Sitting of 23 November 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ARMENIANS IN TURKEY (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 31, 1916).
Copy presented of Documents presented to Viscount Grey of Falloden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relating to the treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–16, by Viscount Bryce, with a preface by Viscount Bryce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, numbered D.I.P. 412, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN STEAMERS (SOUTH AMERICAN PORTS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the different South American Republics are fully aware of the settled policy of the British and Allied Governments in regard to the proposals for the acquisition of the German steamers and sailors belonging to the ocean-going trade which for the past twenty-seven months have been sheltering in their ports?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer is in the affirmative.

    BELGIUM (RELIEF SUPPLIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether it has hitherto been represented that if we refused to allow the supplies of food for the relief of Belgian workmen through the Neutral Commission the Germans would deport the workmen; and whether the Allies are reconsidering their policy of allowing these supplies to territory in the possession of the enemy, in view of the deportations now going on?
    Lord R. CECIL: If by the first part of the question the hon. and gallant Member means that this was the ground upon which His Majesty's Government have assisted the relief work, the answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have done so in response to the wishes of their Allies, including the Belgian Government, and in the interests of the whole population. As regards the last part of the question, there is no doubt that the present action of the Germans is a direct and conscious blow at the agreements upon which the relief work rests, and it is being considered in that light by the Allies, and I trust also by the neutral Governments, whose subjects and representatives have been chiefly responsible for the conduct of the work.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked what are the other relief agencies in Belgium to which Lord Grey referred in a communication dated 14th October, 1916; and whether any relief food is available for civilian Germans in Belgium?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know to what communication the hon. Member refers. The only relief agency recognised by His Majesty's Government is the Commission for Relief in Belgium. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Then are we to understand that where the Neutral Commission refers to food being available for the eitire civil population—it does so in several places—it means the Belgian population?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes. Sir.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE "DEUTSCHLAND."
  Mr. MAC MASTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1549
  whether the German ship "Deutschland" has yet sailed from an American port; if he has any official information showing that a part of her cargo consists of nickel, the product of Canadian mines, purchased by buyers in the United States of America for shipment thence to a German destination to be used by the armed forces of our enemies; and, if so, and in any case, whether any provision has been made by our Government or by the Canadian Government, or by both those Governments acting in concert, to prevent such shipment of nickel?
  Lord R. CECIL: The "Deutschland" has sailed. I have no authentic information as to her cargo. With regard to the third part of the question, since the beginning of the War the most careful precautions have been taken to ensure the proper disposal of Canadian nickel.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Can the Noble Lord say whether that has been by concert between the British Government and the Canadian Government?
  Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to Canadian nickel being shipped by the "Deutschland?"
  Lord R. CECIL: I think I did see some statement to that effect.

  JOURNAL "O ESPELLO."
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an illustrated weekly journal, entitled "O Espello," published in London in the Portuguese language, is entirely supported by the British Government, which pays the proprietors several hundred pounds for each issue, for the purpose of furthering the interests of the British and Allied cause in South America; whether he is aware that such newspaper has frequently contained both illustrations and letterpress calculated to throw discredit on the cause it is paid to champion; and will he say who is responsible for censoring "O Espello," and who are the persons who profit by the Government subsidy?
  Lord R. CECIL: The facts are not as stated in the question. It would obviously be contrary to the public interest for the
  1550
  Government to make any statement as regards any steps which they may or may not be taking in connection with newspapers circulated in foreign countries in time of war.
  Mr. BILLING: If I supply the Noble Lord with instances where this paper has published statements which are detrimental to the cause of the Allies, will he cease from making the subsidy of £300 a week to a paper which is being circulated abroad and doing us harm?
  Lord R. CECIL: I shall await any communication the hon. Member chooses to make.
  Mr. KING: Do not statements from various points of view give an appearance of neutrality and so attract a number of readers who would not otherwise see the paper?

  GREECE.

    GOVERNMENT OF M. VENIZELOS.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the British contribution to the sum of 10,000,000 drachmae advanced to the Government of M. Venizelos by the Allied Governments was at the disposal of M. Venizelos?
    Lord R. CECIL: M. Venizelos was informed on the 10th instant that this advance would be made and was asked to furnish His Majesty's Government with an expression of his wishes as to the manner in which it could most conveniently be placed at his disposal. M. Venizelos' reply was received on the 17th instant and arrangements are now being made to give effect to his wishes.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Then when the Noble Lord said, more than a week ago that an advance of 10,000,000 drachmae had been made by the Allied Governments, he was misinformed on the subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: It appears that I ought not to have said "had been made," but "was in process of being made."
    Commander BELLAIRSasked (1) whether His Majesty's Government will take measures to see that the towns of Grevena, Servia, and Litohori, which are said to mark the southern boundary of the neutral zone, in which so many outrages have been committed and are still being committed against

    1551
    adherents of M. Venizelos by royal troops, will now be included within the neutral zone, so that their inhabitants will be defended against further outrage; and (2) whether His Majesty's Government will take measures to ensure that followers of M. Venizelos who happen to inhabit towns in Old Greece, or towns to the south of the neutral zone now established, will receive every opportunity, and will be allowed by the royal government, to leave its jurisdiction and cross the neutral zone to the jurisdiction of M. Venizelos?
    Lord R. CECIL: I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that suggestions that His Majesty's Government should take measures for this or that purpose do not take account of the real situation in Greece. The decision of all such matters rests with the Allied Governments, and I cannot say more than that these matters are receiving, and will continue to receive, the attention of those Governments. To say more than this one way or the other would necessarily give the impression that we were trying to impose our will on the Allies by making a public statement designed to force their hands. I hope hon. Members will not make co-operation with the Allies difficult by ignoring their existence in questions which are put upon the Paper, and which seem to expect separate action on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the Allies the view that we will have nothing more to do with Constantine's Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: Of course, we are in constant communication with the Allies.
    Mr. ASHLEY: With that in view?

    TREATY OF 1863.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaty of 1863, which established the Danish dynasty, to which the present King of Greece belongs, upon the Greek throne, contains an Article asserting that, under the guarantee of Great Britain, France, and Russia, Greece forms a constitutional State, and that this Article was framed in consequence of the events of 1862, when King Otto, a German Prince, was deposed from the Greek throne for having overridden the Constitution and was removed on board a British
    1552
    ship, a provisional Government being set up in Greece supported by an army of national defence; and whether he will instruct the British Minister at Athens to call the attention of King Constantine to this precedent?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the Article to which my hon. Friend refers. If King Constantine has forgotten it, no doubt my hon. Friend's question will remind him of it.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that the anomalies of this Greek situation really conceal something which the Foreign Office dares not avow to this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I am not only not aware of it, but I know it to be utterly untrue.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise this question on the Adjournment on Monday next.

    NEUTRAL ZONE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether His Majesty's Government have information that the neutral zone reported to have been established in Macedonia between the Royal and the Venizelist administrations has been satisfactorily occupied by French troop?
    Lord R. CECIL: The execution of the arrangement arrived at with the Greek Government and with the Government of M. Venizelos has been left entirely in the hands of the French General Commanding-in-Chief the Allied Armies at Salonika, who will doubtless report to his Government when his dispositions have been completed.

  RUSSIAN MOBILISATION.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has taken any steps to secure the fulfilment of the wish he expressed in his recent speech that the question of the defensive character of the Russian general mobilisation might be submitted to an independent tribunal; and whether, in this connection, his attention has been drawn to the statement of the German Chancellor that on the outbreak of war in 1914 a general instruction of the Russian Government, issued in 1912 for the contingency of mobilisation, was in force, which contained the following passage: By the All Highest, that it is ordered that the

  1553
  announcement of mobilisation is at the same time an announcement of war against Germany?
  Lord R. CECIL: No step can be taken in the absence of any ground for thinking that the German Chancellor is willing to subject his statement to impartial and independent examination. The reference to the All Highest in the last part of the question is not understood, and we know nothing about it beyond what has appeared in the Press.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the part he does not understand is a part of the statement quoted verbally from the statement of the German Chancellor—the colon should come before the words "the following passage"—and has the German Government issued any denial of this statement?
  Lord R. CECIL: It does not make it any more intelligible because it was made by the German Chancellor.

  BOOKS (EXPORT).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Censor has stopped, in transit to America, "The Life of the Mother of Henry the Eighth," by Father Hannon, published by Talbot and Company, London; and will he see that works having no bearing on the War are not held up?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have no doubt that this book was stopped because the sender had not obtained a permit for the dispatch of printed matter to America. Works having no bearing on the War are commonly selected, in preference to other works, by persons desiring to use printed matter as a means of secret communication.
  Mr. HEALY: Surely with the London publisher within arm's length of this House, it is not suggested that this gentleman is sending communications to America?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think we can make an exception to the general rule in favour of a particular individual.
  Mr. HEALY: Can we not post a book to America without the leave of the Censor?
  Mr. FORSTER: Not without getting a permit.

  RUHLEBEN CAMP.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Right Reverend Herbert Bury has just left England on a visit to British prisoners at Ruhleben; and, if so, will he state the circumstances under which this gentleman has been permitted to go to Germany and enter into communication with the enemy?
  Mr. FORSTER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the object of Bishop Bury's visit, which has received the previous sanction of His Majesty's Government, is, as the hon. Member states, to visit the British prisoners of war at Ruhleben and not to enter into communication with the enemy.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not possible on this visit to enter into communication with the enemy, and is not that precisely what Miss Hobhouse has been condemned for?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RECRUITING (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary if he can state the total number of men from Ireland with the forces to 15th October, 1916, including Reservists and men with the forces at the outbreak of war?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The figure 130,241 shown in the statement recently presented to Parliament is believed to include all the recruits who joined the Army and Navy from Ireland between the outbreak of War and the 15th October last, and also the Reservists called up outside of the Dublin Metropolitan Police area for service in the Army. Figures are not at present available showing the number of Army Reservists called up from the area mentioned. It was stated on the 8th November by the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reply to a question of the hon. Member, that 3,098 Naval Reservists had been called up from Ireland and that over 8,000 Irishmen were estimated to be serving in the Fleet on the outbreak of war. It appears from the Annual Report of the British Army that 20,780 Irishmen were serving in the Regular Army on the 1st October, 1913, and this number probably approximates to the number serving on the outbreak of war.

    BOARD OF WORKS.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that while men employed in the window blind department of the Board of Works who are forty years of age are being combed out for military service there are men in the same department under thirty years of age who are being retained as indispensables, although for nearly a year women did the same or similar work as that on which they are employed; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): The staff of the window blind department of the Office of Works at present consists of twenty-two men. Thirteen are over military age, three have already served and have been invalided, and one has been rejected for all classes. Of the five remaining, two are over thirty and three that age or under. They have been exempted for short periods, but will all be released in due course. The heavy and dangerous nature of the work and the high pressure which has been necessitated owing to the stringent lighting regulations and the number of temporary buildings to be provided for render it undesirable to substitute female labour. Women are, of course, employed on the lighter work for which they are fitted.

    EXTENSION OF ACTS (IRELAND).
    Colonel CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the Government's intention to extend the Military Service Acts to Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir; not at present.
    Colonel CRAIG: I will put the question down again for Wednesday.

    INLAND REVENUE (MARRIED MEN).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that married men of long service in connection with the Inland Revenue are being called to the Colours, while single men of military age are often being retained; whether he would see that equality of treatment is meted out to all men in the Department as far as possible irrespective of class; whether he is aware that more than 50 per cent. of the warehouse staff have already joined the Colours, and that in some cases the places of married men who
    1556
    have enlisted have been occupied by young single assistant clerks; and whether he will state who is the judge of whether the efficiency of the Department in its ordinary service will be affected by the loss of any individual man?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Whether particular officers or types of officer are required for the efficient conduct of public business is a question for the responsible heads of the Department concerned, who, in the case of the Inland Revenue, are the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I am aware that the Commissioners have decided to grant permission to join His Majesty's Forces to all the warehousemen fit for active service. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the test to be applied in deciding this matter is the nature of the work to be performed; and, as substitutes unfit for military service but quite suitable for the performance of the mechanical work of the warehousing staff are available, the Commissioners would not have felt justified in withholding the members of that staff from military service. No assistant clerks are employed as substitutes for warehousemen. I am certain that the Commissioners are not actuated by class considerations in reaching their decisions.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    CIVILIANS KILLED (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether the dependants or other relations of civilians murdered in the streets of Dublin by the Sinn Fein rebels have claimed and received compensation from the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: These claims are being investigated by the Rebellion (Victims) Committee. As soon as the Committee make recommendations the same will be submitted to the Treasury with a view to payment being made.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give a day for the discussion of the Motion in reference to the Irish political prisoners standing in the name of the Member for East Mayo? ["That the time has come when all untried prisoners detained in connection with the Irish Insurrection should be released, and that all the Irish prisoners convicted of

    1557
    complicity in that insurrection should, in acordance with the modern practice of civilised States, be treated as political prisoners."]
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have some further communication with my hon. Friend before I give a definite answer to this question, which he will perhaps repeat on Monday.

  COAL PRICES.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the price of coal in the cities and towns in Ireland is such a high price this winter that it is impossible for the poor to acquire a sufficient supply of it from week to week; and whether, on be half of the Government, he will take some steps by which they could obtain it at a reasonable price?
  Mr. DUKE: I would refer to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Belfast (West).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Do the Government intend to help the poor at all this winter?
  Mr. DUKE: The same difficulty, in a more or less aggravated degree, which arises in the towns and rural districts of Ireland in regard to this matter arises in various parts of the country. Every effort that can be made by the Irish Executive Government to ascertain what means there are for public encouragement or assistance and what can be done to stimulate local effort will be done.

  POOR LAW UNIONS.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the various schemes of amalgamation of unions put forward by local authorities in county Donegal; whether he is aware that in the case of the Dunfanaghy Union the number of officials of the workhouse equals or exceeds the number of inmates, including the sick; and whether, having regard to the necessity of enforcing economy, the Local Government Board propose to give any effect to the desires expressed by the various boards of guardians?
  Mr. DUKE: As regards the first part of the question, no schemes of amalgamation of unions in county Donegal have been submitted to the Local Government Board, but the Donegal Board of Guardians have recently invited representatives from Ballyshannon, Glenties and Stranorlar Unions to meet for the purpose of discussing this question, and apparently arrangements are being made for the holding of a county conference. I understand there are as many union officials as inmates of the workhouse in the union to-which the hon. Member refers. The Board, where possible, are most desirous of giving effect to schemes of amalgamation or schemes for the closing of workhouses and the transfer of the inmates to adjoining workhouses under the powers conferred by the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, as amended by Section 23 (4) and 24 (2) of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916. The Dunfanaghy guardians recently approached the Glenties guardians with a view to such an arrangement, but the latter preferred not to entertain the question at present.
  Mr. LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians have repeatedly written to the Local Government Board in reference to a scheme of this sort and have not been able to get any reply whatever?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not aware of that. If I find it is a fact I shall want to know why it has happened.

  POLICE AND FREEMASONS.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that Freemason lodges are inviting all Protestant policemen to take immediate steps to become members of the Freemason Society before the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill is placed on the Statute Book as an Act of Parliament; will he inquire if the Limerick Lodge is to hold a special meeting on Friday night next, the 24th instant, to facilitate two-members of the police force, stationed at William Street Police Barracks, Limerick, in becoming members of this society, having regard to recent Parliamentary action in the interest of good order and discipline of the Royal Irish Constabulary; will he take action to prevent them from joining the Freemasons' Society; and, in view of the recent police developments in Dublin, will he give

  1559
  orders that any policeman joining this society in the city of Limerick will be sent to some other station?
  Mr. DUKE: I have no information that Freemasons' lodges are taking action as alleged in this question, nor that the Limerick Lodge is to hold a meeting with the object mentioned.
  Mr. JOYCE: Are we to understand that while it is treason for Irish policemen to join a Catholic benefit society, it is a means of advancement for policemen in Ireland to join the Freemason society, which is a political society?
  Mr. DUKE: If my hon. Friend understands anything of the kind he will be very much mistaken.
  Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made in Limerick from an impartial authority as to the statement made in this question?
  Mr. DUKE: If hon. Members will have regard to the action taken by the hon. Member for East Mayo on this difficult subject, less than a week ago, they will see how far it is in the public interest that questions of this kind should be pressed.
  Mr. NUGENT: The hon. Member for East Mayo did not imply that there should be—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue.

  WOMEN NURSES (KANTURK GUARDIANS).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was consulted by the Local Government Board when it agreed to allow the Kanturk guardians to repeal its resolution not to give posts to women who had not served as nurses at the front?
  Mr. DUKE: The Board did not refer this matter to me.
  Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Local Government Board in Ireland consented to the repeal of the resolution by the Kanturk guardians not to give posts to nurses who had not served at the front, without having advertised the fact?
  Mr. DUKE: I understand the Local Government Board has no control over
  1560
  the repeal by local authorities of resolutions as to the management of their internal affairs, except where there is such control given by Statute, and this matter is outside the Statute.

  CAST ARMY MARES.
  Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the majority of mares in Ireland at present are being put to heavy horses, he will consider the advisability of the Veterinary Department rescinding their order against the import of cast Army mares, sound for breeding purposes, which could be put to thoroughbred horses, and so keep up the supply of troopers?
  Mr. DUKE: The Irish Department of Agriculture are prepared to consider on its merits any application made to them to import into Ireland from Great Britain mares cast from the British Army, provided they have not come from abroad.
  Mr. ARCHDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the leading agricultural societies in Iceland, including the Royal Dublin Society, have already made the request?
  Mr. DUKE: If they have, and the particulars are forwarded to my office, I will ascertain what has been done; and if nothing has been done, I will ascertain what I think ought to be done.

  EGG TRADE (IRELAND).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that complaints are being made by traders that there is a serious wastage of food due to the careless handling in transit of eggs sent from various parts of Ireland to England; and whether he will take steps to see that on the Irish railways and on the boats boxes of eggs will be properly handled?
  Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture in Ireland have received several complaints as to the damaged condition of consignments of Irish eggs on arrival at their destination in England. Railway stations and ports in Ireland are visited by the Department's transit inspectors,

  1561
  and action is taken in regard to any cases of carelessness in handling which come under notice.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies bringing eggs from the Continent have made special provisions for this traffic by having special carriages, and will he see that the same is done on the Irish side?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member brings the matter to the attention of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland I am sure that it will receive careful attention.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Department hardly ever answers letters?
  Mr. DUKE: I do not know what it does in reference to correspondence. I know that it is very active in regard to agriculture.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Not about broken eggs.

  FLAX SEED (IRELAND).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what arrangements have been made for a supply of flax seed to Irish growers for the coming season?
  Mr. DUKE: For a considerable time past the Department have been constantly in communication with the Foreign Office and with Irish importers with a view to securing sufficient flax seed for Irish requirements next season. A large quantity of seed has been purchased, and it is hoped that this supply will be available before the commencement of the sowing season. It is understood that there are at present in Ireland about 8,000 bags of imported seed remaining from last season, which it is hoped may be suitable for sowing in spring. The whole question will continue to receive the Department's most careful attention.

  NIGERIA (SALE OF PROPERTIES).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a telegram from the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce protesting against the admission of neutral bids for the Nigerian properties offered for sale; and whether he has given any consideration to this communication?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The communication from the Chamber was received and duly considered.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it into account in any future sale that is contemplated?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, and every other relative consideration.

  WEST AFRICA (TAXES).
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINEKasked what steps are being taken in the Colonies and Protectorates of West Africa to ascertain the attitude of local opinion both native and European upon the effects, political and economic, of the proposed tax on edible oil nuts?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Before the proposed duty can be levied, the Ordinances imposing it will have to be discussed in the Legislative Councils of the Colonies, in which local opinion, both European and native, is duly represented. It is also open to anyone to make representations to me through the Governor. The proposal has already been much discussed in the local newspapers.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether any further opportunity for Parliamentary discussion will be provided before the suggested tax on palm kernels is actually imposed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter has already been very fully discussed, and I do not consider that any further opportunity for discussion is required.

  NIGERIA.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in May last, in Northern Nigeria, an accident occurred involving the death of one native and the total disablement of another at the Kaduna mines, and that the verdict at the inquest was one of culpable negligence on the part of a European named James Park; and whether he is aware that the Council of the Chamber of Mines intervened and sent a telegram attacking the judicial authorities to the acting lieutenant-governor, at the same time circulating

  1563
  publicly copies of the telegram; and, seeing that the acting lieutenant-governor removed the judicial officer and ordered the issue of a nolle prosequi, what steps, if any, does he propose to take in this case of interference with the course of justice?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received no information, but will ask the Governor-General for a report on the case.

  RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to put any restrictions on the volume of travel on the railway lines at the present time such as are in force on the railways in the other countries involved in the War; and if steps will be taken to induce people to economise in travel as well as in other directions and save the amount of labour and coal involved?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): As stated on Tuesday, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, passenger services have already been considerably reduced, and further reductions may be necessary later on.
  Mr. FELL: Is not the question whether considerable restrictions could not be made actually on the people travelling themselves, and is there not a number of railway journeys that are totally unnecessary?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of cutting down the tremendous amount of individual luggage that is carried about at present?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Some restrictions have already been imposed.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Have not the railway companies dealing with the North and the Midlands cut down passenger traffic by a far larger percentage than the companies in the South and South-West?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There may be something in that. I shall call the attention of the Managing Committee to that point.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Are the railway companies still advertising for business?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    OATMEAL (SCOTLAND).
    Colonel CROFTasked the dumber of oatmeal mills in Scotland in 1900 and 1916; what quantity of oatmeal, including groats, rolled oats, and Quaker oats, was imported in the last completed year before the War, from the United States and Germany, respectively, and what the corresponding figures were in 1860 and 1890?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have no information as to the number of mills in Scotland engaged in the preparation of oatmeal. The imports of oatmeal, groats, and rolled oats (including Quaker oats) from the United States in 1913 amounted to 411,000 cwts., and the imports from Germany to 56,000 cwts. In 1890 the imports (classified as oatmeal and groats) from the United States amounted to 265,000 cwts., and in 1860 the imports of oatmeal from that country amounted to 5,000 cwts. Imports from Germany were not separately distinguished in either year, but the imports from all foreign sources other than the United States amounted to a few hundredweights only.
    Colonel CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the number of mills in Scotland, in order that the Board of Trade may discover what might be done?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A considerable amount of time is already spent by the Board of Trade in making inquiries, and we really cannot undertake to make any further inquiries except such as are absolutely necessary.
    Colonel CROFT: Is it, not necessary that this most important industry in Scotland should have the watchful attention of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of the supply of oatmeal is a most important matter, and has the attention of the Board of Trade, but the exact number of mills in Scotland does not appear to be necessary.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most important mills are only working half time because their labour has been taken away?

    BREAD.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether

    1565
    he is considering the desirability of requiring bakers not to sell bread under twenty-four hours after it is baked; and whether he is aware that this course would not only add to the nutritive properties of the article but would enable baking to be done at any hour of the day, thereby saving labour and fuel?
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to putting a stop to the waste that is incurred by the use of soft, newly-baked bread, he will issue a regulation prohibiting the sale of bread to the public until twenty-four hours after it has been baked?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is known that considerable economy can be effected by not consuming bread until twenty-four hours after it is baked, and the publicity given to this view by my hon. Friend's question will, I hope, tend to diffuse the knowledge of this fact amongst consumers generally and lead to the further adoption of the practice. The question whether this could be enforced by preventing the sale of new bread has already been carefully considered, but this course was found to be impracticable, mainly owing to the lack of storage accommodation in bakeries. The consumer is, however, not usually met with the same difficulty.
    Mr. HOGGE: How much is the Board of Trade going to leave us to do for ourselves?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This is one of the very points on which the Board of Trade is doing so.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Government take some definite action to prevent the waste of bread, and not merely placard the country with "Don't Waste Bread."

    SUGAR.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that for purely sweetening purposes a wholesome substitute for sugar can be obtained from coal tar; and, in view of the scarcity and high price of sugar, will he take steps to encourage the manufacture and use of this home-produced substitute for an imported article?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware that certain substances derived from coal-tar products may be used for sweetening purposes. The hon. Member is, I think, aware that these substances possess no food value, and I am advised that it
    1566
    would not be practicable to extend their manufacture in this country at the present time to any material degree in view of the immediate demands on the capacity of the works which are producing explosives.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Docs the hon. Gentleman consider that it would not have good disinfecting qualities?
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider its possibilities for asphalt?
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that recently persons in Leeds purchased sugar at higher prices than those generally obtaining; and if, when issuing any Order fixing the maximum price at which any article of food may be sold, he will direct that the maximum price be exhibited at the place of sale, and that the purchaser as well as the seller be held liable in cases where the article is sold at any price higher than the maximum permitted?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed by the Sugar Commission that they are investigating the case referred to. The suggestion contained in the second part of the question shall not be lost sight of in the event of the issue of Orders fixing prices at proscribed figures.

    EGG TRANSPORT.
    Mr. O'SHAUGNESSYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that complaints are being made by traders that there is a wastage of food due to the careless handling in transit of eggs coming to England from various parts of Ireland; and whether he will take steps to see that on the railways for which the Government is responsible this waste of food will be stopped?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware of complaints on this subject. The whole matter is being considered by the Board of Trade, who are in communication with the railway companies about it, and also, I understand, by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.

    FLOUR.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the machinery at present in use in British flour mills is capable of producing the new standard war flour; and, if not, what immediate steps will be taken to avert a bread famine?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to take this opportunity of pointing out that, in cases

    1567
    in which the adaptation of milling machinery, so as to produce one uniform grade of flour, presents serious difficulty, it will be sufficient if all the grades of flour produced are mixed together thoroughly and uniformly in preparing the flour for delivery. The process of manufacture of the flour, as dealt with in the Order, will not be deemed to be complete until the flour is ready for delivery.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the new Order dealing with the milling of flour, the flour which has been hitherto used for the manufacture of biscuits and which is essential for that purpose will no longer be milled; and, if so, is he aware that the effect of the Order will be to destroy the valuable export trade in biscuits which has hitherto been a monopoly of this country?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The existing stock of flour will enable the manufacture of biscuits to be maintained for some time, and meanwhile the point raised by the hon. Member will receive careful consideration.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the matter receives immediate attention, as the stocks are very low?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will inquire into it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the restrictions placed on the milling of flour will almost certainly affect the feeding of young pigs; that already the price of young pigs in Norfolk has gone down from £l to 12s. owing to the difficulty of obtaining sharps; that substitutes for sharps cannot be found except at high cost, and even then they are not so nourishing and in some instances harmful; that the question of sharps also affects the rearing of ducks; and will he say what the Government proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am advised that the direct use as human food of those parts of the wheat grain which are required for the production of such flour as is prescribed by the Order issued on Monday last, furnishes more nourishment than if obtainable from the meat which would be produced by their use as food for animals bred for consumption.
    Captain BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has
    1568
    given authority for the quartern loaf of wheaten bread to be made partly of maize-meal; and whether, seeing that maize-meal does not blend satisfactorily with wheat-flour and is less attractive' to the taste than either oatmeal or barley-meal, he will consider the desirability of selecting one of the latter cereals in preference to maize for this purpose?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No authority of the kind referred to has so far been given by the Board of Trade. If and when the occasion arises I shall be glad to bear the suggestion in the question in mind.

    ALTERNATIVE FOODS.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to popularise the use of foods alternative to those in general popular consumption?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I cannot at present say more than that this, together with all other aspects of the problem of economy in food consumption, has not escaped attention.

    RICE (POLISHING).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the question of the use of rice in this country from which the skin which contains the most nutritive portion of the grain has been removed by polishing by machinery; and if he will forbid this polishing of the rice, which is only done to give it an additional white appearance, and compel it to be sold in its natural condition during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have received other representations on this subject, which is receiving my careful consideration.

    ORDER IS COUNCIL.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause the Order in Council dealing with food to be laid before Parliament; and if a desire to discuss its terms is brought to his notice will he give this House an opportunity of doing so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Regulations have been published and the first two Orders made by the Board of Trade thereunder have been laid before the House. It is the intention to lay other Orders before the House as they may be published from time to time. With regard

    1569
    to the second part of the question, opportunities will arise for discussing these matters in the ordinary course of business.

    FEEDING STUFFS.
    Captain BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to prevent excessive prices being charged to farmers for cattle cake and milling offals, seeing that the cost of these commodities is now more than double their pre-War cost and is steadily rising, and is largely responsible for the present high prices of milk and meat?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The high prices of feeding stuffs have not escaped my notice, and the hon. and gallant Member may be sure that the possible ways of bringing about a reduction are receiving close consideration.
    Captain BATHURST: May I ask whether in cases where the manufacturer is making a substantial profit out of the main product that he should be disallowed from making an equally substantial profit out of the by-product which is of great value to animals?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have gone very closely into this question, and the indications are that the real cause of the high price of feeding stuffs is freight, and not profits made at home. That is as far as I am able to ascertain, and I have gone personally into it in the last few days.
    Colonel CROFT: Does it not resolve itself into seeing that by every means in our power we must have more production in this country, giving these by-products at the same time?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: In the event of the hon. Gentleman being able to reduce the cost of feeding stuffs, will he revise the maximum prices which have been fixed for milk?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think we should be very fortunate to maintain feeding stuffs at present prices. The danger is of them rising higher.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the big jump in the price of maize already?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have, and of feeding stuffs generally. That is the danger we have to try and avoid.

    HOME FARM PRODUCE.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish a statement of the number and acreage of home farms in this country which supply in the main the one household in each case with produce in the way of potatoes, butter, eggs, meat, poultry, milk, and so on; and, in view of the necessity of completely controlling our food supplies, whether any steps are to be taken to limit consumption and eliminate waste in such cases and to ensure that the maximum quantity of food is produced and put upon the market at low prices?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Acland): I can give no figures as to the number and acreage of home farms, and I do not think that any special treatment of them in the nature of control of production and prices would be practicable.

    WASTE LANDS (UTILISATION).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will urge all urban authorities to take steps to ensure that all waste lands are utilised, as allotments or otherwise, for the growing of potatoes and other suitable foods?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board have widely advocated the use of any vacant or waste land about towns for the growing of garden crops, and have specially addressed local authorities on the subject. The Board would be very glad to hear of any cases in which urban authorities are willing to secure the use of vacant land* for food production, but are at present unable to do so owing to statutory limitation of their powers, so that the question of a temporary extension of such powers may be considered.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Arising out of that reply, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board will take compulsory powers to make urban authorities take these steps?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not think we can force municipal authorities to do things which they do not want to do.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I inquire whether the Board has power to allow men who want to use land to get

    1571
    these vacant plots of land for cultivation, with security of tenure for six months after the War is over?
    Mr. ACLAND: We have succeeded, without taking special powers, in very largely getting land granted by owners for this purpose on very reasonable terms. I shall be very glad to hear of any case, or cases, where persons have failed to get land, without the necessity of using any legislative powers.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to set up machinery so that everybody should know that they can get this land rent free?
    Mr. ACLAND: Land legislation is not so simple as all that in this House.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Will the Board of Agriculture, for a change, consider that point of land legislation?

    BANTRY BAY (FISHING).
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government propose to restrict fishing in the landlocked harbour of Bantry Bay, whose mouth is defended by a fortified island and the narrow straits between Bere Island and the mainland are protected by guardships; is it pretended that the Germans could establish communications with fishermen behind these fortifications and warships; and, if not, why should the food supply and livelihood of the people be affected by restrictions on a harbour fishery?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Fishing is prohibited in Bantry Bay—which, by the way, I should scarcely call a land-locked harbour—by night. It is allowed by day within certain limits. There are obvious objections to allowing small craft to move about freely in the vicinity of a defended port, especially at night.

    FOOD CONTROLLED.
    Captain C. BATHURST(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Controller will have any authority in connection with the home production of food; if so, will he act under the advice of a person or body of persons having practical knowledge of agriculture; if not, how is it proposed to avoid hereafter any conflict of Depart-
    1572
    mental policy in relation to agricultural requirements or to ensure during the War the largest possible production of homegrown food?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Food Controller, when appointed, will necessarily keep in close touch with the Board of Agriculture and also with those having practical experience in the production of homegrown food.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Will this person have practical experience of the production of home-grown food, and not be a landlord?
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the Food Controller have any power to direct the cultivation of land with a view to produce food?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will his duties simply be to control scarcity and not stimulate production?
    Mr. DILLON: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that he is not of enemy birth?

  EMERY WORKS, LONDON.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any further action in regard to the London Emery Works Company, Limited, owned by a German named Seligmann, which is a branch of a German company: whether a supervisor has been in existence for nearly a year; whether Government work is still being done; what the profits have been; and whether the time has now come to wind up the business under the Trading With the Enemy Act?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The necessary vesting orders are being prepared to enable the Public Trustee to sell the business of the London Emery Works, Limited, and give a good title to a purchaser. The business has been carried on under supervision since February, 1915, and the company is a controlled establishment. No profits were made for the year 1915.
  Sir E. CARSON: Why was not the order made before?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: A controller was put in after the Act was passed.
  Sir E. CARSON: Why has not the Board of Trade taken before this the step which it has now taken?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will look into that. There are some hundreds of firms to deal with, and they could not all be dealt with at once.

  BELFAST LINEN TRADE.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the condition of semi-starvation to which numbers of the women workers in the linen trade in Belfast have been reduced by low wages and the working of short time in the mills and factories, he will state the facts and figures upon which the employers rely to justify the deduction of their production to two-thirds of what it has been and their refusal to pay their employés a living wage?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand that a good deal of short time is being worked in the linen trade in Belfast, due partly to shortage of raw material and partly to lack of orders for linen goods. The question of wages in the linen trade will receive consideration in connection with the general question of extending the operation of the Trade Boards Act.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are the Department prepared to make representations that more work should be provided in Ireland by the making of munitions there?
  Colonel CRAIG: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in this matter of the linen industry of Belfast to act very carefully, because if it is not cautiously handled it might necessitate the closing down of the mills altogether, in which event the poor girls would have nothing to do?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is for that reason we are dealing with it under the Trade Boards Act.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was a strike in consequence of the low wages paid by the employers, and that the women have been taken back again and given full pay?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot speak from personal knowledge.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the demand of the spinners in the York Street Flax Spinning Company's
  1574
  mill, Belfast, for an advance in wages amounting to 3s. a week has been refused on the ground that the present state of trade does not warrant the concession of it; that a number of the spinners have ceased work and that a general strike is threatened; whether the average wages of these women in normal times is only 13s. 6d. a week, equivalent to 5s. 4d. at present values, and that even this is depleted owing to the decision of the mills to limit the output to two-thirds of the normal; whether he is aware of the distress at present prevailing amongst the mill workers in Belfast and that a strike would lead to the most serious consequences; and whether he will send Sir George Askwith, or some competent representative of the Board of Trade, to investigate and report on the dispute and to endeavour to bring about a satisfactory settlement of it?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware that, following on the refusal by the employers of an application of the spinners in the Belfast district for an advance of wages, a stoppage of work occurred in the spinning department of the York Street Flax Spinning Company, Limited. The chief Industrial Commissioner is making inquiry in the matter.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the York Street Flax Spinning Company, Limited, Belfast, have refused to accede to the demand of their mill workers for a small increase in wages, and consequently hundreds of these workers have been out on strike; whether he is aware that this company have been making large profits since the outbreak of the War and paying big dividends, and that out of these profits, within the past year, a bonus of from £10 to £20 per cent. of their salaries was paid to the officials and staff of this company, whilst not 1d. was given, or proposed to be given, to the mill workers, most of whom are women and girls earning from 9s. to 13s. a week; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking action under the Trade Boards Act in the matter?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware that there has been a strike for an increase in wages among the workers employed by the York Street Flax Spinning Company. The chief Industrial Commissioner has been in communication with the firm, and it is understood that work has now been resumed. I have no knowledge of the other matters

  1575
  referred to in the question. As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his question on Tuesday, the question of applying the Trade Boards Act to the linen trade will be considered in connection with the general position of extending the operation of the Act.

  DEMOBILISATION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a central board upon which there shall be representatives of trade unions, employers, and the Government to consider and advise regarding the whole question of demobilisation and re-employment after the War?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of demobilisation and re-employment after the War is one which is under consideration by the Reconstruction Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. The main Committee and its Sub-Committees include representatives of trade unions, employers, and the Government Departments concerned.
  Mr. BILLING: How many times has the Committee met, and when did it meet last?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know. I am not a member of it.

  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) ACT.
  Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have taken place under the Coal Prices Restriction Act?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not heard of any prosecution under the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act. Questions that have arisen have so far been settled without legal proceedings usually by the Board of Trade or the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committees.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the block which now exists owing to the number of starred questions which are put to the
  1576
  Ministers by certain Members who put down from six to eight questions each day; that on Thursday, 16th November, these questions numbered 202, of which only 116 could be answered in the extended time now available; and if, to save the work this throws on the Government Departments and to ensure the answering of important questions orally, be will consider the suggestion of limiting the number of questions of each Member to three as a maximum each day during the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on the 14th November, to which, I fear, I can at the moment add nothing.
  Mr. FELL: Is not the matter pressing, as there are again about 200 questions on the Paper to-day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and it is receiving consideration.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that information likely to be of value to the enemy may be made available to them by questions put to Ministers in this House, he will consider the setting up of a censorship of questions by giving Mr. Speaker power, with the assistance of a Committee representing all parties in the House, if necessary, to refuse to allow any questions likely to afford such information to appear on the Order Paper or to be put in the House during the period of the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider this suggestion and consult Mr. Speaker about it.

  PEACE PROBLEMS.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether any special Department has been established for the study on the historical, geographical, racial, as well as political and diplomatic side, of all the problems that must arise at the conclusion of the War; whether careful preparation is being made in good time to ascertain by expert knowledge, and in consultation with our Allies, the complex considerations involved in frontier delimitations and possible transfers of territory and whether carefully selected officials are being properly trained in a close and particular knowledge of the problems in question, as well as being

  1577
  made conversant with the best general policy, not merely formulated with a view to secure temporary national advantages, but devised to establish more permanent international good will through a wisely constructed treaty of peace?
  Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member may be assured that the various points which he raises have in fact all received the attention of His Majesty's Government, but I am not prepared to give detailed information as to the steps which they have considered it advisable to take.
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask the Noble Lord whether, seeing in the past that military victories have been so often thrown away by the ignorance of diplomatists in council, it is not worth while to make a special effort in order to make full preparations for the congress, or whatever it may be, which will take place after peace has been declared?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am sure it will be desirable to make all special efforts. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any personal suggestion to make.
  Mr. PONSONBY: Is the Noble Lord aware that throughout the country there is not complete and absolute confidence in the diplomatic skill of His Majesty's Government?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am quite aware of that. I believe there is not complete and absolute confidence in the hon. Member.
  Mr. BILLING: Does the Noble Lord think that two wrongs make a right?

  TON-FOR-TON POLICY.
  Colonel CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state whether the Government adopts the ton-for-ton policy after consultation with the Allies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We are now in consultation with our Allies on this subject.

  WAR MEMORIAL.
  Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether upon any Committee which is or may be appointed to select the design or designs which the State may propose to erect or memorial it may present, commemorative of the War
  1578
  and of those who fall therein, he will see that the Imperial Arts League and its 1,000 members may be adequately represented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The time has not yet come to consider the composition of Commemorative Committees.

  MUNITIONS.

    EXPLOSIONS (LIABILITY FOE DAMAGE).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger of damage and injury by explosion to the property and lives of third parties which has arisen owing to the creation for the purposes of the War of Government and other factories handling high explosive substances, and the fact that such a happening would not be covered by any ordinary existing policy of fire insurance, he can make any announcement as to whether the State assumes liability for ail such damage and injury consequent upon explosion in any such factory?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question is receiving careful consideration by the Government at the present moment.

  POLAND.
  General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the realisation of the immemorial hopes of the Polish people in all lands for union and autonomy is now placed by His Majesty's Government side by side with the reconstitution of the kingdoms of Belgium and Serbia as one of the fundamental objects for which we are fighting?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the telegram from M. Briand and myself to M. Sturmer, which was published in the Press on the 18th instant.
  General Sir IVOR HERBERT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the absence of any definite statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government is creating much uneasiness among the Polish peoples, and is giving point to the German attempts to alienate Polish sympathies from Russia?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was with that in mind that M. Briand and myself sent the telegram.

  SECRET SESSION.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a Secret Session or Sessions being held and in view of the number of important questions on which the House will desire information, he will consider the advisability of arranging for the limitation of speeches to ten minutes for Members other than the Member replying for the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature to discuss this suggestion until it has been decided whether a Secret Session should be held.

  MEMBERS AND CONSTITUENTS.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory, during the period of the War, that any Member of this House who has been definitely requested to resign by the official association of the party which he represents in his constituency should at once submit himself to re-election or automatically cease to be a Member of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not prepared, at the present time, to recommend the introduction of such legislation, which would certainly be of a controversial character.
  Major LANE-FOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to do anything to deal with the scandal of those Members, there being no chance of a General Election at present, who use this House for the purpose of expressing views they dare not express outside?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot add to my answer. It is necessarily a controversial matter.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that they dare not express their views outside is due to repressive legislation, and will he remove the Defence of the Realm Act so that we may express our views outside?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Defence of the Realm Act does not in the least impede hon. Members from expressing their views outside.

  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (LORD BALFOUR'S COMMITTEE).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he can state when the Interim Report of Lord Balfour's Committee on the Resolutions of the Paris Economic Conference will be ready?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This Report has just been received.

  BURYING DEAD ON BATTLEFIELDS.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken to secure an armistice on the Western front at Christmas for the purpose of burying the dead lying between the opposing lines?
  Mr. FORSTER: The desirability, or otherwise, of concluding armistices for the purpose mentioned in the question can only be decided by the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armies in France.

  COLOURED LABOUR.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether any opposition to the employment of coloured labour in this country has been indicated by trade union leaders who support the policy of a fight to a finish; and (2) whether any coloured labourers have been recruited for use in this country; and, if so, can he state the work on which they are to be engaged and the wage to be paid?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the hon. Gentleman say that this question has not been submitted to trade union leaders?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not the question, which is—
  "To ask the Prime Minister whether any opposition to the employment of coloured labour in this country has been indicated by trade union leaders who support the policy of a fight to a finish?"
  Mr. O'GRADY: Have they been asked to indicate any opposition or for their opinion?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I must ask for notice of that question. There is a very large number of questions to-day.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disorganisation and delay to steamers, their movements, and operations, resulting in loss of time and public and private money, and thereby affecting the supply and price of food caused by the Censor or his staff in delaying transmission and delivery of cables sent to shipowners by their captains, agents, or branch houses abroad, and vice versa, in cases and instances where the contents of cables could not possibly be of any use or value to the enemy; whether he is aware that the same delay, inconvenience, and loss appertains to telegrams and letters delayed or held up by the Censor, in many instances causing delay to vessels in Government service and loss of public money; whether he is aware that letters, indents, and documents from captains to their owners in connection with repairs, storing, and efficient working of their steamers are suppressed by the Censor, even when these letters are sent by the captains from such near-by ports as Calais to their owners in London or Liverpool; whether he is aware that even when these documents are passed by the Censor they frequently are so mutilated that they are of no use; and whether he will, in the national interests, see, without waiting, that more intelligence and judgment are displayed by the Censor?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that those who control the censorship are acting in the closest collaboration with the Admiralty, and are as fully impressed as is the hon. Gentleman himself with the vital necessity of preventing any avoidable delay to shipping. No action is taken in regard to telegraphic correspondence concerning shipping except with a view to securing the safety of the vessel, and in regard to shipping documents special arrangements have been made so as to give exceptional facilities to these papers, and so avoid any possibility of unnecessary delay. If any such documents have been mutilated, I shall be glad to be provided with examples for the purposes of inquiry. I feel sure it will be found that the British Censorship is not responsible.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that much of the information regarding steamers' movements which is suppressed by the Censor at the instance of the Admiralty is published broadcast in
  1582
  neutral newspapers, and that the action of those officials therefore rather resembles that of the struthio camelus?

  PATENT ISSUE.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a certain patent has recently been granted to Dr. C. Mensching, an interned enemy alien, lately resident at Bromborough Port, Cheshire; and, if so, whether he will say if British patents at the present time are issued to Germans in this country who are not even naturalised?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The practice is not to seal any patent in the name of a subject of a State at war with His Majesty, but to allow such applications to proceed as far as acceptance. In accordance with this practice, an application by Dr. Mensching and another was accepted on 27th January, 1916.
  Mr. BILLING: Do the Government propose to allow an enemy of this country to prepare to make profits and to hide behind the laws during the War?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member asks a question which absolutely misrepresents the facts. If he knew what the acceptance of a patent was he would understand that nothing of the kind could arise. The acceptance means only that the patent is registered and that it cannot be used or any profit whatever made out of it. The same thing is seen in other countries. It is accepted and registered in order that it may be guarded against use.
  Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. Gentleman state that it will not be permitted to be used?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said so in my answer.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask that, before releasing these patents for the use of enemies, some public statement shall be made by the Government?

  HERR SCHUMACHER.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the names of the firms who still supply goods to Herr Schumacher, of Aldersgate Street; whether he can give

  1583
  the name of the British firm in the City that buys most of the goods Schumacher sells; and whether, as stated in a recent tribunal case, Schumacher is to be sent back to Germany?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Reports obtained from our inspectors in such cases are regarded as confidential, and I regret that I cannot therefore give the information asked for, but I may say that the goods sold by Messrs. Schumacher and Broecker are practically all supplied by firms in Italy and Switzerland. I have no information as to the latter part of the question.

  FREIGHT RATES.
  Sir H.DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that shipowners still continue to charge high rates for freight, he has considered the advisability of tabulating rates that may not be exceeded on the basis of the rates charged in 1913, with a reasonable figure added to meet the rise in the cost of coals, wages, and provisions?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This proposal to fix general maximum rates of freight for goods not owned by the Government has been fully considered, but we came to the conclusion that it was unworkable and would not have the effect desired. For wheat, sugar, etc., owned by the State vessels are requisitioned at Blue Book rates and for meat at fixed rates already made public.

  ENEMY SHIPS IN NEUTRAL PORTS.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps for the hiring by the Government for carrying necessaries to this country of the forty-five large German ships lying at the ports in the Brazils?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am unable to add anything to the answer which I gave on the 9th November to a similar question by the hon. Member.
  Major HUNT: These are different ships. The other question was as to Chili.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid the principle is the same whether the ships are in Chili or in Brazil.

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BANKS.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of turning to better account the business premises in the heart of the City of London now occupied by the German and Austrian banks, either by sale or letting, than for completing, without return to the country, the small amount of work which Sir William Plender states is now necessary for winding up these enemy banks?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member for York on 2lst November.

  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade propose to confiscate all profits from carrying on enemy businesses in this country during the War or to preserve such profits in the hands of the Public Trustee as trustee for the enemy and as security for the ultimate settlement of British claims against the enemy?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Tamworth Division on the 15th August, of which I am sending him a copy.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can now make any statement about the allowances to the dependants of apprentices?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply I gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member on Tuesday last.
  Mr. HOGGE: As this is the fifth or sixth time that I have asked this question, I give notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Parliamentary

  1585
  Secretary to the Local Government Board that I will raise it to-night on the Adjournment to see if we can get a decision.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the war bonus announced for Civil servants, why female employés who are doing the same work and receiving the same pay should only receive half the bonus paid to males; and whether he can see his way to make a more equitable adjustment with regard to both women and persons under eighteen years of age?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reasons for the payment of war bonus to women employés at a lower rate were stated in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham South on the 17th ultimo. I am not prepared to admit that it is an inequitable arrangement.

  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any complaints from officers or men in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve with reference to their not receiving sufficient food, although 10s. is deducted weekly from their pay for this purpose; whether he is aware that out of the balance of 30s. they have to provide their uniforms and support their wives and families; whether, in view of the fact that they are not paid any separation allowance, it is proposed that such separation allowance should now be paid; and whether these men have to keep their uniforms in a fit state of repair out of the said 30s.?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as the men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are concerned, my hon. Friend is evidently under a misapprehension. They are paid at the same rates as men of a similar rating in the Royal Navy, and are treated as such in all respects— that is to say, they get a free kit on entry, free rations, and the dependants are paid separation allowance contingent upon minimum allotment. So far as I know, no complaints have been received as to insufficiency of food, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case he desires to submit to me, I will have the matter inquired
  1586
  into. Still, dealing with the men, as regards uniform, a few requests have been received that some allowance should be made for the upkeep of kit. This has not, however, been approved, and in this respect the men are on the same footing as the men of the Royal Navy. As regards the officers, the statement that the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers get a flat rate of 40s. a week, minus 10s. for food, is incorrect. Their pay is that of equivalent ranks in the Royal Navy, and their messing arrangements also similar. As regards the provision of uniform, they get allowances according to rank varying from £10 to £20, with additional payments to meet outlay on white uniform and khaki. Like all other commissioned officers in both Services, they do not get separation allowance.

  TORPEDOED SHIP (WHEAT).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in May last, a torpedoed ship containing about 1,500 tons of wheat was brought into Bantry Bay, and when the owners could not get their price for the cargo the sacks of wheat were deliberately thrown into the sea; whether boatmen and others begged those engaged in destroying a valuable food to cast the sacks into their boats or allow them to be landed, and that these requests were refused; and why did the representatives of the Admiralty on the spot tolerate such destruction?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no information respecting the matters referred to in this question, but we are communicating with the Vice-Admiral Commanding at Queenstown.

  NAVAL PENSIONERS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that several naval pensioners serving since the outbreak of war on foreign service, after returning to barracks, were given fourteen days' leave, then re-examined, and told to join up again for service at sea; that many junior men have not been out of barracks for years; that the policy of the Admiralty in sending pensioners who have already served their country in foreign waters a second time to sea and keeping younger men at Home is causing dissatisfaction;

  1587
  and with he consider the advisability of making a change in the present inequality of treatment?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as is practicable, all men fit for sea service take their turn for sea. There are, of course, many men, pensioners for instance, unfit for sea, who are always on shore. Further, the exigencies of the Service require that men holding certain ratings are more required at sea than others, and consequently are less on shore. The policy is, generally speaking, to get the older pensioners, who went to sea on the outbreak of war, home. If my hon. Friend would give particulars of any especial "hard cases" known to him, they could be inquired into.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman want the House to believe that there are no men of military age who might not be sent to sea?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not. I said there were many men.
  Sir C KINLOCH-COOKE: Then why do you not send them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I intimated that if my hon. Friend had any hard cases they would be inquired into.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have a very hard case.

  LORD ROTHERMERE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a recent article in the "Sunday Pictorial," signed by Lord Rothermere, purporting to give the authentic history of the part played at the Admiralty by the First Lord's predecessor in office; and if he will say whether any official information was supplied by the Admiralty for the purpose of the article in question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir!

  REQUISITIONED STEAMSHIPS
  Mr. S. BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steamers appropriated by the Admiralty, which belonged to regular mail and steamship lines, if they are in existence at the end of the War and are no longer needed by the
  1588
  Admiralty, will be offered to the original owners from whom they were bought at the price paid by the Admiralty, less a reasonable sum for wear and tear?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not practicable to give a general undertaking of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend, but he may be assured that in the circumstances he refers to all due consideration will be given to the claims of the original owners concerned.

  SUBMARINES (REPORTS OF OPERATIONS).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any Report, or statement or Paper, on our methods and operations in connection with enemy submarines or work done in connection therewith was ever prepared for or by the Board of Admiralty, or by any Department, or member or official of the Admiralty, or by any member of any staff, or by any naval officer, and, if so, what was the date thereof; whether such Report or Paper, if prepared, was ever submitted or presented to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or any individual member thereof, or individual connected with the Board of Admiralty; whether such Report, if prepared, or any portion of it. was ever transmitted, or given either in writing or verbally to any other British Government Department or individual connected therewith and, if so, which and when, or to any neutral Government, or any Department thereof or any individual connected with such neutral Government; and, if so, to which Government, or Department, or individual was it given or transmitted, and by whom, and on what date?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter, of course, is constantly engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty and Admiralty Departments, and Papers on the subject are from time to time communicated to those concerned. If it is to be understood that some irregularity has come to the knowledge of my hon. Friend, I shall be much obliged if he will let me have particulars privately, and I will immediately see that a thorough investigation is made.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Might I ask my right hon. Friend to answer the question in paragraph 2?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I have.
  Mr. HOUSTON: What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was "whether such report, if prepared, or any portion of it, was ever transmitted … to any representative of, or any individual in connection with, any Neutral Government?"
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know to what my hon. Friend refers. I have said that if any irregularity has come to my hon. Friend's notice and he will give me the information privately, I will have the matter fully inquired into at once.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman absolutely withdraw the statement that two enemy vessels were sunk?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume that would be supplemental to another question?
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second paragraph in the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice had better be given of any further question.

  GERMAN RAID IN CHANNEL.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give a full and accurate Report upon the recent Channel raid; whether he can now definitely state if any of the enemy vessels were sunk or even damaged; and whether he has now ascertained if there was any lack of vigilance or any delay on the part of the Admiralty or anyone connected with it in connection with this enemy raid?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the statements he has already made on this subject.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really not realise that it is time to tell the whole truth, and give the people something else?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I must protest—
  Mr. HOUSTON: I said "the 'whole' truth." I did not say "the truth."
  Sir E. CARSON: Can we be given the information the First Lord of the Admiralty gave to the Press?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall offhand what that was.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why no court-martial was held on the loss of His Majesty's ship "Flirt"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend has not noticed the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) that, "Courts of Inquiry have been held into the loss of His Majesty's ship 'Flirt' and the stranding of His Majesty's ship 'Nubian.' The reports will be fully considered at the Admiralty."
  Colonel YATE: I asked why no court-martial had been held?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Member had better put the question down on the Paper.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I inquire whether anyone has been censured in connection with this occurrence?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not to my knowledge. I am not aware that any censure was necessary. The reports are very full, and they are now before us.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that concealment is really necessary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This questioning is turning into a conversational vein.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether it was from Thursday to Tuesday before the Admiralty received the full report of this matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The first report was a telegram which, if I remember rightly, was embodied in the Press communiquéSubsequently to that—which was within a few hours—there was a long detailed report giving a great deal of the substance which my right hon. Friend stated to the House.
  Colonel YATE: Arising out of that—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions had better be put down.

  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board, whether he is aware that officers joining the Royal Flying Corps lose their regimental promotion and that there is a con-

  1591
  siderable block in the promotion in the lower ranks of the Royal Flying Corps; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?
  Mr. FORSTER: The only officers who can be said to lose their regimental promotion on joining the Royal Flying Corps are those of the New Armies. These officers leave their regiments on joining the Royal Flying Corps and are placed on the General List. There is no block of promotion in the lower ranks of the Royal Flying Corps; promotion, on the contrary, is very rapid.

  TREASURE (CONVEYANCE BY HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS).
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether officers of His Majesty's ships carrying bullion will receive a percentage, as before the War, for the extra care and responsibility?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The pre-war arrangements for- remuneration for conveyance of treasure were cancelled by Order in Council of 26th October, 1914.

  HOSPITAL SHIP "BRITANNIC" (LOSS).
  Sir EDWARD CARSON(by Private Notice) asked whether the Prime Minister has any information he can communicate to the House with reference to the sinking of the hospital ship "Britannic," and whether the attention of neutral Governments will be directed to this latest act of barbarism and breach of international law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by the Admiralty that no further particulars beyond those already published have been received, except that there were no wounded on board the hospital ship. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, that will require, and is receiving, the most careful consideration.
  Mr. BILLING: Were there any indications on the hospital ship to show the enemy) whether she was carrying wounded or not?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was an attack on a hospital ship, and she was known to be a hospital ship.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Has it been definitely ascertained whether the ship was torpedoed or mined?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; not yet.

  Resident Magistrates (Ireland)
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the statutory authority which enables a resident magistrate in Ireland to exclude from the hearing of a case justices of the peace who are actually sitting on the bench with him?
  Mr. DUKE: I am advised that the authority upon which a magistrate who isseised of a case within his jurisdiction may proceed to dispose of it to the exclusion of other magistrates, who may subsequently claim to sit with him, is founded upon decisions of the Courts in England and in Ireland.
  Mr. LYNCH: Do these decisions of the Courts really govern the law?
  Mr. DUKE: Yes, certainly. The decissions of the Court of competent authority are the law, both in Ireland and this country.
  Mr. DILLON: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the law in Ireland is that a resident magistrate can set aside the whole bench and try a case by himself whenever he likes?
  Mr. DUKE: No; no propositions of that kind has been made. The only proposition for which I am responsible in the matter is that if a resident magistrate in Ireland of competent jurisdiction is seised of the trial at the hearing of the case it is according to law for him to proceed to exercise jurisdiction. notwithstanding that other magistrates may claim, after he has become seised of jurisdiction, to come in and take part.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is not the law exactly the same in the two countries?
  Mr. DUKE: Absolutely.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Are we to understand that a resident magistrate is entitled to become seised of a case by hearing it privately in his own house or in a police barracks?
  Mr. DILLON: In view of the answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman

  1593
  (Sir E. Carson), is it not a fact that there are no resident magistrates in England but only the ordinary magistrates?
  Mr. DUKE: The answer I have made does not draw any distinction between a resident magistrate and another magisstrate in Ireland. I stated what I am advised and what I believe, as having some experience of the law, to be the law in this matter, both in England and in Ireland. It does not depend at all upon the capacity of the magistrate as a resident magistrate. He is a justice on the same footing as other justices, except where he has a special statutory jurisdiction. This matter does not depend upon Statute but upon the general law with regard to magistrates as a body, putting resident magistrates upon the same footing as all the others.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is it in the power of the Crown to allow prosecutors to select the tribunal before which persons are to be
  tried?
  Mr. DUKE: If there is a particular case in which it is suggested that has been done I think a question should be put to me upon notice. It is very difficult to make an answer accurately in regard to an abstract proposition of law without knowing previously what the facts are.
  Mr. LYNCH: As there exists here a means of defeating the ends of justice in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in legislation to remedy at once this anomalous state of affairs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had eight supplementary questions.

  Housing (Ireland).
  Mr. BRADYasked the Chief Secretary whether he has considered the Report of the Irish Local Government Board on the housing question, particularly as regards the City of Dublin; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is yet able to make any announcement as to his intentions in the matter of financial assistance towards the solution of the housing question in Irish urban districts, and especially in Dublin?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not yet in a position to add anything to my reply of the 16th November to the hon. Member for Dublin County (North).
  Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that about two months ago the right hon. Gentleman himself described the housing question as a problem pressing and serious from every point of view, and its settlement was a duty which was vital not merely to the well-being of Dublin, but of the nation and the Empire, and, so far as he had strength and influence, he would do his part to remedy the existing state of things. If I have correctly quoted him, should I not be doing him an injustice if I assumed that the words which I have quoted, I hope correctly, are merely a rhetorical outburst, and that, like the promises of so many British Ministers, they would end in nothing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

  Experimental Science (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether he is aware that the Intermediate Board undertook by resolution, subsequently published, to give a year's notice of any proposed change to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction with respect to the arrangement made between these two Government Departments; can he state whether any such notice was given to the Department of Agriculture before the new rule was made, whereby a written examination in experimental science was added to the system of inspection which had been in operation for fifteen years; if so, will he state on what date such notice was given; (2) what educational bodies, if any, had been consulted by the Intermediate Board before the new rule affecting the teaching of experimental science was formulated; and (3) whether his attention has been called to the recently issued Report of the National Board of Education of Ireland, in which, on page 9, the Commissioners state that before the adoption of any new Regulations of sufficient importance, or likely to prove contentious, full opportunity shall be afforded to managers, teachers, and other persons interested, by conference or written communication, to lay their views before the Board; and whether the Intermediate Board propose to follow the same course before it introduces any new Regulations, in view of the protests which have been made by educational bodies against the new rule dealing with experimental science?
  Mr. DUKE: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that the resolution to which the hon. Member refers did not contain an undertaking to give the Department a year's notice of any proposed change, but an undertaking not to hold any examination in science subjects until a year's notice had been given and that such notice was duly given by the Rules of the Board for 1917, which were ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6th April, 1916, and were published in the following June. The Commissioners further inform me that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, who is a member of the Board of Intermediate Education, was present at the meeting of the Board on 9th December, 1915, when it was decided that pass papers should be set in science subjects, and at a subsequent meeting of the Board when the wording of the new rule was approved.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Was the notice to which my right hon. Friend referred officially communicated to the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and were the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction consulted before this change was made in the procedure of examination of secondary schools in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: If my hon. Friend will put his question on the Paper it will be better. I do not want to go beyond the precise facts in the matter.
  Mr. BOLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the presentation to Parliament of rules is a sufficient notice to a Government Department, which cannot see the notice until it has been printed?
  Mr. DUKE: That is an abstract question, the answer to which I do not think would serve any practical purpose. If there has been any real failure of notification to the public and to the teaching body and people of that kind, the matter will be one for recommendation; but if the question is one of satisfaction of the particular claims either of Departments or of individuals, to my mind the public interest is predominant over all of them.

  Gaelic Athletic Championship Meetings.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Athlone Urban Council protesting against the action of the Irish authorities in cancelling
  1596
  at the last moment the trains to Athlone on Sunday, 29th October, in connection with the All-Ireland semi-final of the Gaelic athletic championships, whereby loss was sustained by a number of small shopkeepers and others engaged in the catering business; whether he will state what was the public necessity for such action; and whether he will see that in future no such cause of bitterness amongst the people will be given by the authorities?
  Mr. DUKE: I have received the resolution referred to. The action mentioned was taken both in the interests of public order and in view of the fact that the running of excursion and other unnecessary trains is undesirable having regard to the urgent necessity of economising fuel. I recognise that business people ought, if possible, to be protected from loss and inconvenience by the sudden cancellation of traffic arrangements, and I hope means to this end will be provided without delay.
  Colonel CRAIG: Would it be possible to arrange these All-Ireland: matches on some other day than Sunday?
  Mr. LUNDON: Why were not the trains cancelled till the very last moment?
  Mr. DUKE: I could not tell the hon. Member at a moment's notice why that was.

  St. Mary's Convent National School, Roscommon.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether Miss Doyle has been dismissed by the Sisters at St. Mary's Convent National School, Roscommon, be cause she did not possess the necessary qualifications; and, if not, whether she has been given a higher and more remunerative position?
  Mr. DUKE: I have no information beyond that given in my answer of the 24th October to the hon. Member's question on this subject.

  Sir Henry Grattan Bellew.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary how many meetings of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) have been held since Sir Henry Grattan Bellew became a member of the Board; and if he will state how many meetings of the Board Sir Henry Grattan Bellew has attended?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that there have been thirty-one meetings of the Congested Districts Board since Sir Henry

  1597
  Grattan Bellew became a member of the Board and that he has attended four of these meetings. Sir Henry has been engaged, I am told, on other public duties which have prevented his making the attendances he could otherwise have made.
  Mr. O'MALLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Galway man on this Board?
  Mr. DUKE: I have had some personal communications with members of the Board on this subject. I do not think at present that question arises in the interests of the public. If it arises attention will he given to the matter.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Considering that the Connemara district is one of the most congested under the Congested Districts Board would it not be desirable that the representative - appointed to represent these interests should be there or someone put in his place?
  Mr. DUKE: I know that the interests of the Conncmara district have been very definitely represented by various members of the Congested Districts Board. I will take care that representation is effectively made upon the matter, and if the necessity arises of asking Sir Henry Grattan Bellew, in view of the other public duties—I believe military duties—which he is performing, to resign his post in order that someone else may be appointed, we will do whatever may be necessary in the public interest.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, although Major Price, since his appointment as county inspector of Carlow has never performed any of his duties as county inspector, he still continues to receive the pay of £370 per annum attached to that office, together with the usual allowances for lodging and servant; if he is aware that Major Price's duties as county inspector have been performed by the county inspector of Wicklow, and whether the county inspector for Wicklow has been able to perform satisfactorily the work of both counties; if he is aware that Major Price has received nearly £700 out of military funds as a subsistence allowance for military duties; and whether, taking into consideration this payment from military funds, he will, in the interests of public economy, take steps to provide that Major Price's salary of an
  1598
  office he has never filled, and allowances for a servant he has never employed, should be discontinued?
  Mr. DUKE: On the outbreak of the War Major Price, who was then a district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary, was appointed Intelligence Officer to the Irish Command Headquarters, Dublin, as a temporary arrangement for the period of the War, He draws his pay as a constabulary officer, and is paid his subsistence allowances from military funds. He receives no Army pay. He was promoted to the rank of county inspector in May, 1915, and allocated to the county Carlow, but owing to his duties as Intelligence Officer he cannot take charge of the county Carlow. Pending his release from military duties, the supervision of the counties of Carlow and Wicklow has been entrusted to the county inspector located at Wicklow, who receives the ordinary rate of pay only, and who has carried out the duties satisfactorily. Major Price's pay as county inspector is at present £370, with the usual allowance for lodging and servant. Since his-appointment as Intelligence Officer, he has received £618 as subsistence allowance from military funds. As he draws no pay from the Army, it is obvious that his constabulary pay could not be discontinued.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Does he draw an allowance for a servant in his constabulary pay, and is it not a fact that he has no servant?
  Mr. DUKE: I could not answer that without notice. I have satisfied myself so far as inquiries go up to the present that he does not draw an overlapping allowance. He is not drawing an allowance which he ought not to draw under the circumstances.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Does the county inspector of Wicklow receive any excess allowance for performing the duties of county inspector of Carlow?
  Mr. DUKE: I have answered that

  Intermediate Education Board (Teachers' Salaries).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1914, for this year will be printed and circulated; whether any correspondence has passed between the Intermediate Board, the Treasury, and the

  1599
  Irish Government in reference to that Report; and, if so, whether he will lay such correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland have made a Report to the Lord Lieutenant with respect to the distribution of the teachers' salaries grant for the year ended 31st March, 1916; and, if no Report has been received, whether, having regard to the fact that Irish secondary teachers consider that it is of the utmost importance that the details of the distribution of this grant should be published, he will call for a Report on the subject and have the same laid before Parliament.
  Mr. DUKE: The Report was presented to both Houses of Parliament on the 9th instant. The printing and circulation is a matter for the Stationery Office. I expect it will not be unduly delayed. It is not proposed to lay the correspondence referred to upon the Table of the House.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some opportunity of communicating the result of that correspondence, because it concerns a matter which interests the teachers of Ireland intensely?
  Mr. DUKE: I think the Report which is in the Stationery Office will deal with the subject which the hon. Member has in mind. If not, I will take care that everything that is necessary and proper for the teachers to know shall be included either in answer to a question or in a return.

  Connaught Winter Assizes.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether any protest has been made by any portion of the Irish Bar against the arrangements made for the Connaught Winter Assizes; and whether, in view of the objections in Connaught to the policy of sending prisoners from that province to be tried in Ulster, the arrangements will be altered?
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, will he take note of the animosity against Ulster and its significance in regard to the question of Irish government?
  Mr. DUKE: I will take as little note of animosity as possible. In answer to the question on the Paper, I may say that I
  1600
  am not aware of any such representations. It is not proposed to alter the arrangements for holding the coming Connaught Winter Assizes which have been duly made by the proper authority.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of sending prisoners from Lister to be tried in Connaught?
  Mr. DUKE: I know that Connaught juries take a very merciful view of many matters.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What is the reason for this change?
  Mr. DUKE: The only reason of which I am aware is the desire to economise both public money and the moneys of individuals. I cannot conceive that there is anything subtle underlying a regulation of this sort. If I thought there was anything of that sort, I should have given a great deal of consideration to it before it came into operation.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the economies are? What amount will be saved? Is it not rather indecent that judges who are paid £3,500 a year should economise in a matter to suit their personal convenience? Should they not economise in other matters not affecting the public interest and public convenience?
  Mr. DUKE: I have no doubt that all these questions were taken into consideration by the very competent body which has disposed of the matter.
  Mr. PR INGLE: Is it in consequence of the merciful view that is taken by Connaught juries that the Government does not propose to send Ulster prisoners there?
  Mr. DUKE: There is no sinister object so far as I am concerned.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is it a fact that the competent body which determines this question are the judges? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the judges, considering the large salaries they are paid, should allow a matter of their personal convenience to influence their decision; and whether they should allow the public interests to be subordinated to the interests of the gentlemen who sit on this tribunal?
  Mr. DUKE: The judges should do nothing of the kind, and I do not believe they do.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who does it then?

  Science Examinations (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that no written examinations in science are held in those types of Scottish schools corresponding to the schools in Ireland which are governed by the rules of the Intermediate Board, and that the system of inspection has been in operation since 1900; whether the Intermediate Board had any knowledge of the success or otherwise of the Scottish system when it decided to revert to a system abandoned by themselves fifteen years ago; and whether, with a view to estimating the relative advantages of testing by written examination or by inspection the progress of science in Irish secondary schools, he will ascertain the opinions of educational experts in England, Scotland, and Wales?
  Mr. DUKE: I have asked the Board of Intermediate Education for a detailed answer.

  Blind Aid Bill.
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Prime Minister whether the Interdepartmental Committee on the Blind Aid Bill, which was appointed in 1914 to inquire into the -condition of the blind, has made any and what progress; and whether, if it has reported, the Government will publish the same and embody their recommendations in a Bill?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Blackburn, in reply to a question on the same subject, on 17th October.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that owing to a shortage of application forms at the Post Office, Rathkeale, county Limerick, for the additional allowance on the 9th October, several old age pensioners in Rathkeale and district were unable to forward their applications to the pension officer there before the 14th October, and were thus deprived of one week's allowance; and, having regard to this fact, will he say whether this extra allowance can now be obtained by the old age pensioners who did not receive it for the above reason?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am having inquiries made into this matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have received the reports which have been called for.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: If it can be proved that these old age pensioners could not get their allowances, not through their own fault, will they be able to get consideration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am very sympathetic with all these cases. If the case is a clear one of delayed payment, I think it is a matter for consideration, as my hon. Friend suggests.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
  That they have agreed to,—
  Amendments to—
  Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (GIFTS FOR LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL,—"to authorise the acceptance and administration by certain Government Departments and local authorities of gifts for the settlement or employment on land of men who have served in His Majesty's Forces, "presented by Mr. ACLAND; supported by Mr. Tennant, Mr. Duke, and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the public business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Committee stage of the Board of Pensions Bill, and if that is not finished on Monday we shall continue it on Tuesday.
  On Tuesday we shall also take the Report stage of the Registration of Business Names Bill and other small Orders. I will announce on Monday the business for the remainder of the week.
  Mr. DILLON: Has not the time now come when the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House something of the procedure as to the Christmas holidays? We are now at the 23rd November. Is it proposed to prorogue or adjourn, and will he say when he intends that Members should return home for Christmas?
  The PRIME MINISTER: At the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say what day he is going to give for the discussion of the powers of the Air Board?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I promised to give a day to it either next week or the week after.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: When are we going to get this discussion on manpower?
  The PRIME MINISTER: At the earliest possible date.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Shall we get the Report of the- Man-Power Board before that discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise to give the Report of the Man-Power Board.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see the difficulty of discussing the question of man-power without having the Report of the Man-Power Board?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The House will have the fullest possible information before the discussion takes place.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will Ministers, at any rate, defer fulfilling speaking engagements in the country until they have made up their minds on this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have got no speaking engagement in the country.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that eighteen months ago he promised an opportunity for a discussion on the purchase of wheat at an early date, and that opportunity has not come yet; and will there be the same delay in connection with manpower?
  Major LANE-FOX: Will facilities be given to hon. Members who are serving in France to come over for the Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for the Commander-in- Chief.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of discussing both the question of man-power and the air problem before the holidays?
  The PRIME MINISTER: What is the object of asking that question? I have already given an answer in both these cases.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to do anything further this Session with regard to registration?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the business for next week we are discussing. Any hon. Members who wish for further information should put questions on the Paper.

GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."
Sir EDWARD CARSON: On a point of Order. This Motion which is now put to the Committee has not appeared on any

1653
Paper, and we have had no notice of it. I have only had time just to try to grasp what are its terms, and it seems to me that the powers that are being asked for are of the very widest character. In fact, it is giving the Government a blank cheque. I think the House ought to have had it in some way or other communicated to them before it was moved, and in order that we may have time to consider it I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. KING: I beg to second the Motion.
This Resolution is introduced in exactly the same form, and in the same indefinite terms that many have been introduced before, and especially during the time the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) was a Law Officer of the Crown. When he was a member of the Cabinet, Resolutions of this kind were constantly introduced. He never seemed to know anything about them, and I always opposed them then, and I am going to oppose them now. Though I am surprised at the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am extremely delighted at it, and I welcome him as a convert which I, and I think the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), have often taken up. We have constantly protested against these indefinite financial Resolutions, and I hope the Government will allow Progress to be reported.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): This financial Resolution is in precisely the same form as on two previous occasions. I am sure those who, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, desire the effective conduct of the War will appreciate that the Government has to take action, especially in regard to financial matters, without delay. The ordinary practice was followed. Notice was given yesterday of this financial Resolution, and the financial Resolution is brought in to-day. The next stage will be to introduce a Bill which will give all the particulars of the various classes of obligations for which the Government requires? the sanction of the House. In the Schedules of that Bill are set forth all the details. Nothing unusual and nothing but what is in the ordinary course of practice is being done on this occasion, and I do not know why this Motion to report Progress should be moved. I will point
1654
out to the House, what I thought the House was well aware of, that the Government has certain financial obligations, and it is necessary that they should enter into obligations beyond the limits of one year. For example, there is the insurance of shipping. The whole House agreed we were right in entering on that obligation.
Sir E. CARSON: If this only refers to past obligations I will withdraw the Motion.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It does refer to past obligations.
Sir E. CARSON: Only?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to obligations already entered into, the answer is "Yes." For instance, there are obligations entered into to guarantee the bankers with regard to certain matters. There is an obligation entered into with regard to persons who have lent the Government stocks and shares. Those obligations go beyond the limits of this year. What this Bill asks the House to do is to approve of the undertakings we have entered into up to this time. Of course, if these obligations can be met out of the Vote of Credit within the limits of the financial year there is no necessity to bring in this Bill, but they are continuing obligations going on for two years, and some for longer periods. Discussion, of course, will be appropriate on the Bill. This is only a financial Resolution upon which the Bill is based, and, so far from there being anything unusual in the practice, exactly the same practice was adopted in 1914 and in December of last year. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that there have been on two previous occasions Bills introduced and passed into law which have authorised the Government to take money out of the moneys provided by Parliament, and out of the Consolidated Fund, for obligations which may have been incurred prior to the passing of the Act. One was on the 24th of November, 1914, and the second was on the 22nd of November, 1915. I do not know whether that was altogether a wise practice on the part of this House, but it was done because this House was most anxious not to put any impediment in the way of the

1655
Government procuring money for the carrying on of the War. I think, however, that there are a great many hon. Members now who are rather of opinion that the very wide financial powers given to the Government were a mistake, and that we ought to have retained some control over the finances of the country in our own hands. Yesterday I saw a notice that this House would, at its sitting today, resolve itself into a Committee for doing certain things. There was no notice of this on the Paper, and it is quite correct to say that what has been done is the old custom. When the party to which I have the honour to belong was in power, there was nothing more violently attacked by the then Opposition than the fact that these Resolutions were not put upon the Paper. That was when there was no War, and when the Resolutions were of a mild and moderate character. I frequently reminded the Government of this, and I read extracts from the speeches of right- hon. Gentlemen opposite to remind them of this fact. Once or twice right hon. Gentlemen opposite did carry out criticisms which they had made, and put these notices on the Paper. Afterwards the practice dropped, and I do not know whether this was owing to the Coalition Government or not. The practice dropped at a time when it is most important that these Resolutions should appear on the Paper. I will just read this Resolution, because it is a far-reaching one, and the effect of it is to give the Government power to use any moneys
"provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to the obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War, or in connection therewith by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."
That is a blank cheque upon the credit of the Consolidation Fund; it does away with the necessity for any Vote of Credit, and it allows the Government to take whatever money they like either out of the moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund, which is practically the credit of the country. When I saw this Resolution I tried to find out where it was going to be limited, whether it was limited to the Bills of 1914 and 1915, or whether it was limited to obligations already incurred prior to this date,
1656
and I could not find out. Therefore I thought it was necessary that we should ask for some explanation from the Government as to whether or not an undertaking has been given that the Bill will be confined to obligations already incurred. I think that statement has already been made; it is satisfactory, and it makes things rather better. It is quite possible that when the Bill comes before the House it may be said that the House has already incurred this expenditure, and that we cannot alter it, and I think for that reason it is rather doubtful whether we ought to pass the Resolution. At any rate, I think it ought to be made perfectly clear in the Resolution that it is confined to obligations incurred before the passing of the Resolution. I think we ought to take some steps to reestablish the control of this House which we seem to have lost over finance.
Mr. DILLON: I cannot agree with the-statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the practice of the House, and it is a very remarkable thing that in trying to support this practice the right hon. Gentleman founded himself upon the precedent of two years during the War. It is notorious that many things were done in 1914 and 1915 that have never been done in the House before, and really the House of Commons was then in a mood to allow anything, because nobody liked to criticise anything the Government wished to do for the prosecution of the War. Therefore, I think the Government ought to avoid quoting, in support of their action on this occasion, the precedents of the last two years. What the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said is quite true. Those of us who sat in Opposition, including many of those on the Treasury Bench, have again and again protested in times of peace, when these Resolutions were comparatively matters of course, against the practice of not putting these Resolutions on the Notice Paper, and simply giving notice that they would be moved. That was in days when the Resolutions were more or less matters of course. The Resolutions we are dealing with now are of a character and scope of which nobody has the faintest notion. We are entering upon a wholly different field, and we are being called upon to pass this Resolution blindly, although it is one of enormous importance. What took place last night?

1657
When the Notice was called on last night, that this House should resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering this Resolution, objection was taken, and a debate ensued, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, "Wait until to-morrow, and a full explanation will be given." That was said at eleven o'clock last night.
Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: No!
Mr. DILLON: Yes!
Mr. McKlNNON WOOD: What I said was that details of the obligations already incurred which this Resolution will sanction will appear in the Bill and may be discussed on the Bill. That is what I said.
Mr. DILLON: I distinctly recollect some official saying that a full explanation would be given.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes; the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) said it.
Mr. DILLON: I know that someone said that when the Resolution was moved a full explanation would be given. I think it is very objectionable that this Resolution should be taken in the dark, without a full explanation. I expected that the Financial Secretary would have given a full explanation as to why this Resolution is necessary. I never heard any rational explanation of the reason why these Resolutions are not put on the Notice Paper like all our other business. In the old days we did succeed in getting copies of the Resolution before the Debate commenced, so that we might have an opportunity of reading it over. The practice of not putting these Notices on the Paper is an absurd one that ought to be departed from, and I never could get any satisfactory explanation of it from any Government. Why should not the Financial Resolutions be put on the Notice Paper like any other business we have to consider? Very often these Financial Resolutions are extremely important, and it frequently happens that you are crippled afterwards in discussing the Bill by something which appears in the Resolution per incuriam, and then you are informed that in the discussion you are tied by the words of the Resolution. I hope the Government will depart from the old practice and put these Resolutions on the Paper. Undoubtedly the Financial Secre-
1658
tary to the Treasury ought to give us an explanation of the necessity for this Resolution and its scope.
Mr. DAVID MASON: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has raised a very strong objection. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether this Resolution referred to past obligations, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to reply that it referred only to past obligations. These obligations are current, and we do not really know where we are. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued a further call for the mobilisation of securities, and I understand that this Bill would cover that and other transactions. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman opposite raised a somewhat similar point on a Money Resolution with reference to insurance. But this is not quite the same, because the liability in the case of the Insurance Resolution was limited, while there is no limit to this, and it is practically a blank cheque we are asked to subscribe to. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an explanation as to what the limit is, then we know better what we are doing.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I suppose I have put as many of these Resolutions on the Table as any hon. Member in this House during the three or four years I was at the Treasury, and I recollect very well what the course of business was I was pressed by the Opposition and by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to provide copies of these Resolutions exactly in the form in which they were moved at the Table, and in accordance with the then policy of the Government I used to give to the right hon. Baronet and others a copy of these Resolutions. I always thought that that was a reasonable course to adopt, for it enabled the House to know what it was going to discuss. I must say that until that time the House used to have the Resolutions produced by the Chairman, and they used to be read out not very slowly, and it was perfectly impossible to know to what the House was pledging itself. A new departure was made during the time I was at the Treasury, and copies of these Resolutions were given to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London or any other hon. Member who cared to ask for them.
Sir E. CORNWALL: Was the Resolution printed?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it was not printed. I think that was a good practice. I think that when the House hears what this particular Resolution is hon. Members will see that it is perfectly innocuous. I think if in the Resolution before the word "incurred" we inserted the word "already" the whole of the objections raised on this side of the House would vanish, this discussion would disappear, and we could get on with the financial business. If my suggestion were adopted the Resolution would read:
"If those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations already incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith."
That would give the Government all the power they require. They could then deal with any emergency that might arise, and at the same time it "would ensure that the House was not pledging itself to expenditure of which it did not approve, or could not approve, and it would get the Government out of the difficulty, at the same time retaining control by the House over finance which is the real raison d'être of the existence of this House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I do not think my right hon. Friend's proposal would be the right method of carrying out the object which he has in view. If we inserted the words "already incurred" in the Resolution now it might leave some doubt as to the period of time to which it referred. I will, however, undertake in the Bill as presented to the House that we will insert after the word "incurred" the words "by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government before the passing of this. Act." We never had any other intention. That is all that the Resolution is meant to cover. I think perhaps that will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir E. CARSON: That is not what the Resolution says. One of my great objections to this Resolution, as I heard it read out, was that in its present form any obligation incurred by the Government would come under it, but there is no use wasting time, and if my right hon. Friend says that he will put in the Bill words which will limit it to obligations
1660
incurred before the Bill becomes law, I am quite satisfied, and under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir E. CORNWALL: There is just one aspect of a Resolution of this kind to which the Committee might give a moment's thought before too readily passing it. The time has come when the House has got to view the financial proposals of the Government with a little more care than we have hitherto done since the War broke out. Everyone has been anxious to show a willingness to give the Government full supplies for the utmost vigorous prosecution of the War and not to be too particular whether it is a Resolution for War Obligations on a Vote of Credit or any other method the Government have felt it necessary to adopt. We have always been ready to agree to it. This House and the country, I think, will always be ready to vote the money, but now that the Government is asking us by one method or another to vote over £1,500,000,000 per year for war expenditure, the time has come when this House, which, after all, is responsible to the country for these huge Votes of Supply, should know more about the expenditure of these vasts sums of money. It ought not any longer to be so easy for the Government, and we ought not merely because they come down here and because it is war expenditure, or called war expenditure, to vote the money too readily. I think the House would be absolutely failing in its duty unless it insisted, from now and so long as the War lasts, upon being thoroughly satisfied that the money which is being voted is war expenditure and is being used for war purposes. I ask any Member of the House if he knows of his own knowledge or has any information that the money which we vote for the War is being used for the War. Do the Ministers themselves know whether it is being used for the War? The Treasury is far too busy to exercise that control over the various Government Departments which it used to exercise before the War. It has not got the time. I can imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary with their staff are overworked. No one desires to give them more credit than I do for the great national service which they are rendering,

1661
but it is impossible, with all the responsibility which falls upon them, for the Treasury to be exercising that control over expenditure—
Mr. McKENNA: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the speech of my hon. Friend is in order, having regard to the nature of this Bill? All the Bill asks is that the House will sanction certain obligations entered into and certain bargains made by the Government. It has nothing to do with the question of the control over expenditure, and it has nothing to do with Treasury control over Departments. The Bill simply asks Parliament to authorise certain obligations, mainly obligations into which I have entered in the execution of my duty.
Sir C. HENRY: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea what those obligations are?
Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of Order. May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly have read his Resolution, because the Resolution gives the Government power, and it does not confine it to the Treasury.
Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that it did.
Sir F. BANBURY: It gives the Government power to use any money borrowed on the security of the Consolidated Fund or otherwise for war obligations or purposes connected therewith It practically gives them power to spend any money they like, for any purpose they like, provided that they can say it is connected with the War.
Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that the view which the right hon. Gentleman takes is the view on which the speech of my hon. Friend is founded, but that is not the view of the Bill, and it is not what I am asking the House to sanction. It is not the Resolution, and it is not what will be contained in the Bill founded upon the Resolution.
Sir E. CORNWALL: Surely you need not be too particular when you are asking the House for millions.
Several other HON. MEMBERS Several other HON. MEMBERS rose.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think I am fairly fully informed on the point of Order. It is whether the discussion which has been
1662
initiated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) is or is not out of order. It seemed to me that he was entering upon a discussion which could more properly be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill than upon this Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded. The only reason for bringing in this Resolution is in order to found the Bill, and we cannot have a Second Reading Debate at this stage. I would therefore indicate to the hon. Member in possession of the Committee that any further remarks which he desires to make must be much more relevant to the Resolution than his last remarks were.
Sir E. CORNWALL: I appreciate your ruling, and at the particular moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought somewhat kindly, rose to a point of Order, I thought that I was—
Mr. PRINGLE: On the point of Order-Is it not the case that on a Resolution which is the foundation of a Bill anything is relevant which would be relevant on the Second Reading of that Bill?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the point on which I have just given my ruling. I do not think it is; otherwise I would point out this would be like a Consolidated Fund Bill, and we should be having a full-dress Debate.
Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not in order to-discuss whether or not it is advisable for this Committee to give to the Government the power asked for in the Resolution? The Resolution empowers the Government to spend—I say any quantity of money, but let us assume it is limited —a limited amount of money. It is quite true that a Bill is coming on, but this is the foundation of the Bill, and if the House thinks that it ought not to give the foundation of the Bill, it is entitled to give its reasons for withholding the money from the Government. That has always been the custom and rule upon these questions since I have been in the House, and I have had as much to do with these Resolutions as any Member in the House. As long as you can give reasons for not granting the money, it is in order to state those reasons.
Mr. ASHLEY: Would you indicate what we can discuss?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already done so.
Sir C. HENRY: Might I have your ruling on this point: This is a Resolution upon which a Bill is to be framed. A Vote of Credit is a Resolution upon which a Consolidated Fund Bill is based. Might I put it to you, as a point of Order, that in order to obtain information as to what the Bill is to contain, a discussion must take place at this stage?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have simply ruled that the later remarks of the hon. Member in possession of the Committee were going beyond the scope of the Resolution, and to that ruling I still adhere. With regard to the discussion which may follow, I must deal with the position as it arises.
Sir E. CORNWALL: I have endeavoured to follow your ruling, and I have no objection to the ruling you gave on the words I was uttering at the moment. I am very glad, however, that on the broad question you have given no ruling against the point that I have made, and I hope that other hon. Members who have greater experience of keeping in order will follow up the discussion, because I feel very strongly that it is of the utmost importance. When the Government have come down and for two years have asked for £5,000,000 per day, and when they may he asking for £5,000,000 per day for another two years, I say that the circumstances have so altered that whenever the Government asks for any financial support, either by a Resolution such as this or by any other proposal, we should ask ourselves whether we are holding and keeping that control over the financial affairs of the country that we ought, in duty to the country and to our constituents, to exercise. In taking up this position, I make no complaint against Ministers, because they have no control over the situation and are not responsible for the War, but I say "money easy come, easy go," and, when the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and all these other Government Departments find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can come down here and, without discussion, get his Financial Resolution, or that the Prime Minister can get his Votes of Credit, money runs away like water. The time, therefore, has come when this House should satisfy itself that the money which is being voted is being used for the purposes of the War and the War only, and that there is no waste.
1664
We are advocating in the country that people should practise economy. Are we satisfied that the Treasury and the other Government Departments have been exercising all the economy possible? Of course we are not. Instead of our old practice of voting these Resolutions like we are asked to do to-day, the time has come when the Government should take the House more into its confidence and when it should set up a committee. The Public Accounts Committee is no use for this purpose. It meets two years afterwards and audits the accounts. The Estimates Committee does not meet. I do not know what power it has. Instead of coming down to-day and asking for this Financial Resolution, the Government ought to call in a Committee of the House, and it ought to explain to us how this huge sum of money is being spent day by day. We do not know, in fact, how much money is being spent. We have never been told. We have only been told how much money has been expended; we have never been told how much liability has been incurred. We are not told now, and we are not given any particulars as to how much money is involved in this Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that he cannot tell the House, and that it is a small Committee which is here this afternoon; but if this House is going to do its duty, the time has come when it must insist upon a change in the method of raising money for the War during the continuance of the War. If we do not do that, we shall be failing in our duty as responsible Members of Parliament.
I have put a Motion down on the Paper, and I hope that it will be in force before we get another Vote of Credit. I propose that a Committee should be set up in this House so that we may know from the Government Departments what they are doing with the money that they get from time to time. I do not raise this question with any intention of refusing the money for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks, but I hope that he will take the point I have raised very carefully into consideration, and that as a House of Commons man he will realise that the House at present has no control over this expenditure. It is not control for us merely to come down and vote this Resolution. It is not control to vote Vote of Credit after Vote of Credit. What do we know about it? Are we satisfied that the money is being properly spent? I venture

1665
to say that none of us are satisfied. I rise to urge—I hope other hon. Members will take up the question—that the time has come when we should refuse to give any financial Resolution, and Vote of Credit, or any money until the Government tells us where the money is going, and satisfies us, as representing the people of the country, that it is being used for the prosecution of the War, and is not being misused, and that no Government Department is extravagant in its expenditure. I hope something will arise out of this discussion to bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs that exist at the present time.
Mr. ASHLEY: I thoroughly agree with what has fallen from the last speaker. I wish that other hon. Members of this House had the courage to speak out in the way he has done. I object to this Resolution for two reasons. In the first place, I have not the slightest confidence, if this money is given to the Government, that they will spend it in the right way. Secondly, before we are asked to vote this omnibus Resolution we ought, I submit, to be given some details. The Secretary to the Treasury told us a few days ago that in the Bill which was founded on this Resolution details will be given. But I do not suppose they will be ample or satisfactory. I want to submit this to the Committee. Why put the cart before the horse? Why pass a Resolution and refuse to give us any details until later on when the Bill is before the House? Surely the sensible and businesslike arrangement would be to give the details on the first stage, then, later on, we could discuss them, and, if necessary, pass a perfectly vague Resolution. But it is ridiculous to ask sensible men to come here and pass a Resolution without giving any details, but simply promising they shall be forthcoming later on, when the House will probably then have tied itself down to giving the money. Here is an opportunity for carrying out a businesslike reform. I quite understand that one must not at this stage go into details, but does any hon. Member think that the present Government, in their spending Departments, are a body of men to whom one would willingly hand over £5,000,000 to expend without first securing any details? In the Admiralty, the War Office, the Munitions Office, and other Government Departments waste goes on unchecked. The Press is gagged. It is
1666
very difficult to get a discussion on these questions here. For these reasons I oppose this Resolution.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: It must be recognised that if the House loses control over the Treasury it loses one of its primary functions. Since my right hon. Friend has occupied his present position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House has been getting less and less control over the nation's finance. I consider this is perhaps the most important stage of a Bill, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state now for what purpose this money is being found. What obligations is it intended to meet, and to what extent will it meet them? With what previous speakers have said as regards Treasury control, I am in perfect agreement. The Treasury is losing control over the different Departments, and for them to come down and ask for a supplementary Vote of Credit—and that, after all, is what this Bill really is—
Mr. MCKENNA: No, no!
Sir C. HENRY: Well, I will put it in this way: There are certain obligations which have to be met. They cannot be met out of the Vote of Credit, and, therefore, this Bill is 'brought forward. That is the sole reason why this Bill is introduced. I should like further to know how is this money to be found in order to meet the requirements of this Bill? Are we to have fresh issues of Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds? My right hon. Friend knows my views with regard to the continual piling up of floating debt, and I shall be very sorry if this Bill is to be used as a fresh instrument for that purpose. This is a most important matter. The Resolution ought not to be allowed to pass through the House of Commons almost sub silentio. Before we accept this Resolution we ought to have a full explanation of what the Government require of us in this Bill.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not think the Government are to be congratulated on the manner in which they have brought this matter before the House. We are told it embodies, at the lowest estimate, very large authority being given to the Government. I suggest it would be respectful to the House if they carried out the principles which they so eloquently advocated in Opposition. It would have been courteous to have printed and circulared this Resolution beforehand. How on earth

1667
could the Government have suffered by adopting that course? It is ridiculous that we should be discussing a matter of the utmost importance when we really do not know the terms of the Resolution. The policy of handing out to one or two Members copies of the Resolution while the House is not in possession of the document itself is most unbusinesslike and reprehensible. Why could not the Government have placed it on the Paper two or three nights ago? We should then have been in a position to discuss it with better knowledge. Some time ago we appointed another Cabinet Minister to go to the Treasury to help deal with these matters, and to-day we have two Cabinet Ministers looking after the work of that Department, and yet we are called upon to discuss a serious proposition like this without having the terms of the Resolution before us. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the old days, when he sat below the Gangway, expressed himself with horror when it was suggested, as has been suggested to-day, that this is not an important stage of a Bill.
Mr. McKENNA: I never said it was not important.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say it is important?
Mr. McKENNA: I never said anything of the kind, and all these charges as to what was done in Opposition years ago have no relation, as far as I am aware, to the matter now before the House.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest he never complained of Resolutions like this not having been printed?
Mr. McKENNA: I cannot charge my memory.
Sir H. DALZIEL: It is a case, I think, of failure of memory.
Mr. McKENNA: No, it is not.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I think I can safely say that the right hon. Gentleman did so. But that does not alter the facts, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going now to defend the policy he is pursuing we shall know his opinion on the point. At any rate, I am against that policy. I maintain that the Government have pursued a course in this matter opposed to that which they advocated in Opposition. Now I come to another point. I want to deal with the
1668
Phrase "moneys provided for by Parliament." Does that mean that Parliament has already provided the money?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Part of it only.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Then we know, at any rate, a part of it has been voted by Parliament already.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will explain it.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Why was it not explained at the beginning? Why not give us the particulars when moving the Resolution? I say we ought to have had a full and complete statement when the Motion was made. Later on, when there was a Motion to report Progress, the right hon. Gentleman did tell us that this Bill provided for American securities and other matters in connection with the War. There is one question I wish to put. Does the Bill deal with any matter concerning our war obligations to our Allies? Can I have a straight answer to that question? Does it deal with arty war obligation entered into with regard to any of our Allies or with regard to Greece? Does it deal with any obligation towards Roumania? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to answer those questions.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman will get the details in the Bill.
Sir H. DALZIEL: But this is a time when we ought to have the details. We have been given a few particulars by the Secretary to the Treasury. We have been told something about shipping and securities, but apparently we are not to have all the facts now. We were told last night that if we would only allow the Resolution to be passed, thus authorising us to go into Committee, we should get the details. It seems to me that this is an attempt to get the matter through without affording a complete statement. What is our liability under the Resolution? What is the total amount we are now asked to authorise? Surely we are entitled to an answer to those questions. At present we do not know what the answer is. There must be some estimate of the total amount involved in the passing of this Resolution. It would have been much better for the passage of this Resolution through the House if the Committee had been taken fully into the confidence of the Government. It is not only what has occurred in the past that we have to consider we have to bear in mind the present. This is

1669
a Coalition Government. We have all the brains, all the capacity, and all the statesmanship together in this Government; therefore, there is no real Opposition in this House. In these circumstances we ought to go more warily in the future than apparently we are now doing.
Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: No one appreciates more than I do the immense importance of the House of Commons keeping financial control over the Government, and no one is less inclined than I am to yield any portion of that control. But I do think that this discussion is a little unnecessary and premature. I know we have to have these Resolutions before the introduction of any Bill dealing with money. If the old custom of the House is looked up, the custom before the days when that obstruction commenced—which has resulted in a very great diminution in the real control of Parliament over its business—in those days these Resolutions were taken entirely as formal Motions. The object of them was to give the House notice, and to draw its attention to the fact, that money was being voted, so that when the Bill came before Parliament it would be within the knowledge of Members that that was its purpose, and they could, if they wished to do so, on the Second Reading, use all these arguments, which I freely acknowledge are of the very greatest importance. But discussions on these preliminary Motions have only resulted in the House losing control which it really ought to keep. I do hope the Government may now be allowed to get their Resolution, and that in the future discussions will be taken on the really important stages of the Bill, because that is where pressure can best be brought to bear on the Government.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With regard to one point which has been raised, I may say that, as a matter of fact, I rose to speak, but was interrupted because the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved to report Progress.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not I.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not the right hon. Gentleman now on the bench, but another right hon. Gentle-man. My hon. Friend with whom I have been associated in public work for a great many years, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall), is usually very much on the spot, if I may use such an
1670
expression, but to-day he is a long way off the track. This is not a question of granting money. The money is granted by a Vote of Credit, or is obtained out of the Consolidated Fund. But this Bill, for which the Treasury has been so much criticised, is ah example of the great care which is taken under the practice of this House to retain control over expenditure. In expending the Vote of Credit, and the other money which the House places at the disposal of the Government, the Government has to enter into certain contractual obligations—for example, we have to enter into insurance obligations; we have to enter into obligations with regard to exchange in foreign countries; we have to enter into obligations with regard to persons who have been injured; we have to enter into obligations with regard to the large question of securities for purposes with which this House is familiar. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House of the contractual obligations he has entered into, both as to the guarantees to banks in the matter of exchange and in the matter of borrowing securities or purchasing securities for the purpose of foreign exchange.
Mr. D. MASON: Not the limit.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will only listen to the end of my argument, he will have no need to put forward that objection. We had to enter into these obligations, but they go on for some time. These are obligations we have already entered into. We now come to the House of Commons, not to ask them for more money—there my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green was off the track—not to ask them for more money, but to ask them if they approve of these contracts we have entered into. We get the sanction of the House to those contracts, which we have entered into. Circumstances arose in which we had to obtain control of securities. We have obtained control of those securities, and we now come to the House and ask it to approve of our action in this matter. We have entered into an obligation, and we ask the House to confirm and ratify that obligation Surely there is no need upon that to found a sermon to the Treasury about withdrawing things from the control of the House! To state that there is any thing of the kind is a very great departure from the facts.
Mr. ASHLEY: You give no details.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Please allow me. Our position is not an unreasonable or unusual one We bring in a Bill which gives all the details and the House will be able to express its opinion on every one of them. You never give details on the Money Resolutions. The Money Resolution is a wide Resolution. My tight hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) twitted the Government for not having adopted a particular procedure. I may say that I am absolutely free from blame. As far as I am personally concerned, I simply adopted the usual practice. Nothing is withdrawn from the control of the House. Everyone who has been following our financial business knows that this has been the invariable practice. Is anything withdrawn from the knowledge of the House? Is there any real basis for these complaints? I cannot see any. In a few days you will be asked to consider the Bill. The Bill will contain all the details. I have given the House an indication of the sort of thing it is; of what sort of contractual obligation it is. The House will say whether it approves of that or not. If the House disapproves of the practice, very well, my right hon. Friend and I shall bow to the decision of the House and retire from service in this capacity. The House has absolute control. What then is the ground of complaint? There is no ground of complaint at all. I cannot see what is wrong. Yon have got your Bill. In it you have all the details. You can move any Amendment on the bill when it goes into the Committee stage; but the idea that you are to discuss all the details of a Bill on the financial Resolution is absurd. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy knows that better than I do, for he has been a Member of this House longer than I have. To discuss all the details on the financial Resolution would be an abnormal procedure, and a very inconvenient one, and for my part I must follow the ruling of the Chairman, and confine myself to these general observations about the nature of the Bill and its purpose. It is not a Bill giving us new money. It does not give us a penny of new money. It is a submission to Parliament by the Treasury of the contracts they have already entered into for approval, or, if Parliament thinks well, for disapproval.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like to confirm what my right hon. Friend has said as to the usual practice of the House. At the same time, I should like to remind the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Nottingham (Colonel Sir Charles Seely) of something which occurred when he was not, I think, a Member of the House of Commons. I should like to recall what took place sometime during the period when the Conservative Government of 1900 was in power. A discussion upon the appropriateness of discussion upon a Resolution of this kind took place, and I recollect perfectly well that at that time the then Prime Minister, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, made an offer to the House that if it was the wish and the opinion of the House, he would be perfectly willing to dispense with the financial Resolutions if the House thought the stage was not of real importance to the discussion. Unless my memory fails me—I have been unable to look up the exact ruling on this point—I think it was held at that time by the authorities, either of the Chair or Mr. Speaker, that it was a practical impossibility to discuss on a Resolution of this kind all the matter, which could be discussed on the Bill.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I did not wish to say for a moment it was not possible; I said it was not convenient, and that it would be more convenient to take the discussion on the Bill.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I finish my argument? I think it was then held by the authority in the Chair that it was practically impossible to discuss all the principles which were contained in the Bill. I do not recollect the House of Commons, ever attempting to discuss them, and there I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that the details were to be covered by a subsequent Bill. The House of Commons at that time, in spite of the then Prime Minister, strongly expressed the opinion that the financial Resolution stage should not be dispensed with. I speak within the recollection of Mr. Dillon when I say that at the time to which I have referred the House refused to part with the Resolution stage, because it did give them a further opportunity of controlling the expenditure of this House. The House of Commons is supposed to control the expenditure of the country, and it does it through agency of the Treasury. The Treasury, as a matter of fact, when the expenditure is so vast, as

1673
it is at the present time, is unable to? control the great spending Departments like the Army and Navy. It is idle to suppose any Department of State, however admirably it may be directed by its Parliamentary chief, and however admirably it may be served by the Civil Service at its disposal, can control expenditure of £1,500,000,000, which is the expenditure at the present time. I am perfectly certain, from a very intimate knowledge of this Department, that there are no more diligent servants of public economy than the Civil servants who are in the Treasury; and I am equally certain that the Parliamentary representative in this House of the Exchequer and the Treasury, whoever they be, from whatever party they are drawn, are the most vigilant custodian of public economy that can be found in this House. But owing to the vast expenditure which ordinarily takes place, and which extraordinarily takes place to-day, their task is an impossible one.
Let me say one other word upon this matter. This Resolution is not, as my hon. Friend seems to think, a Vote of Credit. It is an act of indemnity. It is to sanction expenditure which has been either already incurred or has been already approved, and it has to come up for Parliamentary sanction. It is expenditure which the Government have been able to look forward to, and which the House of Commons, when the details of that expenditure are before them, has it in its power to allow, and of course disallow, if it thinks proper. That is our measure of control, and it ought to be exercised most vigilantly. When this Bill comes up for discussion, as far as I am concerned—and those who I hope agree with in this matter will do the same—I shall give the most vigilant and searching examination to the expenditure which has already taken place upon a colossal and an inevitable scale.
Mr. DILLON: The course this Debate has taken is, I think, a most powerful illustration of the un wisdom of the Government in not taking the House fully into its confidence. An air of mystery has been thrown over the Bill, and the Secretary to the Treasury is beginning, I think, to appreciate the difficulty he has put the House into owing to the vague way in which he has allowed the Debate to go on. I must say, as a very old financial critic— I do not pretend to be an expert—
1674
but as one who has probably had as much experience of these financial matters as any Member of this House, I must say that the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury utterly failed to convince or satisfy me on this matter. I know this much, that the Bill is in the nature of a Bill of Indemnity. It is a Bill, as I understand it, of a very rare character, and therefore it is all the more reason why a frank statement should have been made at the very beginning, taking the House fully into the confidence of the Government. This is a very rare form of Bill. It is a Bill to give sanction to a large number of various obligations which the Government have entered into in pursuance of statements made on the various Votes of Credit. The Secretary to the Treasury said that when the Bill was introduced all the details would be given. I must have a word to say in a moment in regard to these obligations. It has been said that this House would have absolute control, and that if it chose to disallow any one of these details, the Secretary to the Treasury and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make their bow and disappear. With all due respect to the Secretary to the Treasury, that is absolute nonsense. I do not want to be impolite, but it is not correct to say that. Everybody knows that when the Treasury of this country pledges itself and enters into an obligation, this House has no longer the power to repudiate that pledge and obligation which has been entered into by their own Treasury. To imagine anything different is absurd. The obligation stands, no matter what this House votes. Not in the whole history of the British Parliament is there a single recorded instance of a pledge or obligation of the credit of this country after it had been given by a Minister of the Crown being afterwards repudiated by the House. Therefore the fact is that, so far as these obligations have been contracted, the House has no control over them at all.
There is another criticism I want to make upon the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. He made what was to me the astounding statement that when the Bill was introduced, it would contain in schedules full details and particulars of all the obligations into which the Government had entered. I hope it will not. That raises the point that was discussed here about two years ago, when certain Members of the House made demands on

1675
the Government for full details and particulars of the obligations we had entered into with our Allies and in regard to various matters concerning the War, which it would have been in the highest degree mischievous to the interests of this Country to have disclosed.
Mr. McKENNA: It will not do that.
Mr. DILLON: The statement of the Secretary to the Treasury was that when the Bill was introduced full details of all these obligations would be found in the Schedules. I hope and trust that no such Schedules will be laid before this House. There are many obligations into which the Government have entered, or at least I hope there are, which it would be very improper and unwise for the Government to reveal until the War is over, when I suppose some Committee will take all these matters into their consideration. It was not correct for the Secretary to the Treasury to say that on the Committee stage of the Bill we shall have full particulars. All that we could reasonably ask for in discussing this Resolution, what we are entitled to ask for and what I ask for now, is some fuller statement as to the general policy of this Bill, why it was necessary to introduce it, and what is its real scope and effect? We have not yet had any statement of that kind which would show Members of this House—there are not many who are remaining throughout this Debate—first, why it was necessary to introduce The Bill, and, secondly, what the effect and scope of the Bill will be.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that if either of the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Resolution now before the Committee proposed to enter into the details of the Bill, I should have been compelled to rule them out of order. I may add that since the ruling I gave a little time ago, I have had an opportunity of looking up some of the precedents, and I find that I gave a much more liberal interpretation to the practice of the House in this matter than the rulings given from time to time from the Chair by Mr. Speaker himself when Chairman of Ways and Means, and also the ruling he gave from the Chair as Speaker in 1908, when he treated a Resolution in reference to the Licensing Bill as a perfectly formal Resolution and refused to allow a Debate, which was then proceeding, to go any further.
1676
Discussion here must be on perfectly general lines, which were very properly followed by the hon. Member in possession of the Committee when I gave the ruling, and by subsequent speakers.
Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is the Committee to understand that the ruling given by Mr. Speaker was on a Resolution that was ancillary to a Bill, and not a Resolution upon which the Bill was to be founded?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: One was a Resolution ancillary to a Bill relating to a Clause, and another related to the Bill itself. There is no doubt about the matter, and so far as I am personally concerned I have given a very liberal interpretation to previous rulings from the Chair.
Mr. DILLON: I desire to observe your ruling, Sir, but with all respect I would point out that I was stating that I did not want to go into details at all. I was raising not a question of detail, but a question of principle. Surely I am entitled to lay this consideration before you, namely, what was the object of the framers of the Rules of this House in requiring a Financial Resolution upon which to found a Bill of this character?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member asks me to explain that—he has a good deal of knowledge on this subject— I would say that we cannot have a Financial Bill brought before the House unless there is a Resolution preceding it in Committee. The only way in which you can get at such a Bill is by a Resolution of a somewhat formal character, with regard to the discussion of which there has been in recent years a very much more liberal interpretation given.
Mr. DILLON: Surely my argument is perfectly sound. These Rules did not grow up out of the ground. The Rules were drafted by men with some intelligence, brains, and purpose. Their purpose in requiring that method, which as you, Sir, have stated, is the only method by which we can get at a financial Bill, is as clear as daylight, namely, that there should be more stages and more opportunities of raising the question of policy involved in the Bill. I submit that when a Resolution of this kind is put before the House it is competent for the House to reject it. How can the House be asked to accept or reject a Resolution if they are debarred from considering the policy of a Resolution upon which the Bill is to be

1677
founded? Suppose I were to move the rejection of the Resolution, should I not be entitled to explain the grounds upon which I did so? I was going to observe that in my opinion the House is entitled to an explanation from the Government of the grounds upon which this Bill was required at the present time. All the obligations, so far as they have been indicated—and they have been pretty fully indicated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—which are covered by this Resolution, and which will appear in the Schedules of the Bill, have all been mentioned in successive Votes of Credit. I make no charge against the Government—far from it—on attempting to evade the control of the House in these matters. I have been a constant attendant at, and a very attentive listener to, the Debates on the various Votes of Credit, and I know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been most meticulous and careful in explaining all the obligations into which the Government desire to enter. They mentioned the American bonds, insurance, shipping, food contracts, foreign loans and Colonial loans, and secret service. Everything has been mentioned, and the House has given its sanction, a formal sanction, no doubt, but a very effective formal sanction to all these obligations. What I want to ask is why has it become necessary to pass this Bill of indemnity at all? Who has been questioning the action of the Government? Is this Bill intended to be a substitute for another Vote of Credit? I suppose we shall want another Vote of Credit before Christmas; is it intended to have another Vote of Credit? Is it the intention of the Government to make this Bill of indemnity a kind of substitute for a Vote of Credit?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly not. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we shall require another Vote of Credit before this House separates. This is not a Vote of Credit. This does not give the Government any money at all.
Mr. DILLON: It gives them power to enter into a variety of obligations.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It does not even do that. It merely submits to the House obligations and contracts desired to be made and asks for the approval of the House.
Sir C. HENRY: There is no money in this Bill at all?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: None.
Mr. DILLON: The reason why a Money Resolution is required is not because the Bill gives any money, but because it enables the Government to contract certain obligations.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps I might make the thing clear by giving an actual illustration. Supposing the Treasury had made a contract with an individual owner of securities to borrow his securities and pay him ½ per cent. extra interest on them, all that this Bill will do is to give Parliamentary sanction to that bargain—a past bargain, a bargain made in the months which have passed since the last Bill of this sort was before the House. This is the third Bill of its kind.
Mr. DILLON: Now we are beginning to see daylight. If the Government had only opened the discussion by explaining that this was the third Bill of its kind—
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I stated that, and I mentioned the dates, December, 1915, and November, 1914.
Mr. DILLON: That explanation has removed many of the difficulties which arose in my mind. I do not in the least degree suggest that the Government were attempting to escape from the control of this House in the matter. On the contrary, I believe they have been extremely frank.
Mr. PRINGLE: In spite of the good intentions of the Secretary to the Treasury, even yet the position is not quite clear to the Committee. I understand that a Bill was passed by which this House and the other House sanctioned certain obligations incurred by the Government before the passing of that Act. The sanctioning of those obligations related to obligations incurred only before the passing of that Act. I understood that if further obligations of the same kind were incurred during the ensuing year, it would be necessary to secure a further Act in the following year. The new Bill did more than that. It provided for the sanctioning of bargains in relation to a number of other subjects which were not provided for in the original Act. What is not clear to the Committee is whether in the Bill that is to be introduced upon the passing of this Resolution there are to be new kinds of bargains, in addition to the bargains which were sanctioned in the two Bills already passed.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: By implication that Bill gave power to make new contracts, because it ratified the old contracts.
Mr. PRINGLE: My point is that the Government has not explained this.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
Mr. PRINGLE: If the right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that all the obligations which were within the purview of this Resolution were obligations which would have been covered by the previous Acts, had those obligations been undertaken before the passing of those Acts, the Government would have saved this discussion. We know from the experience of the Act of last year that there were included in the Bill when it was introduced a considerable number of obligations which were not in the view of the House when it passed the Resolution. The question I now put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is, does the Resolution we are now passing have in view obligations of the same kind as were incurred before the passing of the existing Act?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Generally, yes.
Mr. PRINGLE: It is only fair that before the Committee assents to the Resolution it should know what new obligations have been incurred—I do not say the details, but in a general way the nature of those obligations. We know that new features in the last Act were very largely concerned with the scheme for dealing with American securities. In fact, the whole of the discussions on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage of the Bill were taken up with the scheme for dealing with American securities. The Committee is naturally anxious to know if the Government have in view a new departure of the same magnitude as took place in relation to the former Bill. That, I think, is a matter upon which they should have given information to the Committee before they asked us to pass this Resolution. Had that been done, had it been stated clearly either that this was solely a matter of continuing the powers under the previous Act, or, if it went further in a general way, the extent to which it went further, there need have been none of this long discussion. But the Government is always anxious to hide matters. When the last Resolution was brought forward, my hon. Friend (Mr. King), with his usual vigilance, asked the then Secretary
1680
to the Treasury what it meant, and the Secretary to the Treasury said the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain on the Report stage, and it passed through Committee. No one else said a word. When the Report stage came, we were informed that there had been a misunderstanding, and that really what was intended was not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain on the Report stage, but on the Second Reading. What we want now is that here, on the first occasion that they bring the matter before the House, they should give a general explanation. After all, the procedure in regard to these Financial Resolutions was invented for the purpose of giving greater power over financial business than over other Bills which came before the House. That is why we have the two stages, and surely the Government should recognise that that is the real constitutional position and should give a necessary explanation and thereby smooth the passage of their measure for themselves.
Mr. ROCH: I do not know whether we might have an answer to the question, which has been very clearly put, whether the scope of this Resolution is wider than that of the previous one, and whether any further transaction of a large nature is contemplated in this new one?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The scope of the Bill is the same as the last. There is nothing of a large nature, but there are one or two new points. For instance, I am not quite sure whether the question of relief to Scarborough was covered by the last Bill. There may be one or two points like that, but they are minor points of that description. The general scope of the Bill as to large matters is, I believe, the same. But all that will appear as soon as hon. Members get the Bill.
Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that that describes fully the extent, because under the last Bill there was a scheme for insuring against raids and bombardment? So we go beyond insurance now. It is compensation.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Questions arising out of the peculiar case of Scarborough.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is it peculiar because the representative of Scarborough is a member of the Government?
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment not of moneys provided

1681
by Parliament and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

BOARD OF PENSIONS (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration payable to the President, officers, and servants of the Board of Pensions constituted under any Act of the present Session establishing a Board of Pensions."— [Mr. Gulland.]
Sir H. DALZIEL: This Resolution really provides for the salary of my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister, whom I am sure we all join in congratulating on the prospect before him. I do not see why he is getting only £2,000 while other Ministers are getting more than double that sum. Of course I cannot go into the details of it. There may be some private arrangement whereby it may be increased. But, speaking generally, I think if this office is going to occupy the position which we all expect and hope, it ought really to be placed in the same position as other Departments of the Government. We have voluntarily increased the amount which was paid to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. We did that before war time, it is true, but we recognised that it was not quite the thing that some Ministers should be paid £5,000 and others £2,000. Therefore, if the work which my right hon. Friend is going to perform is of the important character which we believe it to be, I express my regret that all Ministers are not placed in the same position in regard to salary.
1682
I rose principally to ask a question in regard to the Resolution. It is provided here that the House can settle the salary of the Minister, but the Treasury is to have authority to settle that of the servants and other officers of the Department. I should like to know whether the decision of the Treasury in this matter will be put before the House in due course for its approval, because we had this very point in another matter some time ago, and the Government at that time, so far as I remember, recognised that that should be done. It is difficult to discuss every detail and every prospective officer. That probably will be the duty of the Treasury in co-operation with the head of the Department, but I think it is a reasonable demand to make that as soon as they are fixed in some form or other the House should be asked for its approval before the ordinary Vote which will come in course of time. I wish to ask if it is intended that there is to be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Pensions Board? It is stated in the public Press that an Under-Secretary is to be appointed, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill providing for it, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell us whether among the officials of the new Board it is intended to have a Parliamentary Secretary. I think the Committee is entitled to an answer on the point, if it is convenient at the present moment, because I presume his salary is being voted if you are going to have an Under-Secretary.
Sir C. HENRY: I fully endorse what my right hon. Friend has said as regards the salary of the President of this Board. I was surprisned when I read the Bill to find that it was only £2,000 a year. I consider that the work of the head of this Board will be just as onerous and responsible as that of any of the Secretaries of State, and, moreover, he will have a very large amount of money to distribute, probably not less, but rather more, than £30,000,000 a year. If I had the power I would move to raise the salary to £5,000 a year. I should also like to know the extent of the staff of secretaries and other servants of the Board which my right hon. Friend thinks he will require. I imagine it is the intention that an Estimate will be presented to Parliament, not only of the amount of money which will be required to meet the pensions, but also of the amount which will be required for administrative purposes. Although I am aware that, at the present juncture, no better

1683
Minister could have been found to be the President of the Board than my right hon. Friend, still the time may come when we shall not have a gentleman of his energy in the Ministry, and therefore I hope it will be understood that the idea that the President of the Board shall only give part of his time to this work is only of a temporary character—during the War—and that he shall be, so to speak, a whole-timer, and that these secretaries whom he employs under the Bill will also devote the whole of their efforts and energies to this enormously important work which the Bill undertakes. As regard the Parliamentary Secretary, I conclude that this is provided for in Sub-section (3) of Clause 7, which says that one of the secretaries of the Board can be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope it is the intention that one of the secretaries shall be a Member of the House of Commons, especially for the time being. This work being so important we should have proper Parliamentary representation. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a great burden on himself, and I hope it will not be considered that by paying him the sum of £2,000 we are making an adequate remuneration for the work which we hope will be done.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: With regard to the salary the Solicitor-General confesses that the first thing he did when he got into office was to cut off a large slice of his big salary and hand it over and pool it amongst the other Ministers. So I understand my right hon. Friend will have a much larger salary than £2,000 a year, because he is in the pool already, and it is a very great advantage in the Coalition that the men in the lower branches should be raised to the position of the Secretaries of State, so my feelings are not very much affected by the complaint that the salary is low. I rose principally to say a word with regard to the secretaries. We should have some indication of the amount of money that is going to be voted for and the number of secretaries, because it is very lax in the Clause in the Pill. It gives the Treasury power to fix the salaries. We do not know how many secretaries are going to be included in the Clause. Is it intended to have a Parliamentary Secretary attached to this Board. If so, the office should be included in the Bill, and not classified among the other secretaries, because it indicates that the Government intend to give him the
1684
right to sit in the House of Commons and be a secretary of the Department, and in that case there would be strong opposition to it. I have put down an Amendment, as also have other Members, to move the omission of the Sub-section, and I think it would be better for my right hon. Friend, before we get into Committee, to answer these questions: (1) Can he give us any further idea as to the amount of the cost in the Department in this respect? and (2) is it the intention of the Government within the powers of this Bill to create an office of Parliamentary Secretary to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his work?
Colonel YATE: I desire to support what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite. I hope that the Paymaster-General will be able to tell as whether this £2,000 a year is to be given to him as Minister of Pensions, who will have nothing else whatever to do, and will be disqualified from holding any other office? I also hope that he will tell us the number of secretaries to be appointed and the cost to be incurred. It is given very vaguely in this Bill. I am absolutely opposed to the idea of appointing a lot of inexperienced clerks to take up the work at the present time, and also secretaries who have had nothing to do with it before. We require the continuance of trained experienced men to do the executive work or the Department. It will be utterly impossible for the present Board proposed by this Bill to do the work of assessing pensions at the rate of 1,000 a day, as has to be done at the present time. No provision is made for the enormous work which has to be done beyond the casual remark in the Bill that secretaries ace to be appointed. I hope-that the Paymaster-General will give us a full and explicit statement in this respect, and also about the special secretaries in Parliament.
Mr. HAZLETON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the fact that he is only to get the miserable salary of £2,000 a year under this Bill, while so many of his colleagues in the Cabinet have got a salary of £5,000 a year. But I think that, as the pensions provided for the rank and file under this Bill and under the existing Regulations are so moderate, perhaps the same ought to apply to the Minister who presides over this Department. I do not suppose that it is the intention of the Government to have, in addition, an Under-Secretary in

1685
this House representing this Pensions Board, because, as I understand, not only have we the Minister himself here, but three of his colleagues on the benches below are also Members of this House, and it would be putting a strain upon public finance if an additional secretary were to be appointed, when we have four Ministers representing the one Board already upon the Treasury Bench. The point which I wish to put is this: When this Board is set up, you will, no doubt, find it necessary to appoint additional members of your permanent executive staff to carry out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not suggest that there are any special, peculiar, particular difficulties in the case of Ireland which will arise under this Bill, but I do represent to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very desirable if we had on the permanent staff one or two officials acquainted with Irish conditions who might be at his elbow and in a position to advise him upon those conditions if and when they arise, as they are bound to arise, in the administration of this very complex and difficult Department. While I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply now, I would ask him to bear the point in mind when it comes to the appointment of his staff, so as to facilitate the smooth working of his Department.
Mr. SCANLAN: I think that the House is impressed with the enormous scope of the duties undertaken by the Paymaster-General as President of the Pensions Board, and I wish to ask, Will he devote his whole time to the pension business? As Paymaster-General he may be doing many things, and it is a physical impossibility for any Minister, however brilliant his capabilities, to do this pension business effectively and to do anything else, and I think that the Committee would be profoundly disgusted if there are added on to the duties of the Chairman of the Pensions Board other duties such as may appertain to the office of Paymaster-General or Labour Adviser. My right hon. Friend is taking on a full man's work if he takes on the task of dealing with pensions, and I think that it will never be forgiven if the duties of Paymaster-General and Labour Adviser are added to these other duties. It cannot be done. The country looks to get one man who will devote himself exclusively to the question of settling pensions. My hon. Friend above the Gangway spoke yester-
1686
day of the position of the Pensions Board in giving decisions on individual eases. The more I consider that, the more I am convinced that there is nothing of consequence to the Pensions Board except individual cases. Any man who goes to his constituency finds that, to the warworn soldier who comes back and is entitled to a pension, nothing matters except his own pension. It is all the world to him and his wife and family. It is utterly impossible for the President of the Pensions Board to do the work adequately and at the same time be Paymaster-General and Labour Adviser. Let minor people do these jobs, but for the office of the Chairman of the Pensions Board let us have a man giving his whole time. I am sure that the Committee will be with me in insisting that we shall have an answer on this point.
The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. A. Henderson): I have every reason to be grateful to the House for the consideration which it has shown to me in the questions that have been submitted. More than one hon. Member, especially the last speaker, has manifested a great amount of concern lest I as a Minister should be overworked, and he has reminded the Committee that I occupy the position of Paymaster-General. I do not know whether he has over taken the trouble to inquire as to the duties of this very important office, or as to the amount of time which is required for the occupant of the office to discharge its duties. If he had taken the trouble to inquire he would have been quite assured that my health would not be broken down by adding other work to the duties of Paymaster-General.
Mr. SCANLAN: Why should not the office be abolished if it is a pure sinecure?
Mr. HENDERSON: I hope that my hon. Friend will put that question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. SCANLAN: I may do it.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. HENDERSON: I hope that he will not do it until the Pensions Bill is carried. I think that the remark which I have made as to his anxiety about my being overworked applies also to the position of Labour Adviser. This question has been referred to on several occasions, on the First Reading and the Second Reading, and it has been put to me privately—why ought I to take on the responsibility of pensions work in view of the fact that I felt it necessary to relinquish the work at

1687
the Board of Education because of the demands upon my time as a Labour Adviser? I want to point out the difference in the position. When I was at the Board of Education I endeavoured to do the work of Labour Adviser without any assistance. I had no office and no assistance of any kind. That made the work extremely difficult. Immediately I was released from the Board of Education I set to work and organised the Labour Advisory Department. I also have this additional advantage in the excellent services of my Parliamentary Secretary for the Labour Advisory Office, who is one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury, and a member of the Labour party, who knows the difficulties that we have to contend with in connection with labour questions and who renders me day by day most valuable assistance. That makes a considerable difference. I would like to put this to the Committee. When I accepted the position of Paymaster-General a great portion of the responsibility for pensions that will devolve upon me when this Bill is passed devolved upon me immediately, because, as I told the House on Second Reading, by virtue of being Paymaster-General I have to accept the chairmanship of the Chelsea Commissioners. It is quite true that Paymaster-Generals in the past have pleased themselves as to whether they went to Chelsea or not. But when I went there I went with the intention of seeing what the pension. problem was, and I was brought face to face by the score or more of meetings which I think I have attended, and by the position which I found with the need for making special investigations into the limitations and anomalies of the system, and, as I tried to point out to the House in my speech on Second Reading, there is a great deal of change and improvement that requires to be made. When I found out these limitations and defects, I then set to work to try to find a means of remedying them. This Bill is the beginning. It is the machinery, and, as I have tried to outline, I have got plans, which I promised to lay before the House at the earliest possible moment, for dealing with the Warrants, and all the anomalies that have arisen out of the Warrants, and the Report of the last Select Committee. I am not going to disguise from my mind the fact that when the Bill becomes law, and the Department is
1688
organised, and I have got my new scheme through the Treasury, through the Cabinet, and through this House, it may add to my work. It will certainly add to my responsibilities, but I shall be very much disappointed if I do not so organise the machine and so improve the decree under which the awards have to be given as to simplify the work and to some extent, if it does not lighten the responsibility, remove the far too many causes for vexation that now exist. To that extent I hope that all of us, including our soldiers, will reap an advantage. The second point of this personal consideration is the question of salary. There is a salary mentioned in the Bill. I do not mind saying that I am in the happy position that the proposal in the Bill affects my successors more than myself. One hon. Member has been cautious enough to bring before the notice of the Committee the private arrangement that exists. I had no hand in making that arrangement, and I do not know if I shall be going too far if I inform the Committee that when I was invited to enter the Cabinet I offered to go in without any salary whatsoever. So that it is not the question of salary that concerns me. We have, however, to make provision.
Mr. PRINGLE: Your offer was under the trade union rate of wages.
Mr. HENDERSON: It may have been. The position has to be carried on in the future. The Coalition Government will come to an end, but there will have to be a Pensions Minister in future, and the Government have thought St to include within the Bill the salary which is mentioned. I hope, therefore, that so far as I am concerned there is no desire to take the advice that has been tendered and fix the salary of the Minister of Pensions on the higher scale referred to. I hope the Committee will keep the fact in mind that the higher salary will not benefit me in any way, and whatever they do they will only do it having regard to the possibilities of someone who is coming into the office hereafter. The question was asked by more than one speaker whether I could indicate to the Committee the scale of salaries of the officials to be appointed. I do not want to say that that is unreasonable, but I do not see the practicability of it. Here I am, not having got in the saddle yet, much less having got settled in it, in the sense that I am taking over when the Bill passes

1689
and the date is fixed four or five different sections and have to bring them together. How can it be expected that before I have really been able to see exactly what permanent officials we require, I should come down to the Committee at this early stage and make an announcement with regard to salaries? As I pointed out on the Second Reading Debate, the sooner we can get the Bill the sooner we will get the new Department organised, and the sooner we will get the improvement which I believe the whole House wants to have brought about with regard to scale, etc. May I put in one reservation? I have been sufficiently long in the Government to see other Departments created and this procedure was not followed. The Minister was not invited before he had got his office door open to state to the Committee either the number of permanent officials to be appointed or the amount of salary that they were going to be paid. I do not know that these questions have ever been put, and I think it is rather tending to create difficulties if they are pressed upon me at this time.
The question of a Parliamentary Secretary is on an entirely different footing. We have provided in the Bill for a Parliamentary Secretary. I think the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to this point. If the Committee will look at Clause 7, Sub-section (3), they will see that it states:
"One of the Secretaries of the Board of Pensions shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to, or of voting in, the Commons House of Parliament."
That was put in specially and deliberately. I was given to understand by the draftsman that that was the usual course, and it is put there to let the House see that immediately the Bill becomes law a Parliamentary Secretary is going to be appointed. My hon. Friend (Mr. Scanlan) seemed to think that there was a strong argument against the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary because there were three other members of the Board besides myself. Those three members of the Board occupy the position of Financial or Parliamentary Secretaries in their respective Departments. There is no reason why, though they occupy those important positions, which are full-time positions, I should not have the benefit of their assistance occa-
1690
sionally at Board meetings, especially having regard to their very intimate knowledge of and acquaintance with this particular problem of pensions. I am very pleased to think that they are delighted to place their services at the disposal of the Minister of Pensions, whoever he may be, to the extent that they will come to the Board meetings and give me the benefit of their valuable experience. I do not mind saying that if the number of questions that I imagine will be asked in regard to individual cases are going to correspond with the number of questions that are asked me by letter—and I assume they are only asked me by letter because they cannot ask me the questions through the Order Paper under the present arrangement—
An HON. MEMBER: Why?
Mr. HENDERSON: Because a question was put to the Prime Minister the other day as to whether questions had to be put to the Paymaster-General with regard to pensions, and he said, and rightly said, that there were Departmental difficulties, and that the arrangements under which the War Office answered or the Admiralty answered had better continue. That does not enable hon. Members to put their question to me on the Order Paper. I have had not scores, but hundreds, and I might say many hundreds, of questions put to me by letter since my name was-first mentioned as Pensions Minister. If these questions had to be answered on the floor of the House—and I do not know of any Order that is going to prevent them— it seems to me that I should be very much mistaken if I attempted to discharge the-duties of the position without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary. It is my intention, immediately the Bill is through, to make, with the approval of the Prime Minister, an appointment of such an assistant.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will the name be given before the Bill is through?
Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that it is necessary. The House does not concern itself with the appointment of other Parliamentary Secretaries, and I hope this is not another case of an exception being made. The matter will rest with the Prime Minister and the Minister concerned. So far as I am concerned, I am not at all anxious to name the Parliamentary Secretary before the Bill is through.
Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask a question on this point? So long as the Chairman of the Pensions Board is a Member of this House is there any necessity for a Parliamentary Secretary? I could understand if my right hon. Friend contemplated going across the Lobby to another place that somebody would be required to answer questions in this House, but so long as we have as Chairman of the Pensions Board a Member of this House, surely there is no need to have a Parliamentary Secretary to answer questions! Why should the Minister not answer the questions himself?
Mr. HENDERSON: If that is the view -of the House, and it is indicated to the Prime Minister in the proper way, I have not a shadow of doubt that the Prime Minister will put the question to me— whether under these conditions I am prepared to continue to be Minister of Pensions, or whether I am prepared to give up being Minister of Pensions and to continue my work as Labour Adviser? I can give very important reasons, and I think they are reasons which would -appeal to the House, why I should keep in touch with the work of the office of Labour Adviser. At any rate, the organised workers of this country, over whom I have presided for both Ministers of Munitions, at all their conferences, when they have been asked to make concessions and to give up for the War period hard-won rights, which they have fought for for many years, think that I ought to remain there to assist them to get restored after the War that which they have given up. I am quite prepared to continue that work, with the consent of the Prime Minister; but if the House lays it down that I am to choose between that work and the work of Pensions Minister, I have already told the Prime Minister which of the two positions I would prefer to take. I hope that will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend, and to any others who are interested. I will tell the House this —and I have considered the matter very carefully—that if I thought that I could not do the work of Minister of Pensions to the extent that I think it ought to devolve upon the Minister, and do it effectively, and bring about the changes of importance that I hinted at on the Second Reading stage, I would refuse to have anything to do with it. I am taking up the position because of my deep personal interest in the pen-
1692
sions problem, and because I have had brought home to me, as very few have had the opportunity of having it brought home to them, that our soldiers and our sailors who have gone forward in the name of King and country are not being treated as they ought to be treated. That, I think, ought to be taken as an earnest of what I am going to try to do. If I cannot do it, I will not allow the position to fail through a desire to continue to discharge the responsibilities of a dual position.
The hon. and gallant Member for Leicestershire (Colonel Yate) not only strongly opposes the proposal that I am to occupy the position of the Minister of Pensions, but is opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel. He indicated it on the First Reading and on the Second Reading, and I am afraid that nothing that I can say is likely to influence his opinion.
Colonel YATE: I am not opposed to the Bill. I am only opposed to the constitution of the Board which is to be set up by this Bill—the constitution of the Board with the Paymaster-General and the three Under-Secretaries as members. I want the Bill, but I want a different Board.
The CHAIRMAN: That is a point we must not enter into now. It is a question which can be raised by Amendment on the Bill. This is not the occasion on which to raise it.
Colonel YATE: I raised it because the right hon. Gentleman did not accurately represent me when he said that I am opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel. I am only opposed to the Board lock, stock, and barrel.
Mr. HENDERSON: I do not want to transgress the ruling of the Chair, and I would not have ventured on this subject except for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. The Bill only seeks to do one thing, and that is to set up a Board of one kind, and the hon. and gallant Member is totally opposed to that. Therefore I think I have not misrepresented him in saying that he is opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel.
Colonel YATE: Yes, you did misrepresent me.
Mr. HENDERSON: The Member for Galway—consistently, of course, with his position as a representative of Ireland in this House—is against any further injustice to his country.

1693
I do not think that this is a ease where either the peculiar interests of Ireland, or of Scotland, or of Wales, differ. After all, with the exception of one piece of work being done in Ireland, I think that all the Irish cases have been dealt with under the Board at Chelsea, over which I have had the honour to preside during the last few months. It seems to me that Ireland is not going to suffer; in fact, if I can improve the position, it seems to me that no body of people stand to gain more than do the Irish soldiers who have been either totally or partially disabled
Mr. HAZLETON: There is the question of the working of the local committees and the Statutory Committee, which will, of course, be a very important consideration.
Mr. HENDERSON: That is quite right, but so far as the Statutory Committee is concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, they only take over their powers so far as the supplementation of disability pensions is concerned. In regard to the local committees I do intend to use them, and I hope to make an arrangement with the Statutory Committee that will enable me to do so, provided, or course, that I can get them placed on a little more satisfactory basis, with a little more recognition of the urban element than has been introduced in the local committees in so far as they have gone up to the present. If I can get that arrangement made I am quite prepared to use the committees, but I must say that if the committees are not, going to do the work to the satisfaction of the Board, so far as I am concerned, I shall at once set about creating new machinery, and, of course, I will take Ireland into my consideration. I hope that with these explanations the House will now pass the Resolution.
Sir H. DALZIEL: We are indebted to my right hon. Friend for the very full statement he has made. There is one point, however, on which he might give us some information. He has stated that when the Bill is passed a Parliamentary Secretary is to be appointed. I think that decision a wise one, but it is right that the House should know what is to be paid to the Under-Secretary. He is only provided for in the Bill as an officer or a servant; there is no special definition; I am speaking of the power which is being taken at the present time. There is a precedent in regard to this subject in the establishment of the Ministry of Muni-
1694
tions. The President came down and stated, in regard to the two Under-Secretaries, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Parliamentary (Military) Secretary, before they were appointed, the amount of salary they were to be paid. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider the matter, and give some statement on the point. I think it is for the House and not for the Treasury to fix the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a definite statement.
Mr. HENDERSON: I have no objection to the course suggested by my right hon. Friend. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that these payments are governed by scale, and as I am a strict believer in the payment of the trade union rate, I accepted the fixed scale, thinking that would be as acceptable to the House as to myself.
Mr. PRINGLE: We are to understand that the salary of the Secretary to the Board of Pensions will be according to scale. When the Ministry of Munitions was established the chief salary was £5,000 a year, and the salaries of the Under-Secretaries was £1,500 a year. But in the case of the Board of Pensions, if the salary to be paid is £2,000 a year, the Under-Secretary will be paid on the inferior scale.
Mr. HENDERSON: I am advised that the salary of the Under-Secretary would be £1,200.
Mr. PRINGLE: I think that payment according to scale leads to a rather unfair way of dealing with the matter. We know that the salary which is paid under this Bill does not affect the right hon. Gentleman himself. We know that there is a domestic arrangement in the Cabinet which makes the members of it all superior to such monetary considerations. Under this Bill £2,000 a year will simply mean that every Cabinet Minister gets £100 a year extra, and £5,000 would give a corresponding income to all the members of the Cabinet. But under the scale arrangement the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Pensions would suffer, because the head of the office is in a different position from that enjoyed by the Minister. I think, after all, we are entitled to assume that the very heavy part of the work of the Pensions Board will fall on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board. The

1695
right hon. Gentleman indicated as much to the Committee. He said that without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary he could not undertake to combine the pension work with the duties he at present discharges as Labour Adviser. We may therefore infer that a much heavier burden will fall upon the Parliamentary Secretary of the Pensions Board than usually falls on the Parliamentary Secretaries in other offices. Surely it would be unfair that he should be treated on what may be called an inferior scale, especially seeing that there are some positions in the Government which are practically sinecures.
After all, we know that the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and some other offices are doing far less than they in time of peace, because there is practically no legislation of a domestic character at the present time, nor has there been for some long time past, and the consequence is that they are really overpaid. Here we are creating an office that results from the War, and it is going to be one of the most heavy worked offices in the Government. The work which will devolve upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Pensions Board will be very heavy compared with that which falls upon these more fortunate Gentlemen, and why should he be called upon to accept a position which is inferior in respect of the financial arrangements. I submit that this is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman should consider in consultation with the Prime Minister, and whoever is appointed should not be asked to occupy an inferior position, whether he takes a salary or not, in comparison with other officials in the service of the Government.
Mr. SCANLAN: May I state that I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it was not his intention to have appointed a Parliamentary Secretary—I mean so long as he is in this House himself and able to answer questions in regard to pensions. But the right hon. Gentleman might not be in this House, and of course if the position might be held by a Member of another place at a salary of £1,250 a year—
Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member must not build up a case on wholly imaginary premises. That is not really the case. I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. SCANLAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to be here as President of the Pensions Board, and he ought to be able to answer all the questions. He has three Under-Secretaries in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Even if we have a Member of this House as President of the Pensions Board, are we also to have the infliction of another Under-Secretary? I do not know the salary which is going to be paid, and I do not think the House cares very much. Why should not the President of the Pensions Board, so long as he is a Member of this House, be able to answer all the questions?
Mr. HENDERSON: For the reasons I have already given.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have a permanent Under-Secretary as well?
Mr. HENDERSON: Certainly. If we are to have a Parliamentary Secretary in the House, it is essential, in the organisation of a Government Department, to have also a permanent Under-Secretary.
Colonel YATE: I desire to remove the misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman as to my objection to the Bill. I listened to his explanation of the duties-he is to undertake with great interest, and I have no doubt that he, as head of the Pensions Board, will ably discharge those duties; but my objection is not to him in a personal sense. My point is that we ought to have a full-time Minister in charge of this Department; it is not a personal question at all, because the right hon. Gentleman might change with any change of the Ministry at any moment. We have to provide for the future in regard to pensions which are to be administered for many years, and I would prefer a full-time Minister, and also Commissioners, to deal with pensions quite independent of Parliamentary control.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must discuss that question on Report.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment not of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary, not

1697
exceeding two thousand pounds, to the President, and of such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Board of Pensions constituted under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Board of Pensions.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Exempt from Insurance Persons Temporarily Employed in Agriculture.)
(1) There shall be added to the classes of persons, employment of whom may be excepted from the provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, by special order made under paragraph of the First Schedule to that Act, persons who, not being persons whose normal occupation is employment within the meaning of that Act, are temporarily employed on or about any agricultral holding in consequence of the loss of men through enlistment, or transference to Government service, or other circumstances arising out of the present War.
(2) A special order made under this Section shall have effect only during the continuance of the present War and for such time thereafter as may be provided by or under the Order, and the exemption conferred by the Order shall be subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified therein.
(3) The provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, as to the laying of Regulations before both Houses of Parliament and the proceedings consequent thereon shall apply to special Orders made under this Section and Section one hundred and thirteen of the said Act shall not apply thereto.
Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Order"["under the Order"], to insert the words" not exceeding six months after the end of the War."
This a War measure, and it is anticipated that it will not be required to operate for any lengthened period after the termination of the War. A special
1698
Order is to be made to put the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, into operation, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 says the Order "shall have effect only during the continuance of the present War, and for such time thereafter as may be provided by arrangement under the Order." I think that power is too wide a power, and that the intention of the Bill clearly is that this should not continue for any great period after the War, and we ought to put that in the Bill. That would prevent the Bill, or any Order under it, going further than was the intention of Parliament.
Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I accept the Amendment, which is quite right, and carries out what was intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

  PROSECUTIONS.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPOTS-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter that I have been raising from time to time at Question Time, and I would like to say at the outset that the course which I am adopting is dictated by my own views. I firmly believe that it is a duty I have, as a representative in this House, to endeavour as soon as possible to see my fellow countrymen out of the terrible ordeal they are enduring in the trenches. I believe the best way to achieve that object is to secure that, as far as possible, in time of war there shall be freedom of speech and the removal of the restrictions

  1699
  on the liberty of the Press and on the individual expression of convictions and views, or, at any rate, that the law as it exists shall be administered impartially for all alike. I was under the impression, and I think a good many people are under the impression, that to say anything which was of a character to depress those engaged in the great national effort, which was calculated to suggest that the effort being made by any of our Allies was not equal to that we had anticipated would be or was being made, that anything of that nature would be an offence. There is no doubt at the present time a feeling almost of terrorism abroad is due to the Defence of the Realm Act and various decisions that have been given under it. Consequently when, I think, on 10th October, the day this House met after the Recess, through the clubs in this House, down the City, and wherever one went, one heard men talking of a speech made by Lord Northcliffe and giving the statements that he had made, which, to my mind, I held to be in direct contravention of the Defence of the Realm Act, and statements of a nature which I thought were prohibited, I thought it would serve a good purpose to find out if such statements were permissible, made on such an occasion as they were made.
  The first step I took on that matter was to ascertain from various sources and from men who had been there the salient facts that had been stated. I may say that, in the first place, I was provided with a memorandum by one who was present. Then another gentleman who was present and who immediately after the meeting drew up a long memorandum of all that had been said, permitted me to read his memorandum, and when I found that on certain points there was absolute agreement in the two, and especially in the matter of the figures which I had confirmed from many other sources, I felt justified in assuming that those facts and figures had been used. In order to discover what was the official view of the disclosure of such information, or if it were permissible, and so that everyone should know and have the same opportunity, I put down a question to the Secretary of State for War asking him:
  "Whether he can state the proportional contribution of each of the Allies to the total of the forces in the field?"
  The hon. Gentleman will remember the scene provoked by that question. The
  1700
  right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said:
  "Sir E. Carson: Before this question is answered may I ask whether this question is not calculated and intended to create friction between the Allies?"
  The reply of the Secretary of State for War was:
  "I should certainly consider myself very ill-advised if I gave this information."
  I then rose to put a supplementary question, and was howled down for several minutes, and I secured the condemnation of the Secretary for War for asking such a question, and of the House in a very emphatic manner. I submit there is no objection to asking a question for information when that question discloses nothing. The question appeared on the Paper and disclosed nothing whatever. The right hon. Gentleman had only to say that he could not give the information and the matter would be at an end. If it had been a question that had disclosed information, I could understand the censure that the House endeavoured to pass on it. On one or two occasions I have put down questions which the Ministers to whom they were addressed have asked me, to withdraw, and of course I have done so. On a recent occasion when I got an opportunity I very much desired on the adjournment of the House at the Recess, to draw attention to some facts which substantiated the position I had taken up on the War, I went to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and told him what I was going to say about a particular matter, and he asked me not to do so, and I did not do so. I was not in the question disclosing information to the enemy. I simply asked what was the proportional contribution. If the right hon. Gentleman, for example, said that one country provided a third and another a third and another a third I do not see that it would create dissension amongst the Allies, but quite the reverse. I think our contribution would have been shown to have been so great that it would have set at rest those statements made abroad, such as those in which we are told by the Germans that we are not taking our share. However, be that as it may, I then put a supplementary question as follows:
  "May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at a recent meeting in London figures were disclosed of the British forces in the field, and a proportional estimate given of the Russian forces, and can he say whether those figures were divulged by the War Office to Lord Northcliffe?
  That is obviously a question of which notice should be given."

  1701
  I gave notice, and the reply was:
  "Whatever information was disclosed at the gathering referred to, was not given by the War Office."
  I then asked, did those disclosures constitute a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act, and I was told that did not arise. I may say I told the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office what were the figures that had been given to me as having been disclosed by Lord Northcliffe. I put down a further question:—
  "Whether, in view of the fact that the disclosure of the proportional contribution of the Allies to the total forces in the field would be prejudicial, his attention has been called to the disclosure by Lord Northcliffe on the 10th of October to a large gathering, of the strength of the British forces in the field and of the proportional strength of the Russian forces, and if so, whether he proposes to take any action in regard to it under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Mr. Forster: As I have stated, any information which may have been given at the gathering of which the hon. Member has knowledge, was not given by the War Office, and it may have been incorrect for all that I know. My right hon. Friend's statement that the disclosure of the proportional contribution of the Allies to the total forces in the field would be prejudicial, referred to the disclosure of authentic official information. In any case, Lord Northcliffe's information was not published in the Press, nor am I aware that there was any attempt to communicate it to the enemy. I, of course, fully appreciate the hon. Member's desire that no avoidable advantage should accrue to the enemy, but it is not proposed in this instance to follow his suggestion and to institute a prosecution under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
  Mr. Nothwaite: Is it not the fact that persons have been prosecuted for making statements prejudicial to recruiting in private conversation and have been fined and sent to gaol, and therefore why should not Lord Northcliffe be prosecuted for making those statements?
  Mr. Forster: I am not aware that anybody has been sent to gaol for making statements in private conversation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1916, cols. 556–557.]
  That is the particular point I desire to raise on the Adjournment. The statement here made is that not much importance is attached to the statement, because it was not authentic official information, and that in any case Lord Northcliffe's information was not published in the Press, "nor am I aware that there was any attempt to communicate it to the enemy." I want to point out the fact that less important persons than Lord Northcliffe have made very much less detrimental statements, and to show that the fact of their statements not having been published, and not having appeared in the Press, did not save them from very severe penalties. I take first of all the case of a labourer who was prosecuted for writing, which was, of course, not published. The man, apparently, had been dreaming that he had been addressing a meeting of labourers at Bristol. He evidently thought that his dream had made such an
  1702
  impression upon the labourers to whom he was speaking that subsequently he sat down to write out what he had dreamt he had spoken. The barrister for the defence, in proceeding to explain, said that the prisoner stayed at a lodging-house at Abertillery, that he was noticed writing, and someone looked over his shoulder, and in consequence of what was written the proceedings resulted. The judge said that if the more serious charge had been gone into and proved against the prisoner, the maximum penalty would have been the death sentence. He was willing, however, to think that the prisoner had done what he had done without any intention of doing harm. It was fortunate for the prisoner that the things he wrote never saw the light. Sentence was then passed of three months' imprisonment. Three months' imprisonment for a labourer who writes something he has dreamt, with somebody looking over his shoulder when he wrote, and who informed the police, and he gets three months' imprisonment under the Defence of the Realm Act! But in the case of Lord Northcliffe, no notice is taken, because what he said was not published in the Press! There seems to be some difference of procedure here. Here is another case of a Blackpool resident.
  "At a special sitting of the Blackpool Police Force on Saturday afternoon, Joseph Allen Fall, fifty-eight, commercial traveller, was charged with a breach of Article 27 of the Defence of the Realm Act, in that, whilst travelling on the railway between Manchester and Liverpool, he made statements likely to cause disaffection amongst the King's subjects, and also made statements likely to prejudice recruiting in His Majesty's Forces. On returning into Court the presiding magistrate stated that they had given the case very serious consideration. Notwithstanding that the prisoner had been in the cells since Monday night last they were compelled to inflict the maximum penalty of £100, or in default, three months' imprisonment."
  There is the case of a private conversation overheard, and the man in consequence, though the matter has no publication in the Press, fined £100. Why, then, in view of this, does the War Office reply that Lord Northcliffe will not be prosecuted for statements made on this occasion. That is the particular point that for the moment I wish to raise, and to demand that there shall be in these matters equality of treatment. I want to read an extract from the "Daily News," showing the effect that this statement had:
  "Incidentally such conferences with the Press as a whole do something to diminish the scandal of the constant leakages of official information in one particular direction. The question was asked in the House yesterday as to whether certain facts, or alleged facts

  1703
  of which notorious disclosure was made at a recent luncheon in London, were divulged through the War Office to Lord Northcliffe. We have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the information thus disseminated was obtained. What is much more important is to ask why one habitually privileged person is permitted with impunity to deliver a speech making grievous reflection on one of our Allies at a function which, if it was not public, was at any rate not so private as to prevent the speech in question immediately becoming a matter of common knowledge and general comment in the City of London."
  That statement, of course, is made by a rival paper, but it is made, and it is open to Lord Northcliffe to bring an action against the "Daily News." This luncheon, as I understand, was one at which were present upwards of 500 persons— journalists, advertisement agents, and Members of this House, There was an audience particularly suitable for the dissemination in every direction of news and facts. Lord Northcliffe had just returned from the front. I presume he had been in very close association with the Commander-in-Chief in the Field. He had been with French Ministers. He had also been on the Italian front. He came back charged with confidential information. He delivered his speech, I understand, for the purpose of letting his audience know special facts that had come to his knowledge, and to relate these facts for the purpose of showing that it was essential that compulsion should be enforced upon Ireland.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: He never mentioned it!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: It is very strange that the persons who were there, and who have informed me by way of separate memoranda that the question of Ireland was mentioned at this luncheon, have drawn upon their memory! It was in connection with the need for greater efforts on the part of this country and Ireland. Certain facts were related, but the right hon. Gentleman, who was there, and who took some friends with him, with whom I have not communicated, except, perhaps, with one exception, can give his statement of the case when I sit down, and his impression of what his friend Lord Northcliffe said. I now go on to state what I have been informed Lord Northcliffe said, and which, as I said, I raise for the purpose of getting equality of treatment for all. I am in one difficulty. I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to it. I understand that Lord Northcliffe disclosed the number and strength of the British
  1704
  forces in the field. I have been informed at the War Office that they have not given these figures to Lord Northcliffe, and that therefore they are not official; therefore it follows that it does not matter his having stated them. But I understand that Lord Northcliffe with the statement of these figures associated the name of General Sir Douglas Haig, and therefore I do not know whether I should be justified in stating in this House the figures disclosed by Lord Northcliffe when there is in my mind the impression that perhaps they are official, through having been disclosed by General Sir Douglas Haig. The right hon. Gentleman knows the figures, as I have communicated them to him through his secretary. If he objects to me stating them, if he thinks that it is unwise, under the circumstances, to associate the disclosure with the name of General Haig, and that I should not state the figures, I shall be quite willing not to do so. It is not a very material point. What is more material, what is essential, and what I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss and inquire into is, whether these figures were disclosed to Lord Northcliffe by General Sir Douglas Haig, and whether, as has been stated, General Sir Douglas Haig told Lord Northcliffe that he saw no objection to their disclosure. A very serious matter arises out of this, and that is the position of Parliament itself. Why should such facts be disclosed to Lord Northcliffe for dissemination at a dinner and be withheld from the House of Commons. If I bad put down a question asking for these figures I would have been howled down in this House, and the cry of "pro-German" would have been raised.
  I come to what I think is in one way a more serious matter, and one with which I want particularly to deal, because it cannot be the disclosure of official information. I have, therefore, no hesitation whatever in stating what I am told Lord Northcliffe said as to the number of Russian forces in the field. I understand that Lord Northcliffe said that the Russian forces in the field were less than one-half of the British forces in the field. He went on to deliver an opinion of no complimentary nature upon a particular official. If Lord Northcliffe is to be permitted to state the number of the Russian forces in the field, and to criticise them in this way for his own particular political purpose, which is to demand that every Englishman and every Irishman shall be dragged out to the shambles, I want to know if I have

  1705
  the right, from my point of view, to speak I If this be true, this dissemination far and wide by Lord Northcliffe that our numbers in the field are double that of Russia— and I have been informed by some figures given me from the Front Bench that Russia began the War with 14,700,000 men of military age—am I then not also to be permitted to argue that our effort should be in the direction of keeping our men in our factories for the purpose of supplying the great man-power of Russia with the means of conducting the War? That is what I want to know. If I make such statements, will I be immune from the Defence of the Realm Act? It is a matter of great importance to me, and has been again and again, because it has been suggested that I may, or may not, represent my Constituency. As a matter of fact, I have not heard so much as one word of protest from my Constituents. Not that I mean for a single moment that my Constituents, of necessity, agree with my views. I have always said, "You cannot judge of my views on the question." Give me immunity from the Defence of the Realm Act and I will have meetings throughout Hanley. Give me immunity, such as that given to Lord Northcliffe, and I will call together my Constituents, 500 by 500, and say what I have to say to them, and I shall be very glad to have this particular immunity. I want to show in what I am saying that I am raising this question so that there shall be immunity and equality of treatment all round, equality of treatment for the humblest individual as well as this autocrat who boasts that he has Cabinet Ministers under his control—yes, and others.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: When did he say that?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I pass on. At the luncheon Lord Northcliffe, following what I have described, seems to have dealt with our expedition in the East. I would have hesitated to ask about or to refer to it, but, as we have seen, this great victory and great success at Monastir, it only makes what Lord Northcliffe said more ridiculous, perhaps than serious. The important point is that, as I have been informed, Lord Northcliffe passed a very disparaging description on General Sarrail, in command of the Allied Forces in the Field in the East. Is that to be permitted to other individuals? Is that not likely to cause dissension amongst the Allies, especially at a time when we see the agony of Roumania, who
  1706
  has been looking to that Eastern force for succour? Is it permissible then, I say, for others than Lord Northcliffe to suggest that failure in that direction is due to the incompetency of a general in command? It would not matter a little if I went on to a platform and said it. It would matter nothing, I should think; but you would put me in gaol for it, all the same, under the Defence of the Realm Act. But here is Lord Northcliffe coming straight back from France, from communing with French Ministers, and, knowing strange stories attaching to the view of Ministers in this matter, he comes back to state what he has heard from confidential sources. Therefore, as hon. Members opposite by their cheers just now suggested that I should be prosecuted if I made such a statement, why do not they have Lord Northcliffe by the heels? I am not asking that they should. I am asking that there should be freedom for all. I am hailing him as a great liberator in restoring to us our freedom, but I am going to see that he gives us freedom as well as securing it for himself.
  I think that I have, at least, said enough to show that the statements made by Lord Northcliffe were, at any rate, a sensation. If those statements are in no way even to be censured, it seems to me that we may go to France, if we have the opportunity, or we may find somebody who has been in France—a soldier in an unguarded moment may disclose facts—and then, having secured the facts as to the number of the British forces in the field and the proportion in the firing line, we may call together a great gathering, and, so long as there is no publication in the Press, we may inform them of these facts and we may question the competency of the great general in command. I believe Lord Northcliffe was able to give some interesting information as regards influences operating in the present strange and anomalous position in Greece. The hon. and learned Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) frequently brings up questions virtually suggesting that we should get rid of King Constantine, and the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) frequently makes fervid orations on the question. I have even noticed, in his replies, that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs always seems to be in a somewhat embarrassed position. I can understand that if what Lord Northcliffe said were true. The Russian Government had intervened to prevent us from

  1707
  putting pressure upon King Constantine. The Czar virtually said "Hands off my cousin the King." Is it to be permitted to others besides Lord Northcliffe to make such statements as these? That is what I ask the Secretary of State for War to tell us, because, if it is so, it should be known.
  The position seems to me this: Either Lord Northcliffe has successfully defied the Defence of the Realm Act, such as most of us believe it to be, at any rate, or he has broken the Defence of the Realm Act—he has committed an offence against it. In the first place, all I ask is that, through his speech, there should be a widespread knowledge of what is permissible in public statements. If, on the other hand, he has broken the Defence of the Realm Act, then I trust he will be prosecuted. But I trust it is on the first lines, and that what will be proved is that we have greater freedom than ever we anticipated. My hope that Lord Northcliffe may prove to be a liberator and do something for the common good in the way of freedom is supported by another fact. My attention, however, has just been called to the fact that I have spoken far longer than I thought I had, and that I should not speak longer out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore I will conclude by asking him to give us a clear indication in his speech as to whether what Lord Northcliffe said is permissible to all alike, or whether in his view it is worthy of censure, condemnation, and action.
  Mr. KING: I am sorry the Secretary of State for War does not rise to reply at once. It is a very serious question and a very serious indictment that has been raised, and I must say personally I thank the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) for having brought it forward with, I think, great ability and very good taste. But I rise only to call attention to one fact which I can deal with very briefly. This is by no means the first offence of this nature by Lord Northcliffe which has been brought before this House. I would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to an answer given on the 21st September, 1915, when the case of Lord Northcliffe having defied the Censor in respect of the announcement he made of a great explosion at Ochta, near Petrograd, was brought up, and an answer was given by the right hon. and
  1708
  learned Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department. The facts then were these: There had been a very important explosion at munition factories near Petrograd. The information had come to many papers, and several papers had asked for permission to publish it, and had been refused. At last, on the 13th September, Lord Northcliffe published a full account in one of his papers, and two days after he published it in another paper. Meanwhile the papers which were respecting the Censor were applying for permission to reproduce these facts and were being refused, and so late as 16th September several papers, including the "Daily News" and the "Star," were refused permission to publish the information which had been for several days appearing in Lord Northcliffe's papers in defiance of the Censor. The matter was sent to the Public Prosecutor, and I suppose it ended there. If he had been a weaker man and less influential no doubt he would have been prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Regulation. I want to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that these repeated floutings of the censorship and the Defence of the Realm Regulation by one privileged man are unworthy of this country and are unworthy of the action of the War Office, which favours a high man supported in the Press and crushes the small man who ventures to criticise.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My hon. Friend has invited me, as I happened to be at the function to which he has referred, to give my version of the proceedings, and I will endeavour to do so. I do not rise to defend Lord Northcliffe, who is quite able to take care of himself, and I do not think he need be disturbed by anything my hon. Friend has said to-night. I am glad my hon. Friend stated he wanted equality before the law, and Lord Northcliffe put in the same position as a poor man. That is exactly where I stand. Therefore, I would say that if a poor man had been guilty of breaking the defence of the realm I would produce my evidence before I found him guilty. I should not depend upon hearsay, upon anonymous slanderers who are afraid to come forward themselves, and, knowing the war enthusiasm of my hon. Friend, metaphorically pull his leg. I ask the House not accept any statement made on hearsay. We would not do it to a poor man.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: You have done it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I say there is no case of a poor man being tried and found guilty of breaking the Defence of the Realm Act on hearsay. Let us be fair, even to Lord Northcliffe. What are the facts? This was purely a private club meeting, a club of which I am a member at which Lord Northcliffe was present as a guest, and every man present was impressed with the fact that it was strictly private. There were several guests and I believe there were half a dozen Members of this House there, and I ask if there is any one of those hon. Members who will get up and say that what the hon. Member has said is true. Why do these people outside come to see my hon. friend the Member for Hanley? Why have they not got the courage to make these statements for themselves. If those statements are true, all they have got to do is to go to Bow Street, place the matter in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and Lord Northcliffe will have to stand his trial, and I am sure he would not be afraid of defending any statements he made at that meeting. It is not fair to my hon. Friend, even with all his honest enthusiasm for the War, to make allegations in this House upon hearsay. I deny many of the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend. He stated that the remarks made were prejudicial to recruiting, but the whole of the speech was exactly to the contrary effect. The effect of the speech was to warn us that this self-complacency on the part of the Government was dangerous to the State, and that every man should make the Government realise the great task that lay before them.
  An HON. MEMBER: Did he give those figures?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: To my recollection, he gave no figures. I am speaking as a member of the club, and I say that we ought to have the name of the person who makes this charge. Let the man come forward and not be a coward who is supplying the memorandum. Let him go to the Public Prosecutor and supply the facts to the magistrate at Bow Street, and then Lord Northcliffe can answer the charges brought against him. It is not fair on the gossip of someone else to make a serious charge of this kind. Let the hon. Member for Hanley go and persuade the two people who supplied him with memoranda to have the courage he has himself and have Lord Northcliffe prosecuted.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: My informants do not want Lord Northcliffe prosecuted. They only want the same treatment for all others.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Lord Northcliffe ought to have the same opportunity as any poor man has under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is not fair to any individual that he should not have an opportunity of answering a charge made against him. With regard to the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Hanley, I think there are half a dozen hon. Members of this House who will bear me out when I say that the statement made by the hon. Member for Hanley is not a true representation of what took place at that private meeting.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hanley for his courtesy in not raising this question last night and for putting it off until to-night at my request. I have left a very important meeting in order to answer this very grave charge. What does it come to? My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has, very fairly stated the case. I knew nothing about his speech. I heard generally that a speech had been delivered at a private club by Lord Northcliffe, but I knew nothing about what he had said. When the hon. Member for Hanley gave notice of this Question I sent my hon. and gallant Friend to ask him what was his information. If his information consists of the facts he gave at the War Office as to Lord Northcliffe's speech, I can hardly believe that Lord Northcliffe gave figures that were so grossly inaccurate. Something was said about there having been a disclosure of official information, but this information certainly could not have been disclosed, because it was utterly inaccurate and did not in the least conform to the facts of the case. To have prosecuted Lord Northcliffe for a disclosure of official information would have been to prosecute upon information given by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member has made a statement to-night on the authority of Lord Northcliffe that the Russian forces at the front are only half of ours, and that they were not efficiently officered even for those numbers. I cannot believe that Lord Northcliffe said anything of the kind, because that is not in the least correct. The suggestion is that Lord

  1711
  Northcliffe came straight from Sir Douglas Haig and from people who have the information, and he gave this information. He could not have done so.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I have not asked any hon. Members for information, but one hon. Member says that Lord Northcliffe could not have made any statement with regard to figures. I believe the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) was there—
  Mr. PRINGLE: I decline to make any statement.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: First of all, the hon. Member has to get someone who will turn King's evidence.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I was there.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If anything is said which is detrimental to the interests of the State at the present moment, as far as the Government are concerned, it makes no difference whether it is Lord Northcliffe or this poor labourer from Abertillery. Not the slightest, and I think it is important that everybody should know that. If it is a statement which is detrimental to the interests of the prosecution of the War, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no distinction would be drawn between Lord Northcliffe and anyone else. As a matter of fact, the more influential a person is the more damaging his statement must be, and we must take that fact into account. I have no information as to that meeting, and no evidence has been given. The hon. Member for Hanley was not there, and I could not prosecute on his statement—I am not reflecting upon him. I could not prosecute on the fact that he repeated statements made by somebody else. As far as the Government is concerned, there is no evidence that any statements have been made detrimental to the public interest. If evidence is placed before us, of course we shall consider it with the same impartiality whether it is Lord Northcliffe or anyone else who is concerned.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I will turn King's evidence.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot believe that those figures were used because they are so inaccurate, and they are not a dis-
  1712
  closure of official information, but since the hon. Gentleman has repeated whether on the authority of Lord Northcliffe or of his own informants, a statement that the Russian forces at the front are only half of ours, and that they are not efficient, it is a gross inaccuracy and a reflection upon a most gallant Army. It is an exceedingly unwise statement to deliver because no Army has shown more courage, endurance and gallantry than the Russians have shown in this War, probably in any war in the whole of the history of the world. No Army has shown greater bravery than the Russian Army, and the marvellous achievements of General Brussiloff's forces at the beginning of this War, and this could not be the work of an inefficient Army. I make that statement not because I believe Lord Northcliffe could make a charge of that kind, but because it has been repeated on the authority of some anonymous informant. I take the first opportunity of refuting it, and that is the only reason why I take any notice of it at all. I think the Secretary for War should contradict that statement publicly in the assembly in which it is made. Again I say that the Government draw no distinction between the case of Lord Northcliffe and any other other person, and if the hon. Member for Hanley craves equality of treatment he will get it, and he is entitled to it.
  Up to the present the hon. Member has made no case. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member, occupying three-quarters of an hour, in which he stated very fairly all the facts at his disposal, and I cannot say that there are any grounds upon which any Government can justify instituting a prosecution against Lord Northcliffe. There is no evidence of any sort or kind. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to this about a fortnight ago, but no evidence has been tendered to me since that day. He has not given me the names of his informants or of a single witness. He has not submitted to me any facts at all except the two inaccurate facts I have just mentioned. Those are the only facts, and upon that evidence I certainly could not take any action in the matter. I do not quite agree that the fact of this being a private meeting makes all that difference. There were 500 or 600 persons present, and if the hon. Member for Hanley made a statement to 500 or 600 people detrimental to the prosecution of this War, and I

  1713
  could get any evidence, I should certainly prosecute him. The same thing would apply to Lord Northcliffe. My hon. Friend has referred to an explosion at Petrograd and the publication of the news, but I know nothing about that particular case. He says that favouritism was shown to one particular paper or set of papers. That is obviously unjustifiable if there is a ease of that kind. It is essential that the Government in the prosecution of the War should deal out equal treatment to everybody without distinction of persons, and the same applies to
  1714
  newspapers, and the hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that that is what we shall do.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I was present at the luncheon, and I would say that I did not hear one word from Lord Northcliffe that might not have been published broadcast in every newspaper in the country, and I can also say that, as I did not drink any alcoholic liquor at that luncheon, I think my recollection is pretty clear.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half after Seven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February last.

WAR.
  NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING.
  NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING.
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
  BELFAST LINEN TRADE.
  BELFAST LINEN TRADE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  ROYAL NAVY (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  COAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  COAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES.
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
  MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
  PROVISIONAL EXEMPTIONS.
  PROVISIONAL EXEMPTIONS.
  RIVER WYE (DESTRUCTION OF WEIR GATE).
  RIVER WYE (DESTRUCTION OF WEIR GATE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  SOLDIERS UNDER AGE.
  SOLDIERS UNDER AGE.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  SUBSTITUTION FOR GENERAL SERVICE.
  SUBSTITUTION FOR GENERAL SERVICE.
  MEN REJECTED.
  MEN REJECTED.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  WEST KENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVE).
  WEST KENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVE).
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  ARRESTED AS ABSENTEE.
  ARRESTED AS ABSENTEE.
  INELIGIBLE FOR ARMY SERVICE.
  INELIGIBLE FOR ARMY SERVICE.
  TENANT FARMER (LINCOLNSHIRE).
  TENANT FARMER (LINCOLNSHIRE).
  TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
  TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECTACLE LENSES.
  SPECTACLE LENSES.
  SHELL SHOCK AND NERVE TROUBLES.
  SHELL SHOCK AND NERVE TROUBLES.
  TRENCH STRETCHERS.
  TRENCH STRETCHERS.
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATION ALLOWANCE).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATION ALLOWANCE).
  MILITARY CROSS AND MILITARY MEDAL.
  MILITARY CROSS AND MILITARY MEDAL.
  COUNTRY NEWSPAPERS.
  COUNTRY NEWSPAPERS.
  FARMERS (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  FARMERS (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  NORTHERN COMMAND (TENANCY AGREEMENTS).
  NORTHERN COMMAND (TENANCY AGREEMENTS).
  FORAGE COMMITTEE.
  FORAGE COMMITTEE.
  ARMY CANTEEN COMMITTEE.
  ARMY CANTEEN COMMITTEE.
  AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS' BURIAL.
  AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS' BURIAL.
  SALVATION ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  SALVATION ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT ON LAND).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT ON LAND).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS.
  CHINESE LABOUR (FRANCE).
  CHINESE LABOUR (FRANCE).
  KIMNEL CAMP (COMMAND).
  KIMNEL CAMP (COMMAND).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  GALLANTRY IN THE FIELD (HONOURS.)
  GALLANTRY IN THE FIELD (HONOURS.)
  SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (HALF-PAY).
  SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (HALF-PAY).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  INTERNED TROOPS (HOLLAND).
  INTERNED TROOPS (HOLLAND).
  ASIA MINOR (MARINE TRANSPORTS).
  ASIA MINOR (MARINE TRANSPORTS).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LEAVE).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LEAVE).
  HOME STATIONS (RATION ALLOWANCE).
  HOME STATIONS (RATION ALLOWANCE).
  MILITARY BADGE.
  MILITARY BADGE.
  ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE'S CLAIM).
  ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE'S CLAIM).
MUNITIONS.
  PACKING CASES.
  PACKING CASES.
  BADGED PEHSONS.
  BADGED PEHSONS.
  MUNITIONS FACTORY (FUMES).
  MUNITIONS FACTORY (FUMES).
  MOHMAND FRONTIER (UNREST).
  MOHMAND FRONTIER (UNREST).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  PRISONERS.
  PRISONERS.
  CAPTAIN COLTHUEST.
  CAPTAIN COLTHUEST.
  MAJOR PRICE.
  MAJOR PRICE.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER.
  CIVIL LIBERTIES CONFERENCE (SOUTH WALES).
  CIVIL LIBERTIES CONFERENCE (SOUTH WALES).
  COAL MINES (SHORT TIME).
  COAL MINES (SHORT TIME).
  INTERNED PERSONS.
  INTERNED PERSONS.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  ARMOUNDUCT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
  ARMOUNDUCT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
  LINEN TRADE ("LABOUR GAZETTE").
  LINEN TRADE ("LABOUR GAZETTE").
  IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS.
  IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS.
  RETURNED EMPTIES.
  RETURNED EMPTIES.
  HAY CROP.
  HAY CROP.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER.
GREECE.
  ATHENS EDITOR (ARREST).
  ATHENS EDITOR (ARREST).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  CHANNEL ISLANDS RECRUITS.
  CHANNEL ISLANDS RECRUITS.
  DOCTORS' REMUNERATION.
  DOCTORS' REMUNERATION.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  United Irish League (Meetings).
  United Irish League (Meetings).
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Night Mail (Castletown and Mountrath),
  Night Mail (Castletown and Mountrath),
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ireland).