an opportunity of speaking on their oath what they know?

  MUNITIONS.

    DEPORTATIONS FROM CLYDE DISTRICT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether Harry Crichton Glass, one of the trade union workmen deported from Glasgow to Aberdeen, was permitted, subject to certain conditions, to proceed to Cardiff for the purpose of finding employment; whether he will make public what these conditions were; whether the workman was pledged to report himself immediately on arrival to the chief constable at Cardiff and to proceed without loss of time on board the steamship "Erininer"; whether the workman was further pledged not to acquaint any representative of any labour party of his arrival and not to address any trade union or other labour meeting; and whether he will state who was responsible for the enforcement of this undertaking?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I have now made inquiries of the competent military authorities on this matter, and am informed that the workman in question applied on the 20th April for permission to leave Aberdeen in order to join a ship at Cardiff. This permission was immediately accorded by the military authorities, subject to the signature by the workman of an undertaking substantially in the form indicated in the question.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the future movements of certain trade unionists deported from the Clyde district, as well as the area inside which they will be allowed to work and the conditions under which they will be allowed to work have been placed in the hands of Lieutenant-Colonel Levita, of the Scottish Command; whether Lieutenant-Colonel Levita has informed these men that even if they secure work away from the West of Scotland munitions area they must report their new place of residence to the headquarters, Scottish Command, Edinburgh, through the local chief constable, and that, before making arrangements, they must communicate with Mr. Macassey, the chairman of His Majesty's Government Commission to secure dilution of labour, with a view to discovering whether their proposed place of residence would be approved by the
    2568
    Ministry of Munitions; and by whose authority such conditions are imposed on men who are neither aliens nor criminals and against whom no charge of any sort has been established?
    Dr. ADDISON: The administration of Regulation 14, of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, under which the men referred to were removed from the Glasgow area, rests with the competent military authorities, and therefore no change has been made in this respect. The military authorities have made such arrangements with regard to these men as seemed proper to them, having regard to the fact that they had been removed under the Regulation. As I stated, in reply to a previous question, some of the men have expressed a desire to obtain work at places other than those at which they are now residing, and endeavours are being made to complete the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Am I to understand that the future movements of these men are in the hands of the military authorities, and are not in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is so.

    PATENT STILL DISTILLERIES.
    Colonel GRETTONasked in what manner and for what purpose the output of patent still distilleries not required for special productions will be controlled by the Minister of Munitions?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not think it would be desirable to give the information asked for in this question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Ministry of Munitions is going to make a full statement in regard to what they are doing with the distilleries?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, I really cannot. It is exceedingly undesirable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Munitions has already promised it more than once in this House?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend may have said he would make a statement, but he did not say he would make a full statement.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether a married man, aged thirty-two, working in a controlled establishment and with a war service badge, should attest?
    Dr. ADDISON: A certificate rightfully held in conjunction with a war service badge exempts a man, whether attested or unattested, from being called up for military service without the consent of the Ministry of Munitions. Whether or not a man, in the circumstances described in the question, should attest is a matter for his own discretion, on which I cannot undertake to advise.

    FACTORY INSPECTION.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir WILLIAM BYLES:
    41. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether certifying factory inspectors have been relieved of their statutory obligation to investigate factory accidents and to visit the injured person; if so, will he state by whose authority an Act of Parliament is superseded; whether he is aware that the arrangement deprives certifying surgeons of a portion of their income; and that the changed labour conditions due to the War make it not less but more important to preserve every safeguard against factory accidents, which generally arise from inexperience or fatigue.
    Sir W. BYLES: This question has got on the Paper by mistake. I do not ask it.

  PREFERENTIAL TRADING.
  Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Imperial Government to take any action before the termination of the War with the view to the adoption of a preferential trading policy with India in favour of this country, the Dominions, and our Allies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have more than once informed the House, all aspects of our trade policy after the War are under investigation by the Government and their advisers and will be discussed at the approaching economic conference. I cannot anticipate the results of these discussions and investigations by making a statement on one aspect of the problem.
  Colonel N. GRIFFITHS: Am I to understand that the matter is receiving consideration and will receive further consideration before the termination of the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Colonel YATE: Will India be represented at the Paris Conference?
  The PRME MINISTER: No.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
  Sir F. CAWLEYasked if the Government intend to bring in a Bill for the preparation of a Register of Parliamentary Voters at an early date; and whether the measure will provide for the enfranchisement of all those serving or who have served in the naval and military forces of the Crown during the present War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave on my behalf yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

  CASUALTIES (MILITARY AND NAVAL).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the total number of casualties sustained by His Majesty's Forces in all fields of action up to 30th April or, if possible, to 13th May, indicating separately the numbers killed, wounded, and missing?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that it is undesirable for military reasons to state these figures for the present. As I informed the House on 8th May, any hon. Member may see them in confidence.

  MEAT SUPPLY.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present prices for meat in this country and the probability of meat shortage arising unless the available supply is controlled, he will take steps to arrange a Government scheme for putting the civil community on meat rations before a crisis arises?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given

  2571
  yesterday to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bramsley Division of Yorkshire.
  Mr. FABER: Is the meat supply at present in this country, of home-grown or imported meat, equal in amount to the supplies this time last year?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Broadly speaking, the price is not due to insufficiency of the sources of supply, but there are very large requirements for the forces in the field. If my hon. Friend asks whether there is as much available for the civil population, the answer is "No." If he asks whether there is as much available for the whole population, including that part at the front and the service of our Allies, the answer is that there is a deficiency.
  Mr. FABER: Is the deficiency for the civil population a serious one?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a question of degree. It is serious enough to have a considerable effect in raising prices. The supply is less than the demand.
  Mr. FABER: Could not prices be raised without the supply being materially shorter?
  Mr. ASHLEY: Would it not be much better to limit the price than to put the people on rations?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The whole matter is under consideration.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Postmaster-General how many vacancies are at present existing in the supervising classes of the Central Telegraph Office; when the last promotions were made; and when it is proposed to fill the existing vacancies in accordance with his decision recently communicated to that office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): Fifteen vacancies at present exist in the supervising classes of the Central Telegraph Office. Promotions were suspended recently pending inquiries how far it was necessary to fill supervising appointments under present conditions; but a number of promotions have been made during the last few days, and steps are being taken to fill such of the remaining vacancies as are due to be filled.

  SECOND-LIEUTENANTS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the line serving at Home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the line serving at Home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have recently received several requests from officers and their wives asking for the extension of the scheme of assistance to their cases, and I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it would be possible so to extend it.
  Mr. ASHLEY: What response did the right hon. Gentleman get from the Chancellor?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am in consultation.

  WATERING OF LONDON STREETS.
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the condition of many of the streets of London owing to the resolve of the various local authorities to discontinue the watering of the streets; whether he is aware that this neglect of a sanitary regulation is a peril to the health of the community, especially during the summer months, when sometimes dense clouds of impure matter are blown about and inhaled by pedestrians and wafted into open windows; and will he take the necessary steps to impress upon local authorities the importance of finding some means to carry out the duty of watering and purifying the public thoroughfares?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has made some inquiry into this matter, but has not learnt that any Metropolitan Borough Council has discontinued street watering. In some cases street watering has been reduced from reasons of economy, and in more cases still from the difficulty in getting labour. I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of 22nd May for a statement of his opinion on the policy of reducing street watering.
  Sir S. COLLINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many London districts there is scarcely any watering at all; is he aware that in many districts, instead of watering the streets, they are using a horsed-broom, which sends the dust into the houses where windows are open; and does he think it desirable to have this sort of thing occurring to the peril of infant life?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Although there may be some things taking place which would not occur in normal times, yet certainly there must be no deduction from that fact that the Local Government Board is allowing any serious nuisance to take place.

  VOLUNTEER CORPS (FACILITIES FOR SMALL SHOPKEEPERS).
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the advantage to the country during the War of closing all retail shops at certain specified hours on certain days of the week for the purpose of affording single-handed men an opportunity of serving in the Volunteer Corps or of generally rendering voluntary service in other directions; if so, does he contemplate giving an early effect to such a proposal?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The possibility of enforcing the general adoption of earlier closing hours during the War was considered by the Shops Committee which sat last year. I would refer the hon. Baronet to the observations on the subject on page 7 of their Report. It would not be possible in my opinion to undertake any legislation on the lines suggested unless clear evidence were forthcoming that there was a strong and general desire for it among all classes of retail traders, and that public opinion generally would favour it.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS ACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware that a circular has been issued by the secretary of the Statutory Committee
    2574
    to local authorities suggesting to them to delegate to the existing committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association the distribution of supplementary grants under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act; and whether this circular was issued with his sanction?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The circular to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers related only to the supplementing of separation allowances. In order that there might be no interruption in this necessary work, it was suggested that, as a purely temporary measure, the local committees set up under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act should appoint the local branches of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association as their own sub-committees for this purpose until the local committee had had time to complete their organisation.

  MEN CALLED TO COLOURS.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Commissioners on married men's liabilities will be authorised to recommend, under the head of insurance, payment in respect of the obligation to pay contributions for friendly benefits to trade unions as well as to friendly societies and industrial insurance companies?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Any payments in the nature of insurance premiums, whether made to an insurance company or to a friendly society or to a trade union, will be taken into consideration.

  TRADE AFTER WAR.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade the dates on which Sir Hugh Bell, Sir F. Forbes Adam, and Mr. E. H. Langdon were officially appointed by the Board of Trade as members of committees to consider trade after the War?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Committee of which Sir Hugh Bell is a member was appointed on 16th March, and the Committee of which Sir Frank Forbes Adam and Mr. Langdon are members was appointed on 27th April.

  OUTPUT OF INDUSTRIES.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if any Committee has been appointed to advise on the problem of increasing the output of industry in this country; and, if so, will he give the names of the members of this Committee and the terms of reference?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No Committee has yet been appointed to advise specially on the problem of increasing the output of industry, but doubtless this question will be considered in relation to special groups of trades by the various Committees appointed to consider the state of those trades after the War, especially in relation to international competition. I am sending a list of members of these Committees to the hon. Member.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: If such a Committee is appointed on the matter of production, will the hon. Gentleman see that someone is appointed upon it who understands the relation of land monopoly in this country to production?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a subject which requires a good deal of understanding.

  INTERNED ALIENS (GERMAN BAKERS).
  Mr DICKINSON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to statements that German bakers are being released from internment with the result that German bakeries in London are flourishing while English bakers are being taken into the Army; and whether he will say how many German bakers have been released since the first Military Service Act was passed?
  Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has been drawn to an article in the current number of the weekly paper, "John Bull," to which the hon. Member may be referring. The article states that somebody is freeing German bakers from the places in which they have been incarcerated. It quotes and endorses a letter to the effect that, if anyone wishes to employ an interned German baker, all he has to do is to write to the Home Office and they would release him; that presumably the guilty person is myself, but that it is
  2576
  quite certain that Quakers are acting in accord with me, if not in actual collaboration. There is no truth in any of these statements. Not one German baker has been released, according to the Home Office records, since the first Military Service Act was passed—the date to which the hon. Member's question refers—or since I became Home Secretary. A very few were released last year on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, but in every instance this was done on such special grounds as long residence and British wives, or sons in the British Army. In no case had the exemption anything to do with the alien's trade or employment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it to be the practice of the Government to reply to statements in "John Bull" by Private Notice questions?

  Starvation (Deaths).
  Mr. WINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had noticed that, in the recently published list of starvation cases for 1914, there were three cases of death of old age pensioners in the unions of Shoreditch and Bethnal Green, and only three in all the rest of England and Wales; will he suggest to those boards that they should follow the example of the Derby board and inquire into the circumstances of the old age pensioners in their districts; will he ask the Poor Law inspector for the district to inquire and report to him as to what steps these boards have taken, and what measures the inspector has suggested, to induce aged persons in these unions to apply for medical relief when necessary; and will he also inquire whether those boards or their officers use any deterrents, such as requiring the aged persons to come before the board or a committee or putting the relief on loan?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.

    EAST COAST TOWNS (WAR EFFECTS).
    Mr. FELL: I desire to refer to the position of the towns on the East Coast which have suffered in such an exceptional manner owing to the War. Though the question only concerns a small number of Members of this House and their constituents, yet it concerns them to such an exceptional degree that they could not but choose to take advantage of the opportunity which the Consolidated Fund Bill gives to bring to the attention of the House and the Government, and particularly the Local Government Board, the position of those towns which are suffering so grievously. It is with extreme regret I have to bring this matter forward. Personally I regret it immensely. I never thought when I was first elected to represent one of those towns that we should have hereafter to come before the House of Commons and put before them the position of those towns and the unfortunate circumstances in which they stand. The geographical position has so affected them that while a great part of England, Scotland, and Ireland has benefitted even commercially by the War, these particular towns on the East Coast of England have suffered to a degree which I believe is only known to some extent, and which Members of the House do not yet, I think, fully realise. It will be my endeavour to put before the House some description of the unfortunate position of some of those towns, and particularly of the one which I represent (Great Yarmouth), which is one of the largest and which has suffered probably the most. To have to do so is
    2588
    a matter of regret, because those towns in the past were as prosperous as any in the Kingdom. They were well managed by corporations and other public bodies, who did so in a liberal way, and who spent large sums of money in beautifying them, putting up sea walls, laying out gardens, building piers, installing electric light and such other things as were required for progressive towns such as these were. Up to the year 1914, and the middle of that year, they were prosperous, and that year seemed as if it were going to be one of even greater prosperity than any of the preceding years.
    4.0 P.M.
    At the time the War broke out the town I represent was filled with visitors. The moment war was declared panic notices appeared in many of the papers and rumours were spread about that the East Coast would be attacked, and that there would be no more trains to take the people away, with the result that the visitors crowded to the stations and left as rapidly as they could. The steamers ceased to bring visitors, and, instead of that, took people away for the short while they continued to run. By the end of that August all excursion trains and special trains and all trains of that kind which accommodate visitors were entirely suspended, and maximum charges were enforced which visitors from London could not pay. The season was killed, and all the great expense which the people of these towns had gone to in preparation for the season was naturally wasted. They had to break a great many contracts which they entered into, and they received letters from people who had taken rooms, declaring that the War released them and had broken their contracts. That was the position at the end of August, 1914. In those towns, and particularly in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, there is a great herring fishing. I cannot think that many Members realise what that fishery means. The catch, of course, varies somewhat, but on the whole it has been growing steadily, and the number of herring landed in Yarmouth in one season has reached, I believe, something like four or five hundred million fish. In addition to the work provided at the time of the catch, there was also the work during the curing season for a large number of the inhabitants of these towns. In addition to that, there are a large number of works totally employed in preparation for these fisheries. There were great factories

    2589
    turning out every day hundreds of barrels in which these herrings were packed and sent abroad. There were big factories which turned out tens of thousands of boxes in which these fish were sent away. All these works provided a large amount of industry during the autumn and winter. In the year before the War there were upwards of a thousand boats engaged in the herring fishery from the port of Yarmouth alone. A large number of these boats of the better class were taken by the Admiralty and have since been scattered throughout the seas over which the operations of the War extend. There are patrol-boats and mine-sweepers from these towns throughout the North Sea, in Gallipoli, in the Levant, and in the Channel. That means the absence from these towns of the boats which used to make them their headquarters. They used to buy their provisions there, and the men coming ashore for a few days brought continuous business to the towns. While they are in the Mediterranean there is, of course, no such profit for the towns, as the food and so on is otherwise provided. Moreover, the sea in the neighbourhood is strewn with mines, and last year the fishing was limited to a particular area of about sixty square miles. When the herrings came into that area the boats were able to catch some, but when they disappeared from that restricted region the boats were not able to follow them because of the mines and other dangers. Hence, what fishing there was came to an end much sooner than it would otherwise have done.
    The position of these towns is that they have lost their visitors, upon whom I understand they depend for something like 40 per cent. of their income; they have lost their fishing, which represents about 30 per cent. of their living. The amount represented by the shopkeepers is approximately 20 per cent., and the other 10 per cent. represents people with private means. These towns have held meetings and formed committees to consider what shall be done. They have appointed their mayors and town clerks to these committees; they have held anxious conferences together; they have laid their case on more than one occasion before the Local Government Board. The position in many cases was so acute that lodging-house keepers were selling their furniture piece by piece to pay their rent and rates. When such persons sell their furniture their means of livelihood in the future is
    2590
    gone, and there is little prospect before them but the workhouse. The Local Government Board met them very well, and arranged that a portion of the fund resulting from the sale of a large amount of wheat which Canada generously gave to this country in the early days of the War should be applied for the benefit of these unfortunate lodging-house keepers, mostly women. I believe the Canadians said that this would be most pleasing to them, and that their money could not be better used. Relief has been granted according to a scale arranged among themselves and approved by the Local Government Board, and the money has been most beneficially spent. Besides these lodging-house keepers, there are the small shopkeepers and all the indefinite little trades which exist in towns that cater for visitors and the fishing industry. These are all very seriously affected, with the result that the rates are being collected with the greatest difficulty. Many people have found it absolutely impossible to pay their rates. The question for the municipalities then arises whether they shall raise their rates, thereby causing the few who can pay to suffer still more. But that is the only alternative to bankruptcy, unless the Government come to their assistance in some way or other.
    It is with the greatest regret that I suggest that these towns are in this position, and that I should have to ask the sympathy and assistance of this House. If they could by any means be kept going in their own way, so that at the end of the War they could resume their ordinary activities, that would be the best thing that could happen for them. It is no good suggesting new industries or the undertaking of public work. I believe it is the fact that no towns have sent a larger number proportionately to the Army and Navy than these towns have. The fishermen particularly have all gone; they are in the patrol boats and minesweepers. I was at Yarmouth last week, and there were practically no young men about at all; there were only old men, women, and children. I went to the biggest hotel in the town a fortnight ago; I was the only visitor there. But they are keeping open bravely, trying to put the best face on things, and hoping that visitors may come. One can understand the loss that must be incurred in such circumstances. I was there again last week.

    2591
    I went to a large private hotel or boarding house capable of accommodating sixty people, and from which visitors are often turned away. Again I was the only visitor there. It was too sad to go through the streets and see everything ready, but absolutely no one there. Worse than that, a considerable number of local inhabitants have, owing to the Zeppelin raids and the two bombardments, left the town; some have gone to the interior and come into their work every day, while others have left, I will not say for good, but at any rate for a while. We are all sorry that they should be so nervous, but, of course, they are justified. I believe that the Zeppelins have been over Yarmouth more than thirty times. The people are getting accustomed to them; they know the whir of the Zeppelins, and can judge pretty well how far off and how high they are; but it is not a pleasant experience. The bombardment of last Easter Monday was the climax, and many people sent their families away, saying they dare not keep them there, and that if they could possibly afford to send them out of reach of the shells which went hurling over the town it was their duty to do so.
    Under these circumstances the question is: What can be done? We have all been trying to make suggestions how to keep the towns going until the end of the War. The best thing, of course, would be to keep them going in their ordinary way. To do that wants a lot of people there. If we could have collected a large force of soldiers there, as has been done in other towns, it would largely have solved the problem. But for strategic reasons, into which I cannot enter, soldiers have not been sent there. We have had interviews with the War Office, but naturally soldiers are placed where they are strategically required, and not where the boarding or feeding of them might be beneficial to the town. That is quite right, but it is unfortunate for these towns, and it is an additional reason why they should claim our sympathy. Another suggestion was that convalescent soldiers should be sent there in large numbers. There is no place where there is so much or such good or such cheap accommodation. There is no place where men would recover more quickly. That is well known among doctors, who send patients there after operations, and so on. I do not see why 20,000 convalescents should not be sent there. If more Zeppelins
    2592
    came over or if another bombardment took place, which I very much doubt, I am certain the convalescent soldiers would not mind, but would gladly enjoy all the benefits which they would receive there. Beyond that I can suggest nothing but what the mayors are now engaged in considering, namely, that the Government should make a grant to these towns. I am not going to suggest what the amount should be or what direction it should take. That is a matter for the committee of mayors and town clerks to arrange with the Local Government Board. They only ask that the Local Government Board should send down inspectors to look into the matter on the spot and get information from all the sources they can as to what chances-there are of a revival this year or of the people pulling through without help. When they make their report we shall then be able to claim that other parts of the country, where the £300,000,000 which the House has voted is very largely going to be spent, and out of which large profits will be made, should help these other towns whose geographical position is as unfortunate, and where practically none of the money will be spent. I would appeal most earnestly to the Local Government Board in this matter. I would suggest to them that this is a case in which we should not only ask for Government aid, but claim aid from the Government, and that the Government must meet the case in some direction. I would ask that they should do their very best for the East Coast towns till after the War, and then, I am sure, trade will again revive there, and they will do their best to supply with herrings the other parts of the country.
    Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMP: I desire to endorse the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth. Anyone who knows anything at all about the conditions existing in many of these East Coast towns must be filled with sympathy for them, exposed as they are to the special risks of which we know. My sympathy particularly goes out to what I know to be the position existing in Lowestoft, Southwold, and other towns, not only in my Constituency, but in the adjoining county of Norfolk. The prosperity of Lowestoft, and also Yarmouth, depends mainly on two sources—that is, its popularity as a summer resort, and upon its fishing industry. The attractions of Lowestoft are many and varied. They have been fostered,

    2593
    developed, and popularised by the energy of the people who live there. The natural result has been that in recent years there has been an increasingly greater number of visitors coming into the town of Lowestoft. This has necessitated a large increase in the accommodation for these people. Houses which used to be private residences have now become boarding and lodging houses; a considerable number of streets have been laid out of comparatively small houses, which serve the purpose of catering for the visitors. Who are the people that chiefly occupy these boarding and lodging houses? They are, I think, generally speaking, either widows or spinsters, and these are the people who are feeling most acutely the conditions that have been brought about in these East Coast towns by the War. If they have bought their houses the chances are that a certain portion, at ary rate, of the purchase money is left on mortgage. If they rent the houses they have to pay the rent. Since the beginning of the War visitors have been very few and far between, and the consequence is that these unfortunate people get no rent; yet they have to pay interest upon their money, or suffer the consequences.
    We have been told by the hon. Member for Yarmouth that certain relief has been granted to these people through the generosity of the Dominion Government—what is called the Canadian Fund. That, however, applies only, I think, to rents. These people get a certain proportion of relief from this, but they have to pay their rates. Their position, therefore, is clearly very difficult, and there is also the risk of much loss. My hon. Friend has also alluded to the fishing industry. He gave the number of herrings landed in a particular season. I have taken out figures from the Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I find that in 1913, the year before the War, the quantity of herrings in cwts. landed was 3,122,000. In 1914, after the outbreak of the War, the herring season yielded only 664,000 cwts. I refer now to Yarmouth. Lowestoft has been in a somewhat similar position. There was in 1913 landed there 2,155,000 cwts. of herrings, and in 1914 555,000 cwts. The herring fishery is one of the staple, if not indeed the principle, industry carried on by the people, and while it is proceeding a good deal of money comes into the town from various parts. The effect of the stoppage of the
    2594
    herring fishery and the breakdown of the visiting season, those two sources of prosperity to the towns, have had their effect upon the shopkeepers. Ever since the War started the conditions have been getting worse and worse in Lowestoft, Yarmouth, and the neighbouring places. We in Lowestoft have been subjected to a larger number of air raids than any other town in England, and the people have begun to get very nervous. Many of the wealthier people have left the town, while others who could do so have sent away their women and children because they were afraid of the risk to their lives of bombardment. People are afraid to stay, and have practically fled from the towns.
    In order to give the House some idea of what the thing really means, I have been supplied with the figures of the average attendance of the children at the elementary schools of Lowestoft for the three years, ending 19th May, 1916, with the corresponding weeks of the previous years. In 1914 the average number for the week was 5,865; in 1915, 5,607; while in 1916 the attendance had fallen to 3,526. The towns have taken steps to reduce their outgoings. They are, however, suffering from a reduced yield of the rates, and this is a most serious matter. I can give the House some examples, though I do not want to trouble Members with too many figures. Take Cromer. The produce of the poor rate in the half-year ending September, 1913, was 89.8 per cent.; in March, 1914, it was 83.4; in September, 1914, it was 80.8; in March, 1915, it was 69.1; in September, 1915, it was 55.6, whilst in March of this year it had fallen to 44.6. With regard to Scarborough, where the figures represent yearly payment of rates, the yield to March 31st, 1914, was 90.2 per cent. On 31st March, 1915, it was 87.2; and for 1916 it was 70.3. Reverting for a moment to Yarmouth, a member of the board of guardians writes, that if the people did not pay it was not owing to lack of perseverance on the part of the rate collectors, who were doing their utmost. It was simply impossible for people to pay. The people had not the money, and therefore could not pay. Statistics have been prepared and will be put forward in order that the Local Government Board may have all the facts, and I feel perfectly certain that, with those figures in front of them, the Local Government Board will be left in a position to meet an almost

    2595
    unanswerable case—perhaps, I should say, quite unanswerable case, for Government help.
    It is not for me to say in what way relief should be given. If I were to do so, I should be usurping the place of those who have the matter in hand, and, of course, they know far better than I do what are the difficulties, and I feel sure they will point out to the Government the way in which they consider that assistance can best be arranged. I feel perfectly certain, from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, that he will give, not only careful, but very sympathetic consideration to the case which is put before him. What the inhabitants are asking is: What are the burdens they will have to bear? It is not only the present position, but the future position also which has to be considered. These unfortunate towns have to look on and see other towns more fortunately situated reaping the advantage which arises from their own disadvantage, and at the end of the War the people in the fortunate towns will have their rates certainly not increased, but perhaps decreased, while the people on the East Coast will have their rates increased. I am given to understand that when people make inquiries with regard to lodging-houses and look about to see what town they will go to, it is rates, and not rents, which govern their decision. What is done for the corporations is one thing, and does not directly touch the people to whom my hon. Friend refers, the lodging-house keepers and tradesmen, and I cannot help thinking that the Government cannot to-day be absolutely passive in face of the misfortunes and troubles of these poor people, not through any fault of their own, but from the action of the enemy. I do urge the Government, therefore, at all events to consider some scheme which would enable these people to tide over the difficulty during the War.
    I am sorry that there is no one on the Front Bench representing the War Office, because I have to put particularly to the War Office the subject of billeting. I had this question of billeting brought before me, and when the bombardment took place I was also asked to communicate with the War Office to see whether they could not send some more troops into the town in order to reassure the people. I wrote on 2nd May, but by the 12th I had received no reply, not even an acknowledgment. I wrote again to the War Office to press
    2596
    for a reply, and two or three days afterwards I received an acknowledgment. I then went to the Horse Guards and was promised a reply, which I have not received. What I want to point out is this: there are a certain number of troops there at the present time, but those troops are not billeted, which is rather a grievance in those towns. There are a certain number of untenanted houses, and they make use of those houses for the troops. If they would billet the troops on the inhabitants it would afford a certain advantage—I do not say very much—to the people if they are able to get a little money from that source, and more money is spent in the town. Instead of that, the troops go to untenanted houses, and are provided with rations, not from Lowestoft or Yarmouth, and I do think that the authorities, if they can do so, should provide their provisions in the places in which the regiments are located, especially in the case of Lowestoft and Yarmouth, at a time when the inhabitants are suffering so much. I do urge upon the Local Government Board to do what they can, not merely for the corporation, but for the other inhabitants.
    Mr. BUXTON: No one can doubt that the appeal and proposal so ably put forward by my hon. Friend is one of extraordinary urgency, being an appeal not only to generosity, but also to justice. It is not necessary for other Members, following the very masterly exposition of the facts, to elaborate them further in detail, and I have no need to describe the conditions of the places which I particularly represent. Members of this House are nearly all of them familiar with Cromer, Sheringham, Mundesley, and the villages near, and they know not only what are the charms of those places, and of the East Coast generally, but they also know how much the inhabitants and local bodies of those places have done to cater for the comforts of visitors. Only to point the moral and illustrate the general facts which have already been given, let me add just this, that in one small part of the area I represent it is computed that in a single season the amount of money spent by visitors is less now than before the War by £150,000. That brings to mind the innumerable cases of distress, hardship and affliction involved in such a great change. It seems to me that this appeal is justly made, not on local or parochial grounds at all. It is made on grounds of high policy. On those

    2597
    grounds, in the first place, it is in the interests of the nation that social prosperity should not be allowed to be upset by an abnormal occurrence. It is a very sound rule—and I myself was brought up in the school of the Charity Organisation Society—that the Government should not intervene to relieve distress which is normal, but distress which is entirely abnormal it is not to be expected that people will insure against. No one will deny that this is a case absolutely abnormal, and, let us hope, will never occur again. It is abnormal in that the staple industry of those places is totally ruined, and, as we have heard, the population has to some extent moved. And who can exaggerate the importance of a fact such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, that the statistics of school attendance show a removal in some cases of something like 40 per cent.? Places inland have, many of them, been compensated for war conditions by the arrival of troops, but places on the coast, for which an appeal is made to-day, have not received compensation. Far from receiving any unusual boon, as many places have done by the quartering of troops, the number of troops bringing money into the district is not at all large, but, indeed, very small in the East Coast places. The distress has been accentuated since the bombardment of a few weeks ago.
    May I just briefly review the three grounds on which it appears to me that the President of the Local Government Board will not ignore this appeal? It is a matter of relief of distress which is absolutely abnormal. But there is a wider view in which, it seems to me, it is urgent. It appears to me that it can be viewed as a matter affecting the interests of the War and high statesmanship. On military grounds, secondly, I think it is urgent. The country and the inhabitants of the East Coast in a very high degree have risen to the necessities and duties of the War with marvellous and splendid spirit. They have made all the sacrifices, and many of them have been extremely heavy, without a thought of grudging, and it is surely in the national interest that every possible cause for a sense of injustice should be avoided. I do urge that not to respond to this appeal would savour somewhat of injustice, because not only has the loss of income been suddenly inflicted on the East Coast, but the particular burdens due to the danger of attack fall mainly on the East Coast. The burden of insurance, whether justly inflicted or not, has fallen upon those who
    2598
    are most likely to suffer from bombardment, or, as in recent cases, from the explosion of mines on shore, and that constitutes a double burden which has fallen on those districts. I do think, in view of the splendid spirit in which the country has supported the War, it is a matter of national interest that the slightest sense of injustice should be avoided. There is another ground, perhaps equally high, or higher, the Imperial ground. The matter has given occasion to a very extraordinary and unprecedented act—a gift by the Canadian Government for the relief of distress in one district of England. Such a thing has never been heard of, I think, in the history of the world. Certainly such a thing could not occur anywhere outside the limits of the British Empire. Surely it is a matter of high policy that there should be to such an unparalleled act of generosity a response, a generous recognition, by the Imperial Government. Canada has set a great example, and I have sufficient knowledge of the Dominions to know that a response by the Imperial Government might, and certainly would, have a very keen recognition and appreciation. I happen to have been on the staff of an Australian Governor, and I know in what a high degree the Imperial feeling is a matter of pure sentiment, attachment which is not based on reason or interest, but which is purely sentimental in the highest sense. The people of the Dominions talk of home in a very peculiar and meaning way, and I believe that a response to their act, whose effect will have been keenly noticed in Canada, is worth considering, and would have a high value. I do trust that the President of the Local Government Board and the Under-Secretary will see in this matter an opportunity not only for justice, but for the exercise of high Imperial policy.
    Mr. TICKLER: I beg to support the appeal which was so ably made by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I represent, in a part of my Constituency, the once prosperous watering place of Cleethorpes, which has been very hardly hit by the War. It is contiguous to Grimsby, and is often called a part of Grimsby. Consequently, many of the fishermen engaged in the fishing—
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. TICKLER(continuing): I was remarking that Grimsby and Cleethorpes were contiguous, and that consequently a great many of the fishermen who are engaged in the fishing trade of Grimsby have come to live at Cleethorpes, and have made it their home. They have been very hardly hit at Cleethorpes by the War. The whole of the larger vessels have been taken over by the Admiralty for minesweepers and patrol purposes, and consequently there only remain the smaller and older vessels to do the fishing. These vessels have lately had further restrictions put upon them. It is well known that they can only go very short voyages because they cannot carry a sufficient supply of coal to take them a long voyage, but they have lately been restricted in fishing on the ground on which they used to find a good supply of fish, and of the better kind of fish, and therefore there is no prospect of them being able to earn a living. They have tried to earn a living on other grounds, but have been unable to do so. At Cleethorpes also there are a great many people who have gone there and taken larger houses than they would in the ordinary way have taken to supplement the small incomes which they have by taking lodgers. These people have, since the War began, found it very hard indeed to make both ends meet. It has been said that the Government have given a grant from the Dominion Governments to all these East Coast towns, and half of the fund, I believe, has already been administered. But as has been pointed out by a previous speaker, it has only been given for the relief of rent. There are a great many cases since this fund was administered which have been brought to my notice where the people have suffered very severely because they have not been able to take advantage of having their rent paid. It is well known to many Members that the rent is looked upon as of the first importance by a good many people, and cases have been brought before me where the tenants of the houses have sold articles of furniture and bedding to pay the rent. When they came before the committee who had this relief to dispense they find that they were disqualified from receiving it because the first thing they were asked was for the receipt for the rent, and if they owed any arrears of rent, and they could not say they did. They had sacrificed and sold their belong-
    2600
    ings to pay their rent, and for that reason they were debarred from participating in the benefits to which others who have neglected the rent and paid for other things were entitled. I may say that even this fund was hardly sufficient, and that it was laid down that no relief was to be given in excess of £30 to one tenant. Unless, therefore, they could show that their rent was in arrears they received no relief at all. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does consider and give a sympathetic ear to this appeal, will lay down some better rule for administering the relief fund by such a test as that, because I can assure him that there are a great many cases in which very great hardships have been suffered by people because they have paid the rent. They owed rates and perhaps other debts which they thought they could let wait, but they thought that before anything they should pay their rents, and therefore I hope that will be borne in mind in administering any relief that the Government may think proper to give.
    I should like to remind the House that from Grimsby and Cleethorpes we have sent a very large contingent to the Navy, in the Naval Reserve, and volunteers for the mine sweepers and patrol boats. There is not less a number than 4,000 men who have volunteered for service on the mine sweepers and patrol boats. These, of course, live in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and they are well provided for. Cleethorpes has not suffered perhaps so much as some of the other East Coast towns have, because it is contiguous to Grimsby and has the protection of the Fleet, and has not suffered as many air raids as some other places have. But I would like to point out to the House and the Government that the people living in the East Coast towns have to put up with what they consider is a very great hardship, that is, they have to bear, most of these people if they live in their own houses, insurance against not only aircraft bombardment but bombardment from the sea. They have a double insurance to make, and they are very badly able to afford it. They have had deputations from these towns, which have waited on the President of the Board of Trade to see whether some means could not be found for the Government to pay for this bombardment insurance, because they consider that they are called upon specially, owing to their proximity to the coast, to pay very heavy premiums because they

    2601
    live there. They think that as they contribute to the taxes of the country and to the carrying on of the War they are entitled to the protection of the State for these heavy burdens which are cast upon them. That is a matter which the President of the Board of Trade told them could not be entertained, and that they could not be given any relief in that way. I hope, however, that the Local Government Board will consider their case, and be able to give them some relief in this matter. I am very pleased indeed to inform the House that, although my Constituency consists of about 100,000 population, I have not had since this War began, and since we had this Military Service Bill, one single letter from anyone who is a conscientious objector. I have not had one write to me complaining that they were suffering any hardship by being called upon to serve their country owing to conscientious objections which they held. I am very proud indeed to be able to say so, because I have not much faith in conscientious objection myself, and I am very proud to say that in Grimsby, so far as I know, we have none. I beg to support the appeal of the hon. Members, as I am sure that the people who live on the East Coast are suffering very severely and bearing more than their burden, and I am sure more than they are able to bear, in this War. I hope, therefore, that it will have the sympathetic consideration of the Government.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who represents one of the towns on the Lincolnshire coast, I should like to bring before the House the matter of those groups of towns which have suffered equally with regard to the lack of visitors as Yarmouth, Lowestoft, and the other towns of Norfolk and Suffolk have suffered, and I would make an appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), whom I have already seen some time ago about it. I think the Local Government Board quite understands the position now, as they have had so many letters, so many petitions, and so many statements from the different towns. While we have had the matter placed before the House by the hon. Member for Yarmouth, the hon. Member for Lowestoft, and one of my hon. Friends here, the consideration is not the same, particularly with regard to one town to which I will call attention—Mablethorpe. We have not a large fishing population there, and the whole population is practically dependent upon those who come down for the seaside in the
    2602
    summer time. They are particularly hard hit. Taking Mablethorpe and other adjoining places, such as Sutton-on-Sea and Skegness, the three towns are entirely dependent on the people who come there, because whatever the air of Yarmouth and Lowestoft may be, I can assure the House that the air of the Lincolnshire coast towns is as good, if not better.
    Mr. WING: How about Scarborough?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. DAVIES: I have nothing to say in depreciation of Scarborough in the least. I would only quote one or two figures. I have them from one tradesman in Mablethorpe. On Whit-Monday, 1914, he supplied 1,000 meals. On Whit-Monday, 1915, he supplied seven meals. I give that illustration in order to show what the suffering of everybody in these places must be when the meals provided by one tradesman are reduced from 1,000 to seven in one day. There is more than one way in which these towns can be specially supported and helped, and I do think that some help should be given them. There are, at any rate, four ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir E. Beauchamp) said that in his constituency it was complained that they did not billet soldiers on private houses. The same complaint comes from the Lincolnshire coast towns. The houses are empty of visitors, but in nearly all the East Coast towns they have not allowed the soldiers to be billeted. If the soldiers at present in those towns were billeted upon the inhabitants it would greatly help, and the people would far rather earn money in that way than have relief in some other way. The withdrawal of the tourist tickets this year makes it much worse. I know that my right hon. Friend has nothing to do with that matter, but, perhaps, the Local Government Board will bring before the Board of Trade and the Railway Committee the difference it would make to these towns if the tourist tickets were again allowed, as they were last year. It would not mean that a single extra train would have to be run. We do not want excursion trains, but simply tourist tickets. All it would mean would be that at week-ends—Friday, Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday—the same trains would run full instead of half empty. It could be done without running a single extra train, and if it were done it would help all these towns more than any relief they could possibly have.

    2603
    Mablethorpe is a town specially suited for restoring the nerves. There is already one institution there specially for nerves, and if they would only send a large number of convalescent soldiers to these East Coast towns, where there are houses empty, and where they are quite ready to set up a committee to take charge of them and to see that they are properly billeted and treated, instead of sending them elsewhere at greater expense, it would be of great assistance, and the soldiers would recover sooner. If we cannot have assistance in any one of these three directions, we are obliged to fall back upon a Grant, because the people cannot live on nothing. There are as independent people on the East Coast—both South East and North East—as you can find in any part of the country, and they would not ask charity of anybody if it were not a case of necessity. It is not their own doing at all. I do hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to do something either through his own Board or in various other ways, such, for instance, as bringing his influence to bear on the Board of Trade for the resumption of tourist tickets and on the War Office so that convalescent soldiers may be sent to these holiday places where they will recover more quickly and get back to the front sooner to fight again for their country. We have had undobutedly from the Lincolnshire Coast as many fishermen join the Navy and as many men enlist in the Army as from any other part of the country. I do therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do something in this case of necessity. I know it is a case of necessity, because I have been there, and the people cannot pay their rents or their rates, although they wish to do so, unless something is done and done quickly.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): If the House had been full, I am quite sure that every Member would have sympathised with the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) when he got up to-day to picture the deep and deplorable distress which has overtaken the town which he represents and the other towns which are represented by many eloquent and forcible speakers who have addressed us to-day. Yarmouth and Cromer, and Louth and Grimsby, have been fortunate to have speakers to represent them and their case to-day, but I can say that the Local Government Board
    2604
    have been approached by the Members of these other thirty-five towns who are all more or less in the same boat and all more or less affected by the War in the same manner. We have been approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Rea), who has taken a deep interest in this question, and by many other hon. Members representing these thirty-five towns, and I can assure my hon. Friend that both the President of the Local Government Board and myself have been made thoroughly well acquainted with the case that they have put before the House to-day. I do not think that the picture was in the very least exaggerated. The picture of many of these East Coast towns is indeed one which might appeal to anybody. Bombardment following bombardment, air raids, sea raids, the absence of the usual holiday-makers who go down to these places and from which they have hitherto derived such benefit, excursion trains ceasing to run, tourist tickets withdrawn, double insurance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Tickler) noted just now, having to be effected by the owners of these lodging-houses and shops—all these things tend to make a deplorable picture of gloom, and I wish I could offer some real hope that this gloom is likely to be removed at a very early date. I am afraid that I cannot do so.
    It is a problem which must be approached by those who will have to approach it—and recollect this is more a case for the Treasury than for the Local Government Board—from the point of view that this distress is likely to continue after the War, because of the depletion of stocks and the many things that will affect these places. Even if we knew that this summer would see the very last of the bombardments, as we hope it will, and the last of the sea raids and air raids, as we hope it will, there would still be the scare, more or less, attaching to the past misfortunes which these towns have had to suffer. The fact that lodging-housekeepers have sold their furniture and that tradesmen have depleted their stocks in order to pay their rates, and the fact that industries have been wiped out for a time, and cannot be very rapidly re-established—all these things tend to affect these places. If we look at the question of the rates, the question of the debts that they have incurred, and the question of the loans that they have properly borrowed, we are faced with a problem which cannot

    2605
    be approached by anybody as a matter which will be cured immediately the War is over, but must be approached as a matter which will endure in some form, though not, perhaps, an acute form, after the War is over. The effect of all this has been to wipe out many of the great industries upon which these places depend, such as the herring industry, and so on, and that, no doubt, has caused a large reduction in the produce of the rates and made it very difficult indeed to collect the rates and for some of these municipalities to meet the instalments and the interest on their former loans.
    All these matters are true, and I do not think that they have been at all exaggerated by any of those who have addressed the House. We all of us have very great sympathy with the lodging-house keepers who, after all, constitute the bulk of the population, certainly in Yarmouth and Scarborough and other places. After all, the East Anglian towns are always the natural playing grounds of our great cities, and if there were no lodging-house keepers there would be no lodgings, and if there were no lodgings where would all the children from London, Manchester, Birmingham, and our large towns go to restore their health and recuperate, as is so necessary in the case of children who have to spend their lives in our great cities? We must all feel that just as individuals have to bear one another's burdens, so towns ought to have great sympathy with one another, and ought to regard any help which the Government may give and which may be spread over the towns of the country as an obligation which they may well share and bear.
    The misfortunes of these towns are hard to bear in any case, but they are rendered harder to bear by the irony of the fact that while some towns have had to endure the misfortunes of bombardment and air raids, other towns are more prosperous through the War than they have ever been in any period of their history. It is one of the ironies of war that just as some individuals are ruined others are made wealthy beyond all dreams of avarice. So some towns and parts of England are made miserable and poverty-stricken by the War, whereas other towns and districts are enriched and made happier than they ever were. Therefore there is something to be said for any Government proposing something in the nature of special relief for towns specially hard hit by the War, such as those which have
    2606
    been represented here to-day. Everybody almost has alluded to the magnificent gift made by Canada, which has done something to alleviate the sufferings of many of these lodging-house keepers. After all, what was £150,000 amongst so many as have had to be relieved? It was something material, no doubt, and it has helped many a lodging-house keeper to keep going for a short time, and has done much in the way of sympathy because sympathy is of much use to us when we are in trouble. We cannot be too grateful to our Canadian brethren oversea for this very kind and generous gift which has been so well utilised by the President of the Local Government Board in distributing it amongst the towns which have suffered special hardship through the War. I am well aware that the same causes which have contributed to the misfortunes which we have endeavoured to relieve by the distribution of that gift are still operating and will continue to operate to deepen the distress of these unfortunate East Coast towns.
    My hon. Friends may rely upon it that, so far as I am concerned, the appeals which have been made to me will not fall upon deaf ears. I am a past chairman on the East Anglian Society in London, and there is no single place which has been mentioned to-day, from Scarborough as far down as Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft in which I have not spent many happy days, not only in the days of my youth, but up to quite recent years. I have every sympathy, personally and otherwise, with the appeals of my hon. Friends.
    We now come to the remedies. A number of suggestions have been made, not for the first time. There has been the suggestion of the possibility of billeting troops in many of these towns. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, more than a year ago, approached the War Office with a view of getting something done in the way of billeting troops in the eastern towns, but we were then met by arguments—and, no doubt, good arguments—that for reasons well known to the military authorities billeting could not take place in some of these towns. Another matter on which representations have been made to the War Office has been as to the possibility of using these towns as places of convalescence for many thousands of our sick and wounded soldiers who would undoubtedly benefit very greatly from the keen air of these towns. I will take care

    2607
    that both of these matters are again represented to the War Office. There may be insuperable reasons on the part of the military authorities, however, for not applying either of these remedies. Then there is the question mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. T. Davies), that of tourists' tickets. The hon. Member assured me it would be possible to issue these tickets without increasing the number of trains, or rolling stock, or the staff of men required to be employed on the railways for looking after holiday passenger traffic. That is largely a question for consideration by the Board of Trade, and I will take care that representations regarding it are again placed before that Department, with a view to seeing whether that is one of the remedies that can be adopted for this unhappy state of affairs.
    It has been suggested that new industries might be set up. We have often considered the possibility of planting new industries, but it is a thing which is not easily done. It has been done to a small extent in the way of starting the toy industry, but everybody will know how extraordinarily difficult it is at a time like this to plant any new industry in the place of old industries. See what splendid industries these old industries are. Take the herring fishery and the fishing industry. No small industry, like the toy making or basket making industry, could do any appreciable good in taking the place of these magnificent industries which have been so useful to this country, and by means of which most of these places have lived and prospered. We have got to do our best to keep alive the old industries, to revive them as soon as we possibly can.
    Meanwhile these places are suffering from a burden of debt which they incurred in former times. There again you have the irony of the situation that present depression is accentuated by former prosperity. It was their former prosperity that induced these boroughs to borrow money for all kinds of purposes — recreation grounds and other purposes calculated to promote restoration to health. They borrowed the money, quite wisely, and spent it on improving their places, on giving them amenities which they had not hitherto possessed with a view to attracting visitors to come and enjoy them. Undoubtedly one or two of these places have suffered severely from owning their own
    2608
    gasworks, their own waterworks, or their tramways. Now they are called upon to pay heavy instalments of debt at a time when it is very difficult to get money from the ratepayers. I can assure my hon. Friends who have brought this matter forward that the Local Government Board are following this matter up very closely indeed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board is thoroughly sympathetic on this question, and we are now awaiting further information of a detailed character with regard to the finances and financial burdens of the different localities. The information is being obtained for us by a Committee of town clerks, borough accountants, and chief borough officials in all these places. I believe the information was to have reached us to-day, and I am quite sure that immediately we do get it it will be thoroughly discussed. It is not easy to apply any general policy in dealing with a question of this kind. Each and every one of these places, although they all suffer from the same cause, may be in a different situation so far as finance is concerned. Some places own their tramways or their gas and waterworks; others do not. Some have large debts; others have but small debts. Some have a high rateable value; some a low rateable value; some have much greater difficulty in collecting their rates than others. All these matters will have to be very carefully scrutinised from the financial point of view. But I can assure my hon. Friends who have made such forcible speeches on the subject that directly we obtain the detailed information we shall explore it most thoroughly, we shall consider the cases of the towns both individually and collectively. We shall then be in a position to make our recommendations to the Treasury, and then it will be for my hon. Friends to make their appeals to the Treasury for the particular form of assistance which under the circumstances may commend itself to the Treasury. This is not a local, but a great national question, which it is the duty of the nation not only to sympathise with but to deal with in some practical way.

    WAR OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to raise a few questions in connection with the administrative and financial sides of the War Office, and I hope before my remarks are at an end the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War will be in his place, because I informed him that I

    2609
    should raise certain questions in connection with his Department, and I am sure he would wish to be here to answer them if it is possible to do so. Until he arrives I will put a few questions more nearly connected with the Department of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I should like some enlightenment on a question which has been much discussed in the Press lately and which has caused a great deal of distress up and down the country. It is with reference to the pensions given to wounded soldiers. I have seen it stated, in what seems to be a responsible journal, that the pension to a soldier who has lost a limb is reduced from the full rate to a lower rate within three months of the injury being received. Obviously if that is true it must reflect very injuriously on the War Office and on the generosity of the country, and I take this opportunity of asking my hon. Friend if he can reassure our minds upon that point, and if through the Press he will reassure the minds of these wounded soldiers and of their relatives.
    I have been informed since I came into the House this afternoon by an hon. Member for one of the Cheshire Divisions that a captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps attached to the Territorial Force only receives 15s. per day, whereas a captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps attached to the Regular Army receives 25s. per day. I can understand the differentiation in time of peace, because the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officer is a full-time officer who has to give the whole of his time to looking after recruits. He therefore receives a higher rate of pay than the Territorial R.A.M.C captain, who is only so employed part of his time and is able to make an income by private practice. But since the War broke out both of these officers are in exactly the same position, both do the same work, both give all their time to their military duties, and in justice the pay of the two should be the same. A case came under my notice only the other day of a medical gentleman attached to the Territorials who, prior to the outbreak of War, was making £1,000 per year by his private practice. He was called up and obliged to give the whole of his time to his military duties, and for this he received 15s. per day, and he has had to sacrifice the whole of the income he obtained from his private practice. I hope my hon. Friend will consider cases of this kind, which are not very numerous, and will do so sympathetically.
    2610
    I want, if I may, to speak on one or two questions to which I have before referred in this House, although I have not been fortunate in getting an answer from the Financial Secretary. I want to know why it is necessary to have taken that large building in Pall Mall for the Headquarters of the Eastern Command. It is an exceedingly expensive place. I think the headquarters might much better have been in Cambridge, or at some other place in the centre of the Command, where accommodation is plentiful and far less expensive. Why was it necessary to have it in London? And if it was necessary—which I do not admit—why should this enormous building in Pall Mall have been taken? It has been said that the offices must be near the War Office. But was that the only accommodation available; and has my hon. Friend no knowledge as to the uses of telephone? Why, he might easily have got two special wires from the War Office to any site for the accommodation of the staff. I am informed that the rent of this place will cost from £4,000 to £5,000 a year. Apart from that, a good deal of money has been spent in fitting up the premises. It would seem to have been left entirely to military officers to select the site, and they naturally have chosen one most convenient for their clubs in Pall Mall. This is a matter which requires explanation.
    Then there is the case of the headquarters of the Northern Defence Force. I think I am not giving away any military secrets when I say they are situated in Norfolk. Under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government have requisitioned the largest country house in Norfolk, a building with from eighty to 100 bedrooms, in addition to enormous reception rooms, full of priceless furniture, which has had to be taken away, and surrounded by an enormous park, which has to be kept up. I submit that that cannot be justified in any way. There are any number of large manor houses or farmhouses which would have provided adequate accommodation for the headquarters of the General and his staff, consisting of about a dozen officers. To take a country house, which cannot cost much less than from £10,000 to £12,000 a year, is casting money away, and does not reflect very well of the control on the financial side of the War Office. Naturally, the generals, from their own

    2611
    point of view, requisition the most comfortable house that is available, and if the War Office allow them to do it, naturally they will all do it.
    I am drawing attention to this matter in the hope that it may somewhat restrain the activities of what are called the Army "brass hats" in the future. Again, I should like to know why Lady Warwick's place at Dunmow was taken for headquarters, and why General Codrington lived there for many months. I know it was given up, not because it was expensive, but because the headquarters were moved from that district. I feel sure that when the hon. Gentleman answers he will not be able to say that they paid less than £100 a week for that particular place, because I understand they had to keep twenty gardeners, and it is a very large country house. Why could not a large farmhouse have been requisitioned for this general, or even one of the old manor houses in Dunmow itself? Unless the House of Commons tries to exert a little control over expenditure, we do not know where we are going. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and proposed to take away all our American gilt-edged securities. If that is necessary, I do not complain, but when we are spending money at the present rate, we should endeavour to diminish our expenditure or keep some sort of control over the expenditure that is going on. There is another instance, of which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman has never heard. I am informed on very good authority—I mention this to show the lack of control over expenditure that existed at the beginning of the War—that 1,000,000 ammunition boxes were ordered. The hon. Gentleman knows the wooden boxes with cord handles. I am told that they were ordered at 13s. 6d. each, and were delivered and used up. When the second order for another million was given, apparently whoever gave the order at the War Office had got to know the ropes somewhat better, because they placed the contract at 3s. each. It is a very large drop from 13s. 6d. to 3s. I hear from a right hon. Gentleman who was a Member of this House, and who has had big business experience, that these boxes ought to have been made for 1s. 2d. each. I will not vouch for that story, but I have it from a gentleman who is an ex-Member of this House and a big manufacturer. I would like the Financial Secretary to inquire into that. If my in-
    2612
    formation is incorrect. I am quite willing to accept a correction, but judging from the source from which I received it, it is a matter worthy of his attention.
    I should like to say a few words about the contracts which have been given out and which, if my information is correct, are still being given out by the hon. Gentleman's Department of the War Office on the basis of a percentage of expenditure. The Admiralty have given up those contracts, and the Munitions Department have also given them up, although I am bound to say to their credit, so far as I know, they put out very few contracts on that basis. The hon. Gentleman, however, is incorrigible. When I ask him whether he is going to give up putting out contracts on this basis he replies, "No; I fully intend to go on giving out contracts on that basis." There are a good many Members who share my view that this is a pernicious practice. You tell the manufacturer to make a thing, and say, "Tell us how much it costs, and we will pay you a percentage on your expenditure." Everybody knows that that is a form of contract which should be avoided, if possible. It is only excusable under two conditions, either in a case of such tremendous haste such as existed at the beginning of the War, when it was unavoidable, or, secondly, under the Admiralty practice, where speed is absolutely essential in the repair of ships. Nobody would cavil at the Admiralty giving out contracts on that basis for repairs, but I understand they have given it up absolutely in regard to contracts for new construction. Will the Financial Secretary tell us why he persists in this pernicious custom? We all know from the answers he has given that the contracts now in existence are on a 9 per cent. basis. So far as I can make out, the contractor runs no risk at all. He makes certain things for the hon. Gentleman, and, at the end, he sends in a statement showing what he has spent, and the hon. Gentleman on the average gives him £9 for every £100 he has spent. I only wish I were on the War Office list of contractors, and were allowed to contract on a basis such as that.
    There is another matter which I do not press because, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman is engaged in dealing with it, but I should like some information on the hutting contracts. If my information is correct, a series of contracts amounting to £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, have been carried

    2613
    out entirely on the percentage of cost basis. If the hon. Gentleman, with due regard to the public service, can give us some information on that subject I shall be obliged. Why do I, and many other hon. Members, so strenuously object to contracts put out on this basis? We object to them for two reasons: They increase the working cost and lead to and foster general inefficiency. That cannot be avoided. The manufacturer has not the slightest interest in keeping down expenses, because the more wages he pays, and the more he pays for his material, the more money he gets. It is obviously a bad principle. What is more serious, it is very apt to cause labour unrest. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Black friars Division (Mr. Barnes) will probably support me when I say that this was one of the main causes of the unrest on the Clyde last year. The men soon find out what the basis of the contract is, and they say, "Why should we not have increased wages? The Government or the taxpayer pays, and it does not come out of the pocket of the employer?" If the employer says to them, "It is not justifiable that you should have increased wages," they reply, "The more wages we get the more your profits will be." Therefore, everybody is banded together to fleece the taxpayer and to fleece the Government. That is a point that ought to be considered when the hon. Gentleman says he is going to continue giving out contracts on this basis. Is it not a premium on the expensive working of contracts? What inducement is there to the manufacturer to use time-saving appliances, or to cut down his expenses in any way? He will not push his brains to turning out the work at the lowest possible cost, but goes on in the old shipshod way, and will not try to make his output at the least possible cost. The more he goes on in that way the greater his percentage will be.
    I will now deal more specifically with the Departments in the War Office which put out these contracts. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there are two Departments in the War Office which deal with the financial side—the Transport and Supplies Department, which is under a very clever General, General Cowans, and the Contracts Department, which is under a gentleman named Mr. Winter. I have nothing but praise for the Quartermaster-General's Department under General Cowans. Unless my recollection is at fault the Under-
    2614
    Secretary of State for War, a month or six weeks ago, publicly, in the House of Commons, gave great praise to the Quartermaster-General's Department now under General Cowans—it was under General Long, but he has now left—and Colonel Holden has also done good work during the War. It has efficiently served our troops with food and supplies, and done it very economically. I believe that Department has never put out a contract on a percentage of cost basis. They have always fixed the price, and said to the, manufacturer, "We will give you so much; that is the price for which you have to make the article," and they have got an extremely good article for their money on that basis. If my information is correct, that is not the habit of the Contracts Department.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is not the business of the Quartermaster-General's branch to place contracts. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me what contracts he means.
    Mr. ASHLEYIt may not be the business of the branch, but the hon. Gentleman must know that since the War began they have placed hundreds of contracts practically without any reference to the Contracts Department at all. I am referring to the Supplies and Transport Department.
    Mr. FORSTER: Not a single one!
    Mr. ASHLEY: Let us, at any rate, deal with the policy of the War Office. In certain cases they are continuing to put out their contracts on a percentage basis. It is difficult for a private Member to find out the truth. He hears a good many stories, and it is very difficult to sift the truth from fiction. I ask, is it not a fact that the Contracts Department of the War Office, in the last two months, did put out two contracts on a percentage basis, one for motor wagons with the Napier Company for £25,000 to £50,000, on which the profit is going to be 10 per cent., and another with the Clement-Talbot Company, also for motor wagons, on which the profit is going to be 10 per cent.? I assume from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that he would not give up those contracts. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to give up contracts on this basis, which, in my opinion and in that of a good many of my hon. Friend is a most pernicious one.
    I should like to say a few words with reference to the London General Omnibus

    2615
    Company, with which the Financial Secretary dealt with last Thursday in answer to a speech of mine on the previous Tuesday. He took me severely to task for my ignorance of the proposal of the bus company and said that what I had stated in Debate on Tuesday was quite inaccurate and unfounded, and that in every way my statement was not in accordance with the facts. As far as my information goes what I said was perfectly true. I stated that the bus company at the beginning of the War made certain proposals to the Transport and Supply Department of the War Office at the latter end of 1914. This is the gist of their proposal which the hon. Gentleman says is not true, but I stick to my guns. He has access, naturally, to documents which I have not, but I think my information is pretty correct. What they said was, "Treat us like the rest. Take us over and guarantee our dividends, and when you have done with us at the end of the War return us to the status quo ante and give us back our buses in good working order." The hon. Gentleman denied last Thursday that that was so. My information is that this was refused by the Finance Department of the War Office, though it was backed by the Quarter-master-General's Department. It was absolutely turned down and blocked by the civilian element simply because it was an innovation. It was not in accordance with their usual form of red tape, and they would not take the slightest risk. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if the Quartermaster-General's Department did not ask for an inquiry into the practicability of the scheme, which inquiry was refused. I want to put before the House what I consider would have been the result of the proposals made by the London General Omnibus Company, as far as the nation is concerned, and what has now been the result of refusing those proposals. The London General Omnibus Company would not now accept such terms as they proposed then. They did not know what was going to happen. They were on their beam ends and would have taken almost any terms proposed by the War Office. I know the hon. Gentleman was not at the War Office at the time, but I suppose he is able to find out the facts. I cannot understand why, if one Department of the War Office asked for an inquiry and for the adjudication of an impartial man, it should be refused and no investigation should take place. When
    2616
    the hon. Gentleman is considering the figures in regard to this, it is not only the War Office that is concerned but the Admiralty also. The Admiralty took over a large number of motor omnibuses and used them for the Antwerp expedition.
    What has been the result to the taxpayer of the refusal, as far as I can make out, of that proposal of the omnibus company, which was backed with the whole weight of the Quartermaster-General's Department? The hon. Gentleman did not deny that already £430,000 out of the Vote of Credit has been paid over to the company, and that a large sum is still owing. I presume, therefore, that it is correct. I did not mention that the country is still paying and has been paying ever since September or October, 1914, for the buildings and garages belonging to the company. We are paying also heavy costs for training the men, which the company are now doing for the War Office, and, if my information is correct, we are paying £5,200 a year for the call which the War Office has for the use of omnibuses, which are now running in the streets, in case of emergency—a very sensible arrangement, but you must take it into consideration when you are estimating the value of the two schemes. Probably this is very difficult to estimate, but I should think anything from £200,000 to £250,000 has been paid by the Admiralty to the company for the buses they requisitioned from them. It is very difficult to estimate what the whole sum amounts to, but, in one way or another, £700,000 or £800,000 is being paid over to the company. Under the scheme of General Cowan's Department, which was put forward by the omnibus company when they were on their beam ends at the beginning of the War, you would have paid nothing in 1914, in 1915 you would have paid some £30,000, and this year you would have paid very little more—perhaps £40,000—and, if my information is correct, the whole transaction with the company could be and will be properly closed next month. The War Office very cleverly tried only to requisition parts of the omnibuses. They said they would only requisition the chassis, and not the bodies. That was found to be illegal, and they had to requisition the entire buses. We only wanted a very few of the motor bodies in France and Flanders. What we wanted were the chassis on which to put bodies for carrying stores about, so that nearly all the bodies which belonged to the omnibuses and which were requisitioned have

    2617
    never left London. They are still stored here, and are in just as good condition as at the outbreak of the War. The only money that the War Office, under the scheme which they turned down, would have had to find would have been for the fifty or so motor chassis which have been smashed in France, and for the putting in good order of the other motor chassis which have never been replaced by more efficient and more up-to-date chassis, which would not amount at the most to more than £100,000. A chassis belonging to a motor omnibus is a standardised chassis. You can rebuild it very easily. If one part goes wrong you can substitute a new part, and very often chassis are running which have been entirely renovated. The whole bill which the nation would have paid for replacing these chassis would have been about £100,000, which, added to the £30,000 or £40,000 guaranteeing the dividend, would have amounted perhaps to £170,000—let us say, for the sake of argument, £200,000. That is what you would have had to pay under the scheme which the financial side of the War Office turned down, whereas you have already paid from £600,000 to £750,000 because the hon. Gentleman's predecessor refused an impartial inquiry and supported the financial people.
    I should like to bring before the attention of the Under-Secretary a question about which I have written to him, and into which I believe he has had time to make some investigation. It is not very pleasant to have to say, but I am afraid the condition of things in the Southern Command is not very satisfactory. I do not know whose fault it is. It may be at the top of the tree, or it may be half-way down, but the administration there is not sympathetic and is not common sense. I do not much mind its not being sympathetic, because in these times sympathy perhaps cannot be expected from overworked men, but commonsense we must have or things will go wrong, and I am afraid things may go wrong in the Southern Command shortly unless matters are investigated and put on a more sensible footing. Take the question of inoculation. Inoculation is voluntary on the part of the soldier. He can be inoculated or not as he wishes. Naturally, as the vast majority are sensible men, they are inoculated, because though they know that in a few cases inoculation makes the individual very ill, in the vast majority of cases it has proved a great safeguard against typhoid and has enabled our troops in
    2618
    France and in other places to be kept up to a very high state of efficiency by diminishing the number of hospital cases. Anything which would tend to prevent men being inoculated ought to be deprecated. Quite recently in the Southern Command an order has been issued that no man should be allowed his forty-eight hours' leave to go home after he has been inoculated. He is not obliged to go on parade, but he is obliged to remain in his rather cheerless barrack room, with thirty or forty other people. If you take inoculation badly, with a temperature of 102 or 103, you would much rather be in a comfortable home than in a barrack room, with people making a noise all round, and there is always the danger of getting a chill, or getting pneumonia and dying. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman on what ground of common sense the order has been issued that after inoculation no man shall be allowed to go home for his forty-eight hours. When I commanded a battalion it was left to the commanding officers. I always gave three days, because I found that though the vast majority of men did not take it badly, the few who did required at least two days to recover from the inoculation, which in the end did them very great good. The only result of this will be that you will develop a conscientious objection to inoculation. Men will simply refuse to be inoculated, and you will send abroad men who are not immune to typhoid, or you will diminish the number of men who can be sent abroad and the number available for our Army.
    There is another point. It is not very important, except that I think it is bad for discipline. Quite recently an order has come out in the Southern Command that in no circumstances is a commanding officer to give leave to an officer before twelve midnight on Saturday, and that it is not to extend over midnight on Sunday. If officers have been working very hard for five days, commencing at six o'clock on Monday morning, I should think some of them might be allowed to go away on Friday night, but that is, after all, a matter for military opinion. What I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman is this: Commanding officers have a great deal of responsibility. Except for the company officer there is no more important man in the British Army than the colonel, who trains a unit and enables the general to fight a successful battle, but if you cannot trust the commanding officer

    2619
    to decide whether one of his officers shall go away for twenty-four hours' leave or not, you will not get the best men to take these jobs, and you will not get the best out of the men. Men in that position ought to be trusted to carry out their duties without peddling interference.
    6.0 P.M.
    I now come to the last point—a most important one—which I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. About a month ago an order was issued in the Southern Command that in no circumstances could more than 5 per cent. of the men be allowed away on week-end leave. I understand that this matter was brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman by one hon Member, and the answer which the right hon. Gentleman was instructed to give seemed to convey the idea that he was misinformed. The answer he gave did not give a very correct impression of what is the real state of things. The order providing that not more than 5 per cent. of the men should be allowed to go away on week-end leave means that only once in twenty weeks can a man get away. The answer which was given by the right hon. Gentleman was:
    "Provided the exigencies of the Service permit, a private soldier of good character can easily obtain leave from Saturday to Sunday night."
    That means, I presume, Saturday mid-day to Sunday night. From the expression "may obtain leave from Saturday to Sunday night," one could hardly imagine that under no circumstances could a man get away more than once in twenty weeks.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Once in twenty weeks?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Yes. Only 5 per cent. of the men being allowed away at the same time means that a man can only get away once in twenty weeks, or once in five and a half months. I think those who gave that answer to the right hon. Gentleman have placed a gloss upon the situation, if I may put it in a friendly way. This is a very important matter. The vast majority of the men in the Southern Command do not belong to what I call active service units. They do not belong to units which could be called upon or could take any part in quelling any civil disturbance, or could be called upon or could take any part in defending this country in case of a German raid. The battalions mainly consist of what I call training schools—batta-
    2620
    lions where men are sent for a certain time before they are sent out in drafts overseas. They consist mainly of men between the ages of twenty-five and thirty, married men who have been called up and who probably have got wives, children, and businesses. These men are mostly unarmed. Most of these battalions have got only a very few rifles. They are not supposed to have rifles. They are only training battalions, and they are not trained troops. Directly a man is trained he is sent abroad. Is it to be contended that it can be for the good of the Service, or for the good of anybody, that a man should only be able to get away once in twenty weeks. I cannot conceive that the right hon. Gentleman can defend that. It is extremely hard on these men, because the recruit is sent abroad after twelve or fourteen weeks' training. You call these married men up between the ages of thirty and forty. They leave their businesses and their wives and children, quite rightly, to defend their country, and you work them very hard all the week, and yet not more than one-half of these men will be able to get week-end leave at all. The only leave they will be able to get is the four days' leave before they are sent abroad. Why cannot you allow 25 per cent. to go away on leave together? What is there against it? They are worked very hard from Monday morning until Saturday mid-day, and surely they ought to have a chance of getting weekend leave. The military authorities concerned are generals brought up in the old school. When they were young the recruits were boys of seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen, who, if they were allowed week-end leave, would get into trouble, probably get drunk and disgrace themselves and their regiments. We must remember that we have passed that stage now. The Army consists mainly of solid men, men of a mature age, mostly married men, and what they want is to get away to see their wives and children, and to see how their business is getting on. Let them go away for their week-end leave and they will come back on the Monday morning feeling all the better for it, and they will work all the better. The only objection there can be to it is that the railway companies cannot carry them.
    Mr. TENNANT: That is not the case.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point, because it means that it is creating crime. The

    2621
    only result is that the men are beginning to take French leave. They get letters from their wives saying there is trouble at home, and they are beginning to take French leave. By that means you are creating crime amongst these men, and it is really the last thing they want to do. I do urge that these men should be given reasonable facilities for week-end leave.
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ashley) has asked me a considerable number of questions, and I think it is the most convenient course that I should reply to him now. I hope to be able to remove a good many of the misconceptions which appear to exist in his mind. First of all, he asked me a question of very general interest in reference to the treatment of men who have lost their limbs. He called my attention to a statement which seems to have appeared in the Press on this subject.
    Mr. ASHLEY: What I said was that the pension of the soldier who has lost a limb is reduced from the full rate to a lower rate within three months of the injury.
    Mr. FORSTER: That is not correct. Perhaps I had better state rather fully how these limbless soldiers are treated. A soldier who has had the misfortune to lose a limb as the result of active service is treated in a military hospital until the wound is healed. So long as he is treated as a soldier his full pay and allowances are continued. When the surgeons pronounce him to be ready for the fitting of an artificial limb, which is generally four or five months after the amputation, he is admitted to the Queen Mary's Convalescent Auxiliary Hospital at Roehampton, and remains there until the limb has been passed as satisfactory by the expert consulting surgeon. While he is at Roehampton the artificial limb is fitted, and he is kept there until he has had some opportunity of learning how to use it. He usually remains at Roehampton for a period of about three weeks, but in cases presenting special difficulties the stay would be longer, according to the circumstances. What I want the House to realise is that he is not sent to Roehampton until his stump is completely healed and is in a proper condition for the use of an artificial appliance. He is then discharged from the Army as permanently unfit for further service. Up to this point his pay and allowances as a soldier, including the separation allowance, have
    2622
    been continued undiminished. On discharge he is awarded a pension by the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. When his pension is awarded, and his case comes before the Commissioners, he has been fitted with a limb and taught how to use it. Arrangements are being made for limbless soldiers domiciled in Scotland and Ireland, to be taken into hospitals like the hospital at Roehampton, where they will be treated on the same lines. When the man's case comes to Chelsea, which the House will see is four or five months after the amputation, his limb is in a state which the medical authorities pronounce fit for use He is usually given a pension at the full rate for two months. At the end of two months the full rate, 25s., is reduced to a permanent life pension of 10s. 6d. a week. Higher rates are given according to the severity of the disablement, and in the case of soldiers with over fourteen years' service a further addition is made for rank to warrant and non-commissioned officers. Although the final pension has been given for life at the rate of 10s. 6d. it is always open to the pensioner to claim a reassessment of his pension on the ground that his disability has increased, or that it has been wrongly assessed. In that event his case will be reconsidered. I have been asked, either in this House or by letter, a few days ago, whether the State provide artificial limbs for these soldiers. Yes, it does. Artificial limbs are provided. They are supplied to invalided soldiers, and they are repaired and renewed at the public expense, as necessary from time to time, at the discretion of the Commissioners.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Not officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: No. I will not commit myself, however. I am dealing now especially with non-commissioned officers and men whose cases are dealt with at Chelsea Hospital. I think that this statement satisfactorily disposes of the statements which have appeared in the Press to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also called attention to the grievance which certain Royal Army Medical Corps medical officers feel in regard to their rate of pay. He contrasted the rate of 15s. a day with the rate of 24s. a day—it is not 25s., as he stated—which is paid not to Regular officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, but to certain civilian practitioners who have been given temporary commissions

    2623
    in the Royal Army Medical Corps for the period of the War. It is an old story, although it may have only come to the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend lately. The 15s. a day rate is not a true comparison with the 24s. a day rate given to the civilian practitioners who have been granted temporary commissions, because the 24s. a day rate is consolidated pay, while the lower rate of pay which is given to a Regular officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps and to an officer of the Territorial Royal Army Medical Corps is the rate of pay only and does not include the appropriate allowances. When the allowances are added to the rate of pay there is very little difference between the rate of pay of the civilian doctor with a temporary commission and the Regular or Territorial officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also invited me to offer some explanation of the reason why expensive premises have been taken in Pall Mall and other places for the Headquarters Staffs. The history of the taking of the Pall Mall premises is very simple. It was not left to the military officers to go where they liked—the nearer their clubs the better—and to give any price they chose. When Lord French was appointed to the Home Command, it was necessary to remove the Staff, which was then at the Horse Guards, in order to make room for the Field-Marshal coming in. It was considered absolutely essential by the military authorities that they should be in the closest possible touch—my hon. and gallant Friend shakes his head, but he is not the responsible military authority which is concerned — with the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief at home. My hon. and gallant Friend says: "Why could not you have moved the Headquarters further out? Why should they not have been moved to Cambridge, for instance, which would be cheaper, and by installing a private telephone there conduct the whole business by means of telephone?" If my hon. and gallant Friend had ever been a member of the Headquarters Staff he would have known that it was absolutely necessary that you should have frequent conference by word of mouth, and that you cannot make proper co-ordinated arrangements merely by scattered conversation with different individual officers by means of the telephone.
    2624
    I take full responsibility for the taking of these premises. In a case of this kind the two Headquarters Staffs must be within conversational distance, and the choice which was submitted to me was so narrow, and this appeared to toe the only suitable building which was available at the moment to which the Headquarters Staff could be moved in the short space of time that was available, that I sanctioned the taking of them. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to attack anyone, he must attack me and not the military officers, who have not the final decision.
    My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the Headquarters of the Northern Defence Army. He asked why these premises were taken, and why should not some manor house have sufficed, and he said that we must be paying something like £10,000 a year for the vast accommodation which was taken. It was represented to me that this was the only house in the district which was suitable for the purposes of a Headquarters Staff, and again I call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the fact that it is essential for the proper conduct of business that you should accommodate your Staff under one roof wherever it is possible. My hon. and gallant Friend says that this was an expensive place to have taken, and, on what ground I do not know, he assessed the value of it at £10,000 a year. We do not assess value on the same lines apparently as my hon. and gallant Friend. The matter was referred to the Commission presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), who valued the premises for something less than one-fifth of the amount that has been mentioned.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is that one-fifth only the rent, or does it include all the expenses of moving the furniture and making good afterwards?
    Mr. FORSTER: I gather that what my right hon. Friend's Commission fixed is the annual value in lieu of rent, which was something less than one-fifth of the figure mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is much the same story in connection with the taking of Easton Lodge. There again I am asked, "Why should you have taken this great house, why this large and ample accommodation, at £100 a week?" I think my hon. and gallant Friend put it at that.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do.
    Mr. FORSTER: Easton Lodge was taken long before I had anything to do with the War Office. Therefore I am not quite so familiar with the details in this case as in some of the others, but, as far as my recollection goes, Easton Lodge was used to accommodate a great deal more than the Headquarters Staff at that time. So far from our paying £100 a week, we are now paying something less than half of that, but I am now speaking from memory, and I should not like to be positive about that figure.
    I was next asked about ammunition boxes. The House realises that it is quite impossible for me to carry in my memory details of contracts. This took place before I had anything to do with it. I do not know what occurred, but I take due note of what my hon. and gallant Friend says, and hope that I shall find as little substance in the imputation which he has made against the Contract Department in that case as I think there is in some of the other accusations which he has made.
    I come now to what I really think is the backbone of my hon. and gallant Friend's case against me and my Department. He expressed dislike of the system of arranging contracts on a basis of cost plus percentage. I assure him that I dislike it very much. My hon. and gallant Friend said that I was incorrigible and that I declared to him my intention of going on with contracts of that kind. I did nothing of the kind. What my hon. and gallant Friend asked was that I should give an undertaking that I would never place another contract on that basis. I said, "No, I cannot tie my hands. I cannot give an undertaking of that kind because undoubtedly it would tie my hands." But I had not then, as I have not now, any intention of placing contracts on that basis if it is possible to place them on any other. I think that I have made that clear before. My hon. and gallant Friend went on to comment upon the number of contracts which had been placed on this basis and the very high rate of percentage which was payable on these contracts. The question which my hon. and gallant Friend asked was, what was the number of the contracts placed on this basis and what was the average percentage paid to the contractor under it? As far as I recollect—I have not refreshed my memory—I said that there were something like ten contracts still in existence and that the average rate of percentage was nine. The
    2626
    form in which my hon. and gallant Friend put his question made it impossible to give an answer that was of any real value to the House. You may have ten different contracts—one of them in respect of a very large sum of money under which you may be paying a very low rate of percentage, and the others may be for trifling amounts such as £150 or £250, of which a percentage of anything less than from 5 to 9 or 10 would practically represent little or no profit at all.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Was it on the sum total or the number?
    Mr. FORSTER: It was on the number of contracts and not upon the amount involved. That is why the answer which I was compelled to give was of no value. In the provision of hutments we have had to rely very largely on this system which I dislike of assessing the contractor's profit on the amount which he spends. Outside of hutting we have had very few other contracts on the same basis. I think that I am right in saying there are very few. When I remind the House of the circumstances in which we were placed they will see that we have not resorted to any undue extent, apart from hut building, to this system. We were suddenly called upon to provide a large number of anti-gas helmets. No one knew much about what an anti-gas helmet was. Chemists, scientists, and manufacturers of material were at work. No one could possibly tell what the anti-gas helmet might develop into, and therefore nobody knew the cost, and the only way in which we could get this work undertaken was to take the basis of cost and allow a percentage of 2⅓ per cent. by way of profit. In respect of another contract for anti-gas equipment, we allowed a percentage of 5 per cent. on the cost, with a limit of £8,000, so that if the percentage exceeded £8,000 the contractor had to do without the excess amount. The other subject of contract on which we have adopted this system, apart from hut building, was as regards the provision of certain surgical dressings. There again we were face to face with the situation in which it was really impossible to make contracts on any other basis. As far as I remember, we submitted this particular arrangement to a Committee which sits at the Treasury. It met with their approval, and accordingly we placed the contract on that basis.

    2627
    Speaking still more or less from memory, I think that the only outstanding contract or arrangement of that kind where the remuneration of the contractor grows with the amount which he spends is in the provision of hutments. We had to build so vast a city of huts that it is difficult to grasp what it means. I think that I am right in saying that we had in the first year of the War to build huts which would have taken in the whole population of Manchester and Leeds, and the ordinary arrangement of tender and fixed contract was absolutely impossible, because you had to deal with the provision of accommodation on so enormous a scale. Therefore we called in to our aid the assistance of the biggest building contractors of the country.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Why could not the War Office have built under the Territorial Associations, who employ local people, as in Lancashire, who would have done the work at a rate 25 per cent. cheaper than the War Office rate?
    Mr. FORSTER: Of course, here again I have the disadvantage of not having had to deal with this question myself in the first instance. But from all that I have been able to gather that was the situation in which the War Office found itself in the early days of the War. It was impossible to make contracts for work of this kind. The contractors were unable to cover their requirements with regard to timber, and it seemed the quickest and best, and as far as we could see, and I am not sure it was not justified, the cheapest way to call in aid the great contracting firms of the country. That is the way the question of hut building was dealt with at that time. A large number of these arrangements have been completed, and there are only a few of them remaining. My hon. and gallant Friend asked for some particulars. He quoted the sum of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 as the cost of these hutted camps, and I think he wanted that I should tell him what was the rate of profit which had been paid to contractors under this arrangement. I would rather not do that at the moment, if the House will forgive me for withholding it, for the very simple reason that I am in negotiation now with great contracting firms who have been doing this work, and engaged in revising the rate of percentage. Therefore, until these negotiations have come to a close, I should be glad if the House will not press
    2628
    me further upon this question. I am ready to give the fullest information in private, but I would rather not give it in public for the moment. I have not the least desire to withhold the information indefinitely after these arrangements have been completed.
    Mr. ASHLEY: There is the question of the two contracts on this percentage system, and I wish to know whether I am correct in saying that two new contracts have been entered into recently.
    Mr FORSTER: That is not the case. What we are doing now is to proceed to apply to the motor industry a system which we have applied with very considerable success to other industries. We are inviting the manufacturers to submit their costings. Under the Defence of the Realm Act we can call upon a manufacturer to produce his costings, and we can then settle what is a fair rate of profit, and make an agreement. Failing an agreement, we can take the matter to the High Court to be settled for us. That is the system which we are applying to the motor industry for the moment, and that is the basis on which the contract, to which, I think, my right hon. and gallant Friend referred, is being arranged.
    The only outstanding question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is with reference to the London General Omnibus Company. I dealt with that the other day, and I must say again that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been supplied with reliable information. I think I can dispose of his case against the Financial Branch of the War Office in a sentence. The Quartermaster-General, with others, recommended the taking over of the London General Omnibus Company just in the same way as the railway companies were taken over. The London General Omnibus Company were willing to be taken over on those terms, and it was thought that if that were done it would be a very good arrangement for the country, and save a great deal of money that we now have to pay. I have had the advantage, of course, of seeing the proposals that were made by the London General Omnibus Company. They differ from those which were made in respect of the railway companies very materially, and when I tell my hon. and gallant Friend that those who recommended this course contemplated that it would cost us between a million and a million and a half,

    2629
    I think he will see that at any rate there was some justification for considering whether or not it would be better to take some other course which would involve less expenditure and which would be an expenditure that we might be able to control more easily. I think I can finally dispose of my hon. and gallant Friend's question when I say that the matter was thoroughly considered by the Quartermaster-General, and by the then Financial Secretary to the War Office, and by other persons concerned, and they unanimously came to the conclusion to reject the course which my hon. and gallant Friend feels would have been so much wiser to adopt, and to accept the course which has since been acted upon. I do not think I can carry the matter further than that. I explained the financial bearings of this question when speaking the other day, and I hope I have answered frankly all the questions of my hon. and gallant Friend. I make no complaint whatever of his having asked those questions.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. MORRELL: I intervene in this Debate in order to call attention once again to a matter which has very often engaged the attention of this House—I mean the problem of the conscientious objector. But, before doing that, I would like very briefly, if I may, to express to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War the sympathy I feel, and I am sure all the House feels, in the great anxiety he has had to sumer on account of his gallant son, and our sincere wish that his son may soon be restored to health. I am, glad to say that since this matter of the conscientious objector was last raised there are some signs that it will at last be satisfactorily settled, and though I am far from saying that at the present moment one can consider the position as ended, yet I am sure that the Government are making a serious attempt—an attempt that I hope will be satisfactory—to deal with this subject, and an important step has been taken in the issue, last week, of a new Army Order, dated 25th May. The effect of that Order is to provide that any man who is a conscientious objector and refuses to obey military orders is entitled, in the first place, to have imprisonment in a civil prison rather than detention. That is the first effect of the Order, and, consequently, if he has been condemned by a court-martial to a term of imprisonment he is sent by the
    2630
    commanding officer to a civil prison. That is a great improvement on anything that has happened before, because it recognises the right of the soldier to plead his conscientious objection to military service as a reason for the breach of military discipline with which he is charged. For the first time the Army recognises the existence of the conscientious objector.
    I want to put before my right hon. Friend a certain respect in which I think this Order needs supplementing. Far as it goes, it does not go nearly far enough to deal with this problem. In the first place, as regards the men who are to be brought under it, we have no guarantee at present that large numbers who are suffering to-day on account of their conscience, leading to their being charged with breaches of discipline and punished, will ever be brought under the provision of this Order at all. At present there is nothing to provide that a man shall be brought before the court-martial in respect of the breach of discipline with which he is charged. The man may be punished. The Order only provides for the people brought before the court-martial and sentenced by them. A man may be punished for a long time very severely indeed, solely on account of breaches of discipline committed from conscientious scruples, yet he will receive no relief whatever from this Order. Let me give the case of the seventeen men who were sent out to France on 8th May. Most of them were personally known to Members of this House: they were men whose names vouched for their genuineness, and whose conscientious convictions were not denied. Since they were sent out, certainly fifteen out of the seventeen have been condemned to various field punishments for breaches of discipline. These field punishments are very much more severe than any punishment amongst men who are serving time.
    Colonel N. GRIFFITHS: Does not field punishment mean that the men are given fatigue duties?
    Mr. MORRELL: These field punishments are very much more severe. It is not necessary to go into them, but I would mention the case in which a man was punished by tying his hands above his head, after being handcuffed and fastening them to a pit prop. That is a very severe form of punishment. I do not say it is always done, but at all events the point I want to make is that these men are being subjected to

    2631
    severe punishment and that at present they would not get the benefit of this Army Order. In the answer which he gave me to-day my right hon. Friend said that field punishment was not uncommon on active service, but that it was never intended that any irregularity for which field punishment was awarded should lead to the delinquent being handed over to the civil authorities. I suggest that where it is shown that a man is resisting orders from conscientious conviction he ought to have the right to be tried by court-martial so as to get the benefit of this Order and to make it effective. Otherwise you will have men punished by commanding officers, and receiving, in some cases, worse punishment without getting the benefit of the Order. That point is a serious one, and wants to be dealt with. I have had instances brought to me again and again of men being persecuted, and I venture to say tortured in some cases, by non-commissioned officers. I will withdraw the word "tortured," and say men persecuted in a manner that is, at any rate, very cruel, by non-commissioned officers again end again for disobedience to orders, and who are disobeying orders from conscientious motives because they are asked to do things which in their conscience they cannot do. They are subjected by non-commissioned officers to what I think my right hon. Friend will agree is brutal ill-treatment. I have brought instances to his notice of cases which have occurred in which men have suffered severely in this way, and which will be corroborated. I have given him particulars of the case of three brothers named Walker, and a young man named Llewelyn Hughes at Chatham Barracks. I venture to think any hon. Members who read the particulars would say that these men were subjected to cruel treatment to which no man ought to be subjected, especially men disobeying orders from conscientious motives. There have been a great many other cases, at Dover and other barracks, in which men have been knocked about and brutally ill-treated by non-commissioned officers. These non-commissioned officers have not much knowledge of consciences, and have no sympathy with those men and probably think them little better than shirkers or perhaps cowards, which they certainly are not, and they subject them to very rough usage indeed. I could
    2632
    give lots of instances of these things. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to avoid anything in the nature of persecution. I hope he will have steps taken to see that these men at the earliest possible opportunity have the advantage of the new Order which was issued last week.
    Besides these men who are suffering irregular treatment there are a great many who have been sentenced by courts-martial to various long sentences. I have heard of a case of thirty men undergoing sentence of two years, in some cases two years' imprisonment, in some two years' detention, and in some two years' hard labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have been commuted."] If they have that is all right. Will this Army Order be made retrospective, so that these men may have the benefit of being transferred to the civil power, or will something be done to commute what I regard as the severe sentences which have been passed on those thirty men. The third point I wish to refer to is this. It is all very well to put men in civil prisons, but is no provision to be made to have those cases revised. These men who have gone through all this treatment as conscientious objectors and have had to suffer for their resistence to orders are most of them perfectly willing to undertake service of national importance, and, at any rate, it is useless from the broadest point of view to keep them indefinitely in civil prisons. I suggest, after transferring them to the civil prisons, you ought to provide some new committee of a judicial character which will have power to revise the cases just as the tribunals have now, and to give them either absolute exemption, if they think they are entitled to it, or, in the alternative, work under the civil authority, and thirdly, the committee should have the power to remit these men to prison if they refuse for any reason to obey orders. That would do a great deal towards really finding a solution of this very difficult question. I ask the right hon. Gentleman two things: In the first place, that bullying and persecution should at once, as far as possible, be put an end to by some general order. In the second place, I would ask him to say that every man who is in fact a conscientious objector should have the benefit of this Army Order, and that the men in prison should not be kept permanently there, but should have the opportunity of having their cases revised.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I desire to support what has just been said. I am perfectly certain that the Government and the House want to get a settlement of this problem if it is possible. It is extremely painful to us to have to bring these questions before the House. I can well understand the impatience which some hon. Members feel that in the midst of this great conflict these questions have to be discussed, but I am perfectly certain that not only is it to the general advantage of the nation, but also of the military, as well as this House, that the question should be settled if possible. I join with my hon. Friend in thinking that the new Army Order issued on Saturday will go some way towards the solution of this question, but I do hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to extend it in the direction my hon. Friend has mentioned. I think we want to recognise, as far as the treatment of these men is concerned, I suppose in 80 per cent. of the cases that treatment has been good. I am perfectly certain from what I have heard that if you want to get over the difficulties with regard to the conscientious objectors, you can kill them by kindness, and you can almost prevent them from protesting further by kindness, but it is absolutely impossible if bullying is resorted to. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend feels as strongly as anyone in this House that anything in the nature of bullying should be stopped, and stopped immediately. For instance, a case was brought to my notice on Sunday night of a man in Yorkshire who had been taken to Richmond, and because he resisted he was frogmarched through the town, and came back in a bleeding condition. A minister in the midst of this tried to get the thing stopped, and tried to encourage the man to stop resisting out of kindness. I am perfectly certain everybody in this House feels that that kind of treatment is not the kind of treatment that you want to give to a man like that. Such men may be unwise, and may be foolish, and may be stupid, but it is absolutely un-English to allow treatment of that kind. I do hope that some way will be found once and for all to stop this bullying. I could give instances of extraordinary kindness from the military in connection with these cases, and I do feel that these exceptional cases of bullying somehow want meeting and meeting sternly.
    7.0 P.M.
    I would also suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if possible, the Government
    2634
    should do something to stop the large number of cases that are coming forward. We do not simply want to get over the difficulty with those that are in custody at the present time. We want if we can, in the national interest, to prevent this recurring difficulty. I want to give five or six examples of cases that have come to me within the last few days to show how, as I think, altogether against the national interest, cases are being decided wrongly in the Courts. I had a letter this morning from a friend, a young Wesleyan local preacher, who has been at college and has practically got through the examinations that are necessary. This young man has been trying to work for his living at the same time as passing these examinations and taking part in local preaching. That man was refused exemption except from combatant service, and he does not feel that he can accept that exemption. He is perfectly willing to work under the Pelham Committee, or some civilian committee, and yet that young Wesleyan is now resisting in a military gaol because he cannot get the exemption that he requires, and because he cannot have the opportunity to do the work that he desires. I want, if possible, that the Government should find a way of stopping the large number of cases that are, as I think, decided wrongly, and I think there is a way in which it can be done.
    Mr. SALTER: Did he appeal?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Yes, he appealed.
    Mr. SALTER: How far?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Just to the first appeal. He was not allowed to go to the Central, and I saw a letter, signed by six of the responsible officers of this Wesleyan chapel, who did not agree with the young man at all in the attitude he had taken, all testifying to his sincerity. We know also at the present time that there is a serious shortage of teachers in the country, but there is the case of a man who was a teacher at Harrow School who thought he ought to leave on account of his views, and who is in gaol now because he cannot accept the exemption that was granted to him. He is willing to teach. I understand he is willing to teach merely on a maintenance basis, but instead of that he is undergoing imprisonment now in a military gaol, and being kept at the expense of the State, whilst in place after place

    2635
    men are crying out for those who can teach the young. I heard of a case to-day of a young farmer in Yorkshire who, because of the exemption he got, will have to go to gaol. He was just granted the exemption from combatant service. He will have to sell his farm if he can, or that farm will have to be let. I really do suggest that it is not in the national interest to have that kind of thing going on. There are two or three other cases that were mentioned to me to-day of men who are awaiting arrest. There is the case of a Presbyterian deacon in London who has practically been giving his spare time to work amongst boys. That man is awaiting arrest. He is willing to do work of national importance; he is willing to work under the Pelham Committee; but that exemption has not been given to him, and every day he is expecting to be arrested and to have to resist with all these painful consequences. What I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend is this: that in hundreds, I believe thousands, of these cases—because there are a large number coming on—the Government would be spared the extraordinarily difficult work of knowing how to deal with these men if there was an attempt made to see that the exemption that is granted by the tribunals is an exemption that can be accepted by the men who hold it. If instead of the main exemption being exemption from combatant service, the main exemption was conditional on men doing work of national importance under the Pelham Committee, or under some other such body as my hon. Friend here (Mr. Morrell) suggested, I believe the problem would very largely be solved.
    Mr. TENNANT: May I ask my hon. Friend how he proposes to do that? By issuing instructions to tribunals, or by an Act of Parliament?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I should hardly have thought it would have required another Act of Parliament, because is it not perfectly clear that in many ways this country is suffering at the present time from want of labour? We could give a dozen instances of the way in which this country is suffering from want of labour. If a clear instruction was sent to a tribunal that in this respect, and this respect, and this respect, labour was wanted by the State, and that if the conscientious objector was willing to do labour of this kind or this character he should be granted an
    2636
    exemption conditional on doing that work, then it seems to me that most of the tribunals would accept that instruction from the Government, and that the men would be given the exemption they required. My hon. Friend says that this would be facilitated if the military representatives were encouraged to put no opposition in the way of that exemption. In some places the military representatives have done their best to get men that exemption, and I am perfectly certain that if the military representatives generally would encourage exemption of that kind there would be very little difficulty in getting the tribunals to grant it. I think that would require some effective administrative committee to carry the work out. My own feeling is that if at the beginning of this trouble there had been an effective administrative committee to which these cases could have been referred by the different tribunals, we should have been spared very largely the difficulties we have had to meet. What I want to urge on my right hon. Friend is this, that not only should he take steps to stop this bullying that is going on in a certain number of cases within the military barracks or garrisons, but that he should take steps to try and see that the exemption given by the tribunal is an exemption that can be accepted by the men themselves.
    Major Sir E. COATES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he suggests that these men should work on soldiers' pay?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I have always contended, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, that there should be sacrifice, and that we should expect sacrifice. I have been connected, during these months, with an organisation which now numbers 600 or 700 men, and not one man receives a penny. It is entirely voluntary, and I have always taken the ground that if on conscientious grounds a man feels that he cannot fight, he should be willing to sacrifice in other ways in order to give service to his country, and I do not believe that there would be much difficulty with regard to that question. The difficulty is the difference between military control and civil control, and I believe that if there was an effective administrative committee set up, to which the tribunals could refer, these men who had been exempted conditionally on doing work of national importance, the question would be very

    2637
    largely solved. I apologise for having taken up the time of the House for so long, but I would press on my right hon. Friend in his interest, and I am perfectly certain in the interest of the Government, and in the interest of the nation, to try and meet this matter in the way that has been suggested, so that we can have this question removed, and these painful controversies closed.
    Colonel N. GRIFFITHS: I have no intention of delaying the House, except for one or two minutes, but I do want to impress this on my right hon. Friend, and I think he will admit I have been in constant and close touch with the man who is doing what is called the dirty work on the other side. I do want to impress this upon him, with due regard to the feelings of hon. Members, that if you once start to draw distinctions in the British Army you will wreck the whole morale of the British Army, and you will be unable to continue to achieve that great success which we are all bent on achieving. Beyond pressing that on my right hon. Friend, from the soldiers' point of view, I have little to say. With regard to the remarks which have been passed about field punishment, I can assure hon. Members of this: that in most cases, in the majority of cases, the man's work is far less onerous than that which many munition workers in this country are in many cases putting in. Whatever you may do in this country, I think it is very, very important indeed that you do not attempt in this House to interfere with the military rules and regulations, or the King's Regulations, as they exist to-day overseas. If you once start to interfere and bring in the civil law in the overseas forces, wherever they are, you will be looking for endless trouble. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) just stated that he was sure that about 80 per cent. received fair treatment. I venture to think that is very, very satisfactory indeed, and that it pays a high tribute to the efficiency of the British Army in the field. For this reason. We have heard about bullying and ill-treatment, but that has to be boiled down. It is more or less equivalent to what a schoolboy gets. Hon. Members know the conditions where a boy gets a clout on his ear, or gets pushed over, or something of that kind. He gets through that period, and in every regiment it is the same; there is a certain amount of what has been termed ragging, but it is nothing more than —
    Mr. TENNANT: Horseplay.
    Colonel N. GRIFFITHS: It is hardly horseplay. These conscientious objectors must realise and appreciate the fact that there must be some feeling amongst those who have to go in day after day to the trenches, while they are working behind doing some soft job, however many hours they work. One other remark which caught my attention was with reference to the conscientious objector who was a school teacher, or was teaching boys. There, again, it is impossible to make any distinction. If you are going to take into consideration as to whether a man is teaching boys, or doing some other kind of work, where are we going to end? I have two or three cases of my own employés at the present time. One went off only the day before yesterday. He had a large family, a good position, but would have gone before if I could have spared him. He had important and serious work, and besides that he was also interested in boys, boy scouts, and looking after the coming generation in just as efficient and able a manner. I daresay, as the man who has been mentioned. How can you make a distinction between that man and the man in question? Personally, I do beseech the House, on behalf of those already in the Army, to take into consideration the appeal I make, that you cannot and do not, if you can possibly help it, make a great distinction between any class—I do not care whether it is the conscientious objector or not—and the others serving in the Army.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not propose to address the House on the general question. I have only risen to ask one definite question in regard to the recent Army Order—as to its meaning, and as to its effect. Before I sit down I shall give one concrete instance, and ask my right hon. Friend how this Army Order will affect the man to whom I shall refer. The Order reads as follows:
    "When an offence against discipline has been committed and the accused soldier represents that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, imprisonment, and not detention, should be awarded."
    The ordinary interpretation of that Order would be that it does not matter whether the soldier has or has not been found to be a conscientious objector as long as he represents that the offence is the result of conscientious objection. It does not matter, on the ordinary interpretation,

    2639
    whether he was actually found by the tribunal to be a conscientious objector, or merely represents that his indiscipline was due to conscientious objection. I want to know whether that is a right interpretation of the Order? I ask because my right hon. Friend interrupted the hon. Member for York by saying that a certain man had been exempted only from combatant service. My right hon. Friend interrupted and said: "That is the fault of the tribunals." I want to know, assuming that the man has been found by the local tribunal to be a conscientious objector, whether, after committing an offence against discipline, he represents that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service he is or is not going to have the benefit of this new Order? The instance I have in my mind is that of a man, Ithel Davies, who refused to attest because he had a conscientious objection to military service. He went before the local tribunal. They found that he was not a conscientious objector. He appealed, and his appeal was unsuccessful. On 28th April he was taken into custody and brought before the magistrates at Machynlleth, who fined him £2 and handed him over to a military escort. He was thereupon taken to Wrexham Barracks. Here he refused to make the military declaration. On 3rd May he was taken to Oswestry and forced to join the 4th Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. When he got to Wrexham he refused to take military service; at Oswestry he refused to go on parade, and he spent that night in the guard room. On 11th May he was court-martialled for refusing to go on parade, and on 15th May he was sentenced to 112 days imprisonment with hard labour. That was commuted by the colonel to 112 days' detention. On 22nd May he was transferred to Mold military prison, and his sentence was reduced from 112 days to one month. He comes out of prison next week, on 10th June.
    I should like to know whether or not this case comes within the purview of this new Army Order? Secondly, I want to know what is going to happen to the man when he comes out of prison on the 10th June? I do not myself know the young man, though I know some members of his family, and I know a number of men who are personally acquainted with him. I am told that though the local tribunal found him not to be a conscientious objector, that the officers of the battalion
    2640
    to which he has been forcibly attached, having had every opportunity of judging for themselves whether or not he is a conscientious objector, are convinced that the local tribunal was wrong, and that this man is a conscientious objector. What is that man's position when he comes out of prison? Is he going to spend the rest of the time during which we are unhappily engaged in this War, in a military or a civil prison? Surely there must be some way of dealing with a case of this kind. If my right hon. Friend will consult the officers of the battalion, I am told he will find that, from the commanding officer downward, the officers have no hesitation or doubt about the fact that this man really is a genuine conscientious objector. What is to become of him? Is he going to be taken back to the battalion at Oswestry and to be asked again to go on parade? If he refuses, is he again to be court-martialled and the same thing happen over again? Is there not some more common-sense way of dealing with this matter? No one in this House wishes to make this problem, which is difficult enough as it is, more difficult. I am perfectly certain my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with, and is willing to give every consideration to these cases. This is only one of many similar cases. I ask him, if he can, to give his earnest consideration to this and similar matters, and, if possible, give us some satisfaction in his reply.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I shall not be accused or suspected of having any sympathy with the conscientious objector as such, but it will, perhaps, be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn if I say that I have great sympathy with the treatment which he has received. I cannot say that I can go anything like, the length of those who have spoken on his behalf on the other side, but I do believe—rightly or wrongly—that having—rightly or wrongly—passed an Act of Parliament that exemption should be given to certain persons, that they are not having the treatment which Parliament—rightly or wrongly—decided they should have. May I say that I speak with some personal knowledge of the treatment. I have not accepted these things from hearsay, but I have personal knowledge of the treatment the conscientious objector has received at the hands of the tribunals. As I said, I have no sympathy with him as a conscientious objector, but I have great sympathy with him when he comes before

    2641
    the tribunal, pleads his case before that tribunal, and is treated as I say. Surely a tribunal ought to be compelled to administer the Act which this House has passed! I say, with great respect to the large body of men who are rendering voluntary and valuable services, that there is still a large number who are not administering the Act and not treating the conscientious objector in the way which Parliament—rightly or wrongly—decided he ought to be treated. We have heard the hon. Member for Burnley refer to charges, which, personally, I regret, as to the bullying which goes on on the part of the military authorities. It may go on to some extent, but I really think, and believe, that the hon. Member was answered by the hon. Member for York, whose knowledge of these matters is unquestioned. The hon. Member for York said that in 80 per cent. of these cases the military treated the men well. I would have liked—
    Mr. MORRELL: I never suggested every one, or any large number, were so treated. What I intended to say, and what, I think, I did say, was that I have made very careful inquiries into a certain number of cases, in which I have taken corroborative evidence, and I have satisfied myself that there has been—not always with the knowledge of the commanding officer—what I have described on the part of non-commissioned officers.
    Mr. SMITH: I do not think that any officer will quarrel with that. I think that is a natural result of the mistakes which have been made, and the fact that these men who are soldiers, and perhaps—who shall blame them?—rough soldiers. I can quite understand that in certain cases these things have taken place. The complaint which I have is owing to the fact that these men are placed in a position which Parliament has decided they ought not to be placed in. What the hon. Members for Burnley and York have stated shows that the military authorities on the whole have behaved exceedingly well to the unfortunate classes of men with whom they have had to deal. I have spoken about the tribunals. I should first like to say one other matter before I proceed to mention one or two points to the right hon. Gentleman. I do think the tribunals: have had great difficulties placed in their way. In the case of conscientious objectors bodies of men, who are not really conscientious objectors but are against
    2642
    the War, have banded together, and have even, in a way, almost trained themselves to try and deceive the tribunals into believing that they are, or at any rate for some time have been, conscientious objectors. I do not know who is responsible for that—whether any body or association is responsible for it—but that such a movement exists I have not the slightest doubt. Many men who are not genuine conscientious objectors have gone deliberately to try and deceive the tribunals into believing they are. I mention that in mitigation of what I believe to be the behaviour of some of the tribunals—perhaps a good many!—because it has added very much to their difficulties.
    After all, however, the tribunal sits with a judicial mind. Putting aside all prejudices and all personal dislikes, or, at any rate, all personal desires, the tribunal sits simply to administer the Act and Regulations which have been passed. I must say with respect to a great many tribunals which I have attended that, I think, when the conscientious objector comes into the chair that the judicial mind of the tribunal generally ceases. I believe it will surprise the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe it will surprise hon. Members of this House, when I tell them that in spite of the rules giving an applicant the absolute right to be represented, either by a solicitor or a lawyer, by his friend or relative, or by anybody—he has an absolute right in this respect—it is not allowed. It may be, as frequently I have seen, that he is a nervous man, and unaccustomed to deal with the comparatively quick wits of the tribunal sitting in a high place. Many of these men like to be represented, not by lawyers, but by friends, who know their history, and their career, and can elicit information as to their grounds of their objection. Will the right hon. Gentleman believe that the City of London tribunal sitting even so close to here—a tribunal which should set an example to the whole of the country—will not allow the representative of an applicant to ask a single question? It is almost incredible. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of believing that I would not make that very serious charge if I had not had personal experience, and had seen it done myself. I have heard of it being done, and have had complaints about it from practising solicitors in the City of London who have gone there to try and represent men whose duty it is to go thereto represent men. A charge like that

    2643
    against a tribunal like the City of London is a very serious charge. It is setting a dreadful example to the whole of the country. It is deliberately flouting the wishes of Parliament. It is deliberately refusing to carry out an Act of Parliament and the Regulations.
    Of course, I know the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for these tribunals, but I know that he is interested in the question, and I would ask him to imagine the position of these young men of twenty years of age, many of them nervous men, who have not been accustomed to take a prominent place in the chair and to answer questions of educated gentlemen, who are trained in asking such questions. He cannot do himself justice. Very few of these men can do their own case justice. The questions which are asked of them by the tribunal are really not judicial questions, but they are the questions of men, who, perhaps purely out of the spirit of patriotism—I do not want to use an offensive word—but who really give one the impression that they are trying to trick the men to give an answer which would lead them to decide he should not be excluded. That is very wrong, and particularly where a man; owing to his own nervousness, has gone to the expense of retaining a solicitor, a tribunal says to that representative, "You shall not ask any questions, and you shall not make any speech in summing up the facts." I say many of those tribunals are not asking questions which should come from a judicial tribunal, but questions of a tribunal which is obviously hostile to a man before trying his case.
    I hope it will not be considered that I am bringing a general indictment against all the tribunals, because such a thing would be absurd. I am not; but I may speak of a good many tribunals of which I have personal knowledge, and I have frequently asked solicitors and others who have appeared before other tribunals and I have received a good many similar reports. But I would, of course, make no general indictment against the whole of the tribunals; but every case, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member, for Burnley, of a man who is to-day standing, first of all, the ridicule, the abuse, the contumely to which he is subjected, and finally imprisonmen—I say, without fear of contradiction, that every such case is a standing example of a mistake which has been made by a tribunal. I think that is unanswerable.
    2644
    I do not think my right hon. Friend would suggest that a man who has stood the buffeting and ignominy, and finally the imprisonment, and who is prepared to go on with his sentence, even although a year or two of hard labour, is not a conscientious objector, and I cannot help thinking my right hon. Friend must agree that each one of those cases I have in my mind becomes a standing example, I will not say of the inefficiency of the tribunal, but of the mistake which has been made. On that point I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not possible for some rehearing to be arranged. Those of us who know the good work he has done in the last year or two believe that he is seriously desirous to avoid having these cases, if possible. Is it not possible, where you find a case like that, for the military authorities, either voluntarily or at the request of the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represents, to state a case? Could not the military authorities voluntarily approach the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or the right hon. Gentleman's Department approach the military when they hear of such a case, and so give us the whole facts of the man's behaviour?
    Mr. TENNANT: To whom?
    Mr. SMITH: I do not quite understand.
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. and gallant Member suggested that the War Office should approach the military. I do not understand what he meant by "the military"?
    Mr. SMITH: I meant that they should approach the military authorities who have been responsible for the punishment which it is their duty to inflict, those who know what treatment a man has suffered, what he has undergone, and what apparently he is prepared to undergo for his conscience. Let us all be quite clear on the point. Nobody imagines the British soldier, whatever rank he occupies, likes this business. I am sure the hon. Member for Burnley does not for a moment suggest that the British soldier has any attraction for this sort of business, and I think it might be possible either for the military authorities to approach the Department and say, "This is a case which, we believe, requires further attention," or for the Department, when it hears of such a case, to require the military authorities to furnish them with full details of what the man has suffered. If that were done entirely at the discretion of the War Office

    2645
    I should have thought it was possible for that man's case to be re-heard, if they were satisfied he was an example of a mistake by a tribunal. If they are satisfied there is a man undergoing all sorts of drastic punishment and suffering so much for his conscience, and if they are satisfied that the tribunal, in the case of that man, must have made a mistake, then, surely, there ought to be power at the War Office, having heard the details of the case, to say that that man's case shall be re-heard by anybody the Department likes to appoint. I am sure nobody would quarrel with any authority which was set up for this purpose, because everyone believes that the War Office, like the soldiers themselves, hate the work which is thrust upon them. I care not what authority rehears the case, but I would suggest it should not be either the original tribunal or the Appeal Tribunal, but that it should be retried by a small body of three persons, and that they should be there judicially, with knowledge of the Act and the Regulations, and the record of what the man has suffered for his conscience. With those facts before us, I believe the whole country would be satisfied with the decision, and a tribunal which could boldly say, "We think the tribunal which decided this case decided it without the knowledge we have, without the knowledge of what the man is prepared to suffer for his conscience, and with that further knowledge we recommend that this man be treated as a conscientious objector." I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have said, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to the suggestions which have been made from various parts of the House.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am quite sure everyone who has heard the most interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member will be glad to have heard it, and I am sure that those concerned in this matter will attach weight to his suggestion and see whether that cannot be the basis of further desirable action. I rise in the first place to thank my right hon. Friend at the War Office for this new Army Order. I am quite certain that the sooner cases of proved conscientious objection, whether proved in suffering at the end or through the judgment of the military authorities, are removed from military to civil authorities, the better both for the Army and the country generally. I have been much impressed by what has been said to me by several officers, whose time has been
    2646
    taken up day after day in dealing with these matters, how thankful they would be if the sentence could be such as would remove the whole affair into the purview of civil administration. Therefore, I welcome this, and I would urge upon my right hon. Friend to extend the application of this Army Order as widely as possible as regards the offences committed by those who are conscientious objectors, and to extend it as widely as possible in point of time to cases which have already arisen, but in which the punishment is not already complete.
    The other thing I desire to say, and it is generally in support of the hon. Member for York, is that it is most desirable that further steps should be taken to prevent so-called conscientious objectors from coming under the control of the Army at all, and that I am sure can best be done by facilitating in every way their going to work on matters of national concern, particularly on the land. I am conndent that attention would be given by tribunals generally, both immediate and appellant, to instructions from the Local Government Board or the War Office to that end, and the more it is known by tribunals that if a man goes to work on the land his work will there be organised so that it will be genuine work done where it is needed, and the more it is known that that work will be paid for at the rates which are equivalent to those of a man serving in the Army, the greater support that will have. Conscientious objectors in times past have been persons who have objected to courses which might have led to their personal ease and comfort. You may easily judge a man to be a conscientious objector if his objection takes him into difficult paths. If his objection to military service involved, were there no alternative, ease and security, it is a more difficult task for a tribunal to judge with scrupulous fairness, which, I believe, the bulk of them wish to do, whatever may be the errors. Therefore, if the conscientious objector goes to work on the land, and himself does not receive any greater benefit than if he were working in the trenches, then there is a modicum of sacrifice.
    Colonel N. GRIFFITHS: But supposing the man is absolutely essential — is urgently wanted?
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am as anxious as the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get as many men into the Army as possible, but if you put a man into the Army who, from

    2647
    his attitude of mind, be it good or bad, declines to obey any orders, takes up the time of officers, and goes through the whole gamut of objection and refusal, then I say it is better for the Army itself that such a person should be under the civil authority, which has equal powers of punishment, wider powers of discretion, and more facilities. There is nothing in my argument against the wish of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am spending most of my time in trying to get people into the Army, but the case I am putting is that where there is a person who says he is a conscientious objector, there is no proof like that of willingness to incur sacrifice, and where that willingness to incur sacrifice is proved by his doing national work, and his pay is no greater than he would receive in the Army, that, I conceive, is the way out in the great bulk of these cases, and I ask my right hon. Friend and his colleague at the Local Government Board to facilitate by instructions, by machinery, by suggestion, that way out of the great difficulty, and I assure them that would be welcomed by people who sit on tribunals, and would have the result of sending into the Army far fewer of those cases which are so difficult to deal with from every point of view.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), in the earlier part of the Debate, asked me one or two questions about leave and inoculation. He represented that it was a mistake to keep soldiers who were inoculated in barracks, rather than allow them to go to their friends, although he agreed—or, perhaps, he rather made it as an admission—that there was always a danger of certain developments occurring after inoculation.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Not for twelve hours.
    Mr. TENNANT: No, but after twelve hours. What I want to represent to my hon. and gallant Friend is that there may be wisdom even in the action of the War Office. I should like him to realise that. It may be a great draft upon his imagination, but it is so. Is it not obvious to my hon. and gallant Friend that if a precaution is taken of keeping men in barracks rather than allowing them to go on leave, the reason is that you have more control over their actions, and you are able to see that they do not do foolish things? I think that is the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's criticism. Then he asked me why
    2648
    it is that only 5 per cent. of the men in the Southern Command are allowed this leave from Saturday at noon to Sunday night. It is true that 5 per cent. are allowed to obtain week-end leave. Previously 20 to 25 per cent. of the men were allowed leave, but it was found that that seriously interfered with the training arrangements; the position really is that to allow so many men to go on leave interferes with the training. Something was said to-day at Question Time about allowing men to go on parade even on Sundays, and the criticism was made that a certain number of parades are done on Sunday which ought not to be done. The truth is we want to turn out the soldiers as quickly as we can. If training arrangements require that only a small percentage, such as 5 per cent., should have week-end leave, I do not think hon. Members would ask for an alteration.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Surely if the right hon. Gentleman will, consider, he must understand that if you work men seven days a week you will not get the best out of them, you will do better to work them five and a half days hard, for then you will get the best out of them.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has come to that conclusion, it is one I have already come to on my own account. I would only say this further sentence in relation to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. I cannot say off-hand whether this rule of 5 per cent. leave obtains in all Commands—I have only made inquiries in the Southern Command, the Command he mentioned—it is conceivable that General Officers-in-Chief in other Commands have been able to arrange the training should take place so that a larger proportion can be allowed on leave than 5 per cent. But I will tell my hon. and gallant Friend what I will engage to do. I will put myself in communication with the General Officer Commanding the Southern Command and see if he cannot allow some increased proportion to go on leave. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend would not ask me to press the General Officer. Turning to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), I would like to thank him for the kindly remarks he made about myself, which I greatly appreciate. His first point, I think, was that he was apprehensive that a certain number of men—he said a large number of men—might never get the benefits secured under the new Army Order. I am very glad to

    2649
    think that the Army Order, at any rate, is a step in the right direction, and that it is acknowledged to be so by the general sense of the House. I should not like any hon. Member to go away from this Debate without realising that the Government has made provision for the recognition of the scruples of conscientious objectors. It has made a provision, and I know that hon. Members think it is not a full provision, but, at any rate, it has recognised the fact that this matter is one that ought to be dealt with. I would like to say on my own behalf that, while the conscientious objector has not made my path easier and has not eased the wheels of the chariot of war, and is not likely to do so I am afraid, I cannot for my part withhold my—I do not want to use too strong a word—but certainly my respect for persons who on religious grounds will undergo privation and even persecution rather than do violence to their consciences. I would make that admission at once, and I hope the House will realise that that is my view.
    What I think my hon. Friends who represent the conscientious objector, at any rate, in this House, do not seem to me fully to appreciate is the difficulty which you at once raise up if you provide any machinery which is going to work very smoothly for the conscientious objector, because it is going to do a great many other things besides. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Colonel Norton Griffiths) recognised that difficulty at once. What we have to do is the very difficult task of providing some machinery adequate to deal with conscientious objectors, but which will, at the same time, not create a soft and easy job by which the lot of persons whose consciences have only recently been discovered would be able to escape from duties which are not only very proper duties, but duties which are imposed on them by the State. That is really the problem which confronts us, and it is a very difficult problem. I am sure the House will realise that it is difficult. Let me say that, speaking as I do on behalf of the military authorities, I cannot for a moment condone anything in the nature of persecution; that I must always decline and shall always decline to do. At the same time, the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury pointed out very properly that a great deal of this maltreatment is in the nature of rough horse-play, which may be felt very acutely by conscientious objectors who may be persons of acute
    2650
    imaginations, and they magnify it into something much worse than it really is. At the same time, officially it is very difficult to catch hold of that, and exceedingly difficult for us to take notice of it. I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) that he acquits the military authorities to the large extent of 80 per cent. from persecution, and I cannot help thinking that the other 20 per cent. is unofficial persecution, and not official. If I can hear of any case of treatment of men who have done nothing which you could really say is disgraceful, I will not go into particulars, or if I hear of any officer giving orders for anything we can call maltreatment, then the military authorities will take a very serious notice of the case.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: What if an officer neglects to check people who are guilty of this maltreatment?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. TENNANT: I recognise that distinction, and it is a difficult matter for me to make a promise on. I can project my mind to a situation of a young officer seeing somebody roughly used, because he was a troublesome man, rather turn his blind eye on the matter, and I do not think that you could say that the young officer was doing a very reprehensible thing; it is one of those things one can easily understand. I would ask hon. Members to try and see the matter from that point of view as much as they can without in the least giving countenance to anything in the nature of brutality, or even something less severe and harsh. I think that is the proper attitude to take. As to the complaint of the hon. Member for Burnley that a number of these men have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment, as soon as these cases are reported to the War Office, and it is known they are first offences, such sentences are always reduced to 112 days' detention under the King's Regulation. The real points that have been raised in this Debate are: "What are you going to do if you have acted upon your Army Order and imprisonment has been given to the men?" I think it is realised that when a man is sent to a civil prison then he passes out of the hands of the War Office, and to that extent I know that hon. Members will kneel down and thank Providence, and so shall we. They will be handed over to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is not for me to answer for my right hon. Friend,

    2651
    but I think he has got in his mind some scheme, which I cannot elaborate because I really do not know it, but he has in his mind a scheme which, I believe, commands general approval; it is not unlike the scheme which the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey) knows we had in our minds at one time, but which was not successful. It was not successful because it was not given a trial. I want to say this with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury. He warned the War Office against making distinctions in the British Army, and I quite appreciate his warning; but I would disabuse his mind of any danger of our so doing. The truth is that once a soldier is handed over to the military authority as a soldier we make no distinction at all. It is the business of the military authorities to make a soldier of the man in every legal manner they possibly can, and in the best manner, and that is what is always done. These cases we are considering now are cases of men who refuse to obey military discipline and refuse to obey all orders. They will be, under this new Army Order, punished in the manner laid down by the Army Order—that is, given imprisonment instead of detention; and as soon as they are given imprisonment they will be handed over to the civil authority. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) touched one of the greatest of the difficulties that loom in front of us when he pointed to the difficulty of determining whether a conscientious objector was really a genuine person or a shirker. That is a very great difficulty. We shall have, I think—and I am speaking really without the book; I am imagining what will occur under the Army Order—I think what will happen will be that the commanding officer will be the best judge and see how much a man under his command is prepared to undergo for the sake of his conscience. If he is only asked to undertake some trivial task and is not given any severe punishment, I do not think that will be sufficient ground, first of all, or a trial by court-martial, and, as my hon. Friend says, you have got to have a court-martial before you can have the punishment of imprisonment. Therefore, we must rely on the good sense of our commanding officers, who have a wide experience of men and who can tell, or who ought to be able to tell, who is the genuine man with a con-
    2652
    science. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) that it is true to say in each of these cases that the fact that the man has demonstrated that he is a genuine conscientious objector is in itself an illustration of a mistake toy a tribunal, but the question of what we can do to help that situation is the great difficulty. He has made the suggestion that there should be, first of all, representation of the conscientious objector, and perhaps the elimination of the person of the conscientious objector.
    Mr. SMITH: I did not say that. I did not say that there should be any representation by the conscientious objector.
    Mr. TENNANT: Representation of him.
    Mr. SMITH: I said that there might be representation either by the officer commanding or by the War Office; either might move, but not the conscientious objector, who is a prisoner.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was dealing with the earlier stage at the tribunal, where I thought it would not be improper or impossible for the conscientious objector to be denied appearance in propria persona, but where he should be represented by somebody else. I can quite believe that a tribunal is very often driven, or goaded, to be non-judicial by the appearance of the conscientious objector himself. I quite understand that does occur, and I think it would be an admirable thing if the conscientious objector himself were not to appear but were to be represented by someone, say, for instance, by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree), who, I think, would do it admirably. If I may come to the next suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, that is exactly what will occur under the Army Order. It will be for the military authorities to have the person in question tried by a court-martial on any offence he likes—there are sure to be offences—and for him then to be handed over to the civil authorities. The tribunal he suggests is very much the tribunal which I understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to set up, so that the suggestion he makes is about to be met, and I hope that will satisfy him.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: What is to become of the man I mention if, when he comes out of prison, he still refuses?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think in that case, under the Army Order, the commanding officer, as soon as he becomes satisfied in his own mind that the man is a genuine person, will take care that the necessary preliminaries are observed to handing him over to the civil authorities.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does that mean that this man, who is already in a military prison, and who has been sentenced by one tribunal to 107 days, although it has been reduced to one month, will have to commit another offence and be sent to a court-martial again before he can be handed over to the civil authority?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not like to say "Yes" or "No" to that question, but I should say "Yes" off-hand. I do not think there would be any great hardship in that, or that there is very much in it. The main point is to get them out. That is what my hon. and learned Friend wants, and that is what the Army wants. They are no good to us in the Army, people who will not obey orders; but we do not want to make it easy for people who really have no conscience. I hope that what I have said will make the House realise that we really have got this problem in our minds, and are endeavouring to deal with it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to ensure that what was suggested by the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins) will be carried out, and that these conscientious objectors will not make a profit out of their conscience, but will only get the same pay as they would have got if they had gone into the Army?
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the whole spirit of his reply, and I am sure my hon. Friends feel the same. A great many of these cases of difficulty might be avoided altogether and never come to the Army at all if the military representatives could be instructed to take some different attitude before the tribunals when dealing with the question of opportunity of work of national importance, under, of course, suitable conditions. I quite recognise that there must be suitable conditions and some sacrifice. I do not want to see it made easy, but when the man is willing and eager to do work of national importance—which is actually wanted by the country—the military representative in some cases has not only opposed it but has appealed
    2654
    against it when granted by the local tribunal. I have had cases where the local tribunal has dealt with the matter satisfactorily, and where the military representative has then appealed against the decision. The whole difficulty has been caused by the action of the military representative. My right hon. Friend might be able to save a great deal of trouble if he would take some step in that direction.
    Mr. TENNANT: With regard to the point of my hon. and learned Friend for York (Mr. Butcher) I think there is every intention to see that a moderate degree of sacrifice is made by persons who are given anything in the nature of work of national importance, and that would certainly include a uniform rate of pay.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The same rate of pay as in the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is the intention so far as I understand it, but I must not be understood to be committing my self. All this will come before the tribunal, whatever it may be, to be set up by the Home Secretary, and, of course, that point will be borne in mind and given prominence. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) I think it is not really surprising that the military authorities have very often taken up the attitude that they have taken, It is extraordinarily difficult to say to a military representative, "You must take the line that the man who says he is a conscientious objector is a genuine conscientious objector." Really the military representative, the House will realise, is in the position of an advocate, and as an advocate he has really to make the best of the materials at his disposal. If he is able to influence the tribunal, so much to his credit.
    Mr. SMITH: It is his duty.
    Mr. TENNANT: The only pity to my mind is that there is not a better representative of the conscientious objector, so that he might meet the military representative on level terms. If my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) will do it, we shall really get something like equality, not of sacrifice, but of representation. It really is not very easy for me to give instructions to military representatives that in no case are they to say a local tribunal has been wrong, and in no case are they to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal.
    Mr. HARVEY: I would not go so far as to say that, but caution might be given against pressing these cases where they are satisfied of the genuineness of them. The military representative, however, insists that they must take this form of serving, and the only result is to put the man into the Army, and in the end you have to get him out again.
    Mr. TENNANT: I realise that there is a difficulty and I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend. The best I can promise him is that I will talk it over with the Adjutant-General and see if any instructions can possibly emerge.
    Colonel YATE: I would just like to say how glad I was to hear the Under-Secretary of State speak in reprobation of what he called the exaggeration of the maltreatment of conscientious objectors in the Army. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) brought some most unfounded charges against the non-commissioned officers in the Army. He charged them with knocking men about, and I say that any man who brings a charge of that sort against the Army ought to be prepared to substantiate it when the man is brought before a court-martial.
    Mr. MORRELL: I would like the opportunity.
    Colonel YATE: You are willing to do so?
    Mr. MORRELL: Yes.
    Colonel YATE: The British Army is the one Army in the world in which there is no such thing on the part of officers and non-commissioned officers as knocking about their men. We all hear of the treatment to which men in the German Army are subjected by their officers, but to say that is current in the British Army is a gross libel, and I resent it accordingly.
    Mr. MORRELL: I did not say that it was current. I said that I could show that cases had occurred.
    Colonel YATE: If any cases have occurred, the hon. Member must substantiate them, otherwise it is a libel. We all know that the men of the British Army have no complaint against non-commissioned officers or officers of being knocked about, as the hon. Member says. I look upon that charge as being a most wanton and unfounded charge, and if any single case has occurred it is the hon. Member's duty to substantiate it, to have the man tried before a court-martial, and prove his
    2656
    charge. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) talked in the same strain. He talked about bullying and persecuting these, men. I, as a soldier, resent those charges against the British Army. I do not think that they are founded, and hon. Members have no right to bring general charges of that sort against the British Army. The hon. Member for York gave us two or three most unhappy illustrations of that which he asserted. He talked of a man who was resisting being frogmarched to the Courts. Good heavens! If a man refuses and fights the escort who has to take him to the Court, is he a conscientious objector? The conscientious objector ought to go like a lamb to the slaughter. If he fights an escort, he can fight the enemies of his country. He is not a conscientious objector, he is not a Quaker, and he cannot claim on religious grounds that he cannot fight against the enemies of his country. I want to point out that these are not really conscientious objectors. The hon. Member told us of the case of a young Wesleyan. But a Wesleyan is not a Quaker, and surely the Wesleyan religion does not teach people to shirk their duty of fighting for their country! We do not want men to be taught to refuse to fight and at the same time declare that other men must give their lives in order to defend their wives and families. We want the boys in our schools taught their duty in this respect. We all acknowledge the right of the Quaker to claim exemption as a conscientious objector. He certainly has a right to go to the tribunal and claim to be released from combatant service, but men who are not Quakers, men like those instanced by the hon. Gentleman opposite, are really not conscientious objectors. They have no right to shirk their duty to their country, and I can only express a hope to the Under-Secretary for War that, when the next Registration Bill is brought in, care will be taken that every one of these objectors shall be disfranchised for refusing to do his duty to his country.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think I can usefully add much to the Debate which has taken place, but I should like to reply to the observations which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. He rose apparently to disavow the allegations which had been made in the course of the Debate this afternoon, that certain of the conscientious objectors had been subjected to ill-treatment in the Army.
    Colonel YATE: Speak up! I cannot hear.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman demanded that these allegations should be substantiated. He asked that the charges should be submitted. He has not to wait very long for one instance, at any rate. I happen to have in my pocket for use, not in this Debate, but for other purposes, a letter written by the wife of a man who is now in Wandsworth Prison, undergoing punishment for refusing to obey military orders, because he conscientiously objected to military service. I do not associate myself with the accuracy of the complaint, but the man had complained very bitterly in a letter to his wife about the way in which he had been treated. This letter which I hold in my hand was written by the wife to her husband in prison, and in the course of it she said—
    Colonel YATE: Is this case going to be the subject of a court-martial?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Just wait a moment.
    Colonel YATE: I am asking a question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested that these allegations are unfounded and that we are not able to substantiate them. I am reading this letter in order to show the spirit of the men who have charge of the conscientious objectors—and against whom we are making these allegations of ill-treatment and persecution.
    Colonel YATE: Then it is an ex-parte statement which you are reading out.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Not at all. You will get the authority for it in a minute. The wife says:
    "Of course there are scandalous cases like that of Rendall Wyatt, who was handcuffed in a dark cell and then sent to France with the N.C.C."
    The officer who received this letter wrote at the foot of it:
    "Letter returned. Not of a sort I will pass. If your news as to Private Rendall Wyatt is true, I am delighted to hear it, and sincerely hope the whole lot of the N.C.C.'s will be treated in the same way. Reginald Brooke, Lieutenant-Colonel Commandant, 19th May, 1916."
    I could have brought to the House not one case, but scores of cases which have been sent to me giving details of the abominable treatment to which these persons have been subjected. Having made that statement I want to associate myself with those of my Friends who have said that
    2658
    such instances form only a small proportion of the number of cases of conscientious resistance to military orders. Only two or three days ago I had a letter from a University graduate of Cambridge, an Honours man in Modern Languages, and a conscientious objector, who said he had attended a court-martial, which was being held at the barracks to which he was attached, and he added:
    "If the President of the court-martial had been counsel for the defence he could not have done more in the interests of the prisoner. He did everything he possibly could for him."
    That letter is not by any means an exception to the number of letters I get. A great many of these men are at the camp at Abergelly, and they almost invariably speak in the highest terms of praise of Brigadier-General Owen Thomas. One of the letters I received the other day said:
    "I feel it very much more difficult to resist Brigadier-General Owen Thomas's kindness than the bullying of the non-commissioned officers."
    We do not want our allegations or charges to be regarded as wholesale in their character. They are by no means that, but if they constitute 20 per cent. of the cases it is certainly a matter into which the War Office ought to make the very strictest inquiry. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not approve of and would not tolerate such conduct, and if such cases were brought to his notice he would give them very careful consideration. But if he will permit me to say so, I very much regret that that satisfactory statement was followed by an observation which made me regard it not as a condemnation, but rather as an encouragement of horseplay. The right hon. Gentleman said he could very well understand that young officers might turn their backs on proceedings of that kind. I hope, however, that these officers will pay more attention to the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman proferred of this conduct than to his encouragement of rough play. I come now to the question of the Army Order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say just now that it is not retrospective in its character and that it does not apply to men already in prison as conscientious objectors for resistance to military orders.
    Mr. TENNANT: I did not say it did not.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I gathered that in the particular case mentioned by an hon. Member the man will not come under the operation of this Order and that he will not be transferred from the military prison

    2659
    in which he is now confined to a civil prison. There are quite a considerable number of these men now undergoing lengthy terms of imprisonment, and I submit that the Order will fail in its object to a considerable extent unless it is going to apply to men already in prison.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not say it does not; I will inquire.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. There is one further point I should like to put. So far as I understand it, the Order will not apply to those who are under detention and are not in the military prison. That is another weakness in the Order. I take it that the intention of the recommendation that the men should be brought before a court-martial as soon as possible is that they should be brought within the operation of the Army Order by giving them imprisonment. If that could be made to apply to those who are under detention, as well as to those who are in a military prison, there would remain very little of the Order to which we could raise any objection or against which we could make the slightest complaint. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Colonel Norton Griffiths) has left the House, or I should have made one or two observations upon his speech, which was described by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs as provocative. I do not think it was provocative, but it was very ill-informed. I am afraid the hon. Member has not had much experience of this question of the conscientious objector. He said it was most important, in the interests of the Army, that no special consideration should be shown to these men, and he cited the case of a workman of his own who had this week been taken into the Army. He seemed to regard that as being a case on all-fours with the case of the conscientious objector. The two cases are not comparable at all, because, according to the statement of the hon. Member, his workman was willing to go, and had been anxious to go for some time, but could not very well be spared. The grievance which the conscientious objector has is never likely to arise in that case. The reason I refer to the hon. and gallant Member's observations is that I do not think that, from the military point of view, it is at all desirable, in fact it is the very opposite from the point of view
    2660
    of the Army, that these conscientious objectors should be mixed up with the other soldiers.
    May I divulge something else to the House from the very voluminous correspondence I have had on this question? These conscientious objectors are already infecting men in the Army who never before knew what conscientious objection to military service was. The more numerous they become the greater this infection will grow. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are yet only at the beginning of this problem. I believe there are now nearly 1,000 men who have resisted. A great many of these cases have not yet been decided by the tribunals. Unless the War Office devises some scheme for preventing the aggravation of this problem, it is going to be a question not of hundreds but of thousands in a very few weeks' time. There is one hopeful way out of it which has been mentioned more than once in the course of the Debate this afternoon, and which I want to emphasise, because I believe it is the way out, namely, to hand over these men to a civil prison with a civil authority; then let the civil authority deal with them, and let it deal with them on the lines of providing them with civil work. I had this morning a letter from a doctor friend of mine about a young man who is a university graduate, a fellow of his university, a specialist in agricultural research, who is, I am given to understand, almost the greatest authority in the country to-day upon pests in agriculture. He studied for some time in America. He was a Carnegie scholar, and he lost his appointment because he applied to a local tribunal for exemption on the ground of conscientious objection. Then he went to a farm. Now he has been taken away from the farm by the military, and a clerk, totally inexperienced in farming and agricultural labour, has taken his place. This man is resisting; he is going to be sent to prison. If we are going to imitate Germany in our military system of conscription, let us, at least, not be guilty of such absurdities as that. Surely that is not national economy. It is not national economy that a man, capablé of rendering such invaluable service as that in such an important national industry as agriculture, should be kept in prison at the expense of the State. That is by no means an isolated case. I think the line upon which we shall have to move, in order to

    2661
    get out of this difficulty, is to hand over these men to the civil authorities and then let the civil authorities deal with them in such a way as I have indicated. I would conclude by associating myself with the observations already made by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. T. E. Harvey), who, I am quite sure, expressed the feelings of all those of us whom the Under-Secretary of State for War described as Members for the conscientious objectors. We are extremely grateful for the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has answered us this afternoon, and we are hopeful that the combined wisdom of all of us may by-and-by find a means of extricating us from an extremely difficult situation.
    Mr. KING: I have listened to this Debate with a great deal of interest. If those who have taken part in it had remained in their places I should have had some remarks to address to them. I should specially have liked to say a few words to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate). He seems to think that all the men in the Army are perfect saints and have never done anything wrong at all. I would only say to him that if he will walk home with me the way I generally take when the House is up he will probably see one or two sights which will make him think differently. We have all listened to the Under-Secretary of State for War with a great deal of pleasure. He has given us hope, and has proved himself not only sympathetic but sensible. It is nothing new for the Under-Secretary of State for War to appear in both those characters. He has certainly succeeded in making us all feel to-night that if at the War Office sympathy were found in all the officials as it is found in himself, and if the same amount of common sense pervaded all the officials, their orders and their arrangements, a solution of this very trying question would soon be found. I am only going to touch upon one aspect of the question of the conscientious objector which has not been touched upon at all, but which ought not to be forgotten—I mean the extraordinary wasteful character, from a purely economic point of view, of our treatment of conscientious objectors. I have a number of conscientious objectors among my own friends. I think I may say that there are five of them at the present time now suffering imprisonment or who are await-
    2662
    ing court-martial and will shortly be suffering imprisonment. The first of these cases is that of a man who carried on in the neighbourhood of my Constituency a large market garden. His market gardening work is brought entirely at an end at the very time of the year when he would, under ordinary circumstances, be sending £100 worth of food into the Bristol market every week. The economic waste in it is extraordinary. The man himself has written to me twice, and he complains of nothing whatever except that he has had his Bible taken from him. He has no word of complaint against the officers or the non-commissioned officers. He accepts the treatment in every way as part of what he has been led to look forward to, but he complains most emphatically of his Bible being taken from him. I am told by the Home Secretary that there is no right whatever to take away a prisoner's Bible, but in many cases this has been done in the case of conscientious objectors, and I hope, whatever the War Office does to these men, if they can get some spiritual and religious comfort from the study of the Bible in their unfortunate circumstances, they will not further be deprived of the one Book to which, I think, every Englishman has a right at all times to have access.
    The second case to which I will refer is of another market gardener in the neighbourhood of Bristol. He, in a similar way, has had the whole of his business ruined. His appeal to the tribunal on the ground that he was doing work of national importance and that he was raising food for the country was rejected. The result, I have no doubt, in the case of these two men is that the economic cost, the loss, the waste to the community through making them criminals must be estimated certainly not in tens, but in hundreds of pounds.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
    Mr. KING: I may remind the hon. Member that we are now in the dinner hour, and he will have to wait till a quarter past nine. At a quarter past nine he will be in order. The next case to which I was going to call attention is that of a man whom I know very well. He carries on a small business in a country town in my

    2663
    neighbourhood, and for the last three years he has visited me and has asked to be allowed to bring the Sunday School, of which he is superintendent, to have its treat in my field. I liked and respected that man. At the present moment he is a prisoner. He is turned into a criminal. His business is ruined, and a man who, I do not hesitate to say, was doing most devoted religious service, is not allowed to do any service whatever to his country. I have no doubt whatever that he will be condemned to two years' hard labour, and for what purpose? To turn a man whom I respect from the bottom of my heart as a sincere, honourable, and good citizen into a criminal. It may be the War Office policy to do this, but it is certainly economic waste.
    I will give one more case of a man very well known to me whom I have been in the habit of seeing every week for years past. He is a young man of nineteen, managing a business for his father, and making an extremely good opening for himself in a small country town in my neighbourhood, a man of a singularly retiring and quiet disposition. When he was brought up before the tribunal they cast it in his teeth that he had not gone about preaching the pacificism which he had learnt from Tolstoi. He was a student and a devoted disciple of Tolstoi. But because he had not gone about upsetting everyone with his own doctrines this modest young man of nineteen is set down as not having any conscientious objection at all, though anyone who knew him was convinced that for a couple of years at least he had worshipped Tolstoi as the great prophet of modern civilisation. That man is made a criminal. Of course, his business is likely to be ruined, and a young man whom I cannot help saying I respect, and even feel a strong affection for, is very likely having his health permanently ruined. I am told by his father, who hopes to be allowed to see him shortly, that he is in real anxiety that his brain and nervous strength will not stand the strain of the confinement and imprisonment that he is suffering. I appeal on behalf of the economy of health, strength, energy, resources, and wealth which we ought to observe at this time, I appeal on the ground of economy and common sense, for young men like this. Do not let us go on making them criminals, sentencing them by courts-
    2664
    martial, condemning them to long terms of imprisonment, and then handing them over to the civil power. It is a very wasteful, extravagant, and useless proceeding to go on in that way, and I hope the solution that has been indicated to-day—though it is very welcome, though we all agree it is put forward with a great deal of sympathy and right feeling—is not the final solution, and that we shall before very long—I hope before we bring the great mass of married men coming into the Army by the second Military Service Act—attain some more economic and sensible solution of this question.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I cannot refrain from saying with what pleasure I listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary for War and the declaration of the issue of the Army Order dealing with the case of conscientious objectors. We must all feel that it is an extremely difficult case. I speak of it with some degree of hesitation. Everyone of us recognises that the acknowledgment of the principle of religious liberty has been one of the elements that has made our Empire great, and we were all anxious when we supported the Military Service Bill that some method should be adopted whereby Christian men who objected to being in a position to take human life might be absolved from any such duty. With that object I supported the Military Service Bill. I have been blamed by some of my Constituents for doing so, but it would be unworthy of the reputation of our country in respect of religious liberty if some such provision had not been made. I quite agree that the difficulties have been increased by the fact that not all the conscientious objectors are sincere in their professions. I believe the majority are sincere, but the position of the tribunals has been much embarrassed by some of the persons who have come forward and made professions of conscientious objection, whose past life gave no evidence that in all probability the view they were taking was sincere. Some of them have taken up the position that if they saw a soldier lying wounded in the street they would not minister to his health and comfort. That sort of thing has made it rather difficult to deal with justice with this question. I believe it is manifest that the Government are feeling their way towards a system which, while it will meet the dffiiculties of the real bonâ-fide conscientious objector,

    2665
    will prevent other men, whose profession is somewhat doubtful, from being able to shirk their duty to their country.
    I feel strongly that this matter should be dealt with largely by the civil authorities. The tribunals on the whole have done their best to act straightforwardly and justly, but in some cases they are not the men well able to judge the conscientious point of view, and I cannot help feeling that there ought to be a Court of Appeal to which these men could apply for reconsideration of their cases. I fail to see why a Court may not be established consisting of a prominent member of the Church of England, a prominent Nonconformist, and the representative of the miltiary authorities, to which body the conscientious objector, if he had been dealt with unjustly by a tribunal, could appeal for redress. I believe the tribunals would hail some such Appeal Court. I certainly think that when the fact has been established that a man is a conscientious objector, he ought to be dealt with by the civil authorities rather than by the military. He could be put, if he is willing to do it, to national service. It is far better that his valuable help should be utilised in national work such as business or agriculture, than that he should be confined in the prisons of our country. I am quite aware that there are difficulties connected with the matter, and it was with pleasure that I listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary for War, and indeed to the whole Debate, which is shown that while those who spoke do not wish to screen anyone from taking a just part in promoting the welfare of the country at this crisis, there is a manifest determination that the services of the conscientious objector shall be utilised in a way that will not offend his conscience. I have had instances in my Constituency which I could quote. One case in particular, of a man who had held farms for years, who happened to be of military age, and had a conscientious objection to taking up arms. Surely that man's services could be utilised in growing crops of food for the people. I agree that a man ought not to be better off than if he was serving the country in the Army, but I do not think that the farmer or the trader who would have the advantage of his work should profit thereby. I suggest that after a proportion of the wages had been paid to the man, equivalent to what
    2666
    he would earn as a soldier, the balance should go to the State. The man would then feel that his labour was being truly and fully given in service to the State. I do feel grateful to the Under-Secretary for War that he is anxious to respect conscience where it is sincerely manifested, but at the same time to do so in a way that will not encourage anyone to avoid doing their duty to the State at this crisis.
    Quesion, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DELEGATION OF POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DELEGATION OF POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Commander-in-Chief to Delegate His Powers in Relation to Courts-Martial, etc.)
  (1) During the present War it shall be lawful for the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, when so authorised by the Admiralty, to delegate to the several vice-admirals in command of squadrons forming part of that Fleet the power to exercise, in relation to the officers and men of ships which for the time being may for the purposes of this section be placed under the orders of the vice-admiral, all or any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Commander-in-Chief by or under the Naval Discipline Act in relation to courts-martial or disciplinary courts or the carrying out of sentences passed thereat, and where such powers and duties have been so delegated, then, notwithstanding anything in the Naval Discipline Act or in any General Orders issued under that Act—

  (a) any such vice-admiral shall be able to exercise the powers so delegated notwithstanding that the Commander-in-Chief or any officer superior in rank to himself may be present;

  (b) the officers summoned to sit on a court-martial or disciplinary court ordered by any such vice-admiral shall (except in cases where the Commander - in - Chief otherwise directs) be officers of ships so placed under the command of the vice-admiral as aforesaid:

  2667

  (c) the report of the proceedings of a court-martial or disciplinary court ordered by such vice-admiral in pursuance of the powers delegated to him shall be sent to that vice-admiral for transmission to the Secretary of the Admiralty.

  (2) The Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet may from time to time place under the orders of a vice-admiral for the purposes of this Section any ships whether belonging to the squadron under the command of that vice-admiral or not.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WING: I simply rise for the purpose of asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to assure the people to whom this Bill is to apply that it does not mean any additional punishment to the punishments that are already in the calendar. When you have a Bill with a lame such as the Naval Discipline Bill it raises up in the minds of the men the idea that there may be some new punishment for old offences, or some new offence being set up. I feel certain that it would be to the advantage of the Bill, and that it would also be wiser, if these men, thousands of whom have gone into the Navy, and who have not, perhaps, become inured to the conduct of the Navy, were assured that this Bill does not introduce any new punishments, but that it is merely a measure for lightening the labours of the Commander-in-Chief, as intimated by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill, by delegating certain of these powers to others.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I can give that assurance at once. Section (52) of the Naval Discipline Act is not affected in any way by this Bill. The purpose of this Clause is, as the hon. Member said, to lighten the labours of the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. The effect of it is this, that if a court-martial has to be held on any person in any ship of the Grand Fleet present with the Commander-in-Chief, all the work of ordering and convening the court, and of generally supervising the work of the court, falls upon the Commander-in-Chief, because he is the senior officer present. The Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet has in his Fleet officers who hold the Admiralty commission authorising them to order and
  2668
  convene a court-martial. In their time they have done so, and no doubt will do so again when occasion arises. Nevertheless, as the Commander-in-Chief is the senior officer of the Grand Fleet, the work falls into his hands. What this Clause does, and that is the whole purpose of the Bill, is to devolve upon his vice-admirals this power of ordering and convening a court-martial, each in his own squadron, exactly as they would do if there were no other ships there.
  Mr. WING: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE COMMERCIAL TREATY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
ANGLO-PORTUGUESE COMMERCIAL TREATY BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Further Limitation of the Use of the Description "Port.")
  1. The description "port" applied to wine the produce of Portugal, imported into the United Kingdom after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be a false trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, if the wine on importation into the United Kingdom was not accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent Portugese authorities to the effect that it was a wine to which by the law of Portugal the description "port" may be applied, and that Act shall have effect accordingly:
  Provided that it shall be a good defence to any proceedings under that Act in respect of such a description as aforesaid if it is proved that the wine to which the description is applied is intended solely for exportaton from the United Kingdom.
  (2) This provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any of the provisions contained in the principal Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HEWINS: Last night I ventured to put various objections to the passing of this Bill, and my objections to this Bill, or rather what is involved, have been by no

  2669
  means removed. I think that it would be most unfortunate at this time if we took the course which we shall take if this Bill were passed in the present financial position. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) knows perfectly well, I have not the least desire or intention of making myself a nuisance to the Government. But the points raised by this Bill are of international importance. One is under grave disability in discussing them. I do not think that we should discuss these international points in the Houe. If I felt myself at liberty to go fully into the case I am quite certain that I should be able to advance arguments which would make a very wide appeal to the Government. I think that my hon. Friend appreciates the force of that objection which I raised to this particular Bill last night. We have to look at what we are getting for the stipulation which we are making. I have seen no evidence that we are getting what we have a right to look for, and no evidence that the Government have made a systematic attempt to sum up in a concrete way what they actually do get. It simply provides for the ordinary most-favoured-nation treatment of the old type. My hon. Friend knows that the President of the Board of Trade made an important speech in January admitting the great disadvantages which have followed to the position of England from the old most-favoured-nation Clause. When we remember that in entering upon this course we bind ourselves to a certain line of action for ten years it is a very serious matter. If you can carry your mind back to the period before the War, I have no very strong objection to the Bill, but looking forward and taking existing conditions, and considering the significance that must necessarily be attached to immediate ratification of this Treaty, I take objection. I do not feel that we have had the satisfaction that we are entitled to look for from the Government on these different points. I feel very strongly that the points which I have urged ought to be reconsidered before we let this matter pass entirely out of our hands. I do not want to oppose the Committee stage of the Bill, but I would ask my hon. Friend to postpone the Report and Third Reading stages, and not to take those to-night. No one can imagine any harm being done—no trade is going on at the present time. A very important article which comes into this scheme is motor cars. Nobody is exporting motor cars from this country. Nobody is going to just now.
  2670
  In a great many other articles there is no trade at the moment. If my hon. Friend consents to the course which I suggest, it will give us time to go into the matter and see what the advantages are.
  9.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I recognise the great authority with which my hon. Friend speaks on this question, to which he has given such great study. I feel I cannot resist the appeal which he has made, particularly as this Bill was only introduced and read a second time yesterday, and there really has not been time for the points which he desires to raise—and very properly raises—to be discussed freely in present conditions. But I think that I may just clear up one misapprehension. My hon. Friend suggested that the Treaty should not be ratified, but the Treaty has been ratified both here and in Porugal.
  Mr. HEWINS: Does not this Bill say that it has not been ratified?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It has been ratified, subject to not coming into force until this Bill is passed. The last words of Clause 2 are that the Treaty shall come into force one month after the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. HEWINS: This Bill states that the Treaty has not been ratified.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have hot been personally engaged in these negotiations, but the information which I have is that the Treaty has been ratified in both countries, subject only to coming into force a month after the passing of this Bill. I do not think that the point is one of enormous importance, but that is the information given to me. The main advantage that we were to get under this Treaty was the most favoured nation treatment which we have not hitherto had. France, Italy, and the United States have all the most favoured nation treatment from Portugal which England has not had. Germany had it before the War. Our traders are very anxious to get it as soon as possible, and as far as Portugal is concerned the concession which we make in return which is contained in this Bill affects only one article—port wine—which is Portugal's chief export and as to which there is a very strong feeling in Portugal. In fact I understand that there was rioting with

  2671
  actual loss of life, very much on the same lines as occurred in the Champagne district, owing to the question whether a particular brand of wine was to be allowed to be exported under a certain name. Therefore, from the point of view of our traders, and from the point of view of the internal affairs of Portugal, it is very desirable that this Bill should pass. But I am entirely in my hon. Friend's hands, and if he is willing to take the responsibility of delaying this Bill until after the Recess—I do not say that it is a very heavy responsibility—I have no right whatever to insist upon taking the Third Reading now—there will be no Report stage if the Committee passes this Bill without amendment—and I will certainly defer the Third Reading stage until after the Recess. Meantime my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy himself as to the conditions of the Treaty.
  Mr. HEWINS: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. GRETTON: In the conditions in which the Committee is at present it is obviously impossible that my hon. Friend should be able to bring the support to bear which he would be able to do on an ordinary occasion. This Bill, which is really to ratify the confirmation of the Treaty, really goes very much further, and I regret very greatly that it is not considered advisable to discuss the bearings of this question. Parliament does not very often have an opportunity of considering treaties before they are settled, and this Treaty is practically launched forth into a concealed future. My hon. Friend was perfectly right in drawing attention to this matter, especially in view of the fact that we are about to engage with our Allies in dealing with a whole series of questions, and a Treaty with the Portuguese must be a question for consideration, if it prejudices the forthcoming conference. That is a reason which appeals very strongly to me, and therefore I am very gratified that the hon. Gentleman opposite has seen his way to meet the objection of my hon. Friend by postponing the discussion and consideration of the further stage.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Principal Act as to Mortgagees and Companies.)
  (1) In Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act)—

  (a) the expression "enter into possession" shall include the appointment of a receiver of mortgaged property; and

  (b) the provisions relating to foreclosure shall extend to the institution of proceedings for foreclosure or for sale in lieu of foreclosure; and

  (c) the expression "a mortgagee in possession" shall not include a mortgagee of property other than land or some interest in land.

  (2) Where a petition has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been presented for the winding up of any company, the Court shall have the like discretion as to staying proceedings under the petition as by Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act is conferred on Courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in relation to bankruptcy proceedings.
  (3) This Section shall have effect as from the twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and shall be deemed to have been in operation as from that date.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "and" ["mortgaged property; and"], to insert the words "mortgagee in possession shall have a corresponding meaning."
  The object of the Amendment is this: Under the present Act power was given to the mortgagee in possession to sell, but there is a custom that instead of the mortgagee entering into possession he appoints a receiver, as they have power to do under the Conveyancing Act of 1881. The object of my Amendment is that the mortgagee is in the same position as under the Act.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir George Cave): I could not accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved, but I am quite willing that the principle of the Amendment should be accepted if it is limited to those who appointed receivers before the passing of the principal Act. If the hon. Gentleman is content with that I will move the insertion of words to give effect to his Amendment.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (l), paragraph (c), after the word "possession" ["mortgagee in possession"], to insert the words "shall include a mortgagee who before the passing of the principal Act appointed a receiver who is still in possession or receipt of rents and profits of the mortgaged property, but,"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), at the end to insert the words, "except in any case where the power of sale had arisen and notice of intended sale had been given prior to the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
  This Amendment was discussed with the Association of Bankers, and I understand it removes all their objections to the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I see no objection to the words as they stand. There have been a large number of cases where the mortgagee of shares, stocks, and so forth had power to sell before the War began, and that power has not been exercised up to the present time. Is this really only meant to apply to very rare cases where a person has given notice more than eighteen months ago, and has not exercised it up to the present time, otherwise, surely no one would restrain the use of powers of sale where people have the securities in their hands, and the Act applies in greater part to them than to the case of those with real property.
  Sir G. CAVE: It applies only to the rare cases to which the hon. and learned Member refers. The Amendment was approved by the Association of Bankers, and I think hon. Members may rest assured that it will not go further.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to Stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power of County Court to Remove).
  (1) A County Court may authorise the grant of a new lease for a term of twenty-one years or upwards of a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, applies in consideration for which a fine premium, or other like sum, in addition to the rent is required, if the Court is satisfied that the terms of the tenancy are on the whole more favourable to the tenant than the terms on which the dwelling-house was previously let, and in such cases Sub-section (2) of Section one of the said Act shall not apply.
  (2) This Section shall be construed as one with the said Act.
  Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "tenancy" ["terms of the tenancy"], to leave out the words "are on the whole more favourable to the tenant than the terms on which the house was previously let," and to insert instead thereof the words "are fair and reasonable, both parties being agreed."
  If a landlord and a tenant come together and agree as to terms, then the bargain has to go before the Court to be ratified, and it has to be on the whole more favourable to the tenant than the terms on which the dwelling-house had been previously let. That seems to be an unusual interference with contracts. The learned Solicitor-General will remember that during the passage of the Act dealing with rent and interests it was pointed out that there were certain houses, possibly in a row, let to old and esteemed tenants at, say, 8s. per week, while the standard rate was 10s. The landlord was not allowed to raise the old and respected tenant's rent to the standard. Now suppose that the tenant of one of those 8s. houses sees that he can come to terms with his landlord, is the bargain to be on the 8s. basis? Is it not fairer to let the people come together and deal on the 10s. basis or even as to what the market value will be after the War? I do not suppose there will be very many cases, because whilst the tenants are so favourably treated there is not likely to be much sale. If other cases occur, such as the case of the Marquess of Bute and his tenant, which this Clause is put in to remedy, surely it will be fairer to let the

  2675
  bargain go on market lines. I think it is only fair and reasonable that the party should be allowed freedom of action from such conditions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to limit the scope of the Bill and to prevent any injustice being done, I think my Amendment meets the case and is absolutely fair.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I could not accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend seems to be under the impression that this Clause limits the freedom of action of a landlord to let and a tenant to take. That is not so. This Clause is a relaxation of the restrictions of the Act which is now the law. The present Act prevents anything higher than the present rent on certain houses. There have been cases, of which the Marquess of Bute's is the best known, but not the only one, in which that has prevented a very fair deal, and prevented the landlord from granting to his own sitting tenant a house at a very low rent simply because he has sold the lease and has taken a payment for the lease. The tenants are perfectly willing to buy a lease on those terms, and the landlord is perfectly willing to sell, and the tenants are going to gain, but owing to the terms of the Act it is impossible for the transaction to go through. We want to meet that case and that case only. We are putting in power to leave it to the Court to say whether a transaction of that kind is on the whole more favourable, or not less favourable, than the existing lease. My hon. Friend seeks to go further and reopen the whole thing, and I think his Amendment is going behind the principle of the principal Act, and we do not want to do that in an amending Bill, certainly not without letting the whole House know what is proposed and putting the Amendment on the Paper. In any case, I do not desire to reopen the matter because I am not very anxious to impose on the County Courts the duty of considering whether rents are reasonable or not. That is the beginning of a Rent Court which I myself am not very anxious to see. I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I suggest the words "are on the whole not less favourable"?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am willing to accept those words if this Amendment is withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "more" ["more favourable"] and insert instead thereof the words "not less."—[Mr. Rawlinson.]
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Court to Suspend Period for Prescription Running in Certain Cases.)
  Where on the application of a person entitled to build on any site it is proved to the satisfaction of such Court as may be provided by rules or directions under the principal Act—

  (a) that that person is prevented from erecting a building on the site by reason of circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the present War, or that it is desirable in the national interests that he should not erect such a building during the present War; and

  (b) that in consequence of the delay in erecting such building there is danger of a right to light being acquired by prescription in respect of any adjoining or neighbouring premises,

  the Court may in its absolute discretion, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties, by order declare that a period commencing at such date not earlier than the twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and sixteen and ending at such date not later than six months after the termination of the present War as may be fixed by the Court shall be excluded in computing the period of the enjoyment of light required for the purpose of obtaining a prescriptive right whether under the Prescription Act, 1832, or otherwise.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "that" ["or that it is"], to insert the words "in the opinion of the Treasury or of the Minister of Munitions."
  It was thought it was rather too much to ask the Court whether it was desirable that a building should not be erected in the national interests, and that it is better to ask the Minister of Munitions or the Treasury who have charge of these matters to give their certificate that the building ought to be stopped.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask, would not this limit the operation of the

  2677
  Clause unfavourably since a small owner could hardly go to the expense of getting the opinion of the Treasury or of the Minister of Munitions? I should have thought he would enjoy a better position if the judge were allowed to say whether it was in the national interests. Looking at these words for the first time, it seems to me that this provision would be injurious to the small owner.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think it would operate exactly the other way. It costs nothing to go to the Minister of Munitions to get a certificate. It would merely mean a letter. On the other hand, if the owner has to prove the matter to a Court he must go into evidence. It will cost him more to satisfy a judge than to obtain a simple letter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title, Construction and Extent.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Courts (Emergency Powers) (No. 2) Act, 1916, and save as otherwise expressely provided shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 and 1916, the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Ireland) Act, 1914, and this Act may be cited together as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1916.
  (2) Sub-section (1) of Section one and Sections two and three of this Act shall not apply to Scotland.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Ireland) Act, 1914".—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

FINANCE (EXCHANGE OF SECURITIES).
Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to provide, during the continuance of the present War and six months thereafter, for the issue of new securities for the purpose of the exchange of securities issued under any War Loan Act passed during the continuance of the War, and for the cancellation of the securi-
2678
ties received in exchange, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session dealing with Finance.
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. FELL: May we have an explanation of what this is?
Sir G. CAVE: It is the Report of the Resolution adopted by the Committee yesterday, when it was fully discussed.
Mr. KING: I think the Solicitor-General is hardly correct. This Resolution was passed not yesterday but some time ago. Order No. 11 on the Paper relates to the Report of Ways and Means of 29th May. That is the Resolution passed yesterday. I hope we shall have some more satisfactory explanation of this Resolution, otherwise I am afraid it will be my duty to oppose it.
Sir G. CAVE: I must apologise to the House. My eyes travelled too far down the Paper. I thought we were dealing with a later Order.
Mr. KING: Under the circumstances, may I appeal to the Government not to proceed with this Order to-night, as they are evidently not prepared to go on with it. They have got through a good deal of business, and I hope they will not press this Order.
Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was here in anticipation of this Order, and left only five minutes ago, thinking the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill would take rather longer. In his absence, if the hon. Member presses the point, I will certainly move the adjournment of the Debate.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).
The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes before Teu o'clock.

WAR.
  GENERAL PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND).
  GENERAL PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND).
  POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND).
  POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  ARRESTS.
  ARRESTS.
  GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
  GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
  OFFICERS (STAFF TRAINING).
  OFFICERS (STAFF TRAINING).
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS, NORTHWEST FRONTIER OF INDIA.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS, NORTHWEST FRONTIER OF INDIA.
  COUNTIES REST HOMES FOR BRITISH SOLDIERS.
  COUNTIES REST HOMES FOR BRITISH SOLDIERS.
  FARINA (IMPORTED).
  FARINA (IMPORTED).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  Commission of Peace (Ireland).
  Commission of Peace (Ireland).
  Small-pox Cases Notified.
  Small-pox Cases Notified.
  Industrial Council.
  Industrial Council.
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Licensed Houses).
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Licensed Houses).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

FOLKESTONE GAS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 22nd instant discharged, and Bill committed.
YEADON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
FERN DALE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
HORNSEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
The KING'SThe KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HALIFAX CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 49.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL. (No. 50.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 51.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 52.)
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 53.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 17 (1916)—Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the transfer to Switzerland of British and German wounded and sick combatant prisoners of war:
Civil Service Commission—Sixtieth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners:
Commissions and Committees on Questions arising out of the War—List of certain Commissions and Committees set up to deal with Public Questions arising out of the War (in continuation of [Cd. 7855]):
Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854–1894—Twenty-seventh Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix:
Education Commissioners (Ireland)—Annual Report for the year 1915:
Railway Accidents—Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies of the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December 1915, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Punjab Legislative Council)—Amendments in the Regulations for the nomination and selection of members of the Punjab Legislative Council:
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889—University Court Ordinance No. 50 (Edinburgh, No. 18) Institution of a Degree in the Theory, History and Practice of Education and relative Regulations:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, this is a Bill to extend the term of the present Parliament of Canada for one year—that is, until October 7, 1917. Under a

203
provision of the British North America Act, 1867, the duration of the Canadian House of Commons is limited to five years, and that provision cannot be varied except by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. This Bill is introduced at the desire of the Canadian Government, and is in accordance with the terms of an Address to His Majesty the King from both the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. The Bill has already been passed in its original form in another place. I hope that it will be regarded by this House as a formal measure, and that your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading to-day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, this Bill is an exceedingly interesting instance of the services which the Imperial Parliament is able to render to our great Dominions. It is not necessary, of course, to say anything about the substance of the Bill. What I wish to call your Lordships' attention to is the fact that it is extremely valuable for the great Dominions, and particularly for Canada, to have in reserve a power of this kind on the part of the Imperial Parliament, which can be used at their request.
By Section 50 of the British North America Act, 1867, the duration of the Parliament of the Dominion is limited to five years, and what is desired now by the Address to which my noble friend referred is that the Imperial Parliament will be pleased to alter the Constitution in that respect pro hac vice so as to permit of the duration of the present Parliament being extended beyond that period. Were it not in the power of Canada to ask us to do this, and were it not in our power to do it on their behalf, the Dominion would have been put to the great inconvenience and expense of trying to amend their Constitution themselves. If, as in the United States, it had been necessary in Canada, in order to amend the Constitution, to secure an Act agreed to by the electors, the Canadian Parliament would have had to go through the long and costly process of taking the votes of the people to secure the object desired. But fortunately, the Imperial Parliament having retained this power—although it is a power which would never be exercised except in accordance with the wishes of the Dominion—and having received a unanimous request
204
from the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada that we should act in this way for them on this occasion, it is, of course, a privilege and pleasure to us to be able to comply with their desire and save them from the inconvenience which would arise if it were necessary for them to amend their Constitution in the way in which the Constitutions of independent States are usually amended.
I think it may be worth while to add that this offers a singular instance of the patriotism and public spirit of the Parliament and people of Canada. In Canada, as your Lordships are aware, Party spirit is at least as strong as it is in any other part of the King's Dominions; and in Canada there is not, as there is here, a Coalition Government. It was at the instance of the Coalition Government that it was decided some months ago to prolong the existence of the present Parliament here. In Canada there is no such Coalition Government. But, with perfect patriotism and good faith on both sides, it has been agreed there between the Government and the Opposition that the duration of the Canadian Parliament should be prolonged. I think we may reasonably feel gratified not only that the Parliament of Canada has shown its public spirit in this way, but also that it has given us, if we needed it, a confirmation of the wisdom of our own Legislature in prolonging the duration of the present Parliament so as not to have a General Election in the midst of the war. I assume that we shall all agree to the passing of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

THE VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is not work important for the successful prosecution of the war, to be done by Volunteer Training Corps, for the sake of which the Government desires that all available men (other than men able to serve in the Navy or Army) should join such corps.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper in the hope of eliciting from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal a clear declaration that the services of the Volunteer Training Corps are of some real use and importance in

205
relation to the war. I will tell your Lordships in a few moments why I conceive that a mere statement of that kind will, if the noble and gallant Field-Marshal is able to give it, be of great value to the Volunteers. If I first say a word or two as to the general scope of the Volunteer movement I need not detain the House long, because I believe your Lordships remember well the debate which took place here in November, when the whole matter was well laid before the House by several Peers, and particularly by my noble friend Lord Desborough, to whom we Volunteers owe so much, and who speaks on the subject with an authority which I am very far from possessing.
The Volunteers consist of two main classes. There are those of us who are rather too old for military service or who suffer from some, trivial medical disability. Our decrepitude is a matter of degree and of comparison; and it is obvious that there might be, great value in training us against the day when our services may be required—to which I would add that I think the people of this country will prepare their minds more speedily and thoroughly for the long struggle which seems to lie before us if they see that every preparation of this sort is being made for the last resort which may come. Then there is the other large class of men who will be, but are not at this moment, available for service in the Army. There are keen lads slightly under military age; there are keen men employed in important civil avocations who may only be temporarily employed as they are, or whose employment might be brought to an end by such an event, if it were to occur, as an invasion; and there are, lastly, men fit for and liable to military service who have not at present been called up. In relation to all these, groups of men it is obviously of use that they should receive some preliminary training before they enter the Army.
On the other side, there were, of course, at first obvious difficulties and possible objections to the movement for the organisation of the Volunteers. Those difficulties and doubts have been solved. I think that all that could be said on this side was fully before the House when the Volunteer Bill, presented in November, was passed by your Lordships with the approval of the Government and with something like a chorus of assent from this House. What is more, the military authorities in this
206
country who have been brought in practical contact with it have shown in many ways their keen appreciation of the Volunteer movement. Nothing can exceed the helpfulness towards the movement and the ready and quick understanding of the conditions of our work and our exact capacities which have, been shown by many General Officers in important Commands in this country. But I want to remind your Lordships of certain things which have happened since the debate in November to which I have referred. I can hardly refrain from saying a word of the gallant conduct of the Dublin battalion of the Irish Volunteer Training Corps—helped, I believe, by some men from other battalions—during the recent uprising in Ireland. Speaking as I do as a representative, of a great number of ordinary Volunteers in England, your Lordships will allow me to express the keen satisfaction and pleasure with which we noted, not the gallantry, which was a matter of course, but the promptitude and efficiency with which our comrades in Ireland acted on that occasion.
My noble friend Lord Desborough, last November, described to your Lordships certain work then being performed by the labour of Volunteers, work in one way not exactly relating to their possible combative duties but certainly inducing to their military efficiency for any purpose. Work of that kind on the part of Volunteers has very largely developed since then. It has developed to an extent of which possibly some of your Lordships, and certainly the public at large, are hardly aware. I do not know that I ought to attempt to go into detail on the subject. For one thing, the use of the Volunteers in different parts of the country necessarily varies, and there may possibly be corps in parts of the country to whom what I might say did not strictly apply. For another thing, if I were at all to particularise it is conceivable that I might be saying something to which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal would rather I did not refer. But this I can safely say, that there are operations being carried out at this moment in the country to which clearly the War Office attach high importance, because a great deal of the time and thought of important military officers is devoted to directing those, operations, and because considerable expense to the taxpayers is being incurred in relation to them. These operations are being carried on by the work

207
of Volunteers, and to carry them on speedily and successfully it is exceedingly desirable that the numbers of Volunteers should be kept up.
What is the position at this moment in regard to this important question of numbers? We have been successful in passing into the Army after a certain amount of preliminary training, which I believe has proved of high value to them, numbers of men who joined the Volunteer Corps in the first instance because for temporary reasons they were not then able to enlist. That is so far a proof of the success of the Volunteer movement. But, of course, this draws down our numbers. To keep up and, if possible, to increase those numbers we have to look to men who are willing to do anything they can to help the country, but, like reasonable men, before they commit themselves to an extra heavy expenditure of time when there are plenty of other things they might do, desire to be quite clear that the work which they are entering upon is of real use to the country; and there has been a good deal which, in the public mind, has thrown doubt upon the utility of the Volunteers. What has happened? I have referred to the Bill which passed your Lordships' House in November last, the passing of which and its reception here was a great encouragement to the Volunteers. It brought them, I believe, very many recruits. But then what happened? Six months have gone by and that Bill, instead of passing through the House of Commons, has long ago been dropped. I am not complaining. I do not know what the reasons were for which the Government decided in the end to drop it. Very likely they were good reasons; but the effect was enormously discouraging to the Volunteer movement.
Since then—two days before Easter—came out, to the very great pleasure of the Volunteers, the announcement of the new Regulations under which the War Office intend shortly to put them. That, again, was a moment, as I have said, of great encouragement. But considerable time has gone by since then, and no apparent and manifest steps have been taken to carry out the intention then expressed by the War Office. Again I am not in the least complaining. I know that there is a great deal to be considered and to be arranged. But all this delay does keep up in the minds of the Volunteers themselves and in the
208
minds of those who would readily join them a real doubt as to whether the movement is of value. It is for that reason mainly that I am asking this Question, because I am sure that nothing would so stimulate men to join the Volunteer Corps as the words of encouragement which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal may be able to give to the movement, and which nobody else could give with the same wide and deep effect as himself. It is important that the Volunteers should rapidly be increased in their numbers, because the work that they do is most effective in the summer season when the days are long, and the summer is now some distance advanced. I hope, therefore, that it may be possible for the War Office to proceed quickly with the work of actually enrolling Volunteers under the new scheme, and of bringing as many individual Volunteers as possible within the scope of the Volunteer Act, even if there may be some delay in settling those complicated but not really insuperably difficult questions of organisation and command which will arise.
Since I put this Question on the Notice Paper there has been a statement on the subject in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. It was an encouraging and valuable statement; but to the invitation which the Prime Minister gave to those who were able to join Volunteer Corps he added a qualification. He appealed to men who could join the Volunteers "unless they were engaged on work of extreme importance in civil life." I forget his exact words. I regret that there should have been that qualification to the invitation, for these two reasons. In the first place, the number who can be present at any particular drill of a Volunteer Corps is a fluctuating number. The difficulty is in getting sufficient men to make the drill of any use; and even a man whose civil employment is such that he would necessarily be withdrawn from the Volunteers on Government employment of a civil kind if the Volunteers were called out can in the meantime be of service, simply because his presence helps to make possible the effective training of the other men. There is this further way in which he can be of service. There is the work to which I have alluded, carried on every week-end, at which it is possible for a man to lend a hand even though his employment in civil life—it may be in munition work or something else—is one for which he would necessarily be kept back by the Government

209
if the Volunteers were ever called up and embodied.
I hope for such a statement from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal as will have a wide effect in stimulating the Volunteer movement. But I have to contemplate the possibility that he may not be able to make quite so encouraging a statement to us as we could wish. If that be so, I should like to say this. We are not, of course, wanting compliments on the patriotism which we have shown, or anything of that kind. But we wish to know very clearly whether we are or are not of use; and if it should be the case—though I do not think it is—that after these many months of consideration the noble and gallant Field-Marshal does not set a real value upon the Volunteers—well, we are busy people and can occupy ourselves to the country's good, as well as our own, in other ways, and if we are not really of use we are entitled to be told so. But I do not think the answer is likely to be of that discouraging character. I am not going to ask any question as to the details of the steps which the War Office will take with regard to us hereafter, because I believe there are several of your Lordships who have questions of this kind to raise; but I can assure the noble and gallant Field-Marshal that words of invitation from him to those who are able to take part in the Volunteer movement will bring to that movement a great many men who are willing to give their best service, if only they are told that the corps are of use. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I intervene before the noble and gallant Field-Marshal replies because I am desirous of raising a point regarding the relation which it is suggested that Volunteer Corps should bear to the, Territorial Force. We who have to administer the Territorial Force have been asked in the most courteous fashion by the War Office also to undertake the administration of the Volunteer Corps under their existing Regulations, and on general grounds I need hardly say that there is not a Territorial Association which would not gladly do so. But in the case of the Territorial Association with which I am personally concerned—and I suspect, from what I hear, in the case of many others—we are faced with this difficulty. We are asked to take over what we hope and trust
210
may in the future be a considerable force in addition to the Territorial units with which we have now to deal, but we are specifically told that we are to have no grants whatsoever in addition to our present Territorial funds for providing either arms, equipment, clothing, or anything else for the Volunteer Corps, and no capitation grant under the existing Regulations is given to the Volunteers.
Territorial Associations are asked by the War Office to undertake a considerable amount of additional work, which we are very willing to do provided that some means are afforded us for carrying out that work. The Association with which I am connected feel that they cannot undertake it unless certain grants are made, at any rate for providing rifles, clothing, ammunition, and equipment. If we were to undertake this additional work and at the end of the year had expended a considerable sum of money in arming, clothing, and equipping Volunteers, what would be the position? We should be surcharged by the Government auditor, and the Association would find themselves in trouble with the Office over which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal presides. We are therefore impotent in the matter. We are most anxious to assist the Volunteer Corps, but we feel that we cannot do so in any way adequately or efficiently unless a certain sum of money is granted for the objects I have mentioned. I believe that in certain Territorial districts the Associations have taken over the responsibilities attaching to the Volunteer Corps and have agreed to administer them, but I shrewdly suspect that in those particular areas there are certain extremely wealthy gentlemen who are willing to come forward and subscribe sufficient money, at any rate to purchase clothing and a certain number of rifles, and, equally, that a certain number of the Volunteers may be in a position to fit themselves out individually. But there are a great many poorer counties where this is not the case. Personally, I do not think this is a satisfactory way of dealing with a large and important subject. I hope we shall not inaugurate a sort of subscription day throughout the country for equipping the Volunteer Corps. Let the Government, if they want these corps, as I assume they do, supply the necessary arms, equipment, and clothing.
I am confident, from the communications I have received from Volunteer commandants,

211
that you are losing a large number of men out of these corps daily because they can get no definite information as to what their status is to be, or whether they are to be recognised financially by the Government. The commandant of a large Volunteer body writes—
"I consider it advisable that the obligations accruing—"
that is, the obligations on the Territorial Association to supply the necessary clothing, arms, &c.—
"should be more explicitly explained, and I hope that your Lordship may be able to obtain information particularly as to finance."
I have dozens of similar communications. But there is a rather cynical observation in the last communication which I received from the War Office on the subject, in which they say—
"Any extra expense to the Territorial Force would not be appreciable."
The War Office do not say that there will not be considerable expense, and they do not in the least say how we are to get the money to meet those charges. The Territorial Associations would have no power, as far as I know, to spend a shilling on the Volunteers.
I earnestly hope that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will be able to enlighten us on the financial side of the question, because it is essential, if you are to get an efficient Volunteer Force which can relieve men now doing duty in this country in a great many ways in which they have already to a small extent relieved them, that you must adequately arm and clothe these Volunteers. I do not see how the Territorial Associations can be expected to raise sums sufficient to do this, and I hope that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal may see his way to make some statement of a satisfactory nature on that point. I can assure him that the settlement of this matter is essential for the future welfare of the Volunteer Corps. Territorial Associations have been placed in a very difficult position in being invited to administer this considerable body of men without being promised adequate means to do the work; and that is a point which I hope, in the interests not only of the Volunteer Corps but of the Territorial Associations themselves, will be cleared up.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord who asked this Question referred to the conduct of the Volunteers in Dublin, and I wish to add our appreciation at the War Office of the gallant manner in which they behaved. I should also like to inform the noble Lord that we thoroughly appreciate the services of the Volunteers.
I will first deal with the question put to me by the noble Duke. The Volunteer Training Corps, as your Lordships are aware, owe their existence to the public-spirited efforts of Lord Desborough and others, who early in the war saw the valuable use which could be made of the patriotism of the many men who from age or private circumstances were prevented from joining the Armies then being formed. These efforts were recognised in a letter from the War Office in November, 1914, giving the new organisation recognition and encouragement. The War Office were not, however, in a position to promise any support in money or in kind from public sources, and care was taken in the letter I have mentioned to make this clear. In this letter it was stated that no arms, ammunition, or clothing would be supplied from public sources, nor would financial assistance be given.
Subsequently, at the commencement of this year, the Government went a step further and brought the Volunteer Training Corps under the Volunteer Act of 1863. Regulations giving effect to this step were then framed by which certain grants of money were made to assist the Corps in meeting the expenses of travelling and food for members who were called upon to perform certain services in which they could be of assistance to the Army. The Regulations also promised non-effective grants for men killed or incapacitated while performing services of this kind. It was, however, made clear that beyond these grants no assistance could be provided. Your Lordships will realise how essential it was for the War Office to assume this attitude. The expenditure on the Army is very great. We cannot look without misgiving at any increase such as would be initiated, for example, by the payment of a capitation grant for these volunteers. We must also look at present with misgiving at any demands for arms, equipment, and clothing, owing to the difficulties of supply. The utmost that we could see our way to

213
do would be to endeavour to find part-worn equipment and arms with which to fit out Volunteers who may be employed in the partial relief of Regular troops on military duties, such as that of guards, etc., That is the situation at present.
We can see no way of giving further pecuniary assistance except at the expense of the Army, which would have to be reduced proportionately. The Volunteers are all business men and cannot undertake continuous military duties. They can, however, do work which is of importance, and this is being undertaken by rosters of members, from which men can be found for certain guard services. For this they receive pay under the Regulations. The Government have endeavoured to find more work for them which they can do under this system, but it is not an easy task, having regard to the limitations imposed upon members by the necessary calls made by their private businesses and other circumstances. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Charnwood) invites the Government to express a desire to use largely increased numbers, even to the extent of getting all available men to join the Volunteer Corps. I am afraid we have not reached that stage yet. We must find the work for them to do. Then we must look at the expense that would thereby be incurred, which, I can assure the noble Lord, is a very serious consideration owing to our enormous expenditure. In describing the work which he asks the Government to find for the Volunteers the noble Lord spoke of "work important for the successful prosecution of the war." He means, I think, work of a military or semi-military nature. But is it not a fact that in the present conditions the conduct of the civil businesses of the country is also important for the success of the war? May we not run some risk in encouraging the diversion from the businesses in which these men are engaged of energies which are available primarily for that work? May not the country's interests suffer in that way? I suggest that we must show considerable caution in dealing with this question. The present is not the moment when we should embark on schemes involving new expenditure of large sums, which can only be provided out of Army money if corresponding reductions are carried out.
At the same time do not let me be misunderstood. The Government recognise fully, and cannot speak too highly of, the
214
work which the Volunteers have done and the spirit which they have always shown in offering their services to the country. The Volunteers have been most useful in meeting many emergencies, such as furnishing guards for munition factories, patrolling the coast, providing labour for digging trenches and other manual work, such as unloading trains. As I have said, they have set a fine example, and the country is both proud of and grateful to them; and personally I welcome the presence in the country of a large body of disciplined men who might prove of great service in the case of sudden national emergency.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, as one who has been connected with the Volunteer movement from its inception, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say a few words. I would first like to thank noble Lords who have welcomed the services of the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps, which have been carried out now for nearly two years. But I am afraid that the Volunteers throughout the country will hear the statement from my noble friend the Secretary of State for War with somewhat mixed feelings. We are grateful to him for the recognition which he has given of the services so freely rendered in the past, and I am sure that the Central Association in Ireland will highly appreciate the tribute which he paid to the loyalty and bravery of the Volunteers there on a recent occasion. I have had several letters from them. Although they were only exercising themselves on the Easter Monday with dummy rifles—I think some of them had Russian arms for which ammunition had not been made for forty years—as soon as they were informed that there was insurrection in Dublin they hurled themselves into the fray. They climbed into barracks, and although under constant fire for eight days they maintained their position and gave an excellent account of themselves. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the English Volunteers, of paying a tribute of respect and admiration to them for what they did on that occasion.
I should also like to thank the noble and gallant Field-Marshal for what he said of the work that has already been carried out by the Volunteer Corps. I do not believe there is any single organisation or any single effort made in the country when service was voluntary which has added

215
more Regular troops to our Forces than the Volunteer movement. I know of one corps—it is a small corps—which has sent 660 officers to the Army, men who received their drill and training in the Volunteer Corps. In all, no fewer than a million men have gone from Volunteer Corps to serve in the Regular Forces of the Crown. And we have done a considerable amount of voluntary work which I venture to think has its cash value, for I do not suppose, if the work was not required, the Volunteers would have been asked to perform it. All round our coast, from Cornwall to Wick, Volunteers have been patrolling day and night for a year and a-half at no cost to the country. Only last week I was arrested by one of these patrols when walking along the coast. Naturally, when I explained that I had some connection with the Volunteer Force my incarceration was not of long duration. I asked how long Volunteers had been employed on this work, and I ascertained that this particular gentleman had been at it for over a year. That is one small item. There are a great many of these men now guarding works of importance, and in one county forty miles of trenches have been dug by Volunteers. That surely is work which must have its cash value. Volunteers have also cleared certain ground for aeroplane works. They are in sole charge of this ground, and have the duty of lighting the flares to guide landing aeroplanes. Volunteers have also done a good deal of work—and I am happy to think that I have helped them—at ordnance stores throughout the country in loading trains with munitions. The officer in charge remarked on one occasion that two Volunteers did as much work as three of his ordinary men. On some days I have taken down 1,300 Volunteers for this work. In one town threatened with Zeppelin raids there are no fewer than ten guard rooms manned by Volunteers every night. In case of warning, each of these squads has its definite post assigned; and they would assist the civil authorities and help to quell any commotion that might arise.
Over and above the cash value of the work which the Volunteers have done, they have encouraged the spirit of the dignity of military service, and they certainly have assisted in the way of recruiting to a greater extent than any other single movement. But the Volunteers would never press their own claims in any way that
216
might conflict with the higher interests of the country. If we are informed on the authority of the Secretary of State for War that the daily expenditure of the country has reached such a point that nothing can be done for the Volunteers without taking away from the Regular Forces of the Crown, I am quite sure that Volunteers throughout the country will accept that position. There is no Volunteer who would wish to take one single rifle if by so doing he was depriving a man facing the enemy at the Front, of that rifle. I feel that the presence in this country of a large population who have had some drill and discipline would, in case of any sudden emergency, be of great value in many directions; and I am sure that the Volunteer Corps, although they regret that in the circumstances there is little chance of their obtaining that equipment and those arms to which they were looking forward, will loyally accept the position and continue to do their drill as before. At the same time, there were some words of encouragement in the statement of my noble and gallant friend, and they were these—that when the time comes and the Government are able to arm and equip those who are willing to place their services at the disposal of the authorities, the Government will take the first opportunity of doing so.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as a full private in the Volunteer Corps—though I fear a useless one, owing to age—perhaps I may be allowed to point out from the private's point of view how very important it is, in our opinion, that more should be done to show the recognition of the Government. I am thankful to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal for the words he has spoken to-day, because I think they will do something to encourage the Volunteers. But the great mass of the Volunteers feel that they have been devoting a great deal of time and trouble to work for which it is said they are not wanted."The Government do not want you," it is said; "they do not recognise you." That is not the case, but that is the feeling among the privates. I fully realise that we have to be very careful how we increase expenditure. At the same time I would ask the noble and gallant Field-Marshal to consider whether it is not possible to give official proof in other ways of the gratitude felt by the country. I do not like to make any proposals because they might be foolish ones, but I would ask him to consult with

217
his officers as to whether there are not certain things that might be done to encourage the privates. I was going to propose that a list should be compiled of those privates and officers who passed a medical examination and had been fully drilled, and who felt that they could be of service in case of need, so that if the war was prolonged and all our troops had to leave the country, or supposing, which God forbid! that another rising should take place in Ireland, the services of these men could be utilised. My humble suggestion is that there should be a list of these men and that they should be paid. But I ask that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal should consult with those round him and see whether there are not other ways in which the Volunteer Corps could be encouraged.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, the improvement in the position of these corps compared with what it was a year ago is a matter of satisfaction to those of us who have taken an interest in the Volunteer movement. We are very grateful that His Majesty the King has accepted the offer of the county regiments. But the noble Duke opposite has started a fresh idea altogether concerning Volunteer Corps. When the Volunteer Bill was passed unanimously through your Lordships' House in November of last year it was on the distinct understanding that we did not ask either for money, arms, equipment, clothing, military rank or military honours. All we asked for was recognition and employment, and to a great extent those two requests have been granted. As I understand, Volunteers are accepted as soldiers in case of raid or invasion, in which event they will be attested and called out.
But there are two vital points the clearing up of which would have an immense effect in putting heart into these brave and patriotic men. The first is this. When the Volunteers are called up in case of raid or invasion, will they be entitled to the allowances in addition to pay under Sections 18 and 19 of the Volunteer Act, 1863? I have had a communication from the War Office stating that, as far as pay is concerned, that is so; but if it could be stated by the highest authority that pay and allowances, including separation allowance, will be paid to those Volunteers who are called up in case of raid or invasion it would be an enormous inducement, and I
218
believe we could get every man in my county to join.
The second point which should be cleared up is this. A large number of Volunteers are also Special Constables, and they consider that their obligation as Special Constables comes first. It is not very long ago that we were ordered in the county of Bucks to guard certain portions of the Great Western and North Western railroads, as we would have to do in case of invasion. That was just before Easter; and on Easter Sunday at four o'clock we had the Slough battalion out and posted twenty men a mile between West Drayton and Maidenhead. Those men remained on duty for four and twenty hours; they had rifles, bayonets, uniform, including greatcoats, and twenty rounds of ammunition apiece—all provided by themselves or the county. They all know their places and how the sentries and guards are to be relieved; and in the event of mobilisation I think I can say, as regards the Great Western Railway, that within four or five hours every man would be at his post. But, as I say, some of these men are Special Constables. It seemed to me, as Lord Lieutenant, that the defence of the military lines of communication was far more important than diverting carts and pedestrians from the high roads kept for military use. Therefore I took it upon myself to say to the Chief Constable that in case of mobilisation every man, whether he was a special constable or not, would be required on the lines of railway communication. I sent that order to the War Office and to the Home Office, stating that it would be in force until I was instructed to withdraw it. I have received no letter from either of those Departments, and therefore I presume that what I did was the sensible and proper thing to do in the circumstances. But it would be satisfactory if we could be told officially whether Volunteers who are detailed for the duty of protecting lines of communication are to consider this their first obligation irrespective of the fact that they may happen to be Special Constables.
I do not expect a reply at the moment, and I do not bring this matter forward to embarrass the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, but I hope the points will be considered. Personally I have a great belief in this Volunteer movement, and have done what little I could to further it. In my county we have a capital brigade of four battalions, with 2,000 rifles, 900

219
bayonets, and over 100,000 rounds of ammunition, and most of the men are equipped. I feel certain that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, after the gracious words he has used towards this branch of the Service, will do everything he can to help us in our endeavour as honest citizens to do our best in the event of raids or other troubles to serve the country and the King.
EARL KITCHENER: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that I will do my best to find some means of encouraging the Volunteers. I will study the question as closely as I can with the officers engaged, and I hope it will have some successful result. In reply to the noble Marquess, I would say that Volunteers when called up on the occasion of a raid or invasion will, of course, be entitled to pay and allowances. But he mentioned the separation allowance, about which I am afraid I cannot say anything at the moment. The Treasury would have to be consulted on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: There would be pay and allowances, but not the separation allowance?
EARL KITCHENER: That is so. With regard to the order which the noble Marquess gave, I can assure him that he acted in a way of which the War Office would thoroughly approve. As Lord Lieutenant he had a perfect right to give such orders, and I hope all Lords Lieutenant will do so and will take the responsibility of seeing that their Volunteers are used for the best service of the country. As special constables they no doubt carry out a great task, but when they have military duties to perform those military duties come before those of special constables.

OFFICERS' SERVANTS AT THE FRONT.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I venture to ask the noble and gallant Field-Marshal a Question of which I have given him private notice. I would direct his attention to a sentence in a speech by Colonel Churchill in the House of Commons on May 23. The right hon. gentleman said that a great deal of work behind the fighting line was being done by men who could equally well be replaced by older men or by men who were medically unfit. This is the sentence—
"He supposed there were in our Army 200,000 officers; every officer had a servant, and there
220
were in addition about 50,000 grooms. These servants and grooms would form an army, but for how many of them could not substitutes be found at home?"
I do not want to make a speech on this subject but the fact that Colonel Churchill is either now or was very recently commanding a battalion at the Front makes an observation of that kind of special importance. I should like to ask the noble and gallant Field-Marshal whether it is the fact that there are 200,000 officers in the Army, and, if so, whether it is not the fact that officers who go to the trenches take their servants with them. In point of fact, do not the great majority of this army behind the lines go into the trenches, and would it be correct to assume that a further 50,000 men were kept behind the lines for the purpose of acting as grooms?
EARL KITCHENER: My Lords, the noble Viscount has practically answered the Question. The Regulations of the Army are that soldiers servants as well as grooms do serve in the trenches and are not considered as behind the fighting line except in very exceptional cases. I think that probably Colonel Churchill, when he made that remark, realised that fact thoroughly.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the DUKE of DEVONSHIRE.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 48.)
NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DELEGATION OF POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 54.)

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 47.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.