Sitting of 29 November 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
GAMBLE INSTITUTE, GOUROCK, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,—"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Gamble Institute, Gourock," presented by Mr. TENNANT; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Middlesex (Hornsey Division), in the room of Lawrence John Lumley Dundas, commonly called the Earl of Ronaldshay (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
Accounts presented showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1916, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    UNEMPLOYED OFFICERS (INDIAN ARMY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that officers on the retired list, unemployed supernumerary list, and reserve of officers while temporarily employed under the War Office receive an allowance for uniform and are held to be eligible for gratuity in addition to their full home or Indian pay or pension and the War Office
    302
    allowance, he will now place unemployed officers of the Indian Army on the unemployed supernumerary list on their attaining the required age and put them on the same footing as regards allowances and gratuities as the others, and also put a stop to the deductions from their pay now made by the India Office contrary to regulations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The officers referred to in the question all belong to a class which is liable to be called up for service by the Government of India if required by India either in India itself or overseas. Some of them have been so called up, and they receive the Indian pay appropriate to their appointments. Others—and these are the ones referred to in the question—were not required by India and were allowed to volunteer for service under the War Office. In such case they receive full British pay for such service plus, in most cases, the larger portion, and in no case less than half, of the pay that they receive as unemployed officers. They consequently receive more than British Army officers on the active list of similar rank doing the same work. I cannot conceive that they have authorised my hon. and gallant Friend to represent this as a grievance, and I see no reason for increasing their aggregate remuneration. Its exact adjustment between the British and Indian Exchequers is a matter of departmental arrangement. If any of these officers is dissatisfied I can ask the War Office to dispense with his services. There will be no difficulty in finding other officers anxious to take the position.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    INDIA.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether and, if so, when he proposes to introduce compulsory service in the Army for white British subjects of military age in India and Burma; and, if not, how otherwise does he hope to get officers for Indian regiments?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer to the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Melton Division on the 9th instant, and to my hon. and gallant Friend himself on the 15th instant.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of officers for the Indian Army is of enormous importance at the present time, and that there is a difficulty in obtaining these officers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite aware of the enormous importance of the question of officers, and that was kept in mind in the two answers to which I have re-ferred.

    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Secretary of State for War whether Sergeant E. P. Hart, who was recently discharged from the Army as medically unfit for further service after about twenty years with the Colours,' has since been ordered to rejoin, has done so in the D Company, 16th Battalion County of London Regiment, and has been graded since joining to Class C 2; and whether it is proposed to retain this man any longer in the Army, having in view the worsened and worsening condition of his health?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will instruct Lieutenant Walter C. Jones, of the recruiting staff, Blackburn, to stop his illegal efforts to force into the Army ex-Private 937, 2nd Western Company, Non-Combatant Corps, now residing at Whitebirk, Blackburn, seeing that this man holds a discharge certificate, dated 30th September, 1916, issued on the ground of physical unfitness, the man being subject to epileptic fits?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have an immediate inquiry made into the conduct of Major Beattie, of Paisley Barracks, who recently kidnapped a badged skilled workman, named R. J. Flanagan, having first stolen the man's badge, and sent him under escort to Stirling Castle?
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether the men of the Non-Combatant Corps lately serving in Boulogne have been removed from the huts they occupied during the summer to make room for black labourers, and are now living under canvas?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Inquiries are being made in each case, and the result, when received, will be communicated to the hon. Members in due course.

    MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that William Canning, late of the Royal Irish Regiment who served in Gallipoli and was discharged from the Army as medically unfit in July, 1916, applied for and ob tained admission to the Derry Workhouse on the 18th November on the ground that he had no place to sleep in at night; and whether there is any provision made for discharged soldiers sufficient to prevent their being reduced to seek admission to the workhouse?
    Mr. FORSTER: In view of the terms of the medical report on this man, the Chelsea Commissioners awarded him a provisional pension of 5s. a week. They have now given instructions for him to be examined again with a view to further consideration of his case.

    MAN-POWER.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on 9th October the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland stated publicly that 40,000 men were required from Ireland before Christmas in order to bring the Irish Regular and service battalions up to strength; if he will state how many recruits from Ireland have been obtained since that statement was made; if he has seen he Return recently presented to Parliament showing that, after making the most liberal allowances for men who are indispensable to agriculture and trade, there still remain in Ireland available for military service upwards of 161,000 men; and if he will state whether, having regard to the statement of the Chief of the Imperial Staff that there is urgent need for more men for the Army, and to the fact that in Great Britain men are being taken by compulsory methods, he will urge upon the Government the necessity for an immediate decision on the question of applying some form of compulsion to Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will raise this question, which is one of policy, on the Man-Power- Debate next week.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the hon. Gentleman say on what day next week?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot say definitely, but my impression is Tuesday.
    Sir C. HUNTERasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the efforts now being

    305
    made by the enemy to increase his manpower, he will consider the advisability of mobilising the whole manhood of the nation for war work between the age of eighteen and sixty?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to all practicable suggestions on this subject.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, under the recent Army Order issued, No. 27 Gen., No. 5783 (D.R.I.), dated 30th October, 1916, the military authorities are giving notices to attested men who were medically rejected prior to the 25th May, 1916, and to whom no notice was given requiring such examination prior to the 1st September, 1916, to again submit themselves for medical examination; are such notices being given to non-attested men; and, if not, whether he is aware that the unattested man is at a distinct advantage in that respect over the attested man?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the replies which have recently been given on this subject.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Do I understand that the attested men will not be put in a worse position than the unattested men by this Order?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

    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?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I can add nothing to the answers I have already given.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN LONDON.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, of over 20,000 aliens of Russian nationality registered in London as of military age, less than 400 have hitherto offered themselves for enlistment under the special terms offered them by the War Office; and does he, with the consent of the Russian Government, intend to ask Parliament to include these men under the terms of the Military Service Act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Russian Government with reference to the position of Russian subjects of military age resident in the United Kingdom, but I regret that it is not yet possible to make a statement as to the course that will be taken.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the formation of a British Foreign Legion?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over three months' ago I got the same reply? Could nothing be done by telegram?
    Mr. BON ARLAW: My right hon. Friend knows that it is not a question this Government can control by itself. I can assure him we are pressing in this matter.

    DISPOSAL OF BUSINESSES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the stock-in-trade and goodwill in their business of men called up for service is being acquired at rubbish prices by aliens; and whether the Government propose to legislate that the terms of any such transaction shall be invalid unless registered with the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee, the terms to include liberty to the vendor to resume possession of the business, with replacement of stock-in-trade or cash equivalent, on the termination of hostilities?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I have no information which bears out the statement contained in the first part of the question. But if my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to send me particulars, I will certainly cause inquiries to be made.
    Major NEWMAN: I have got particulars. Shall I send them to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should recommend my hon. Friend to send them to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would not the price be lower if aliens were not allowed to compete, just as in the case of the Nigerian properties?

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he can arrange that when conscientious objectors who have refused the Home Office scheme or who have been

    307
    refused exemption by the Central Tribunal are committed to prison a second time they may be put at once on C diet if they had earned that in their previous term of imprisonment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): If a person who is, or professes to be, a conscientious objector returns to prison in respect of the same sentence, he receives the diet to which he is entitled, reckoning from his first reception. If he is committed on a fresh sentence, he receives the diet laid down by the dietary rules. This is in accordance with the general practice, from which I do not feel able to depart. But the Prison Commissioners inform me that the health of these prisoners is carefully watched and the medical officers use their discretion in giving a special diet to any particular prisoner who needs it on medical grounds.

  AFGHANISTAN (GERMAN INTRIGUE).

    STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any official information showing that German agents have been active in Afghanistan; and whether any German agents have been captured by the Russian or British authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House will perhaps allow me to answer this question somewhat fully. In the spring of 1915 the German Government decided to send a mission to Afghanistan, and for this purpose they selected from among a number of Indian anarchists in Berlin a young landowner from Oudh, who posed to them as a ruling chief, and as such was received in audience by the Emperor. This person was accompanied by a party of German officers, some Turks, and another Indian anarchist—a Moslem. The principal German officer, Lieutenant von Hentig, was the bearer of a letter from the German Chancellor to the Amir, in which the latter was invited to advise the pretended Raja how best India might be liberated from British tyranny. Von Hentig was also charged to make important revelations to the Amir regarding the relations which the German Government hoped would in future exist between Afghanistan, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
    308
    The mission broke up in Persia, and succeeded in making it way in small parties into Afghanistan in the late summer. They were arrested on arrival and eventually conveyed to Kabul towards the end of the year. There is reason to believe that the Amir and his people quickly appraised these Germans and the Indian adventurers by whom they were accompanied at their true value. It is true that the intervention of Turkey under German influence created a complication and placed His Majesty in an exceedingly difficult position. But at the outbreak of the War His Majesty gave the Viceroy the most solemn assurances of his intention to preserve the neutrality of his country, and it is with great satisfaction that I acknowledge, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the loyalty of the Amir to his pledged word—as sacred to the true Moslem as to ourselves. His Majesty has firmly refused the inducements—as seductive as they are unrealisable—held out to him to induce him to forsake his Ally, and has used his influence to prevent disturbances on the frontier.
    The Amir dismissed the Mission in May last. It would not be in the public interest to state what has become of the various members, but some of them have been captured by the Russians and the British after leaving Afghanistan.
    The estates of the Indian landowner have been sequestrated by the Government of India.
    Letters were also addressed by the German Chancellor to a number of ruling chiefs.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUXasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if about forty men over military age were discharged from various departments in Portsmouth Dockyard on 11th November; whether these men were quite capable of continuing their work; whether men of military age are being retained; and whether, when future reductions are made, men over military age will be retained, and the younger men released for military service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question

    309
    is in the negative. The second part of the question therefore does not arise. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, the Admiralty policy is such that any reductions which may be practicable would be effected by releasing men of military age rather than those over military age.

  BOARD OF ADMIRALTY CHANGES.

    SIR D. BEATTY IN COMMAND OF GRAND FLEET.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to put an end to rumours of impending changes, he will state what changes are to be made at the Board of Admiralty and in existing commands?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): With the King's approval, Admiral Sir Henry Jackson has been appointed Admiral President of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.
    Admiral Sir John Jellicoe becomes First Sea Lord, and Admiral Sir David Beatty has assumed command of the Grand Fleet.
    The decisions involving these appointments were taken some time ago; but, for military reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, the announcement has been delayed.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are there any other changes in the Board of Admiralty?
    Mr. BALFOUR: There certainly will be, of course, consequential on these, but I thought that what the House desired to have were these principal changes.
    Commander BELLA IRS: Have any other changes in the higher commands besides these been made?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, there are changes in the higher commands. They will be announced in the ordinary course. I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend was chiefly interested in the more important alterations recently effected.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint an air lord to the Board?

    GERMAN DESTROYER RAID
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make a statement giving a full and accurate report of the German destroyer raid on the night of Thursday, 23rd-24th November; whether in the opinion of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and their staff the said raid had for its objective the sinking of British, Allied, and neutral ships in the Downs so that this important and necessary passage and shelter should be blocked and rendered useless, or whether the object of the raid was merely a bombardment of one or more of the south-east coast ports and towns between Dover and Ramsgate, inclusive, and, if so, which; whether he made an after-dinner speech at a banquet on 9th November wherein, referring to the Channel raid of 26th-27th October, he said, but it can be repeated, and my confident hope is that if it is we shall be able to show that if destroyers can enter the Channel on a night which they choose, and under circumstances in which visibility beyond a few hundred yards is absolutely impossible, they will not be able to get out again without heavy disaster, or words to that effect; whether he can state what the visibility was on the night of 23rd–24th November, and whether the enemy destroyers were able to get away without heavy disaster; whether his confident hope was fulfilled and, if not, can he explain why it was not fulfilled; and whether he can now state which great Power has complete command of the English Channel and North Sea?
    Mr. BALFOUR: A report received from the Vice-Admiral Commanding at Dover states that about 10.45 p.m., on the night of Thursday, the 23rd of November, six enemy destroyers, apparently attempting to pass south inside the Downs, came in contact with the Ramsgate Drifter Patrol. The night was dark and misty, and the enemy made off at once, before they could be engaged by our vessels protecting the shipping in the Downs.
    The last of the six enemy vessels opened fire on two of our armed drifters. About twelve shots were fired, some of which hit the drifter "Acceptable." This vessel, however, sustained no casualties and but little damage. The engagement lasted a few minutes.

    311
    As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I must observe that the enemy destroyers did not enter the Channel. I still entertain the hope to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Admiralty will not forget that attack is one of the surest forms of defence, and whether we do not require ruthless fighting men in the Admiralty?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Those broad, general principles are no doubt perfectly sound in the abstract, but if my hon. Friend means that the Board of Admiralty are to use His Majesty's ships to attack batteries on shore without scruple, ruthlessly, that is not a policy that I for one shall ever consent to.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I say that my remark was not directed to any towns on shore, but to submarines?
    Mr. BALFOUR: We have not spared submarines wherever we have had a chance to destroy them.

    ZEEBRUGGE.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state why no effective measures have been taken to destroy Zeebrugge; whether all the monitors or shallow-water craft specially designed and built for this class of work are available for operations against this nest of small craft or whether they are employed elsewhere; and whether he can state what distance in a direct line Zeebrugge is from Dover?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it desirable that questions of this kind about operations of war should be either put or answered. What my hon. Friend rightly calls a "nest of small craft" is also a naval base, defended by powerful shore batteries. It is 72 nautical miles from Dover.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not the fact that these monitors were designed and built for this work, and that they were directed away from that work to the perfectly futile work of the Dardanelles, as I venture to think?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot discuss the Dardanelles question.

    BRITISH MERCHANT AND FISHING VESSELS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to issue a weekly Return of the British merchant and fishing vessels lost by hostile action, similar to the Returns which were issued up to October, 1915?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have consulted the President of the Board of Trade, who agrees with me in thinking that it would not be in the public interest to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Statements of losses are published in the newspapers as they occur.

    GERMAN STEAMERS (TRANSFER).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a steamer lately wrecked on the Goodwin Sands was until quite recently a German steamer; whether she had been transferred to new owners while lying in a neutral port; whether such transfers in time of war are accepted by all the Allies as final and in accordance with international law; if he will state the nationality of the crew, manning the ship and the country which has granted the protection of its flag; whether any more such transfers of German steamers have been effected; and, if so, is there any limit to the number of ships which can be so transferred?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The vessel in question flew the German flag before the War. She was, however, under charter to a neutral firm, who were in possession of an option to purchase her. On the outbreak of war this firm sought permission to exercise their option, and His Majesty's Government, in consultation with their Allies, consented, subject to certain stipulations which had the object of ensuring that she could not possibly be run in the interest of the enemy. Five other enemy vessels have been transferred to neutral flags under somewhat similar circumstances. It is very improbable that at this period of the War their number will be increased. The shipwrecked vessel flew the American flag. The nationality of the crew is not known to the Admiralty except that, in accordance with the conditions of transfer of flag, there are no enemy subjects among them.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ADMIRALTV AEROPLANES (ORDERS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what are the patent rights and other matters which he has learnt are included in the 16 per cent. commission paid by certain American companies to an English barrister for influencing or securing the Admiralty orders for their aeroplanes; and (2) whether any members of his staff acted in any manner as introducer or intermediary between the English barrister acting as agent for an American aeroplane company; and whether he will inquire fully into the ultimate distribution of the sums involved?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of Question 7 is in the negative. As regards the other matters referred to in the questions I do not think I can profitably deal with them until the Admiralty have full information before them as a result of the inquiries now being carried out in the United States, I have already given my hon. Friend an assurance that the inquiry already initiated will be full and searching, and I hope he will be prepared to leave the matter at that for the time being.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the inquiry include a specific investigation into the prices paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; I said last week that we would go fully into the whole contract.

    ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the 95.1 per cent. of the Royal Naval Air Service who are not pilots are serving at home; and what percentage of the officers and men so serving at home are of military age?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Seventy-five per cent. of the Royal Naval Air Service personnel—excluding pilots—are serving at home. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that there are many duties which render this necessary. The handling of airships demands a considerable proportion of men per pilot. Then there are mechanics and men engaged on transport and administration work, officers and men engaged on instructional work, and those also employed in connection with experimental gunnery and flying work, and, finally, there is, as my hon. Friend knows,
    314
    a proportion of the personnel employed on coast and sea patrol work. The exact percentage of the officers and men so serving who are of military age cannot be ascertained without a large amount of clerical labour, but it has been estimated for me that about 90 per cent. come within this category.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could not many of the men engaged in clerical work, and some of the control men, be replaced by older men, so that the men of military age might be released for active service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In regard to the clerical staff, it has been recently examined, and as to the other part of the question, I will put the point before the responsible authorities.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether No. 3 Wing of the Royal Naval Air Service, numerically the largest wing of the Royal Naval Air Service, was sent by the Admiralty to its present position on the Continent, where it has been quartered since July, without application for either their presence or their services by Sir Douglas Haig or the general commanding the Royal Flying Corps; and whether either of these officers has the right to call on such wing for help if needed? If the right hon. Gentleman feels that to answer this question would not be in the national interest I do not want it answered.
    An HON. MEMBER: You ought to have thought of that before you put it down.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The force in question was sent in answer to a request from the French military authorities, with whom it is at present serving, and who are, I believe, much satisfied with its performance. It does not operate in the vicinity of the British Line, nor is it under the British General Headquarters. But of course it forms part of the general forces of the Crown which can be used by the Government wherever they are most needed.

    FRENCH ECCLESIASTICS IN IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on whose application, and on what grounds, passports were given to the French ecclesiastics now in Ireland, and for what purpose they were allowed to proceed

    315
    there at a time when no other civilian is allowed to travel from France to Ireland or from Ireland to France; whether the concession promised by the French Government to the Church is conditional on the success of those ecclesiastics in diminishing the opposition to Conscription in Ireland; and, in either case, whether it will be conceded immediately or not until after the War?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked me to give the answer to the question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to him on the 1st instant.
    Mr. GINNELL: As the reply was a refusal, will the hon. Gentleman say whether those travellers held any communication whatever with the Foreign Office; by means of what document do they travel at a time when other civilians are not allowed to travel, and for what purpose do they travel?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I have not exact knowledge on any of the points the hon. Member has raised. All I can say is that there is the very strongest improbability in the suggestions conveyed by the question. I have no doubt that the object of the French Mission is to demonstrate the complete solidarity of the Church in France with the French nation in the prosecution of the War.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to inform the House of the extent, if any, to which the French ecclesiastics now in Ireland have succeeded in diminishing opposition to Conscription there; and whether the War Office has given a guarantee that, in the event of their success, Conscription shall not be applied to ecclesiastical students as it is in France?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have made inquiries, but I have not been able to obtain any information on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

    GREECE.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the policy of recognising the government of Venizelos as the de facto authority in the districts
    316
    where his influence predominates, the port of Piraeus is regarded as being under the jurisdiction of the provisional government at Salonika, having regard to the fact that the inhabitants are Venizelist in sympathy?
    Mr. HOPE: M. Venizelos was informed that the Allied Powers would recognise his de facto authority in those districts and islands which accepted his Government and officials. These conditions are not present in the case of the Piraeus, so that the suggestion contained in the last part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. McNEILL: What is the test of whether or not any particular district is under M. Venizelos' Government?
    Mr. HOPE: These matters are far too delicate and important for me to answer supplementary questions on the spur of the moment.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say, in view of the fact that the situation in Greece changes from day to day, whether the authority of M. Venizelos is still regarded as extending over New Greece and the islands, while that of the King is limited to Old Greece; if so, will he state what steps have been taken by the Allies to protect the Venizelists in Kolendro, Libanovo, Ekaterini, Grevena, Elassona, and other districts in New Greece, where they are being subjected to persecution by agents of the unconstitutional Government at Athens?
    Mr. HOPE: The definition of the respective zones of authority in Greece has to some extent been modified by the creation of the neutral zone. His Majesty's Government are in consultation with their Allies in regard to the point raised in the second part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask, as this is a very urgent matter, what is the position of Greek officers and men—from the combatant point of view—who are on the wrong side of the neutral zone, and who join the Venizelos Army? Are they to be treated as francs-tireurs, as the German newspapers say, and to be shot and executed?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid that I cannot answer this supplementary question.
    Mr. DILLON: I will put it down to-morrow.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    317
    whether the delimitation of the neutral zone between the Venizelists and the Court party in Greece was arranged on the advice of M. Venizelos or after consultation with him; whether the effect of this arrangement is to obstruct the exercise of his influence by M. Venizelos in Thessaly, where the population is preponderatingly in his favour; whether it secures to the Court party districts of South Macedonia and the whole of Epirus, where M. Venizelos polled large majorities in the elections of 1915; and whether, in concert with the Allies and after consultation with M. Venizelos, he will take immediate steps so to rearrange the neutral zone as not to favour the interests of the enemies of the Allies in Greece?
    Mr. HOPE: I have nothing to add to the account which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave of this question on Monday.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there any means by which M. Venizelos can increase the region over which he has de facto authority, or is the interpretation of the speech of the Noble Lord, the other evening, an invitation to the King to hold fast, and that he would be protected by the Allies?
    Mr. HOPE: The hon. Gentleman must ask my Noble Friend for his own interpretation of his speech.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Boulogne Conference decided to introduce any new principle into the procedure governing the action of the Allied Powers in Greece; and, if so, whether the privileged status of the protecting Powers, England, France, and Russia, is thereby affected?
    Mr. HOPE: It is not possible for me to make statements in this House regarding what passed between the Allied Powers at the Conference of Boulogne without consulting those Powers, except that there was complete agreement as to the steps then to be taken with regard to Greece, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the status of the guaranteeing Powers was in no way affected by any decisions come to at that Conference.

    MR. D. T. CURTIN (AMERICAN PASSPORT).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
    318
    Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. D. Thomas Curtin has had his passport cancelled by the American Government; and, if so, whether, and on what terms, he will be free to leave this country if he so desires?
    Mr. HOPE: With regard to the first part of the question I have no official information. The second part should be addressed to the Home Office.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a statement to the effect that the passport has been taken away by the American Government appeared in the "New York World," and will he make inquiry?
    Mr. HOPE: No, Sir; I do not think it is a case for making any inquiry.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not rather important that a gentleman whose passport has been taken away by the American Government should not be allowed to enter prohibited areas where no alien is allowed to enter?
    Mr. HOPE: The Home Office is quite alive to the situation on the assumption that the passport has been withdrawn.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is responsible for the suppression in the annual Report on Ceylon for 1915, just presented to both Houses of Parliament, where what is described as an estimate of injury to persons and property in the riots of that year is limited to alleged injury to the persons and property of Moors; why the injury to the persons and property of Sinhalese by Moors, and subsequently by the military and police, are not included; whether he will state the number of Sinhalese live? taken; and when an impartial statement of the entire results of the riots will be presented to both Houses of Parliament?
    Mr. BONARLAW: I answered this question on 1st November, and I have nothing to add to what I said then.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that an inquiry is now going on in Ceylon with reference to some losses of person and property suffered by the Sinhalese, and why the Report to Parliament does not include those sufferings and those losses?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An inquiry is going on because I thought it was desirable that such an inquiry should be held, and when I get the Report I shall consider what use to make of it.
    Mr. GIN NELL: May I ask for what reason the right hon. Gentleman refused an English Commission of inquiry which was petitioned for by the Sinhalese?

    NATIVE LABOUR.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn, in connection with the available African man-power, to the insistence of every authority who has written upon the subject that, in view of the peculiar dangers and difficulties of the experiment, it would be advisable to utilise the services of ex-administrators and others with mature experience of the African in some advisory capacity upon recruitment, transport, and management; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing the whole of such work in the hands of such a body of men who could act in a capacity similar to Lord Derby's recruiting committee.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised I am not in favour of the specific proposal suggested by my hon. Friend. I am anxious to have the benefit of the advice of the gentlemen referred to in the question, and I shall try to arrange an interview with them at which I hope the Secretary of State for War will be able to attend.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the arrangement made with the Colonial Office stands?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had communications with the Governments of the self-governing Dominions, especially Canada and Australia, on the subject of employing in those Colonies coloured labour for railway, dock, and other unskilled labour; if so, whether he can state that these Colonies have in any case agreed to initiate this policy; under what conditions, if any; and whether the Governments of India, of South Africa, or of any Foreign Power has been approached with a view to the provision of coloured labour in our self-governing Colonies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have had no communication with the Governments of the Dominions on this subject.
    Mr. MAC MASTER: Is it not a well-known fact that it is contrary to public policy of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Dominion of Canada to employ coloured labonr as imported from outside?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is a well-known fact, and, in any case, it is a matter for those Governments themselves.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling of resentment growing amongst the working classes in this country at the suggestion of the employment of coloured labour here?
    HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"

    WEST AFRICA (EXPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing uneasiness of the natives in West Africa at the possibility of the imposition of a Palm-kernel and Palm-oil Tax; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member is referring to the proposed Export Duty on palm kernels, I have received no representations from the natives of West Africa against the adoption of that proposal.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has consented to the remission of any export duties in the West African Colonies on merchants' stocks; and, if so, whether this remission will exempt the merchants while the producers remain subject to the full duties and the consequent reduction in the value of their produce?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the Gold Coast, when the export duty of ¼d. per pound was imposed on cocoa the Legislative Council exempted stocks warehoused at the port of shipment on the 30th September. As the cocoa in question was purchased by the merchants before they knew of the coming tax, and therefore at prices which did not take it into account, I see no ground for thinking that any hardship will fall on the producers.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Are we to understand that the producer must pay and the merchants do not?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. The same kind of difficulties often arise in the imposition of new taxes, and I think they have been fairly met by the Legislative Council.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what export duties are now in operation in the West African Colonies, and when they were brought into operation; and what further export duties are to be imposed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The export duties at present in force in the various West African Colonies are: in the Gambia 6s. 8d. per ton on ground nuts. This duty was first levied in 1887. In the Gold Coast ¼d per pound on cocoa from the 1st of October, 1916. In Nigeria £1 2s. 6d. per ton on palm kernels; £2 per ton on palm oil and £2 6s. 8d. per ton (¼d. per pound) on cocoa. These Nigerian export duties were imposed on 7th October last. They are, however, being reduced by one half in the case of produce exported before 1st April, 1917. There is also in Nigeria an export duty on tin ore not smelted within the British Empire, equal to 3¾ per cent. on the value. This came into force in April last. The ordinary royalties on tin ore in Nigeria are also collected in the form of an export duty. The only further export duty in contemplation, so far as I am aware, is that of £2 a ton on all palm kernels crushed outside the British Empire which has been recommended by the Edible Nuts Committee, whose report was recently presented to Parliament.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Is that in addition to the existing duty?

    MERCANTILE MARINE (ADDITIONAL TONNAGE).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what arrangements he has made for organising throughout the Dominions and the Colonies the fullest output of additional tonnage for use in the mercantile marine?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As mentioned in a written reply given yesterday, efforts are being made to utilise to the best advantage the shipbuilding resources of the Empire.

    AUSTRALIAN SILVER COINS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the advisability of making arrangements with the Australian Government and with the Treasury by which any silver Australian coins tendered in England can be exchanged at face value for similar English coins?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to questions by the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division on 2nd and 10th August last, of which I am sending him copies.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    P. H. PEARSE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the text of the written message borne by Miss O'Farrell from the late Patrick H. Pearse and delivered by her to the commander of the British forces in Dublin on the 29th April last and the text of the written reply?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I have already indicated, the original message sent by P. H. Pearce was verbal and not written, but I find that some written communication did pass subsequently. I will send the hon. Member, if he desires, copies of these communications.
    Mr. GINNELL: I shall be obliged to the hon. Member.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is by his direction that the policy is being carried out of attempting to seize Irish prisoners interned in Great Britain for complicity in the recent insurrection in Ireland and compel them, under the Military Service Act, to join the British Army; and whether he has directed the trial by court-martial of Irish prisoners in the camp at Frongoch, on the charge of refusing to aid the military authorities to identify their comrades whom it was proposed to seize under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. FORSTER: The first part of this question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

    323
    Home Affairs; in regard to the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. DILLON: Am I to understand that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is responsible for the policy of carrying out the Military Service Act? I may say that I put the question to that Department some days ago, and I was referred to the War Office.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think I am right in saying that the matters involved in the first part of the question are within the control of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. DILLON: I think certainly not! I have had several cases of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is a question of Order. I have, Mr. Speaker, been referred by the Home Office in all such cases to the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have not the slightest intention or wish to evade any responsibility that properly attaches to the War Office. I will have the question looked into again. If I find it is a matter for us, I will give my hon. Friend an answer.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. So far as the question is concerned of releasing men now interned in order to engage in military service, it is a matter for the Home Office. So far as the question is concerned of recruiting certain classes of men for military service it is a matter for the War Office to decide who shall be called up. When they decide that, we decide whether the men shall be released.
    Mr. DILLON: The question has nothing to do with the releasing of men; it has simply to do with the policy of calling up certain classes of men. Therefore it is a War Office question—I was told so.
    Mr. BYRNEasked how long the existing state of affairs at Frongoch Camp is to continue; if he is aware that the commandant is continuously making trouble for the Irish prisoners; if he is aware that Captain Colthurst was known to be unfit to control men when he was let loose on unarmed people in Dublin; and if he will now cause the commandant at Frongoch to be mentally examined and report on his suitability to be in charge of 570 unarmed men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have nothing to add to the answers I have given in this House on several occasions to the hon. Member's questions on this matter.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—whether the commandant there is insane, and will he have him examined? Has the right hon. Gentleman no answer to that, and are our countrymen always to-be treated like slaves?
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply—
    Mr. BYRNE: He gave no reply.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not appoint a more humane officer over these men until they are released instead of this commandant?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no reason to think that this commandant is not humane.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the Prussian Guard from these prisoners? Our countrymen are being tortured to death.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. BYRNE: Six hundred men are being tortured.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary under what provision of the law Irish political prisoners interned in Great Britain are being tried by court-martial for alleged offences against prison discipline?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They are tried, not by a court-martial, but by a disciplinary military Court, such as may be held under the Royal Warrant dealing with disciplinary matters in any internment camp. The authority for the punishments is furnished by the Royal Warrant for the maintenance of discipline, which is applied to these prisoners in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B.
    Mr. DILLON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman—this is a very serious matter—whether he is responsible for the proceedings which led up to this court martial, or this disciplinary Court, because the War Office declare that they have no responsibility?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I am generally responsible for the conduct of the camp. The commandant was appointed by the War Office.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: What is the exact difference between a court-martial and this disciplinary military Court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any man of the Captain Colthurst type on the court-martial?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Sir W. BYLES: Why were we permitted to have a published report of the first day's proceedings and no report afterwards?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it not the fact that on Saturday and Monday a court-martial was held on certain prisoners in Frongoch Camp, and are those Courts held under the ordinary military law?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can give notice of that question. It does not arise out of the one on the Paper.

    MB. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland why the soldiers who shot Messrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, Dickson, and McIntyre, three unarmed civilians, in Dublin last April, and the officers who ordered the shooting have not been put on trial and thus afforded an opportunity of making their defence, whatever it may be, and having a decision of a Civil Court on their character, instead of being left, as they now are, with no answer to the charge of murder?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The officer who gave the orders for the shooting of the persons referred to has already been put on trial and found guilty. It is not intended to bring to trial the soldiers who obeyed the orders of their officer.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the untried Irish prisoners now detained in this country have been, directly
    326
    or indirectly, offered release on condition that they joined the British Army; how many of them have been successfully seduced; what special punishment, in addition to continued imprisonment, follows refusal; under what law is this offer made, if the men were guilty and deserved imprisonment; and how is the offer distinguishable from the offence of seduction from allegiance for which Roger Casement has been hanged?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is, none. The remainder does not arise.

    SOUTH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there are between 300 and 400 men confined, as punishment, in the South Camp, which is unfit for human habitation; if he is aware that the wife of one of these men in the South Camp, Thomas Daly, No. 1199, recently died; that the news was not conveyed to the man himself, but was posted in the camp; that he was not allowed to send a telegram to his brother; and that no promise would be given that he would be allowed parole to attend the funeral; if he is aware that several of the men thus confined for punishment in the South Camp are in serious want of medical attention, but that this will not be allowed them unless they answer their name and number; if he is aware that one man, Tierney, got into such a low state of health, due to bad treatment and want of medical attention, that he is now out of his mind and was only got to. hospital with difficulty, and that no news was sent to this man's, Tierney's, friends or relations that his health was in such a critical condition although his failing health had been apparent for some days; if he is aware that, for the petty offence of wandering on the landings of the dormitories after lights out, four prisoners have been sentenced to fourteen days' bread and water; that a number of men who are badly in need of new boots and new clothes are refused either one or the other; and that generally the relations between the prisoners and their guards is such as to give serious apprehension of some grave occurrence unless the existing treatment is immediately ameliorated; and if he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The South Camp, as I have repeatedly informed the hon:

    327
    Member, was reported upon most favourably by the American Embassy, when it was occupied by German prisoners of War. I have called for a report upon the statements in the remainder of the question. When it reaches me I will communicate further with the hon. Member.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man Tierney, the second man, has almost been driven mad by this Prussian guard, and can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government intend to treat them as Christians?

    BALLYVARRA (COUNTY CORK) CONVALESCENT CAMP.
    Mr. WILESasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the condition of the convalescent camp at Ballyvarra, county Cork; is he aware that during the late stormy weather it has been constantly flooded, and that the patients have had their beds crowded together owing to the leaky roofs of many of the huts; and will he state the number of deaths in the camp during the last two months, and if any of the deaths are reported to have been caused by damp and cold?
    Mr. FORSTER: I assume my hon Friend refers to the camp at Ballyvonare. During the recent abnormal rains I understand that the huts at the Command Depot did leak. Steps were taken at once to have repairs carried out. One death has occurred during the last two months, but it was not attributable to damp or cold.

    STREET ACCIDENTS (METROPOLIS).
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he has any official Reports showing that there has been an increase of accidents in the streets of London on account of the darkening of the streets because of Zeppelin raids; and, if so, whether he can make any statement on the subject?
    Mr FORSTER: Although there has been an increase in the aggregate number of accidents occurring in the streets of London, this increase has certainly not been wholly due to the lighting restrictions. My hon Friend will be aware that
    328
    a large proportion of the skilled drivers who used to be employed in London have gone to the Army, and that their places have been taken by less skilful persons. I have noticed a statement in the Press that in 1915, 867 people in London alone met their deaths as a direct result of the darkness of the streets. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the actual number of fatal accidents which occurred in 1915 during the dark hours was only 358. From this number those which normally occurred during the dark hours in ordinary times must be deducted and a further deduction must be made on account of the employment of less skilled drivers. My hon. Friend will thus see that the number of accidents during the dark hours which can be assigned directly to the darkness of the streets has been very much exaggerated.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my hon. Friend not aware that a large number of these accidents are due to the absence of any eyesight test for the driver?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.

    MILITARY HOSPITAL (DUNDEE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the military hospital at Dundee is part of the asylum there; whether there are still mental patients in the establishment; whether both classes of patients intermix in the grounds and elsewhere; and (2) whether the nurses in the military hospital, Dundee, are paid 1s. 1d. per day as wages; whether their sleeping accommodation is at the Royal Hotel, at the other end of the town; whether the tram-car fares of these nurses for this distance is 6d. per day, which they have to pay out of their wages; whether there has been in the last two months a considerable number of nurses' resignations, causing marked shortage of the nursing staff; whether heavy train-loads of wounded men are frequently arriving who cannot be properly attended to on account of this shortage; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will cause inquiries to be made into the points raised in these questions.
    Mr. WATT: I will put a question down for next week.

    SOLDIERS ON LEAVE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that thousands of soldiers have been in France during the past two years without having leave of any kind; and will he ask the commanders in the field to arrange, if possible, for early leave for such men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 27th November to the hon. Member for Derby.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked whether any arrangements are contemplated for providing temporary accommodation in London for men on leave from the trenches who have to wait for their trains?
    Mr. FORSTER: In an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Orkneys on 20th October, 1915, my hon. and gallant Friend will find a statement of the buildings which had then been made available for this purpose. Further arrangements have since been made for the purpose of accommodating men on leave from the trenches, and, as is known, His Majesty has graciously placed at the disposal of soldiers arriving in London from the front the Buckingham Palace Riding School. More accommodation will be provided if found necessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Victoria Station, for instance, there are only three forms in the whole station; will he see that a few more are provided?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, certainly.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SUPPLIES (COMPETITION).
    Colonel WEIGALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that direct competition takes place between military and naval supply branches in provision of foodstuffs, potatoes in particular; and will he ensure that in uture the closest co-operation will be established between purchasing channels for Expeditionary Forces, Home Forces, and Naval Forces, in order that the Food Controller may only have to deal with one channel for the provision of these supplies to all the forces of the Crown?
    Mr. FORSTER: Steps have already been taken to co-ordinate the supply of potatoes
    330
    for the naval and military services generally, and the question is now under consideration with a view to effecting further improvements in the arrangements.
    Mr. GWYNNE: The question says provision of foodstuffs, and potatoes in particular?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I think that is so. I think they are enquiring into foodstuffs as well, but I will enquire further.

    SILVER BADGE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men discharged from the Army are not all entitled to the silver badge; that those who are not have no recognition of any kind; and whether, if the badge cannot or should not be given all round, he can see his way to provide some recognition of men who have served, so that they may have some form of protection?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1st November to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend take into consideration that if these men cannot have a silver badge they should be given a bronze badge which would indicate the fact that they had seen service in the Army, though not entitled to the silver badge?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think we can give a badge to everyone now serving in the Army. I think the silver badge carries us as far as we can go at the present time.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (SUCCESSIVE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Cabinet has sanctioned the present policy of successive courts-martial on young Irishmen for no offence but passive disregard of orders of British military officers whom they never undertook to obey and refuse to recognise; and if he will say to what number of men of this disposition, and to what number of successive courts-martial on each, has the Cabinet consented?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; His Majesty's Government have not sanctioned any policy which in any way answers to the

    331
    description which the hon. Member gives, and consequently no such policy is being followed.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of John Nunam being at present subjected to that particular force?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is asking me whether the Government have sanctioned that particular policy?
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes.
    Mr. FORSTER: I say they have not.

    WOUNDED AND SICK SOLDIERS (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
    Mr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements that those wounded and sick soldiers who are sufficiently convalescent in our hospitals should be granted leave at Christmas and provided with travelling facilities in order to spend Christmas with their families and friends?
    Mr. FORSTER: If these men are still in a condition to need hospital treatment, I am afraid that it would not be in the public interest to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: May I be allowed to point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO," and "Order."]—May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has given attention to the word "sufficiently" in the question; it only relates to those who are sufficiently well?

    BURIAL OF DEAD.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will communicate with the Commander-in-Chief with a view to securing an armistice at Christmas for the purpose of burying the dead lying between the opposing lines on the Western front.
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can any steps be taken to achieve this object, for sanitary reasons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Mr. FORSTER: That is a matter which lies entirely in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, who will exercise his own judgment as to what action he thinks, necessary.

    WOOL PURCHASES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why less money per pound is being paid for wool to Mr. John Jones, of Penycae, Breconshire, than in 1914, instead of the promised 35 per cent. advance on the price of that year, in spite of the fact that this farmer's clip has been taken for twelve years by the same buyer?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this case, and will communicate the result as soon as I can.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. DORISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Bridget Duggan, of Cahir, Louisburgh, county Mayo, on presenting her ring paper at Louisburgh Post Office on the 31st October ultimo, was informed that her separation allowance was stopped because her son, Private Patrick Duggan, No. 5893, 1st Battalion, Irish Guards, was killed in action on the 25th September; and, if so, whether such stoppage of the allowance so soon after the death of her son was in accordance with the War Office Regulation?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mrs. Duggan was not able to establish a claim to dependant's separation allowance, and issue of the allotment from the soldier's pay correctly ceased on notification of his death.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to increased separation allowances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Office and Admiralty, in communication, are framing a scheme for consideration by the Treasury and no time is being lost.
    Mr. HOGGE: Shall we have that scheme presented to the House before we break up for the Session?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly hope so.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to make any allowance to officers

    333
    of the Volunteer Training Corps towards provision of their uniforms; and whether his Department will reimburse adjutants of this corps for sundry expenses connected with the management, clerking, and postages of the body?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; in regard to the second part of the question, I think the hon. Member will find that the financial provision under the scheme, which will shortly be brought before the House, is sufficient for the purposes indicated.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. LUNDONasked what weekly increase per head has been given, respectively, in England, Scotland, and Wales to teachers as war bonus?
    Mr. McKENNA: No war bonus has been paid to school teachers in England or Scotland out of public funds, and I have no information as to any bonus that may have been paid by the local authorities.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason why the Sugar Commission refuse to give the number of cargoes of sugar given to Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick, respectively, up to the 1st of November; is he aware that a feeling exists in some plaecs in Ireland that the distribution of sugar is not evenly dealt with; and, in order to clear the atmosphere, will the numbers of cargoes Allotted to each of the above cities be given?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 21st November. I then explaind why it was impossible to give the information asked for.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction of the public regarding the distribution of sugar, and if he proposes to issue any further Regulations to control and give a more equal distribution so that all may be able to secure a regular supply in proportion to their needs?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not unaware of the existence of some feeling of dissatisfaction in regard to the distribution of sugar, and I shall be prepared to offer to the proposed Food Controller whatever assistance the Sugar Commission can afford to him towards improving the condition of things.
    Mr. TICKLER: My question was with regard to the retailer.
    Mr. McKENNA: I also had reference to the retailer in my answer.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet found out that the Dutch firm, Anton Jurgens United (Margarine) Works, declared themselves to be the holders of all the shares of six companies in Germany; that the retailers of Jurgens United (Margarine) Works are allowed to sell sugar in this country; and that, by the regulations of the Sugar Commission, the largest firm of margarine makers in this country, the Maypole Dairy Company, are not allowed to sell sugar; and whether, in view of this handicap to the British industry, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps to remedy this hardship?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My only information with regard to the first part of the question is contained in a circular issued by the Maypole Dairy Company and forwarded to me by the hon. Member. As regards the second and third parts, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on the 1st November except to repeat that, so far as I am aware, no Dutch margarine manufacturer sells sugar retail in this country.
    Major HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that this Dutch firm's margarine is sold by retailers in this country? Does he deny that? And does he deny that they sell sugar in this country?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite aware to whom the personal pronoun relates. If the hon. Gentleman means that the Dutch firm sell sugar here by retail, I can answer him that so far as I am aware they do not; but if he means that certain retailers sell both Dutch margarine and sugar, I believe that they do.
    Major HUNT: Why are the retailers of the British Maypole firm not allowed to do the same? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. McKENNA: Because the British retailers to the Maypole Dairy Company did not sell sugar before 1915. There are other retailers who sell margarine, whether Dutch or British, who did sell sugar in 1915, and the sale of sugar is limited to those firms who sold it in that year.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to allow this to go on? The retailers of the British manufacture are not allowed to sell sugar, and the retailers of the Dutch firm connected with the German firm are.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the manufacturers I of British margarine will allow their mar- garine to be retailed by firms who have the right to sell sugar, there is no objection.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better study the answers which have already been given.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether Jur-gens' solicitor is on the Commission?

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that both the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners have under their control pending completion many thousands of acres of land which are solely devoted to grazing purposes; and whether he will introduce emergency legislation for the period of the War giving power to those bodies, or to the Department of Agriculture, or to the new Food Controller, to have such lands temporarily used for tillage purposes under a special scheme which would safeguard the rights of all persons interested in the subsequent redistribution of these properties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not consider that legislation of the nature indicated is necessary; but the question of increasing the area under tillage is being carefully considered by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Estates Commissioners have no power to break up untenanted land for the purpose of agriculture?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Lord Milner's recommendations are not put into effect?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the situation which has arisen in regard to the production of food on the land owing to the farms being already unduly depleted of hands while notice of further depletion has been given to farmers after January and April in certain contingencies; whether, owing to the uncertainty so created, the farmers are unable to settle the crops they can grow and the vital time for wheat- sowing is now being lost; and whether he can arrange for an immediate announcement that no more men will be taken and that the farmers can rely upon every assistance being afforded them to help out their reduced complement of men with aid from men now in training for the Army?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make an announcement until figures which are now being collected have received more examination, but I am quite aware of the importance and urgency of the matter to which my hon. Friend, calls attention.

    FOOD CONTROLLER.
    Colonel WEIGALLasked whether the stimulation of food production will form part of the duties of the Food Controller; and, if so, what will be his relationship to the Board of Agriculture?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I cannot at present add to replies already given to questions in this House as to the duties of the Food Controller, and his relation to other Departments.
    Mr DILLON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to when we shall know the name of the Food Controller?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we going to wait until there is no food to control?
    Sir E. CARSON: Have the Government withdrawn the intention to appoint a Food Controller?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.

    MILK.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the limitation of the prices of milk

    337
    imposed by Order in Council, he intends to take any steps to limit the rise in prices of the fanners' raw material, such as oilcake, which has risen in the case of palm-kernel cake from £6 before the War to £12; Egyptian cotton cake, from £4 13s. 6d. to £12; English linseed cake, from £7 15s. 6d. to £16 2s. 6d.; and Indian linseed cake, from £7 15s. to £15; and whether his attention has been called to the increase in the profits and dividends of the oil and cake mill companies since the War began?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The rise in the price of farmers raw material was taken into account in fixing the maximum prices of milk. I am considering what steps can be taken to prevent a further rise in the price of feeding stuffs.
    Captain C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prices of farmers' raw materials have gone up very substantially since the prices of milk were fixed?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That was the purport of my reply. The figures in this question are considerably below the present figures.

    COLONIAL COMPANIES (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the apprehension caused by the incidence of double Income Tax on Colonial companies having their registered offices in England, that such enterprises would be driven to remove the conduct of their business from this country, is proving well founded; whether he is aware that a large Australian company has decided for this reason to remove its head office to Australia; that an important tin company has removed its head office to Switzerland; that several Indian companies have similarly removed their principal places of business from London; whether the Board of Inland Revenue has yet found it possible to arrange that the partial relief afforded by the Finance Act, 1916, shall be by way of deduction from the payment of British Income Tax instead of by repayment by the taxpayer; and whether he can make any statement calculated to arrest the process of removal from this country of the businesses affected by double Income Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that certain companies have transferred the control of their businesses from this, country. Arrangements have been made by the Board of Inland Revenue under which the relief afforded by Section 43 of the Finance Act, 1916, in respect of Colonial Income Tax, will be allowed wherever possible by way of deduction from the payment of United Kingdom Income Tax instead of by way of repayment. As has previouly been stated in this House, the subject of double Income Tax will receive further detailed consideration by an Imperial Conference and by the Committee on Income Tax which is to be set up after the War. In the meantime, practical experience of the-actual operation of Section 43 will furnish a mass of valuable material which will be available in connection with a future investigation of this difficult and many-sided subject.
    Mr. D. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when this Imperial Conference is likely to take place?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. McNEILL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of a policy in the immediate future which will arrest these removals?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I am afraid the subject is one I could not undertake to enter into at the present time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not only engaging attention, but is causing; constant anxiety to the Board.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the anxiety of the Board is not preventing businesses going from this country?
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet looked at the memorandum which he received from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia on the subject of a deputation which waited on him on the 22nd of June regarding double Income Tax, together with the written opinion of the Australian Prime Minister on the points brought before him by the deputation; and whether he will now lay the memorandum and the written opinion referred to upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Papers mentioned by the hon. Member were not in the nature

    339
    of a general statement, but were, in fact, sent to me personally and with specific reference to the proposals which I had introduced in the Finance Bill and which were afterwards' debated by, and received the sanction of, this House. The hon. Member may recollect that the changes suggested by the deputation related to Amendments to the Bill which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs and both of which were negatived. In these circumstances I hardly think it is necessary to lay the documents referred to, but I shall be happy to ask the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth whether he has any objection to my giving a copy to any hon. Member who may wish to see these Papers.
    Mr. MCNEILL: But did not the right hon. Gentleman hold out hope to the hon. Member for Inverness Burghs last August that he would lay these Papers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think BO. If I did make any promise of that kind, subject to the consent of the Prime Minister of Australia, I will do so at once, but I do not think I did.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at in the arbitration between the War Office and the National Relief Fund with regard to moneys expended by the latter on War Office purposes?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. The arbitrator's award has not yet been received.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon Gentleman really now tell us when it is likely to finish?
    An HON. MEMBER: When the War is over.
    Mr. FORSTER: I wish I could. Obviously the arbitrator is in no way under the control of the War Office.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the proceedings before the tribunal?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I have not, beyond the fact that we presented our case as fully as possible. Obviously there is no control over the subsequent proceed-
    340
    ings. If the arbitrator wishes to call oral evidence he will do so. He has not done so up to the present.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the arbitrator as to when he is likely to present his report?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I do not think that is necessary.

    CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that the two Bank Holidays which were postponed this year shall be granted at Christmas?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Arrangements have been made for the grant of two special holidays to munition workers at Christmas or the New Year. The question as to the postponed holidays in other trades is receiving consideration, and an announcement will be made shortly.
    Major NEWMAN: May I take it the Christmas holidays will not be granted this year—not before the end of December?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Before the end of December is this year. The answer was Christmas or the New Year—I cannot say which.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a general statement as to the business which it is proposed to take before the House rises; whether it is intended to prorogue or adjourn before Christmas; and when the House may expect to be set free for the Christmas Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to make a general statement early next week.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to discouraging intrigue in America or elsewhere having the intention of bringing about peace before the declared objects of the Allies have been attained, and to counteracting the mischief of such intrigue, he will in concert with the Allied Governments make a public declaration that no question of even the temporary cessation of military operations will be entertained so long as German troops remain in occupation of any territory of the Allies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is one to be considered by the Allies in concert, and unless and until it has been so considered I can make no statement about it, except that the Allies whose territory is in whole or in part occupation of the enemy may be assured of the full support of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question rests on the assumption that it would be in concert with the Allies? The question is as to whether that announcement could be made.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the advisability of such an announcement is very doubtful. I would suggest to my hon. Friend, in the first place, that it would be taken to mean that is all we ask.

    IMPERIAL COUNCIL.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has publicly stated his view that the time has come for the establishment of an Imperial Council; if any expressions of opinion to a similar effect have been received from responsible statesmen in other Dominions; and if he has any announcement to make on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Prime Minister and I have discussed the question with regard to the general principle involved and as to the best method of procedure, not only with Mr. Massey, but with the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, but it is not possible to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask if there is any answer to the middle part of the question—whether any expressions of opinion to a similar effect have been received from responsible statesmen in other Dominions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No official expressions of opinion have been received.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it possible to have this question decided until the relation of this country and Ireland is decided?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The relation of this country to Ireland has taken a long time. I would not suggest that in itself should prevent our considering the other.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that on any such Imperial Council a representative of India is included?

  PROSECUTION OF WAR.

    MINISTER' PLATFORM CAMPAIGN.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister what is the object of the forthcoming platform campaign of Ministers; and is it designed to encourage or to damp down he growing desire in the community for some diplomatic effort to bring the War to an end?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of the campaign is to impress upon the country the necessity of utilising all its available resources for the vigorous prosecution of the War.
    Mr. G. FABER: Does that apply to the Government?
    Sir W. BYLES: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether questions from the audience will be allowed afterwards?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That will depend upon two sets of people—one the speaker and the other the audience.
    Mr. FABER: Do not the Ministers require some stimulus?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that there is a general belief to that effect. Whether it is well founded or not it is not for me to say.
    Major HUNT: Will these meetings be open or ticket meetings?

    DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSIONS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whetherinterim Reports of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Commissions will be published before the House adjourns for the Christmas holidays; and, if so, when?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Dardanelles Commission are considering the desirability of issuing an interim Report, but they cannot name a definite date for its publication, should this be decided on. The Mesopotamia Commission inform me that they do not think it will be possible for them to present an interim Report before Christmas.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it intended that these Reports shall be laid upon the Table of the House, as the Act provides?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not remember the exact wording of the Act, but obviously I cannot say anything about it until I see the Reports.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the decision of Parliament depends upon the view the Government take of the Reports?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; not if the Act of Parliament requires it. I said I was not familiar with the wording of the Act.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked whether any satisfactory communication from the front has been received in relation to field punishment No. 1; and, if not, will he give a day for the discussion of the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear that at present there is nothing to add to what was said yesterday in reply to questions and supplementary questions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. A discussion before the necessary information was available would serve no useful purpose.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Would it not serve the purpose intended by indicating this to the Army Commandants, and can he tell us the reason why this punishment should not be done away with?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we must be certain of the facts before we decide.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate at all when the Report is likely to be received?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the Secretary of State for War said yesterday that it has been presented to the Army Council and will be communicated at the earliest possible moment.

    PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when the interim Report of Lord Balfour's Committee will be published?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked if, in view of the importance of the matter, he will communicate to the House at the earliest possible moment the Report of the Committee on the Paris Economic Conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This Report is being considered by the Reconstruction Committee this week, and they will then decide whether it is possible to publish it.

    IRISH NATION LEAGUE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the entire resolution adopted at a public meeting in Castlepollard on the 24th September last adopting the Irish Nation League and undertaking to form a branch immediately in each of the parishes to co-operate in realising all the purposes of that organisation, maintaining Ireland's integrity and establishing all its rights as a nation, including representation at the forthcoming international peace conference, and for the immediate release of all Irish political prisoners, cessation of martial law, and the Defence of the Realm Act, and resisting any form of conscription, which was wholly censored, was illegal; and, if not, will he state for public guidance what part of it was illegal and under what law?
    Mr. DUKE: The Attorney-General has never seen the resolution referred to, and consequently has formed no opinion upon its legality.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the military government of Ireland censors matter for publication without consulting the civil Government, as appears to be done in this case?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not know the facts about this case except that the Attorney-General tells me that he has not seen the particular resolution referred to. As to the general matter, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will answer it.

    DOG MAINTENANCE.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, with a view to preventing the present waste of food consumed by dogs other than those employed in rural districts, and the unhygienic condition of the-pavements of the London streets of which

    345
    complaints have been heard, he will take steps to lessen the number of dogs which now prowl about in London and in other cities?
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any estimate has been made of the number of dogs in this country, and of their usefulness or otherwise, or of the amount of food consumed by dogs; and whether, in the interests of economy and national effort, any attempt will be made to reduce the wasteful maintenance of dogs?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No official estimate has been made of the number of dogs in this country. Their usefulness varies greatly, and it is certainly desirable to reduce their numbers in urban districts, where many of them serve no useful purpose. This question can be considered before the new licences are issued, next January.

    INTERNED PERSONS (AYLESBURY).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he has now investigated the conditions under which the ladies interned at Aylesbury have to live, more especially as to the degrading associations of which evidence, at his request, has been furnished to him?
    Sir W. BYLES: I have received a very full answer privately to this question, but I should be glad if the purport of the reply might be indicated to the House and the public.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. I find that the only basis for these allegations is that one woman interned at Aylesbury is said to be a degraded character. On the complaint of the other prisoners she was separated from them within twenty-four hours of her arrival, which was some months before the arrival of the Irish prisoners. Since then she has kept to herself, and if any of the others have associated with her this has been entirely of their own free will and choice. None of the prisoners have ever made any complaint about the woman subsequent to the day of her arrival, though they have had every opportunity, if they wished to do so, of making representations to the governor and medical officer of the institution, who is a woman, or to the two lady visitors of the institution. The allegations, therefore, are quite unfounded.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked what in creases of pay have been given to the Metropolitan Police Force during the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: First, the pay of the Metropolitan Police Force was considered in the summer of 1914, and an increase was given which took effect shortly after the outbreak of war. The pay of constables up to fifteen years' service was increased by 3s. a week, after fifteen years' service by 4s. a week, and after twenty years' service by 5s. a week. Sergeants received an increase of 3s. a week, station sergeants of 4s. a week, and proportionate increments were given to the other ranks. Secondly, on the 15th March, 1915, a war bonus of 3s. weekly was given to all ranks. Thirdly, at the beginning of October, 1916, an allowance of 1s. a week was granted to married constables and sergeants in respect of each child living at home, the purpose being to distribute the allowances so as to benefit most those families which are affected most by the increased cost of living. Over 10,300 officers benefit by this bonus to an average of 2s. a week; 1,250 of these, who have four or more children, benefit to the extent of 4s. a week or over.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether an American dentist trading in the West End under an English name is really named Gloeckler; whether he is an unnaturalised German; whether he is still of military age; and why he has not been interned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The facts are substantially as stated. Inquiry was made as to his change of name soon after the prohibition against changes of name by alien enemies came into force, and it was found that he had been using the name of Bell ever since he came to this country thirteen years ago, and did not, therefore, come under the prohibition. He was exempted from internment in August, 1915, on finding sureties, as there was no ground for thinking him in any way a danger to the realm, but I am making inquiry whether this exemption should be continued.

    RAILWAY DINING CARS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has official information showing the approximate cost of running a railway-dining car per 100 miles; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will now take steps to stop the running of these cars?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am unable to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, but I understand that it is doubtful whether any real economy would be effected by the withdrawal of those dining cars which still remain in service.
    Mr. ROBINSON: May I ask if the Ministry of Munitions have not sent a requisition to the Board of Trade to try and prohibit as far as possible the use of engine power and whether this would not lead to economy in engine power?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir, it would not. That is the purport of my answer.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is economical for the Midland Railway Company to run dining cars and not for the London and North Western Railway Company?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that necessarily need be an impossible proposition. The railways which go to the North are to a certain extent interchangeable and you do not necessarily want dining cars on them all.

    WIRELESS INSTALLATION (MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by the Government since the outbreak of war to safeguard the mercantile marine by close investigation into the connection between the Marconi and the Telefunken Companies and the system of wireless that has been installed upon both British, and neutral merchant steamers trading at British ports?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board of Trade have asked me to take this question. The Government are satisfied that there has been no connection between the Marconi and Telefunken Companies since the War began. As stated in reply to a previous question by the hon. Member, the Marconi
    348
    and Telefunken systems, like other wireless systems, are capable of communicating with each other; and it was the object of the International Radiotelegraph Convention, to which this country was a party, to regularise and promote general intercommunication between ships and coast stations equipped with the various systems. The agreement between the Marconi and Telefunken Companies, which existed before the outbreak of war, had no bearing on this point. Every precaution has been taken to ensure the loyalty of the operators employed on board British ships. The Government cannot, of course, investigate the antecedents or sentiments of operators on board neutral ships; but the hon. Member may accept my assurance that all practical measures have been adopted to obviate danger in that direction. In this connection the assistance of the Marconi Company has been valuable.
    Mr. G. FABER: Are the operators on British ships British subjects?
    Mr. PEASE: They are not only British subjects, but very careful inquiries are made into their antecedents and in no case-are their parents of enemy origin.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when he made his inquiries?
    Mr. PEASE: I have recently been in communication with the Marconi Company, and, as I explained to the hon. Member yesterday, I have seen the agreement.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the hon. Member was one of those who desired the contract to be tendered to the Telefunken Company instead of to the Marconi Company?

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. GINNELL: I desire to make a personal explanation which concerns the correctness of the OFFICIAL REPORT as well as myself. On the 7th November, in my absence, you, Sir, read and caused to be inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT a letter from Sir John Dickinson, a magistrate at Bow Street, stating that I had been sent to prison in default of paying a fine imposed upon me on a charge of having made a false statement. That was certainly the charge, but it was not the act for which I was convicted and for which

349
I have been punished. As the letter is calculated to mislead the House into believing that I was convicted of making a false statement and the Home Secretary-is quite capable of so construing it—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take advantage of the liberty which the House gives him of making a personal explanation to make charges against other people. He can exculpate himself, but he must not make charges against others.
Mr. GINNELL: The letter inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT leads to a misconception of what actually occurred. I desire to show, as briefly as possible, that I have not been convicted of making a false statement, but that what I was convicted of and punished for was the offence of writing my name in the Gaelic language—an act which I never denied but voluntarily proved—and that the allegation that this was a falsehood was abandoned. I wrote my name in the language used throughout this country before the arrival of the Romans, the language in which this City of London was given the name it still bears, and the language of a considerable number of Irishmen and Scotsmen whose help you have been very glad to get in the War, some of whom have died for you and some of whom are still in the trenches fighting for you. Cheques written throughout in Gaelic pass freely through the banks in Ireland. My name, as written by me at Knutsford, would be understood by most intelligent people throughout Ireland and throughout the larger part of Scotland. I produced competent witnesses to prove that the name I signed was my true name and that the Anglicised form of it, by which I am known here, was arrived at in accordance with the rules governing names of the class to which it belongs. I put in evidence receipts for money made out to me wholly in Gaelic; I put in evidence an annual publication in Gaelic comprising my name and address in that language; I put in evidence letters and post cards addressed to me at this House exclusively in Gaelic, readdressed here and delivered to me at my private residence. I produced as a witness an official of the House of Commons Post Office who proved that he and his colleagues in that office have been accustomed to readdress similar letters and cards to me from time to time since I first entered Parliament. The cumula-
350
tive effect of all this evidence was that a chairman of Quarer Sessions said that there was no occasion to examine my witnesses then in Court, it being no longer disputed that the name I had written was my name in Gaelic. Thus the charge of having made a false statement was abandoned, and I was punished for the offence of having written my name in Gaelic, an act which I never denied, but voluntarily proved and which I maintain I am entitled to do So far as the Censor allows the public Press to inform us, England is the only one of the Allied countries that has imprisoned a member of its Legislature for having written his name in the language of his country.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This, I think, is the appropriate occasion upon which to explain this measure. Its primary object is to obtain an undertaking from Parliament that it will, when the time comes, provide moneys in order to make payments to carry out undertakings the Government have found it necessary to give in connection with the conduct of the War. The Bill will extend the statutory undertakings given by the Government under the War Obligations Act, 1914, and the Act of 1915. The Bill extends these sanctions as regards transactions entered into up to the date of the passing of this Bill. It does not sanction transactions entered into after the date of the passing of this Bill, but up to the date of the passing of this Bill. What I said on the Financial Resolution I repeat now, that this Bill deals with engagements entered into up to the present date. Of course, the dominant Clause of the Bill is the first Clause. Now the Government are asking, in precisely the same form as in the Bills of 1914 and 1915, a promise from Parliament that, at some future date, which cannot now be denned, it will find the money to defray certain contingent charges on the public revenue.
  There was a good deal of general financial talk on the Resolution, and perhaps I may refer, for the purpose of explaining the object of the present Bill, to one or two elementary propositions which are familiar to all Members of the House. The practice of Parliament is to grant money only for the current year. There are a few exceptions, such as interest on the debt, the payment of the salaries of judges, the King's Civil List, and other smaller matters, but Parliament generally confines itself to making provision for one year. Everybody will admit that in regard to the conduct of the War it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have power to make commitments which extend beyond the year. No Government could conduct a
  378
  war if it did not have that power. The object of this Bill is to give to the persons with whom the Government enter into these contracts the right to come to Parliament and obtain the money which those contracts have involved. If the Government has entered into a contract which cannot be completed within the year, which goes on to another year or perhaps two or three or more years, it would not be fair to the persons who entered into that contract for the Government not to have an undertaking from Parliament that they will fulfil that contract. That is the sole object of this Bill.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that binds future Parliaments?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Oh, certainly! If Parliament enters into a contract it would bind future Parliaments necessarily. That is the very object of the Bill. It is the proper and right thing, in accordance with our regular financial procedure which has been established for centuries, that the Government, having entered into these obligations, should come to Parliament and ask for its sanction. That is what the Government is doing at the present moment. Of course, there are cases where we have continuing obligations. For instance, there are contracts for the conveyance of mails and contracts for telegraphic communication which are sanctioned by Parliament by Resolution. Otherwise we come with a special Bill, as we are doing on this occasion. I would remind the House that at the beginning of the War, and even before war was actually declared, commerce was paralysed by the coming of the War, and the Government of that day, with the knowledge and approval of Parliament, entered into a great many obligations. Some of those obligations undertaken at the very beginning of the War are continuing to the present day. I will state to the House some of the facts connected with these obligations. For example, the Government had to give guarantees with a view to the restoration of credit, which covered the acceptance of bills of exchange; it had to inaugurate a system of insurance against war risks for shipping; and, after that, it had to start a system of insurance to cover risk from aircraft and bombardment. These all involve, of course, contingent liabilities on public funds. It would be impossible to bring all these

  379
  individual obligations before Parliament; therefore a general Bill of this character is now, for the third time, being introduced. The present Bill is exactly parallel to previous Bills.
  What is the relation of this Bill to the Vote of Credit? Parliament has given the Government a large sum of money to spend for the various purposes specified in the Vote, but that money has to be spent within the financial year; therefore, although these particular contracts may be sanctioned by the Vote of Credit, it is necessary to have this Bill to sanction contracts which extend into future years. It does not give the Government power to spend money. That is done by the other Votes which the House passes. We merely ask for a general undertaking that Parliament will hereafter vote the necessary money and approves the contracts which the Government has entered into with various people. I have referred to the Government scheme relating to bills of exchange, and the Stock Exchange advances. Hon. Members will also recollect that there was the case of traders with debts abroad. They were quite unable to obtain the money, and it was necessary to give them assistance to avoid bankruptcy. Full details of all these measures have been given to the House.
  The House is also familiar with Scheme A for obtaining securities, known as dollar securities, for purposes of exchange. Under this Bill the House is asked to sanction Scheme B, under which the Government is obtaining the loan of large quantities of securities, and is undertaking certain obligations to the lenders with regard to those securities. There is another class of case, arising out of a question discussed in this House and explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and another which was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both these related to the Government purchases of meat and sugar. As the House is aware the Government have been purchasing meat not only for our own Army but for the armies of our Allies, and for home consumption as well. There is a considerable liability on that head, but of course the money on these purchases will be repaid to the Government partly by the War Office, partly by our Allies, and partly by consumers. Then there are the
  380
  sugar purchases. These are all examples of obligations incurred since the passing of the last Act, but which have been approved, and wore sanctioned in principle, by the previous Act.
  A question was asked in a former Debate as to the new obligations incurred, but as I said then, broadly speaking, this Bill does not involve any new principle as compared with previous Acts. The obligations are substantially of the same nature. Still there are one or two new obligations. The first of these is a guarantee given in regard to the town of Scarborough, and the second is in relation to the Anglo-Italian Bank, a matter in which the Board of Trade is concerned. Let me take the case of Scarborough. That town was bombarded very early in the War before any aircraft insurance scheme was in existence. This, however, is not a question of the damage done to the town. It arises from the fact that visitors were driven from the place, and even some of the residents, and the town was put in a position of great financial embarrassment. Various mortgages at short dates were called up, and the town had great difficulty in financing itself. The Local Government Board were appealed to, and they advised us that no place in the country, so far as they knew, had suffered to quite the same extent, and that it was an exceptional case in many respects. They thought it was a matter of temporary depression during the War, and that, after the War, visitors would return and there was no reason to fear that prosperity would not come back to the town, and its financial solvency be re-established. Therefore the Local Government Board strongly recommended the guaranteeing of a loan by the London Joint Stock Bank to the town of Scarborough to the amount of £123,000. With regard to other towns different questions arise. They suffered seriously from bombardment, but not from the same kind of difficulties, and their cases are being considered by the Local Government Board and the Treasury at the present moment. This Bill only deals with Scarborough.
  Mr. G. FABER: What about Whitby and Hartlepool, which were also bombarded?
  Mr. WOOD: Those are the cases which are being considered by the Local Government Board; their condition was not exactly the same.
  Mr. PRINGLE: And does that apply to Lowestoft?
  Mr. WOOD: I do not propose to go into the question of the Anglo-Italian Bank. That is a matter for the Board of Trade, and no doubt, if the House so desires, either the President or the Parliamentary Secretary will come down and explain the matter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I shall desire information.
  Mr. WOOD: The point is this. As the House knows, German financial influence is very strong indeed in Italy, and it was felt it would be extremely desirable that British influence should establish itself there after the War. None of this money has been paid at the present moment, but after a good deal of consideration of the question, it was arranged that an annual subsidy should be given to the. British bank of £50,000 for the first ten years, equal to 5 per cent. interest on the capital, but not to exceed £50,000, and supposing the profits of the Bank exceed 5 per cent., then return in that case is to be made to the Treasury. That obligation, of course, does come under the Bill.
  Perhaps I need not say anything more about the first Clause of the Bill, seeing that it expresses itself quite clearly and is exactly the same as the Clause in the previous Act. I have dealt with the case of Scarborough, which is contained in Sub-section (2), and with the Italian Bank. Clause 2 deals merely with a technical matter. Its object is to meet a difficulty which has been urged on the Treasury from time to time by lawyers. The advisers of the Treasury do not think there is anything in the point, but as lawyers hold different opinions, it is desirable it should be made perfectly clear. The point was this: The word "securities" was held by some lawyers to mean money secured by a charge on property. We want to make it clear that the word has a larger meaning and that it carries its usual significance. Another point is the giving of powers to trustees. Very often difficulty was experienced in obtaining the signature of trustees for the loan of securities. Some of the trustees may be abroad or ill. They may even be aliens, and it was therefore decided that where there are two trustees the consent of one with that of the persons entitled to the income of the security is to be deemed
  382
  sufficient, and where there are more than two trustees the consent of one half or more and of the persons interested is to be deemed sufficient. I think I have dealt with all the points in the Bill, except the one about distringas—a point of a purely technical character which I believe will be dealt with in Committee by the Solicitor-General. It would be a very rash thing for anyone not a lawyer to enter into a discussion of a point of that kind. It is a purely technical point, and I do not think that it need be discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  The question may be asked, What is the total amount of indebtedness to which this House is committing itself? Of course, I will give the House as much information as I can, but I think hon. Members will see on consideration that it is a question which neither I nor anybody else could possibly be in a position to answer. Now the loan to Scarborough is a new obligation. We guarantee the bank against loss, but one does not see any probability that there will be any loss in that matter. It is quite impossible, therefore, to put any figure on that obligation. Then, with regard to the British Italian Banking Corporation. I have stated the amount of the obligation. There is aircraft and marine insurance, matters with which the Board of Trade deal. It is impossible to say how far the schemes will be self-supporting. It must depend on the activities of the enemy whether they will involve an obligation or a profit. Then we come to the regulation of foreign exchanges, and that again is a matter on which I cannot possibly put a definite figure. It is a very large amount, as no doubt the House appreciates. It may increase. Take the Foreign Trade Debts scheme. This scheme is practically at a standstill, and the Exchequer liability in respect of it is not likely to exceed about £200,000.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: But this refers to past transactions, and surely the Secretary to the Treasury is in a position to tell us what the regulation of exchange has cost up to the present. It is quite clear we cannot say what will be the cost in the future, but this Bill has reference to past transactions, and it is with regard to them that we wish to know the sum involved.
  Mr. WOOD: We are not asking for sanction for the sums spent out of the Vote of Credit. We have got that already. It is for future obligations we are asking: Parliamentary sanction.
  Mr. FABER: But this is the fulfilment of an obligation incurred.
  Mr. WOOD: May I illustrate what I mean? Suppose I borrowed from the hon. Gentleman £5,000 stock, and promised to pay him ½ per cent. interest. If I paid him that ½ per cent. within the year I do not need this Bill for that. I need this Bill to commit Parliament to the promise that as long as I keep the securities I pay him ½ per cent. It is quite a simple point. Now take the Foreign Debt scheme. Take the guarantees in connection with various financial measures which were undertaken at the outbreak of the War. The total amount of Bills of Exchange discounted in 1914 was £120,000,000. Of this amount only £62,000 is now outstanding, which illustrates the impossibility of prophesying what amount of expenditure will be incurred. In regard to post-moratorium bills, the total advance to the Bank of England under the scheme of 1914 was £74,000; it is now £26,000. Loans to members of the Stock Exchange originally amounted to £520,000; they are now down to £39,000. I think I have given the House all the information I can about those matters.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Is there anything in the Bill to cover the case of the destruction in Dublin?
  Mr. LOUGH: I did not quite understand whether the figure of £120,000,000 was the total amount advanced to the Bank of England to cover merchants' bills, or whether the amount is reduced to £120,000,000.
  Mr. WOOD: I gave two sets of figures. The discount of bills of exchange, amounting to £120,000,000, is now £62,000. The total amount advanced to the Bank of England under the scheme of 1914 in regard to post-moratorium bills was £74,000 and is now £26,000.
  Mr. FABER: £74,000 is extraordinarily little.
  Mr. WOOD: But you have the figure of £120,000,000. That is the big figure.
  Mr. FABER: That is pre-war.
  Mr. WOOD: That is the obligation which was undertaken in respect of pre-moratorium bills. Of course, we did not undertake the same amount of obligation in regard to post-moratorium bills. In refer once to the question of the hon. Member
  384
  (Mr. Hazleton), if the Government has entered into an obligation with regard to Dublin, I am not sure that that is not a matter for a separate Vote. If it is not a matter for a separate Vote, it is included in the general terms of the Bill. We do not set forth every obligation in detail.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think my right hon. Friend has caused some misapprehension by his statement a moment or two ago that this Bill was one to give authority in future to meet expenditure incurred by the Treasury in respect of War Obligation Bills.
  Mr. WOOD: I made a mistake which is often made by speakers. I am afraid I said thousands when I meant millions. It is millions in both cases—£74,000,000 and £26,000,000.
  Sir C. HENRY: Yon gave £120,000,000 of bills discounted, and the figure is now only £63,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He meant millions.
  Mr. WOOD: No, £62,000.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is my right hon. Friend certain on that point?
  Mr. WOOD: These are the figures given me. It is all paid off.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is very difficult to extract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech exactly what it is the Government is asking the House of Commons to do or not to do. He told us on Thursday last, and I certainly understood that this was a Bill giving the Government an indemnity for its past expenditure. It was a distinct and clear undertaking, and it was put into the Financial Resolution.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, they did not put it in. He said they would afterwards.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: "Either incurred or to be incurred" was the exact phrase. The Bill is to include "the provision in like manner of money for the fulfilment of any Government war obligations incurred before the passing of the Act." That surely cannot give authority to spend money after this Act has been passed, but he tells us now that this is not merely to give him authority in respect of interest he may have to pay upon money borrowed up to the present moment, but to authorise him for all time, at all events, until this War ends, to pay interest upon the borrowed money.
  Mr. WOOD: That is not at all what I said. My illustration was perfectly clear. I said if I have borrowed money from my hon. Friend, if I can pay the interest out of the Vote of Credit I do not need this Bill, but if I have promised to pay for the next two or three years, Parliament sanctions that payment. It does not provide the money, but sanctions it, and commits itself to providing the money. In other words, it sanctions the bargain but does not give me the money., The money will have to be got by subsequent Votes.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is quite clear. What my right hon. Friend does not quite understand is that the House is uneasy—I do not think I use the word wrongly—as to what authority is being given to him for the purpose of expenditure. We thought, I certainly thought, that it was to cover all expenditure incurred up to the passage of the Bill, but it now appears that it is to give him authority—not to give him the money; there is a great distinction between the two—to incur expenditure of which he has merely announced the general details to-day.
  Mr. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has quite misunderstood it. Supposing I enter into a bargain after the passing of the Bill. This Bill does not give me any authority; we have to come to Parliament later on and get authority for the future obligations.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will put it in a concrete form. Can my right hon. Friend tell us the amount of money which this Bill authorises him to spend, or can he not?
  Mr. WOOD: No, certainly not. I explained that very elaborately.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: It is not for that purpose at all.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: For what purpose is the Bill brought in, to authorise the expenditure of what money? My right hon. Friend is a little impatient that the House does not quite understand what it is that we are being asked to do. How much money is covered by this Bill?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The capital liabilities.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Capital liabilities if you like, or any other annual expenditure. What is the amount? Take the war obligations of 1914. These are covered in the Schedule to the Act of 1914. War obliga-
  386
  tions are defined as "payments in respect of the discount of bills of exchange"—he told us the amount which is outstanding—"advances to acceptors of bills, advances to members of the Stock Exchange"—he gave us those figures—"guarantees in connection with bills of exchange and advances to traders"—I do not think he gave us those figures; perhaps he can inform us—"payments on the insurance of ships or cargoes, or dependants of persons of insured ships, loans to Allies or British Dominions, or to Egypt"—no mention has been made about that. These sums are past. Is he not in a position to tell us what advances we have made?
  Mr. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is quite on a wrong tack. If I have lent to the Colonies, say £30,000,000, and to France, say £50,000,000, there is no need to come into this Bill. There are no future obligations.
  Mr. FELL: Is it the interest on those Loans which come into this Bill?
  Mr. WOOD: There is no obligation to receive interest. I can do that without an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. FELL: An obligation for the guarantee of interest on those Loans?
  Mr. FABER: Is it to pay interest on an obligation already incurred?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman had better be allowed to make his own speech.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am getting into a state of greater bewilderment, which appears to be shared by every Member of the House.
  Mr. CURRIE: No.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I except the hon. Member. Ninety per cent. of the Members are unable to understand what this Bill is intended to do. I thought it was to extend the Schedule of the Acts of 1914 and 1915, and to give the Government power, not only to deal with those subjects, but also to deal with the case of compensation for property damaged by hostile action and so forth, and to cover any advance to the British Italian Bank; and I thought in connection with those objects the Secretary to the Treasury was going to tell us, as, indeed, ho promised to tell us last Thursday—what amount of expenditure had been incurred. He made a definite promise.
  Mr. WOOD: I am sure I never promised.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A definite promise to tell us what the expenditure was which was incurred under the Bill, and we agreed not to discuss the details of the Bill because we should get more on this occasion. I think I am in the recollection of the House when I make that statement. With regard to meat and sugar purchases, cannot he tell us what money is being expended? Surely that is not a very difficult question to answer. Does it run into tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions? I do not understand the principle upon which the authority is asked for, and yet the details and the amounts incurred are withheld from the House. It is impossible to criticise finance if the discussion is to be carried on in this way, and it is impossible for the House of Commons to exercise its control over finance, and we are left in a state of complete darkness both upon the amount involved in the Bill and the purposes for which it is introduced. I am deeply disappointed at the attitude which has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in first of all promising us the details and amounts and then giving neither the one nor the other, nor enabling any discussion of any utility to be carried on.
  Sir C. HENRY: I agree with a great deal that has fallen from my right hon Friend (Mr. Hobhouse). When we had the Resolution under discussion I was under the impression that this was a Bill to indemnify the Treasury for engagements and obligations they had already entered into without having submitted them to Parliament. The Preamble of the Bill, which is based on the Resolution, says, "With respect to obligations incurred." I do not think the importance of this measure can be minimised. If the course that the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed is pursued it will have a very far-reaching effect, and will give a great deal too much power to the Government and to the Treasury, even in time of War, without coming to Parliament to consult it. I should like some information on these points. The money which will be required to meet these obligations incurred, because that is the object of the Bill—
  Mr. WOOD: No, it is not.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the title of the Bill.
  388
  The obligations incurred will be taken out of the Vote of Credit. I believe he has admitted that. Therefore when Parliament is asked to pass a Vote of Credit, it is not only for the money which will be required for obligations already entered into, but obligations of a character of which Parliament is totally unaware. I consider that those powers are dangerous and should be curtailed. As regards Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, my right hon. Friend said that that was entirely confined to Scarborough. There is nothing about Scarborough in the Bill. When I read the Bill I thought that the Government were taking upon themselves the liability or responsibility to indemnify people for risks that were not insured. It seemed to me that it was saying that any town or any individual who had suffered loss through any hostile action, and had not insured themselves might come to the Treasury and demand compensation under this Sub-section. I am very glad to hear that that is not the intention of the Treasury, and that this Sub-section is brought forward entirely to deal with the question of Scarborough. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. W. Rea) in having been so successful in his efforts on behalf of his constituents in this matter. The third Sub-section of Clause 1 deals with the British Italian Banking Corporation, and is intended to help that institution in embryo so as to give it a fair start. I am in full sympathy with the Government in rendering some financial assistance, but I do not like the course they are pursuing. This matter, we were told by my right hon. Friend, is for the Board of Trade, and therefore the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will explain the position. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that this is not the first instance in which the Government have come forward with financial assistance to institutions. I think a Bill ought to have been presented to Parliament with this object. That was the course which was followed before the War in regard to the assistance given to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. If the Government is going to embark upon the policy of taking interest in and giving money to certain concerns—in regard to which I am in perfect agreement with them—I think it should be presented to Parliament in a Bill and the object definitely set forward in the Bill.

  389
  With the object of Clause 2 I am in complete agreement. I think the Government have acted wisely in doing all they can to obtain possession of securities with the greatest possible facility. On this point I would like to ask a question which does not come directly under the Bill, but which is arousing a great deal of interest. When trustees deposit with the Treasury the securities upon which they are to be paid ½ per cent. extra interest, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether that ½ per cent. is for the benefit of the beneficiaries and can be distributed in the shape of income, or must it be added to the capital?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this Bill.
  Sir C. HENRY: I agree, but I thought as the matter affects the trustees and is causing a great deal of interest, the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps be able to give information on the point. I am not satisfied with my right hon. Friend's explanation of this Bill. I think the Treasury take far too great a degree of power, and that before the House gives its consent to the Bill they should require some further explanation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that all the precedents are similar to this Bill. That, I think, is quite true, but there have been only two precedents, one in 1914 and one in 1915,;and those precedents were caused by the fact that this House, both in 1914 and in 1915, were of the opinion that it was necessary and advisable to give the Government of the day any powers that they chose to ask for. Consequently, acting upon that opinion, the House passed all sorts of measures without in the least knowing what they were doing, and without taking care to see that they kept any? control over the Government. I do not want to make any attack upon the Government, but I do not think the Government have exercised those powers very wisely. I think the time has arrived when the House should resume the control with which it parted two years ago and last year. Therefore, I do not think the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman are very good ones. With regard to future obligations, I raised this question in the Committee stage of the Resolution for the expenses, upon which this Bill was founded. I observed that in 1914 and in 1915 it was limited to obligations
  390
  incurred before the passing of the Act. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) and the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) suggested that my point might be met by inserting as an Amendment in the Resolution the word "already," so that the Committee would give power to the Government for obligations already incurred. The Government asked us not to proceed with that Amendment because they said, as they always do say, this could be discussed upon the Second Reading. And then when you come to the Bill, you have already passed the Resolution. My right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood) said he would undertake in the Bill to introduce words which would limit the obligations to the obligations already incurred. That has been done. But the right hon. Gentleman now says it also applies to future obligations.
  I do not in the least know what he means by that. He gave an illustration. He said that where they have taken certain securities and have agreed to pay ½ per cent. for a certain time that that might occur in the future. I do not think that is so. That is an obligation already incurred in the past. The obligation was made when the bargain was concluded. The bargain was that ½ per cent. should be paid for a fixed number of years. I think it was five years, or less, but not more than five. That is an obligation already incurred; it is not a future obligation. What the House is afraid of—at any rate, what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) is afraid of—and what I am afraid of, and I think some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are also afraid of the same thing, is that by the introduction of the words, "future obligations," the Government might enter into obligations after this Bill is passed and say, "That is part of an obligation which we had entered into before." They might have entered into an obligation to spend £50,000, and they might enter into a further obligation to spend another £50,000 and pass it on the argument that the first obligation was only for £50,000, and that as it was the same thing they might continue with it. That, I think, is a wrong principle. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been a little more candid with the House, and to have told us a little more explicitly what the object really was, and so far as he could tell us, what the obligations were. I do

  391
  not want to make any point about the mistake which was made in regard to £26,000 and £26,000,000, but it is a very wide mistake, and it is really very important to know whether we are spending £20,000 or £20,000,000.
  Mr. FABERmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend reminds me that when he asked about that the right hon. Gentleman repeated it. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill does not provide any money. He may be technically right in that statement. On that point I am not quite sure. But I would like to draw his attention to these words in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1:
  "Section 1 of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914 … relates to the provision of money."
  What does that mean? Does that not mean that it is to provide money?
  Mr. WOOD: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then can Parliament go back?
  Mr. WOOD: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then if Parliament cannot go back it does provide the money. It is merely an evasion to say that it does not provide money, if Parliament cannot go back. By passing this Bill we do provide money for the obligations that are incurred under this Bill, either obligations that have been incurred in the past, or, according to the right hon. Gentleman, possibly may be incurred in the future. I do not think it is a wise thing to continue with these sort of Bills. We have not very much to do and we are sitting all the year round, therefore it would be very much better that we should have a separate Bill for all these obligations. We should then know where we are each time, and in that way we should be able to control the details of expenditure, which we are not able to do now. I do not know what the feeling of the House is, and I should not wish to take action unless the House generally agreed with me, but I would like to throw out the suggestion that we should move the adjournment of the Debate in order that the matter might be further considered and the Government might consider whether it would not be better to provide for this money in a different way. Hon. Members
  392
  who are speaking later might consider whether they desire that course to be adopted. I come now to the question of the British Italian Banking Corporation. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of Sub-section. (3) is to give an income at the rate of 5 per cent. for ten years upon the capital of this bank. That is a very good start.
  HON. MEMBERS: With a limit of £50,000?
  Sir F. BANBURY: He said it gave interest at the rate of 5 per cent. on the capital of the bank. [An HON. MEMBER: "With a limit of £50,000 !"] What is the capital of the bank?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): Two millions.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: One million is British and one million Italian.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) not to be too certain as to what is the amount. My impression is that the amount of capital with which we are concerned is £1,000,000, and if that be so a sum of £50,000 would represent interest at 5 per cent. I will not go into the question whether that is right or wrong. I do not say yes or no to that, but it is rather an extraordinary departure. I do not know where the Labour Members are. They are always talking about subsidies given to rich people. This may be all right, but it is a new departure to guarantee a certain sum to a limited company in this way. I think it ought to be put into a Bill so that the House of Commons might be acquainted with all the facts and the reasons for the proposal, and so that it might express an opinion upon it. As the proposal stands now I should certainly move in Committee to limit the amount. I do not see how this can be called a war obligation. It seems to me to be a totally different thing. It is not limited for the period of the War. It is to go on for ten years. I hope the War is not going on for ten years. Hon. Members will not notice anything in this Clause about £50,000. It is:
  "Any obligation incurred in respect of any advance or guarantee given to or for the benefit of the British Italian Banking Corporation."
  There is nothing to prevent our being told later by the Government, "Yes, it is true

  393
  we did say £50,000, but we find now that it is most important to conciliate Italian opinion and Italian trade, and instead of the amount required being £50,000 it is £500,000."I think there ought to be a limit. Is the House going to part with all its control and let the Government do whatever they like in regard to finance If not, I think there should be some limit fixed. If this Clause is not left out and a new Bill brought in dealing with this matter, I shall move an Amendment in Committee to limit the amount. In regard to the questions about trustees which are dealt with in Clause 2, those are rather legal points. I do not think there is very much in them, therefore I do not propose to say anything about them. I do hope that the House will consider what I have said on the other matters. I am not at all sure that it would not be a blessing to the Government if we did move the -adjournment of the Debate.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the importance of this Debate lies in the demonstration it is giving of the fact that the Government have really uncontrolled power in regard to financial expenditure. As I understand the position, it is that the Government take up the view that they are only asking for the approval of the House to these contracts, and that they are not asking the House to endorse their obligations in regard to the future, except so far as it may be a question of interest and so forth, or obligations with regard to past debts. What does that mean? It means that they can go on for three months' time incurring vast financial expenditure as they have done in the past and ask us then to endorse it, and then ask for another Bill of indemnity in three or four months. That is the position. I think it is a very serious position indeed in regard to the control of this House, because we are practically giving them a blank cheque. I have no more idea whether this Bill means a hundred millions, or fifty millions, or whether it means a hundred thousand or fifty thousand. We have had no information whatever given us by the Government. They say it is difficult to give us the exact figures. Perhaps it is in regard to the future, but they must know what has been incurred up to the present time, almost to accuracy. They surely must know, or they can form some general idea of every item included in this Bill of expenditure that has been
  394
  incurred, and I must express my dissatisfaction at the incomplete statement that has been made on behalf of the Government. It is not a question at all of endeavouring to limit the real opportunity of the Government for taking quick action in regard to the War. We have only to look at the past to see how subservient this House has been. The Government have got every million they have asked for. They are coming in a few weeks for a few more hundred millions. They will get them almost without a single vote against them. That we know in advance. This House has proved its anxiety to help the Government in every respect.
  The question is raised whether after more than two years of war the House of Commons can go on without any limit, giving them a free hand in any vast expenditure to which they care to commit the country. They ask for the approval of the House of Commons, and, of course, that gives the Government an indemnity. We all know what the practical working of this means. If the Government have given their name or the name of the Cabinet to any obligation this House could never repudiate it and the country would never repudiate it. Therefore we have a Government to-day which can pledge this country, without asking the House of Commons, to hundreds of millions, it may be. I am not at all sure I am understating the facts from what I know of the loans entered into. They can do all that, and then the House of Commons cannot have a single word to say to it. The only question it has to decide is "Are you going to honour the name of your own Government?" That is not a desirable state of things. I should much prefer, and I think it would be a very businesslike operation, if you were to put all these obligations together and that the Government should, periodically, come and ask for a free hand with regard to a certin number of millions. That would be a far better way. There would be a limit then, and we would know exactly how far we were going and would have the right to deal with new situations which might arise at any minute. I have been disposed to give them a special Vote in addition to the Vote of Credit, an undefined Vote, and then there would be no necessity for coming for any special Acts of this kind.
  Look for example at what the Bill is! In the first place, we have no Schedule to the Bill. Why have we not a Schedule to the Bill? Why is it necessary for us to go

  395
  and hunt up the old Debates and Acts in order to know what these matters refer to? It would not have been any trouble at all to the Government to have put a Schedule at the end of this Bill and you would then have known at once exactly to what it refers. But they care so little for the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is so considerate to them, that they do not think that necessary. I object to reference in legislation. We ought to have it boldly stated on the face of this Bill what it means so that we could understand it without any further reference. My right hon. Friend says there is nothing in regard to the future. I think if you will look at Clause 2 of the Bill you will see at the end that he is asking us to give him permission for actual or apprehended expenditure. Surely an apprehended expenditure must be a future expenditure and not one that has been incurred in the past, otherwise they would put it down as an actual expenditure. I think that it is very vague. I ask the House to notice the number of things that we may be committing ourselves to at the present time. We have been told that the whole expenditure in regard to Ireland for example may be included in this Bill. That is a very important question. It ought not to be smuggled through without the House of Commons knowing it, because the disturbances in Ireland raise a very grave matter of policy which the House would be prepared to discuss when it has the opportunity, and it ought to be boldly stated on the face of the Bill.
  Then there is the question of sugar expenditure. We have never had up to this moment any definite statement of the loss or gain in regard to the Sugar Commission. Why has there been all this secrecy? We know perfectly well the Sugar Commission can make a million whenever it likes. It can show a financial success simply by raising the price of sugar. By doing that it can make a million in a day or two, because it has full control. I submit we ought to have some information with regard to whether there has been a loss or gain, and what the exact figure is in regard to the great operations undertaken by that Commission. I may say in passing that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country. For my part, I would not willingly give any more money to this Commission before we have had the whole of its operations under review. Thou-
  396
  sands of poor shops cannot get a sugar supply, while the great multiple shops, through influence, are able to get what they want. One of them has its representative as chairman of the Commission. I think it is a bad tiling to take out one particular firm and put its head on the Commission. That at any rate suggests dissatisfaction to others. These are the men we are voting money for, and we ought to be able to inquire into the whole question. Another matter arising in this Bill is that of compensation in regard to damage that has been done by aircraft or by bombardment of our East Coast towns. I do not agree that Scarborough is an exceptional case. Scarborough has the advantage—I do not suggest for a moment that it has any relation to the decision of the Government—-but it has the advantage of having the Member for Scarborough in the Government, and no doubt he was able to present Scarborough's case in a powerful way, which smaller towns on the East Coast cannot have the advantage of. Why is Scarborough to be treated differently to many of the other towns that have suffered? My right hon. Friend says this loan is given because residents had to leave and because visitors are not going to be so numerous, and therefore these poor people who keep bearding-houses are in financial straits. I sympathise very much with them, but that is not peculiar to Scarborough. Take Lowestoft or even Folkestone, and many of the other towns on the coast. Hundreds of people have been virtually ruined and are on the verge of starvation.
  What I would have suggested to the Government would be that they should have appointed a House of Commons Committee to inquire into the whole matter, taking evidence and bringing forth a recommendation. Then they would have had a real case to present. But all they say is, "We are convinced Scarborough has a good case," and the cases of everyone else they are dealing with are under consideration. Why should the people in the Midland towns, where they were bombarded by German aircraft over a year ago, not have their case considered by the Government? We know that factories were destroyed. That is no secret in the Midlands and elsewhere. Why should not their case be considered after a year just as well as the case of Scarborough? It seems to me that in the course of a year they ought to have been able to make up

  397
  their mind on the subject. I beg the Government, therefore, to tell the House what their policy is. Are they going to limit it only to a particular town where the residents have suffered, or are they going to apply it to every town in which real damage and loss has been shown? I think they are starting on a very broad road so far as financial expenditure is concerned when they institute a principle of this kind. I am not complaining of them doing it. I think they are doing a wise thing, because if the Government are so neglectful in the matter of the air service that they could not defend the country after all the money we have given, if they are so relax in their preparation at the Admiralty that German destroyers can come and bombard our coast, then I think it is only right that the people who may have the misfortune, after paying all the taxes of living in those particular districts, should have their cases considered by the Government. They say, "Why should we suffer because of your neglect to make proper preparations?" The Government are opening up, in my opinion, a very wide question indeed when they are proposing to pay compensation where damage and loss have been incurred because of any act of war in this country. I hope they will extend it, but I hope they will do it under proper financial supervision. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City in everything he said about the Italian Bank. I go further. He seems to forget that the only announcement we have had from the Government was, I think, at Question Time, a very long time ago.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I forgot that. It was a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker).
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes; and that is the only statement the House has had up to the present. As far as I remember the question, they were going to provide almost an unlimited amount of money—
  Mr. FABER: Limited to £50,000 a year.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is there no time limit?
  Mr. FABER: Ten years.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Well, I am glad there is a time limit of ten years. I must say I was rather interested in the statement my right hon. Friend made about the conditions under which the £50,000 is to be advanced to this bank. Apparently they
  398
  are to get £50,000 a year—that is 5 per cent. on their capital—out of the British Exchequer, but if by any chance they make a profit it is to be deducted off the 5 per cent. So if they make £10,000 a year we shall only have to pay £40,000. That is rather peculiar finance. What inducement is there to them to make profits at all? The moment they begin to make profits you are going to stop the supply of money. I think that will require a very great deal of looking into. I do not think there is much credit in that to the Exchequer. I think that if I or anyone was running a bank of that kind we should naturally be anxious to get all the money we could from the British Treasury and conserve our interests, and then make a profit after the British obligations had been disposed of. But I think the case is unanswerable against the provision in regard to the Italian banks being placed in this Bill. This is not the way to do it. The subsidising of banking companies is a grave, new departure, and it is not really, as my right hon. Friend stated, a war obligation. It is intended, as I understand, to assist us in capturing German trade in Italy. Well, that cannot by a very long stretch of the imagination be called an immediate war obligation. It may be right, but it is a thing the House of Commons should be invited to express its opinion upon in the light of day and with a square issue.
  When this question was raised before an hon. Friend of mine, I think the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), asked if a representation was made in regard to Russia whether the same thing would be done for Russia. I think that is a very good suggestion, as part of our whole policy; but it is after the War, and it ought not to be smuggled through in a Bill of this kind when the House of Commons does not realise that it is really giving its authority to a great and an important departure. What is this Bill? I do not know how the directors of the bank are appointed. I think we were told to see the articles of association. I do not think this House ought for a moment to consent to a proposal of £50,000 a year until we know who the chairman is, who the directors are, who is the Government representative, what the articles of association provide, what the remuneration of the directors is, and what kind of control the House of Commons is going to have over the whole operation.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: That was given in answer to the question of the Member for Spen Valley.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My hon. Friend is totally misinformed. He has plenty of time, and can go to the Library and bring it in now and prove that I am correct.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: One name only was given, and it said that one director was still to be appointed.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my hon. Friend suggest that information was given as to the remuneration of the directors?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, £300 a year.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: About the articles of association?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I have seen them myself.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My hon. Friend is in very intimate relationship with the Government.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: No.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: He is able to see documents and obtain knowledge which humble Members like myself have no opportunity of doing. What I am trying to present is this: Some of these particulars were given in reply to a question in the House. That is not the way in which to put a question like this before the House. It should be in the form of a Resolution sanctioning it by itself, and the articles of association should be circulated, and Members ought to be able to express their unhampered opinion on the whole policy. Does my hon. Friend suggest that the mere answer to questions in the House is sufficient for the House of Common? to sanction an important transaction of this kind? Nothing of the kind. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that that is not the way to deal with this great new departure. I submit that the House has not had sufficient information to enable it to pass this Bill. Even if it were only because of the way in which this Italian bank business has been almost smuggled through in a Bill of this kind, I should object, and in order, as it has been suggested in some of the previous speeches—
  Mr. DILLON: Do not move the Adjournment!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: When I got up I intended to move the rejection of the Bill,
  400
  but in order not to narrow the Debate I will refrain from it now. Meantime I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and deal with it in a businesslike spirit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As two or three questions have been asked about the expenditure connected with the British-Italian Banking Corporation, I hope that the House will allow me to explain the position from the Board of Trade point of view. I am not responsible for the finances of the Bill. The origin of this proposal is probably well known to the House, namely, that a very large proportion of the control over Italian commerce and finance has in recent years passed into German hands. There has been very large German control, and, naturally, Italy is very anxious to get rid of that control; and an arrangement has been made to replace that control, not by British control, but to co-operate between Britain and Italy for the purpose of providing the finances required for the development of Italian resources, and this proposal is the outcome of that. Obviously we should be able in normal circumstances to give very great financial assistance in the development of Italian resources, and had times been normal and had there not been this War there would be no need for any Government guarantee or for any Government interference. The private financial resources of this country would have been quite ample to deal with the situation, and no doubt would have dealt with it unassisted. But in present circumstances those financial resources are not available as they would be in normal times, and it is clearly the policy desired by this House, by the Government, and by the country that, even strained as we are now, we should use our utmost endeavours to advance at the same time the interests of our own trade and commerce and also those of our Allies, and by such action as is possible, either by private individuals or by the Government or by a combinaton of both, that we should take what action is now possible during the War in order that a situation may be created by which both we and our Allies—in this case one Ally, Italy—can profit afterwards. That is the whole object of this Clause, and there is no other.
  Hon. Members who have criticised the Clause have suggested that it is a novel proceeding that the Government should finance a private corporation. I admit that it is, but I need hardly remind the House

  401
  that this War is a novel proceeding. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) shakes his head, but I am sure that he would not deny for one moment that the financial position is wholly abnormal and that the normal rules which govern our finance cannot be pedantically adhered to in a crisis like the present. My right hon. Friend is a financial authority much higher than I, but I hardly think that he would really maintain that, if it is to be for the benefit of Italy and Great Britain that an agreement of this kind should be come to now, from which both countries would derive benefit, we should be deterred from carrying out that agreement by a pedantic search for a precedent. Therefore I do ask the House, if no precedent is set on this matter, to consider the case on its merits, and only on its merits.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is a precedent. The case of the Cunard Company affords the hon. Gentleman the precedent for which he is searching. In that case the Government came to the assistance of a purely British company and gave it a sum down, not a subsidy for ten years, and the repayment of that sum is now portion of the national income. That is a precedent.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a precedent up to a certain point. But I do not want to look for precedents. I do not want to be bound by precedents now when we are at war, and all I am really concerned to show to the House is that the thing is desirable in itself. I am more concerned with that than I am with precedents, and this House will agree that in present abnormal conditions it is not possible for private financial resources to embark upon operations of this kind which, obviously, must depend largely for their success upon the conditions on which the War terminates. Clearly we have confidence that the War will terminate on conditions which will bring this scheme to maturity, but there is a risk, of which the nation which is responsible for the money should be prepared to take some share. We cannot entirely expect private people to take the whole burden on their own shoulders. That has been recognised, and, in coming to the kind of work which this financial corporation would do, they will be in a position to make advances for the development of Italian resources. I can name two particular items, for instance, in which I believe assistance is required. One is in connection with the electrification of
  402
  Italian railways; another is the irrigation of territories which will increase enormously in value by irrigation works. That is the kind of operation which is required by Italy, and if we can assist this corporation or these corporations to assist financially those operations, Italy would be served and England no doubt will foe benefited largely, through the advantage which will come to our Allies.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a subsidy to Italy to electrify tramways.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We are not subsidising Italy. There is no suggestion that the money should be given to Italy for this purpose. That would be the last suggestion. Italy will obtain money on fair terms for such purposes. We are not going to give money to the Italian State railways. We are going to assist the corporation to find money which can be advanced for the use of the Italian State Railway on terms satisfactory to both parties. The development of Italian commerce will be furthered, and there will be no question whatever about any obligations incurred, which will be met. And so far as finance is concerned, the corporation—which, I may say, is really the child of the London clearance banks, some thirteen in number—is to receive £50,000 annually for ten years from money provided by Parliament. The State will pay that sum, which represents 5 per cent. upon a capital of £1,000,000. If in any year the corporation is able to pay a dividend above the 5 per cent. represented by the £50,000, after providing in the ordinary way for the charges for reserve fund, and so on, which are necessary in the case of a company of the kind, this excess profit will be halved, and an equal amount will be paid to the State until the whole of the loan has been repaid, and that liability will carry over beyond the ten years for which the agreement is that the State will pay. Therefore the maximum liability of the State will be £500,000. This is a sum that is repaid under that scheme, and if the operation is fully successful the whole of the money will be repaid from time to time under the scheme which I have outlined to the House. That is the proposal. It has received the support of the Board of Trade on the grounds which I have laid before the House, and I think that it is in accordance with the interests, both of this country and of Italy, that this arrangement should be allowed to proceed. I hope,

  403
  therefore, that the House, in passing this Rill, will sanction the principle that we are justified in undertaking this obligation to help Italy and at the same time to advantage this country.
  Sir C. HENRY: Does the State receive interest on the money that is borrowed?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The £50,000 which the Government pays will provide 5 per cent. interest on the capital of £1,000,000. If the transactions of the company in any year produce a profit and from that profit it could pay, let us say 2 per cent. dividend—that is to say, that the company would be able to pay 7 per cent. dividend, then they would take 1 per cent. of this 2 per. cent. profit, and the other 1 per cent. would have to be paid to the Government because they have to pay the Government an amount equal to any dividend which they pay above 5 per cent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is that without putting any money to reserve?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They have to repay the money somehow, and they cannot pay a dividend above 5 per cent. without paying the Government some equal share of what is over 5 per cent. If there happen to be 2 per cent. above the 5 per cent.—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could they put that to the reserve?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They could.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Would not that postpone their liability to repay?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I take it that it will not be suggested that money would be put to reserve with that object. I hope that the interruption does not suggest that. I hope my right hon. Friend does not suggest that a corporation of this kind has gone into this matter on the purely financial ground of making money. I think that we are indebted to this corporation, who have taken this matter up on patriotic grounds, and only desire to be allowed by this House to ask it for some assistance which would be of advantage both to Italy and this country. I should be really very sorry to hear—and I think my right hon. Friend would be sorry—to hear it suggested that the proposal put forward by this bank is merely for the purpose of making money, and that rather than repay the money they would purposely put it to
  404
  reserve. I hope my right hon. Friend does not make that suggestion; if he does, I strongly repudiate it.
  Mr. FABER: Personally I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the information he has given us about this British-Italian Banking Corporation. I have a perfectly fresh and free mind on the subject. I did not hear the answer given in regard to the matter in the House on a previous day, and I know nothing about the details. I want to look at the subject absolutely broadly. I perfectly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to rake up the archives of precedents. We are living in such extraordinary times that we have to go on from hand to mouth. But there are two questions which arise—first, is it the right thing to do, and, secondly, is this the right way of doing it. With regard to the first question, I say at once that it is the right thing to do. We cannot begin to sow our seed in these matters too soon. We have been telling the Government day after day that they are always waiting to see, and that now we ought to prepare for the period after the War. Therefore, do not let us be hypercritical when the Government are doing the right thing, and doing it now. We must cast our glance to the after-war conditions, and we have got to do all we can to oust the Germans. That is our commercial duty to our own country. Italy is one of the greatest of our Allies, and certainly, if we can help her financially to oust the Germans, to put it in homely phrase, it would be better for Italy and better for us. We can extend this scheme much further, and go on to Russia, but, so far, the Government are making a beginning and are doing the right thing.
  But are they doing it in the right way? I am not quite so sure about that. It is a tremendous departure—although that will not frighten me—for the Government to guarantee a private corporation. They have never done it before, and it ought not to have been done in a Sub-section of a Clause of a Bill of this kind, by which public attention is not really directed to a matter of this importance. I will not use the phrase used by a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, that it was smuggled in. I am sure the Government have not any intention of that kind; I believe that they have the best intentions; still, I submit that this ought to have been a Government matter. After

  405
  the War our banking will have to be revolutionised, if we are to keep our trade and get more trade. We shall have to make new departures, and old-fashioned banking has got to be reconsidered, and, whatever may be the new-fashioned banking, there are various questions which will arise. Who are this British-Italian Banking Corporation to whom the Government have extended the wing of their financial protection? The hon. Gentleman states that this corporation, whoever they may be, is the child—I think that is the phrase he used—of the clearing banks. The clearing banks are a very important combined financial power. Does the hon. Gentleman say that this corporation is a child born of all the clearing banks, or how many of them?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know whether it is of all the clearing banks, but I believe a large proportion of them have taken some interest in it.
  Mr. FABER: The hon. Gentleman put it very broadly that this corporation was the child of the clearing banks, and I think he said most of the clearing banks. If it be that this corporation is the child of the clearing banks, that is a very powerful guarantee to have behind it. If it only means that two clearing banks, however important, have taken shares in this bank, that does not appeal to my mind; I should not be satisfied. I want to know if those banks represent the opinion of the banking world of London, and, if they do, still I should infinitely prefer that it was a Government Motion; in fact, in any case I should prefer that it was a Government matter. I do not see why a corporation should take up a matter of this kind. The hon. Gentleman said that they were doing it patriotically for the sake of the country. That is not quite so, because, patriotic though I am sure they are, they are obtaining a guarantee for ten years at 5 per cent. up to £50,000 a year. Will the hon. Gentleman answer me as to the clearing banks?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The information which has been given me is that there are two clearing banks who are principally; concerned, the London and County Bank and Lloyds Bank, I think.
  Mr. FABER: Then two important banks have taken up shares, and are behind this scheme?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is correct.
  Mr. FABER: I think this is much too big a matter to be dealt with in this way, especially as it may lead to other schemes; and is the Government always to be providing guarantees? You ought to have had a Government scheme from the first. But it is no good my multiplying words. I have stated my views. The Government are doing the best they can, but one-wonders sometimes whether, in the press and rush of these mighty problems, they are doing the best thing.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What does the hon. Member mean by a Government scheme?
  Mr. FABER: I mean a Government bank, like that of France, and other countries. Germany has Government banks. We ought never to have done it in this way. We ought never to have provided the company with a guarantee by the Government at all. I doubt if this matter has been thought out. I doubt if you have had the time to think it out. I should have thought that if the Department had bad time to think it out, they would have weighed the pros and cons on a matter of this moment—as to whether it should be confided to a corporation or whether the Government should initiate the new banking system in their own way and make it a Government bank. I have said all I have got to say; it may be that I am wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion. As regards one or two other points, I think that this Bill has been shockingly badly drawn. It says that it is "to make provision with respect to obligations incurred." We have been discussing for the last hour and a half whether the operation of the Bill is limited to obligations incurred or, somehow or other, whether there may not be read into it obligations to be incurred. It would clear my mind very much if the hon. Gentleman could tell me now definitely, after all the observations that have been made in the House in the matter, whether this Bill is confined to obligations already incurred or whether it extends to obligations to be incurred?
  Mr. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will look at line 12 in the Bill, he will find that it is most expressly stated "for the fulfilment of any Government War obligation incurred before the passing of this Act." How the English language could express it more clearly than that I do not know.
  Mr. FABER: Then the speeches which have been made in this House have pro-

  407
  ceeded apparently on a misapprehension. Have they proceeded on a misapprhension?
  Mr. WOOD: Certainly!
  Mr. FABER: What frightened many hon. Members, or made them feel uncomfortable, was whether the Government were getting the sanction of the House to say "Yes" to "obligations already in-curred," and then say, in fact, that they were going to incur fresh obligations. Three or four of these speeches we have beard proceeded on the assumption that, although it is not in the Bill, that some-bow or other it was meant.
  Mr. WOOD: I explained the matter as clearly as I could, but there was such a very loud conversation going on on the bench immediately below me that I am afraid I was not heard, but I could not help that. I quoted those very words.
  Mr. FABER: Personally, I am satisfied. Under the Government War Obligations Act of 1914 certain obligations incurred were sanctioned by the House, and the Act of 1915 sanctioned further obligations. Now comes this Bill, which extends that to any obligations incurred up to the date of the passing of the Bill, and the Government have not done anything they ought not to do. If that is so, personally I am satisfied.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I want to know what those obligations are. Do you know?
  Mr. FABER: I think it would be much more satisfactory that we should know specifically, just as in the earlier Bill they were put in the Schedule.
  Mr. WOOD: The Schedule is continued by this Bill as it was in the first Bill and the second Bill, with the addition of one or two things which are expressly mentioned in this Bill, so that it is exactly on the same model as the last Bill.
  Mr. FABER: Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 mentions damage by aircraft, or by enemy bombardment, although we are told Scarborough is only referred to.
  Mr. WOOD: That is the intention.
  Mr. FABER: But it seems as if these words could be applied to any place. The Sub-section says
  "so as to include obligations incurred in connection with the present War in
  408
  respect of compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action, and loans or guarantees of loans made for the benefit of places damaged or affected by any such action, either actual or apprehended."
  Mr. WOOD: No; they could not.
  Mr. FABER: Why not?
  Mr. WOOD: The only obligation is in the case of Scarborough. The whole thing is conditioned by the fact that this gives power to settle obligations incurred under the Schedule with the addition of one or two things. Supposing we give a Grant to any other place, or if we did something which comes under these words in regard to any place, we should have to come to Parliament to sanction it, just as we had to come for sanction for past obligations.
  Mr. FABER: It is very obscurely worded. If Scarborough is the only place aimed at, you might really have put it in the Sub-section and got rid of a number of very obscure words. Then we have the other words "either actual or apprehended," and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that this only refers to the past.
  Mr. WOOD: The apprehension of raids might prejudicially affect the town. I think the words are perfectly harmless.
  Mr. FABER: They are open to more than one construction.
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, speaking on the Financial Resolution, emphasised two propositions. First of all he said that the whole of the obligations which were to be guaranteed or legalised by this Bill would be scheduled, and I want to direct his attention to the fact that there is no Schedule. I quite understand that the explanation which he has given, namely, that this Bill, in order to be understood must be read in connection with the two previous Acts, and that you must carryforward the Schedule of the first Act and the amending propositions of the second Act and add to them those mentioned in this Bill. I desire to say with regard to this legislation which deals with finance—and finance of a very extensive and indefinite character—that I think it is very undesirable that a Bill should be intro-

  409
  duced into this House covering these large obligations without setting forth what obligations we are covering. I think there ought to be, in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman himself promised on the Financial Resolution, a Schedule to the Bill, in which, as far as was consistent with public policy, everything covered by the Bill ought to have been set forth. We should not be driven to go and get Statutes and go back to the previous Acts in order to ascertain what we were actually called upon to do. I think that proposition is all the more sound because we are engaged in wholly unprecedented legislation. It is war legislation. I may recall the way in which in the late autumn of 1914 endless Bills were put through this House without anybody in the House taking the trouble to read them, or knowing what they were about. The times were, of course, terrible, and people simply trusted absolutely to the Government. The whole three stages of those Bills, many of them long and important, went through often within ten minutes. That being so, I think after two and a half years have elapsed, and when the House of Commons is beginning once more to find its legs, I think the Government ought not to take as a precedent the very serious precedent created in 1914, and, as it were, improve on it by introducing this Bill. The second statement which the right hon. Gentleman emphasised on the Financial Resolution was that this Bill makes no provision at all with regard to money, and provides no money. I confess when I read the Bill in the light of his explanation I thought that at least there we were on safe grounds. Now observe the extreme inconvenience and, in fact, the vice, for I think that is not too strong a word, in these great financial measures giving unheard of powers to the Government of legislating by reference in the obscurest possible way. When you come to examine this Bill in the light of the first of them, here is what Clause 1 of this Bill says:
  "Section one of the Government War Obligations Act of 1914 which, as extended by Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, relates to the provision of money for the fulfillment of Government War obligations."
  That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill did not do.
  Mr. WOOD: It does not provide money.
  Mr. DILLON: Here is what Section 1 of the Act of 1914 says, "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." That is the language and the exact words of an Appropriation Bill. That Section goes on to say, "or if these moneys are insufficient, there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof all such sums as may be required, etc." That is very strong language, and if it does not provide money, what does it do?
  Mr. WOOD: As I have stated again and again, it sanctions promises given by the Government, but it does not provide the money.
  Mr. DILLON: Then what is the meaning and force of those words?
  Mr. WOOD: No Government could conduct a war without entering into contractual obligations, and the people with whom those obligations are entered are entitled to say to the Government that they should get the sanction of Parliament for them. Undoubtedly in that sense-Parliament authorises the Government and commits itself to find the money. Of course a good deal of the money for these objects is provided in the Vote of Credit and will be paid out of the next Vote of Credit. If the matter goes on beyond the: period of the Votes of Credit, then undoubtedly Parliament will have to provide the money.
  Mr. DILLON: I am not quarrelling with, the whole procedure. I am quarrelling with the way in which the Bill was drafted and explained to the House. What I want to know is, what is the meaning of the words, "shall be provided out of moneys provided by Parliament, or, if they are insufficient, shall be charged and paid out of the Consolidated Fund"?
  Mr. WOOD: The Government having entered into contracts with these people, Parliament says we will carry out those contracts and provide the money to do so.
  Mr. DILLON: Do not these words authorise the Government, if it runs short of the money voted by Parliament, to pay out of the Consolidated Fund?
  Mr. WOOD: Yes.
  Mr. DILLON: Very well, then, we are told this Bill is not providing money?
  Mr. WOOD: No.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. DILLON: I have been a long time in this House, and have taken a very great interest in the financial debates. I have followed them closely. I have never yet heard a Minister come down and say that the words of an Act of Parliament authorising and enabling the Government to pay money out of the Consoldiated Fund provides no money. It is the most astonishing use of language I ever heard. I do not complain of the policy. I am not quarrelling with the policy, or with the sound financial policy that the Government should come to us for the authorisation of these payments or obligations. What I complain of is that the House of Commons was not told clearly by the Government what they were asked to do. Certainly I complain of the fact that this Bill has been drafted in such a way that there is no doubt whatever that the average Member of this House is asked to vote blindly. The average Member really does not in the least know what he is doing. The Secretary to the Treasury himself has to get up again and again, and attempt to explain the Bill. I venture to say even now that there is not one Member in the House who, if he were cross-examined as to what he is doing or what obligations he was incurring by voting for this Bill, would be able to give a clear and detailed answer. A Bill of this kind, following on the practice and spirit of our procedure in finance, above all, ought to be clear and definite.
  When an hon. Member challenged the Government to limit themselves in a previous Act, and to give details and information about the loans we are going to make, he actually moved and carried an Amendment—I refer to two or three years ago—by which the Government were forbidden to give loans. I remember on that occasion that I intervened and succeeded in getting that wiped out. I say that to show that I do not raise this criticism unnecessarily; that I do not desire in the least to tie the hands of the Government in these great transactions. On the contrary, I think we ought to give them the utmost possible liberty in these matters—liberty which we would not dream of giving them in peace time, in dealing with foreign nations, neutrals, our Allies, secret service, and so forth. What, however, I am entitled to ask is that when the House of Commons exhibits that spirit—and no legislative assembly in the history of the world that exhibited that spirit more
  412
  generously and more unreservedly than have the House of Commons in the conduct of this War—that the House of Commons should be treated frankly, and that the Government should come forward with a desire, and a manifest desire, to take the House into its confidence so far as the public interest will allow, and state what are the limits. I say that in regard to the general drafting of the Bill.
  With regard to the other important question, I must say the arguments have not convinced me. Do not the Government see, the danger of the new system? The Government have got into throwing something upon the floor of the House and saying. "Vote for it, it is a war measure." Therefore, any question which is calculated, or which they think calculated, to raise controversy or debate, they frame into a war measure, and say, "It is the War; run it through the House." That is a most dangerous thing. I think the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is quite right and wise to protest against that. There is no man in this House who will raise any objection to the question of even large sums to loosen the hold and grip of German finance, for those of us who have been in Italy know only too well what an awful evil it has been for Italy; and also for Russia. It would be in our own interest, and we would reap an enormous reward. It would not be waste of money. But these are great questions. They are dangerous questions. The House of Commons, therefore, ought to be accorded a full opportunity of Debate in order that, if we are going to subsidise these great institutions, we may see that they are built upon sound lines. There is no question of favouritism, of private interest or concern in these matters. I think, really, it is nothing short of a great blunder on the part of the Government to introduce a matter like the Italian Bank into this Bill when it ought to be treated as a war emergency measure.
  Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken got to the heart of this question when he said that though technically, as the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out, we were not actually providing money, that this really is a money liability Bill. Anyone having one of these obligations can immediately discount it, or, have an advance upon it, and therefore it is a liability on this House or the country. Very properly the hon. Member opposite pointed out that this is for an

  413
  unlimited amount. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin pointed that out when the Resolution was before the House. He said that we were asked to give a blank cheque to the Government. I do not think that we should be called upon to do that either from the past history of Government finance or from the principle enunciated. The Government on the Resolution were asked by my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Lanarkshire for some idea of the extent of these obligations. They could easily give us this from time to time by an estimate of the amount of their capital expenditure in the past, so that, of course, there would be a basis for enabling them to state their liability in the future. To be asked to subscribe to an unlimited amount seems to me really to exceed the powers of the Government, and to take no account of the generosity of the House, which has been most ample towards any commitments which the Government have made upon us for finance and money to carry on this War.
  May I also support what has been said by the hon. Member in regard to the Italian obligations? While we are all anxious to extend trade—and"we shall have to extend our own trade to meet our obligations after this War—I think to be asked in a War Obligations Bill—so-called—to subscribe to and give power for advances to certain banks in regard to some particular business in Italy is not right. It should certainly come in a separate Bill. We do not know what we are doing in regard to that particular obligation. We have no control over it. The hon. Member very properly said that we supported and endorsed the principle that in the case of public money there ought to be governmental or public control. He told us plainly that the passing of subsidies for banks who may have the intention of advancing their trade—no doubt their legitimate interests—ought to carry with it some control by this House, seeing that taxpayers' money is involved. There ought to be proper control. I do not think we are supported or encouraged by the Government's past financial record in connection with this War to support anything giving them practically unlimited powers. It has been well sail that "finance is not a matter of mere arithmetic. Without sound finance no sound government is possible, and without sound government no sound finance is possible." The first of these War
  414
  Obligations Bills which came before the House is now an Act. It had within it a scheme for the mobilisation of American and other securities. That was debated in this House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and many others took exception to that method, a method that they regarded as that of unfair taxation, and of penalising a certain section of the community. They also took exception, as many of us did, to the whole principle involved in that particular method of finance. We were told that that particular scheme was to regulate or support the rate of exchange, and to prevent gold exports. It has not done that. In a sense it has proved utterly inefficacious to carry out the objects for which we were asked to subscribe. It has to a certain extent maintained the exchange with America. But we were told that the object of maintaining the exchange with America was to curtail the exports from America to this country. The effect of artificially supporting the exchange with America has had an entirely opposite effect, because exports from America to this country have never been so great in their history.
  The other day a question was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyde, Cheshire, who asked the President of the Board of Trade the extent of the exportation of paper from America to this country. Here, again, was evidence that the policy which we are asked to subscribe to, that of giving unlimited powers to the Treasury—because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said he could not state what the amount would be and the number of millions involved in their mobilisation of further securities—is unsound finance. We are asked to give these powers to take securities. We are all probably very willing and patriotically anxious to give all necessary-powers to the Government, but we want to know the financial scheme for which the Government intend to use these powers. If we find, as I think I shall be able to show, that this particular scheme is not a sound one, and has brought about the very opposite effect to that which the Government said it would, I think we may pause when we are asked to give the Government still further powers. The hon. Member for Hyde, in his question to the President of the Board of Trade, dealt with the importation of paper from

  415
  America. I think most Members will agree, when we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we are always told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this policy of artificially supporting the rate of exchange is for the purpose of enabling us to pay for the munitions from America, that certainly paper enters very little into the manufacture of munitions.
  What were the figures? The export of paper from the United States to this country during the years in which we have been engaged in the War—which paper was used for printing, writing, paperhanging, and other purposes—was in 1913, the year previous to the War, 157,171 cwts. In 1914 the figure had increased to 262,121 cwts. In 1915 it had gone up to 413,000 odd; while for this year, from January to October, the figure was 531,100 cwts. There we see, as I have said time after time and pointed out to the Government when we entered upon this policy, the entirely contrary effect to that which the Government submitted to the House it would have. It has enormously stimulated the export of commodities from the United States to this country, to the detriment of the manufacturers and traders in this country. If you take the monetary value, you find that the export of paper altogether amounted in 1913, as given in the same answer of the President of the Board of Trade, to £230,000, in 1914 to £262,000, in 1915 to £438,000, and in 1916 to £745,000. That, I think, surely shows the unsoundness of their policy. Why does it stimulate the export of commodities from the United States to this country? For a very good reason. One of the risks the American trader, when he is trading to this country, has to run is, of course, the rate at which he can sell his draft on London, and he has to take that risk into account. The rate varies round about 4–86 and 4–76, and lower, and it rises or falls according as the exchange is favourable or unfavourable to this country. These powers which the Government are asking us to give them, as I say, are detrimental to British trade, and are really putting a premium on American trade. The Government say they wish for powers to support artificially the rate, and prevent gold from flowing from this country to America. But in effect the Treasury says to the American trader, "Do not distress yourself
  416
  about the rate of exchange at which you can sell your draft. We will buy all your drafts at 4–76½."
  Some of us pointed that out when the first Bill came before the House. We pointed out that this action of the Treasury was most unsound, that it would probably have the effect of stimulating American exports, that it would play into the hands of the American exporter, and that we are practically using up our resources which we ought to hold. We do not know the extent of this War. We all wish for a successful and speedy close, but we cannot tell how long it may go on, and we cannot afford to fritter away our resources in unsound financial expedients, which I have demonstrated would have exactly the opposite effect to that which they are intended to have. On a former occasion I gave examples with regard to American trades, and I think, if you study the enormous increase of exports from America to this country, you will see that they do not by any means represent munitions, and that the policy of the Government has really been a profligate one. It has just been another means of raising money by the most extravagant form of finance, and has had the effect of enormously stimulating the export of American produce and commodities to this country, to the detriment of the British trader and of the British manufacturer. That, of course, is contained in the Bill. That is one of the main powers. Very little has been said about it. Most of our discussion has been on the Italian banking matter, which is a very small matter compared with the millions involved in this policy of giving power to the Government to mobilise securities and to use them for that purpose.
  We had a Debate the other day, in which many took part, with regard to the advantages of funding the Floating Debt. But there again our Debate was of little or no value, because we read in the "Times" that the Government are again issuing short-dated securities in the New-York market, and I say there is nothing in the action of the Government to demand from the House of Commons this blank cheque and to encourage us to give them these powers. They have made no case. They are unable either to give us the facts with regard to past expenditure or to encourage us to give them these unlimited powers, because if you study their finance you will find it has been most

  417
  wasteful, and in many instances has had the opposite effect to that which was intended. I hope I have said sufficient to show that we regard with very great gravity this Bill, and that we ought, if we believe these things, to take our courage in both hands and act upon it. It is no use criticising the Government and their finance unless we are prepared to act on our convictions, and I entirely support my colleague when he showed a willingness to move the, adjournment of the Debate because of the dissatisfaction which exists with regard to this particular measure. Of course, if there is a desire by hon. Members, as no doubt there will be, still further to develop this point, it would be inadvisable to do that at this stage. There has not been a single speech in support of the action of the Government, and yet we are asked to support them when they are unable themselves to command any support, and apparently have no followers here. They ask us to give these powers when they are unable to make their own case, and unable to give us any facts with regard to their past capital liabilities. They cannot tell us in regard to the future. If we study their financial transactions we find in many instances they are falsified by the actual results, and I shall certainly support the adjournment of the Debate when it is moved.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to follow those who have taken part in this Debate in discussing the merits of the proposal contained in this Bill. I am only concerned to say a few words following my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with regard to the procedure which this Bill involves, and I do venture most earnestly to support the case he has made that the Government, in putting forward this Bill, are adopting a most extraordinary procedure, and one which they have not at all fairly, properly or frankly explained to the House. For a great part of the discussion, the other day, and for the most part of this discussion to-day, it has been very difficult indeed for hon Members thoroughly to grasp what the procedure in this Bill means at all. It has been pointed out that we have had to go back to the former Acts, with which this is connected, of last year and the year before. But it is a remarkable thing that when we turn to the Act with which this is related, which was passed in 1914, Clause 1, which
  418
  governs this equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo pointed out, says:
  "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or, if those moneys are insufficient, there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, such sums as may be required."
  What is the meaning of that? The Financial Secretary, last week, speaking on the Resolution, used these words:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd November, 1916, col. 1654. Vol. LXXXVII.]
  I agree. But why is it necessary to bring in this Bill merely because the obligations extend over more than one financial year? I say that if the Government came down to the House of Commons and explained fully the contracts into which they had entered, and asked for the approval of the House of Commons, that would be one thing, and I could thoroughly understand that course of procedure upon their part. But in this Bill they come down without giving us practically any particulars with regard to these contracts at all, and ask the House of Commons to commit itself to the approval of them. We do not deny the Government anything that is necessary for the prosecution of the War. We do not desire to do so. But I think the key to the mystery that has prevailed so long is contained in the Act of 1914, which says that the moneys for these contracts shall be provided by Parliament, or, if not, out of the. Consolidated Fund. In other words, sup-posing two or three years hence we discover that the Government have mishandled a contract in such a way as to be to the national disadvantage. It is admitted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that later on, say, two or three years hence, in connection with these continuing contracts, the Treasury and Government will have to come to Parliament for the actual money to pay the current expenses of those contracts. This Bill to-day prevents Parliament two or three years hence from going into the merits of those contracts and from saying, "Having looked into this matter, we consider this is a contract the Government ought not to have made in these particular terms, and we decline to pass the money." What would happen? It is perfectly plain the Government could snap its fingers at the House of Commons and turn round and

  419
  say, "We do not want Parliamentary sanction for this; we will pay it out of the Consolidated Fund." This is what this Bill is for, and it has not been explained to the House that if in two or three years' time Parliament does not see fit to sanction these contracts, the Government can pay for them out of the Consolidated Fund, without the sanction and against the wishes of Parliament. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to have explained that to the House. I ask him to deny that that course is possible; I challenge him.
  Mr. WOOD: I have no desire to deny it. I will be perfectly frank. If Parliament sanctions a contract it must, of course, satisfy its obligation. I have never made any secret about it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, yes. The right hon. Gentleman said distinctly that this did not provide money. Now that does provide money, because it allows the Government to mortgage the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr HAZLETON: I think the position is becoming distinctly clearer, and we are to understand now from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that if for any reason, after investigating these contracts, Parliament does not approve of them later on, it has not got the power to upset them. It has not got the power to refuse to pay, either, because if it does so the Government will proceed, under the powers given by this measure, to take the money for those contracts out of the Consolidated Fund. I do not know whether there is any precedent for an extraordinary measure of that kind. I certainly know that in the Bill as passed in 1914, after the outbreak of war, this House did not give that examination to the measure at that time which it is now shown these financial measures require, and, for my part, I do say that it is an extraordinary and an unprecedented course which the Government is taking in this matter, about which they have not been frank with the House. While I know the House will not desire for one moment to stand in the way of the obligations necessary for the carrying out of the War, I hope it will refuse in this case, as in other cases we have had within the past few months, to allow the Government to follow this extraordinary procedure, and will compel them to withdraw this
  420
  measure, and follow some procedure more in accordance with precedent and with what is right.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: This discussion has gone on now for a considerable time, and I think it would be well that the House should see exactly where we stand and what it is we are asked to do. I do not profess to be an expert in financial procedure. I know the ways of the Treasury are very dark and mysterious, but, in my opinion, if this Bill means anything, it means that we are now to endorse all the financial obligations which up to the present moment the Government have entered into, all their contracts, all their obligations in reference to damaged property, and another matter about which I wish to say something, and that is the Italian Bank. If that is what we are asked to do we must go a step further. We are asked to endorse all these contracts without having the slightest intimation given to us as to what they are or even an estimate of what they amount to, and not even an estimate of what they will cost this country in future years. Is that what we are asked to do? If it is, all that I can say is that it seems to me that the whole procedure is a farce. If the representative of the Government gets up and says, "We have no way of telling the House of Commons what the obligations are into which we have entered and we cannot estimate what they are going to cost the country—it may be millions, but the House of Commons is not concerned because we shall charge that as a mortgage upon the Consolidated Fund, and we cannot let you know even to an approximate degree what it is we are doing," then I say it would be far better to boldly pass an Act which would avoid these things altogether, and say that so long as the War goes on the Government can enter into any obligations they like. It really comes to that. I am not saying that they may not be right, and I certainly am the last person to wish in any wise to prevent the Government enter ing into any contract so long as they take care to give it careful consideration, which is invariably done in all these matters. I do not think, however, that we ought to pretend that we exercise control over these things, and have the responsibility for them put upon us, if we are to be furnished with no material upon which to form our judgment I am very much interested in the second Sub-section, because I am told that the obligations

  421
  mentioned there relate to the unfortunate transactions in Dublin. We have often tried to get out of the Government exactly what are the arrangements they have made in regard to that matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman said it was only Scarborough. [An HON. MEMBER: "Another time he said it was Dublin!"]
  Sir E. CARSON: Sub-section (2) provides that
  "The Schedule to the Government War Obligations Act, 1914, shall be further extended so as to include obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of compensation to damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action."
  If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it means that the Government intend putting in words securing compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action inflicted by a belligerent Power, of course that would make it clear.
  Mr. WOOD: It is conditioned by the words "incurred before the passing of the Act." We do not take future liabilities.
  Sir E. CARSON: That is my point. We know the Governmnet have incurred obligations in reference to property destroyed in Dublin.
  Mr. WOOD: That came under the Vote of Credit.
  Sir E. CARSON: I thought all the money for these things' was to come out of the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. WOOD: This Bill does not apply to money paid for future obligations, but it applies to obligations incurred up to the present but extending into the future Supposing we have entered into an obligation to pay interest this year, or the next year, or perhaps for four years, that undertaking of the Government is now sanctioned by Parliament. What has been done for Dublin has been paid—
  Sir E. CARSON: Indeed, it has not.
  Mr. WOOD: It is not a continuing obligation.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the obligation been incurred with regard to Dublin?
  Sir E. CARSON: There is a Commission sitting in Dublin which has to estimate losses not merely with reference to property, but with reference to individuals.
  Mr. WOOD: If we have not entered into an obligation already it would not come under this Bill.
  Sir E. CARSON: Really, the right hon. Gentleman does not know what it does do. He told us the other day that when the Bill came on it would contain full information and tell us every obligation.
  Mr. WOOD: Every class of obligation.
  Sir E. CARSON: It would be far better to say that this is a formal state in the carrying out of the obligations of the Government. For my part, all I can say is that I have not the faintest idea, and I do not believe any hon. Member of this House has, in regard to what this Bill is going to do. I now come to Sub-section (3), which provides that
  "any obligation incurred in respect of any advance or guarantee given to or for the benefit of the British-Italian Banking Corporation is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War."
  Are we going to enter into this banking operation in support of some particular bank without all the details being put before us? This strikes me as an extraordinary proposal. What is this banking corporation going to do! I agree with what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said, that the subject of the British-Italian Banking Corporation is a matter which ought to be included in a separate Bill, and we ought to be able to thoroughly thresh it out as a separate matter, because it is quite plain that, having declared it to be an obligation in connection with the present War, it shows we are doing something which is not really an obligation connected with the present War, and we are declaring by an Act of Parliament that it is such an obligation, otherwise it would come as an ordinary obligation under the other words of the Section. Under these circumstances it is very difficult to know what to do. I do not wish in the slightest degree to impede the necessary business of the Government or prevent them getting the money, but I feel it is very difficult to vote away

  423
  money coming from the taxpayers, perhaps for many years to come, without being given the slightest indication of the amount, or the nature of the various sums which are asked for. I suppose that all that I can do is to say to myself, "Trust the Government and have confidence in them." I suppose that is the best thing to do. As far as I am concerned if this Bill goes to a Division I should not feel it my duty to oppose it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to take note that we shall expect in Committee very much more elaborate details than we have had up to the present, which will enable us to know what we are voting for. I would suggest also that the Government might show a little more interest in the matter and be here to answer the speeches which have been made from all parts of the House, and not leave us always in a fog as to what is being done. The whole position is most unsatisfactory, and for my part I say that I think the House is being asked to take part in what is really little less than a farce.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The sole question underlying the discussion which has been going on for two-and-a-half hours is whether the House of Commons is to know what it is doing. The procedure the Government have adopted both on the Resolution and the Second Reading seems to be cunningly devised for the purpose of keeping us entirely in the dark. On the Committee and Report stages of the Resolution I endeavoured to elicit from the representative of the Government what was included under the Resolution upon which this Bill is based. He then told us that the details would be given when the Bill came on for the Second Reading. On that occasion he said:
  "Our position is not an unreasonable or an unusual one. We shall bring in a Bill which gives all the details, and the House will be able to express its opinion on any one of them."
  Can any hon. Member who has listened to the whole of the Debate and the cross-examination to which the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected say that the House has really received any substantial information regarding the details of this Bill? Take, for example, Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. It is drafted in such a way as to conceal altogether what is being done. It refers to the Statute for 1914, which was passed as an emergency
  424
  measure. We all remember that every one of the Acts passed in the autumn of 1914 was described as emergency legislation, and this Act was published in the manual of emergency legislation, and as the House believed that was an emergency measure it allowed it to go through with very slight discussion. There was only a discussion on the Treasury scheme in regard to bills of exchange initiated by the late Sir Arthur Markham, but apart from that, owing to the emergency character of the legislation, the House gave the Government power without any real discussion. Now the Government both this year and last year include by reference, not for one year, but for the purpose of further years, the powers which were secured in that way simply by emergency proposals. The right hon. Gentleman has not even taken the trouble to tell us this afternoon what was in the Schedule of that Act. There are five paragraphs in the Schedule of the Act of 1914. The first deals with guarantees given to the Bank of England in connection with the discount of bills of exchange, advances to acceptors, and so on. The second relates to guarantees given in connection with bills of exchange drawn by traders having debts due from abroad which are not immediately recoverable. The third refers to payments on contracts of insurance or reinsurance against war risks of ships or cargoes. The fourth deals with any loan raised by any of the Powers allied in the present war or by the Government of Egypt, or by the Government of any of His Majesty's Dominions or any British Possession or Protectorate. The fifth covers the maintenance or assistance in connection with the present War of food supply, trade, industry, business or communications in the United Kingdom or in any other country, or the relief of distress in the United Kingdom or in any other country.
  It is true that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech gave us details of what had been done under the obligations incurred in respect of bills of exchange, but he gave us no information as to the payments on contracts of insurance or reinsurance, and nothing as to loans contracted on behalf of the Allies or the Colonies. I do not suggest that from time to time as these loans are incurred, the details should be given to the House, but I think for the complete year the Government should state the amount of the loans which have been advanced The most important of

  425
  the obligations here mentioned was not explained. The maintenance or assistance in connection with the present War of food supply, trade, industry, business or communications in the United Kingdom or in any other country, or the relief of distress in the United Kingdom or in any other country. We know that in November, 1915, the obligations incurred in that respect were expected to be very small, but we are now on the eve of very large operations taking place, and very much larger obligations than were then considered possible have been undertaken during the present year. It is at least the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to listen. I am going to put some questions to him. We have made extensive purchases of wheat during the last year. About a year ago the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Houston) asked the Prime Minister whether ho would make a statement regarding wheat and give us an opportunity for a discussion. The Prime Minister promised an opportunity for a discussion, but from that day to this no information has been given. Now that the Government are asking for an Act of Indemnity in respect of these obligations, they should tell us what money has been spent on the purchase of wheat and what has been the result of the transactions up to date. They certainly ought to tell us what has been the result of their transactions in regard to meat. We know that there have been very large transactions. They also ought to state what has been the result of their transactions in regard to sugar. These are only some of the foodstuffs in respect of which contracts have been made, but the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining this Pill, and admitting it is a Bill of indemnity and a Bill authorising further payments, has not thought it right to inform the House of the details of a single one of these transactions. That is a position which the House of Commons should not accept. It should insist, when such an indemnity is being asked for, upon being informed of the details in respect of which the Government are to be indemnified, and also the details of the contracts in respect of which payments will have to be made in the future, because undoubtedly extremely large payments arising out of these contracts will yet have to be made. Neither in respect of the indemnity for the past, nor in respect of the payments which are to be borne on the Consolidated Fund in the future, has
  426
  there been a single word of explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Beyond this we know that the Schedule of last year's Act is also involved, and the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to mention a single one of the paragraphs in that Schedule. We have the relief of dependents of persons on any merchant ship or fishing vessel. He might surely have told us what had been spent in this matter up to date. Then there is compensation in respect of persons killed or injured on any merchant ship or fishing vessel, contracts of insurance against war risks of the personal effects of masters, officers, seamen, and fishermen, and payments in respect of aircraft and bombardment insurance contracts. When we passed the Act of last year it was understood that the insurance was going to be sufficient to cover both aircraft risks and bombardment risks.
  Mr. WOOD: I very fully explained, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that this was not a case of risk or of the payment of damage or anything of that kind. I explained that it was a guarantee to the bank in respect of advances and not a grant in any sense.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was intending to deal with that Clause later. I am pointing out that by this Bill we are extending the kind of compensation which formerly we thought would be required to be paid in respect of either losses by bombardment or from aircraft. Then we have the arrangements for restricting enemy supplies. We know that very large operations have taken place in connection with those arrangements, and the House is surely entitled now to some details as to the finance of past operations. I am not asking for an estimate of what may be required in the future, but we know that very large operations have taken place, and now that the House is asked for an indemnity it surely ought to know the details of those operations in respect of which the indemnity is required. Then there are the arrangements for the regulation of foreign exchanges. That matter was very fully discussed during the Debate on last year's Act, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) has stated very cogently again to-day, as he stated then, the reasons why he thinks that was an unsound operation. Further, there is a scheme for enabling securities to be placed at the disposal of the Treasury in connection with foreign

  427
  exchanges, and any exchange of obligations with any powers allied with His Majesty in the present War. All these things are involved in this Bill, taut it is only in respect of two or three things that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it worth while to make any explanation. I have mentioned quite a number of these matters where the House should insist upon an explanation before it gives a Second Reading to this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) told us that we ought to insist upon information being given in the Committee stage. We shall not get an opportunity, because this is merely a reference. It says:
  "Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914, which, as extended by Section one of the Government War Obligation Act, 1915, related to the provision of money for the fulfillment of Government War Obligations incurred before the passing of the last-mentioned Act, shall be further extended,"
  and so on. You cannot move Amendments effectively in the Committee stage so in any way to restrict the action of the Government. In the same way Sub-section (2) does not give us a great opportunity. The real opportunity is the Second Reading of the Bill, because the whole thing is involved in the re-enactment of the previous Acts. Beyond the re-enactment of the previous Acts there is, I agree, very little in the Bill. My complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman has not told us what is involved in the re-enactment of the previous Acts, and the House of Commons should not consent to that re-enactment without far more information than he has yet consented to give. I go on to this interesting Sub-section (2). The right hon. Gentleman told us that it only related to Scarborough. Why was all this very minute and subtle drafting devised for the purpose of dealing with what he calls "the peculiar case of Scarborough." Why did he need to say that the Schedule was to be extended so as to include
  "obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action, and loans or guarantees of loans made for the benefit of places damaged or affected by any such action, either actual or apprehended."
  428
  Why should he require to deal in an obligation already incurred with losses only apprehended? Is that something due to the peculiar position of Scarborough? Is he not only going to pay for losses which actually arose from the last bombardment, but also for losses which at present are only apprehended? It requires a little more explanation. We know, of course, the peculiar position of Sear-borough in being represented by a member of the Government. It is true that he is an unpaid member, but this may be the solatium. I desire to point out that Scarborough is not the only place that has suffered either from bombardment or aircraft raids. It is not the only place that has suffered from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action. Let the House notice the very wide terms. Has any contract already been entered into in respect of any other place, or is there any such contract in contemplation which will be completed before the passing of this Act? Because, mark you, it says
  "any obligation incurred before the passing of this Act."
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the only obligation so far incurred is in respect of Scarborough, but I think he ought also to tell us whether there is any contract now in course of negotiation which may be completed before the passing of this Act and in respect of which it is necessary to have this Clause in the wide terms that I have just read. Obviously those wide terms are not necessary for the purpose of covering the sole case of Scarborough. I think I have made out a case for some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of Sub-section (2). I now come to Subsection (3). I think it is wise for the House to look at the extraordinary form of this Sub-section, and I hope Mr. Speaker will in future look at it. It says:
  "Any obligation incurred in respect of any advance or guarantee given to or for the benefit of the British-Italian Banking Corporation is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War."
  7.0 p.m.
  Apparently the Government think that they can get any sort of obligation brought into an omnibus Bill of this kind simply by the expression, "It is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War." I could give instances of very large obligations for

  429
  procuring indemnities in the same way. I might suggest, for example, a scheme, which has found great favour among my own friends, for a Mid-Scotland canal uniting the Firth of Forth and the Clyde. It could not be completed during this War, but then the obligations in respect of the Italian-Banking Corporation are not confined to this War; they are to extend ten years after the War. This canal might now be undertaken, and it might take ten or fifteen years to construct. Then the Government might obtain the consent of the House of Commons to it by bringing in a Bill saying, "Any obligation incurred in respect of the canal is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War." I submit to the House that this is not the proper way of dealing with the obligations of this country. When they are making new obligations in respect of the country surely it is the duty of the Government to introduce a measure which will convey to the House full knowledge of the details of the plan which they propose and not seek to smuggle it through in a Sub-section of an omnibus Bill of this kind. I think the case I have put to the House of the attempt now being made by the Government to smuggle through large measures of legislation without giving adequate information to the House is an attempt which should not be tolerated, and I desire to ask the House now to mark its sense of the contempt with which it is being treated by insisting on the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to second the Motion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AND EXPORT OF PROHIBITED GOODS BILL.
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

MILITARY SERVICE.

  MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to raise a subject which I have brought forward on a number of occasions at Question Time and on which—I will not say I got no satisfaction, but as to which I have got the minimum of information from the Government. The subject is an Order recently issued, calling up for re-examination men who have been rejected, men who have been considered unfit for general service. I may read the introductory material paragraph of the Order:
  "It has been decided to call up for medical re-examination attested men who have previously been called up and rejected by medical boards, as well as those group and class men who have been placed in medical groups and categories not being taken for service and who have accordingly been sent back to their homes, and continue in the Army Reserve."
  I said I had been able to get only the minimum of information. I regret very much indeed that the Minister who is responsible for this Order is not here tonight. I have no personal complaint against my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster). He is one of the most helpful Ministers who sit on that bench. This is not in his specific Department. He is concerned with the Financial Department of the War Office, and I think he has given universal satisfaction in this House, and has never been at a loss to give us such information as can be given when it has been asked for. But this thing is not in his Department, and my complaint is that when the subject has been raised in the House, even although the Secretary for War has been sitting beside the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, the question has been handed over to the hon. Gentleman to deal with, and on several occasions, in reply to questions he has said, "I regret I cannot answer the question; I know nothing about it; it is not in my Department. I am overworked with questions which are brought before me relating to my Department, and I have not been able to give the study to this subject which is necessary to answer the question." When, therefore, I say I regret it is he who is present to-night to deal with this matter, it must not be taken that I am in any way making a personal reflection on him.

  431
  The subject I want to raise is the manner in which the War Office is dealing with attested men who have been rejected for general service, and with those men who are unfit for general service, and who have been placed in various medical categories of unfitness. There are two classes. First the rejected attested men, and second those men placed in medical categories not being called up for military service, and I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman certain facts with regard to each of these. First of all with regard to the attested men who have been before the medical board and have been rejected: there was a clear promise given to these men under the Derby scheme that if they came forward and volunteered for service they would be placed in a position not less favourable than those who refused to come forward voluntarily, but waited for the compulsion of the Military Service Act. Under the Military Service Act, the man who refused to come forward but waited for compulsion is placed in the more favourable position. If he has been rejected after the 14th August, 1915, and if notice has not been sent to him calling him up for re-examination before the 1st September this year, he is exempted altogether from the operation of the Military Service Act, and he cannot be compelled to come up again without fresh legislation. But the attested man has no advantage such as that. Even if he has been rejected he may be called up at any time again and again for re-examination. There is no finality—no certainty as to his position. Whereas the man who waited for compulsion is free to go on with his ordinary occupation, free to make contracts, free to incur obligations, the attested man who came forward voluntarily has this hanging over him all the time. He cannot enter into contracts, he cannot undertake the ordinary obligations of business life on account of this uncertainty which is hanging over him. I submit to the hon. Gentleman on the first point that this is unfair to the attested man, that it is a breach of the promise which was given to him, and that it makes him feel that he has fallen into a trap, and that he is being treated as one who has been trapped.
  My second point as to attested men is that the Order provides that no man previously rejected who has been re-examined by the medical board since 25th May, the
  432
  date when the Military Service Act came into operation, is to be called upon for the present to be re-examined under this instruction. "For the present!" What do those words mean? These are not men who have been rejected once. They are men who have been rejected twice. They are men who offered themselves first of all and were rejected. They have been called up for re-examination and have been rejected by the medical board. They thought they were free with regard to the future. They thought it was final, but there is no finality. The words are "for the present." What do those words mean? Is there to be no finality at all with regard to these men? Has the War Office not got medical boards which are competent to say whether a man is permanently unsuitable for military service or not? If he is permanently unsuitable, then give him a certificate saying so and let him conduct his business in the ordinary way. If he is not permanently unsuitable, if he is only temporarily unfit, give him a certificate saying that he is temporarily unfit, and may be called up at a later period for re-examination. Give him some knowledge as to what his position is. Do not keep him in this position of uncertainty. It is injurious to the nation. It is injurious to business. It is not helping to win the War. I raised this particular point at Question Time, and the hon. Gentleman gave me the extraordinary answer—it is avowedly not his own answer; it is an answer put into his hands by officials outside his Department—"that it is not considered that these men are in greater suspense than any other members of the public." They are not in any greater suspense than any other members of the public ! Really, is my hon. Friend serious? How is he treating the men who refused to come forward and who are exempted under the Military Service Act. Are they not in greater suspense than them? How about the members of the public who are over forty-one? Are they not in greater suspense than them? I have no desire to prevent the War Office from getting all the men that are necessary for their purpose. If the unfit men need to be called up, then let them be called up, but let the men over forty-one be called up too, if you are calling up unfit men and men who have been medically rejected. Under this Order they are certainly and undoubtedly put in a position of much greater suspense and uncertainty as to their immediate future than

  433
  is any other member of the public in regard to whom legislation is required before he can be brought into military service. That is all I have to say with regard to the first class of attested men.
  I want to say something now about the men who are not necessarily attested, but who have not been passed for general service, who have been put into medical categories, in groups such as C 2 and C 3, and who are not at present being called up for general service. I have two points to raise about them. In the first place, what is their present position? Is there to be no certainty as to which group they are in? Are they to be called up continually and over and over again for medical re-examination? Surely the War Office can give a man, as a result of a searching medical examination, some certainty as to the group he is in and what kind of military work he is fit for if he is to be called up in the future. Why should there be this constant re-examination and shifting about of a man from one group to another until he does not know where he is and until he begins to doubt the justice and bond fides of his medical examination and of his grouping? The second point I have to raise in regard to the men who are in medical groups and categories arises out of the period of notice which is to be given to them if their grouping is changed and if, as a result of that change, they are to be called up. Let me read the words of the Order which has been issued:
  "They will he given fourteen days' notice unless they are in possession of a certificate which gives them a promise of two months' notice."
  It is the fact that a large number of these men were not given a written promise of two months' notice, but were given a verbal promise of two months' notice. This certificate, which was printed upon the card given to them, was only introduced in the month of May. That certificate contains a definite written promise of two months' notice if it is determined to call them up for service. That was abandoned, I believe, in the month of June, so that this written certificate only existed for the month of May. But long before that period—in February, March and April—men coming up for examination, if they were not fit for general service and if they were put in Categories C 2 or C 3 and were sent back to their homes, were told, as they left the recruiting room, that they would not be called upon unless they were given two months' clear notice. I put a supplementary question to the
  434
  hon. Gentleman, who gave me a definite answer, but a most unsatisfactory one. He said:
  "The official recognition of unauthorised oral promises is, I am afraid, impracticable."
  The question I want to put to the hon. Genteman is: Am I to understand that these verbal promises which were universally given during the months of February, March, and April were unauthorised? He has distinctly stated that they were unauthorised, but arising out of that I would beg to show him that they were authorised. This matter was raised as long ago as March—before the written promise was brought in. It was raised in the House in the form of a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and it was answered, not by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in whose Department it is not, but by the Secretary of State for War himself, in whose Department it is. Here is his answer:
  "Mr. Lloyd George: Men only fit for clerical work who are not immediately required for such work in the Army are returned to their civil occupations, and are not called up without at least two months' notice."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1916, col. 1180. Vol. LXXX.]
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): May I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend at that time was not Secretary of State for War?
  Mr. SCOTT: I beg your pardon, the hon. Gentleman is quite right.
  Mr. FORSTER: He was Minister of Munitions.
  Mr. SCOTT: That is quite right, but it makes my case all the stronger, because this authorisation was made by someone in a more important capacity than the Secretary of State for War, and by someone in a more important capacity than even the Minister of Munitions. He was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. The question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and it was answered by the then Minister of Munitions, so that it had the highest authority that could be given to it. Therefore this verbal promise of the two months' notice was not an unauthorised promise given by irresponsible persons. It was an authorised promise given as a matter of policy by the recruiting authorities and sanctioned and adopted by the Prime Minister in this House. I think I have shown that this is a matter which requires further explana-

  435
  tion and that the House is not being treated with respect when these matters are raised in the House at Question Time and we are told that we cannot have an answer from the Minister who is responsible, but can only have some formal answer from a Minister who is not responsible and who assures us that he has not had time to fully acquaint himself with the matter at issue.
  There is one last aspect of the whole matter, that is, the short paragraph which comes at the end of the Order. It is stated that:
  "Men who on re-examination are found not to be fit for service in a category from which men are being taken should be made use of for purposes of substitution as far as possible."
  Is this an attempt to introduce industrial conscription? I submit that it is a clear and undoubted attempt to introduce industrial conscription. If I am told that industrial conscription is necessary to win this War, I am not going to boggle at it. I want to win this War, whatever be the cost. If industrial conscription is to be introduced, let us have it introduced fairly and squarely, so that we can understand it. Do not let us introduce it merely for some unfortunate men who have fallen into a trap. Let us be just about it, and introduce it all round. What is the effect of the industrial conscription that is introduced by this method? It is industrial conscription only for a certain class of people, for those who are so unfortunate as to be medically unfit. No industrial conscription for the men who are exempted from the Military Service Act; no industrial conscription for the men over forty-one, but only industrial conscription for those unfortunate persons who happen to be physically unfit and medically rejected !
  The last thing I would say is that the whole manner in which this subject has been treated raises the question of the necessity of some form of devolution in the work of the War Office. A certain amount of devolution has been carried out already. The Ministry of Munitions has had devolved upon it a large share of the War Office work, and we are now in the Pensions Bill devolving another large amount of War Office work upon a certain organisation. The work of supplying men to the Army is as much civilian work as is the supply of munitions. It is the concern of the War Office to train, equip, and use these men they have passed into the Army, but when you are passing the whole
  436
  available manhood of the country, that ought to be the work of a civilian Department which has the duty thrown upon it of supplying all the men that are necessary and who can be spared for the purpose. In no other way can the work be well done. The work is not being well done at the present time. It is being done in a most incompetent manner. Men are hot being called up who ought to be called up and men are being called up who ought not to be called up. Owing to the system, the responsible Ministers in this House are not able to exercise any control. Avowedly they are overworked. They have not sufficient time to devote to the essential work of the fighting services, let alone the recruiting service. I submit that that is the desirable and necessary remedy which ought to be faced by the Government.
  Mr. ANDERSON: This is really a matter of very great importance, and the whole question ought to be cleared up by the War Office for the purpose of setting it upon a more satisfactory basis than it is at the present time. Among the men who have been medically examined and declared unfit there is the utmost confusion and uncertainty as- to their actual position. It would almost appear as if new Orders and Regulations are issued every second week by the War Office which seem to upset decisions given previously and pledges that were made on the floor of this House. Undoubtedly in a number of districts the medical examination has been very often largely a farce, and men have been passed who could make it quite clear that they were unfit as far as military service is concerned. Yet these men are told that they may be called up at any moment for re-examination, and they are quite unable to settle down to their ordinary work, because they dc not in the least know what the future-position is going to be. It is perfectly true that in organising millions of men and in organising a great machine such as the Army now is there must be many cases of individual hardship. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply that those cases of individual hardship ought to be reduced to the minimum, and that no unnecessary suffering or uncertainty ought to be imposed. The fact is certainly that large numbers of new men have been and are being taken into the Army. They are not being taken in the main for military purposes. To a

  437
  large extent to-day the policy undoubtedly is that they are being taken in to be used afterwards for industrial purposes by means of the substitution scheme. In my opinion, that is a violation of the spirit of the Military Service Act and a violation of the pledges which were then given, and if it is necessary to have these men brought into the Army, not for military purposes but to be used for industrial purposes in order to release other men, that matter ought to coma squarely before the House and be debated before it is put into effect. The men are called up although they are unfit, and certainly unfit for any form of general service. They are taken into the Army in that condition, and then they are to be given the alternative that if they like, in order to keep clear of the Army, they can go to a certain employer and remain with him for the period of the War.
  In regard to that, I ask, first of all, what are the exact terms of service that a man so returned will have to accept? Will he have to stay with one employer, because obviously unless he-does that your scheme of substitution falls through? It is very important that we should have the clearest understanding in regard to a matter of that kind. Then I would ask this question. I spoke on this very matter some weeks ago when the hon. Gentleman was not present. If you are going to take unfit men by the thousand into the Army, many of these men are going to break down. What financial responsibility is the War Office going to accept towards them? Are you going to say, "You were really not fit when we took you in; we have done nothing to cause your unfitness, and therefore you are not in any way entitled to any form of pension"? That is being done by the War Office to-day, and it is absolutely wrong. If you accept a man into the Army you ought to accept financial responsibility for him at the same time. I should like to have a very clear understanding on that point. Many of these men will be broken, and to no purpose, because you know perfectly well when you take them in that they are never going to make efficient soldiers. They are not going to be a source of strength to the Army if you keep them there, but they will be a source of weakness; and many officers will tell you they would be very glad to get rid of many of these unfit and semi-fit men. Therefore, we ought to get a much clearer idea of what the policy of the War Office is. The War Office ought to make clear its
  438
  policy with regard to unfit men, and that policy ought to stand good until this House decides otherwise. As it is, the matter drifts on from week to week, new regulations come out, and those men do not in the least know what their position is or what their future is. That is entirely unsatisfactory, and a better state of things: ought to be set up. I have very often brought individual cases of hardship to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, and in each case I have found him most sympathetic towards these cases and most anxious to see that the right thing should be done. It is not the hon. Gentleman who is at fault, but there must be a fault in the big machine behind him, and it is to that that we refer and in respect of that that we want more enlightenment than we now have.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I do not like rising to trouble the hon. Gentleman. I quite endorse all that my hon. Friend (Mr. Scott) said with regard to the stress of work which is put on him and the courteous way in which he treats all Members of the House, but I feel that the subject which is now raised is one of the gravest importance. I desire to see the War carried to a successful issue and am only anxious to do any little that I can on purpose to obtain that object. Therefore any criticism that I may make with regard to the present condition of things and with regard to men who have been medically rejected is made from two points of view. I believe that this continual uncertainty is having a very serious effect on the condition of the industries of the country. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as myself what is the condition of labour in our two Constituencies and how serious it is in many of the industries, and anything which tends more to upset it is a great danger to the country. At present we have handed round a number of notices to attested men. In answer to a question I asked today he said he could give me no more information, and in reply to a supplementary question he said he did not think attested men were in a worse position than unattested men. I want as clear an answer as he can give me to this. I think the attested men are in a much more unfortunate position, and when we are dealing with attested men we are dealing with those who did not wait for an Act of Parliament to be passed to compel them to go into the Army, but came forward, in

  439
  that great spirit of voluntaryism of which we are all so proud, to place themselves at the service of the State and to place their lives in the hands of the State, and if they were found medically unfit the fault is not theirs. The spirit which actuated them was just as good as that of their brothers who were more physically fit and who passed into the Army. Now we find that these men who, prior to 25th May, 1916, had been medically rejected and were told under the Orders that unless they had notice by 1st September they would not be expected to undergo a medical inspection, are now being served with notices. I have the best evidence of the fact. I have taken the trouble to get it from the chairman of one of the tribunals in my Constituency, and I have mentioned it to other Members and have found it applies to other districts. What is the effect of that? These men have been medically rejected and have been in a state of anxiety with regard to their position up to 1st September. They received no notice to go up for further medical examination. Now they think the time has gone by and they have settled down to their various industries. Employers in agricultural areas have looked upon them at this very critical time for agriculture as at their disposal, and so in other industries. Now they are having notice served on them that they must go up and be medically reexamined. This is a most unfortunate state of things. It is a state of uncertainty. I am prepared that we should get all the men possible—all the men who are required—but you want it done on the most businesslike principles you can have. While we are draining our industries to the great extent we are we want these men who are left behind and their employers to know that they can go on with their work ready for the spring, the summer, and the autumn of next year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance if he possibly can. It is difficult for him to give it. It is not a financial question with the War Office, but I am sure he will make a representation that something like a full, calculated system on businesslike lines shall be adopted with regard to these men.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am once more in a rather difficult position in dealing with this particular question, as the Secretary of State had intended to deal with it, but found, at a comparatively late hour this
  440
  afternoon, that it would be impossible for him to be present, and therefore he asked me to represent the War Office in this matter. The hon. Member (Mr. Scott) used very kind language with reference to myself, for which I am grateful. He alluded to what is perfectly true, that on two occasions, and I think only two, I have asked for the indulgence of my hon. Friend and the House generally in dealing with this question of the treatment of attested men and men taken under the Military Service Act, because the matter is so exceedingly difficult that without real and complete knowledge one might do a very considerable amount of mischief by an incautious answer or one founded on what was necessarily incomplete knowledge. My hon. Friend fires off his supplementary questions into my back almost with the rapidity of a machine-gun. He has raised points of great importance, and I quite realise the importance which, not only he, but the House generally and the men affected attach to the questions he has brought to my attention. If I had been able to equip myself more thoroughly I could deal in a more satisfactory manner with the point to which he has referred than I am able to do. He has made reference to an answer given to a question by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) while he was still Minister of Munitions with which I confess at once I was entirely unacquainted. No doubt the answer which my right hon. Friend gave strengthens the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend. The only thing I can say is that I shall bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend to-morrow, and I have no doubt he will take such steps as are necessary. My hon. Friend has referred to the promise which was given that attested men should not be placed in a worse position than those who were made subject to the Military Service Act, and he has brought to my notice that in some respects. I do not think the direct action of the War Office places them in a worse position but the indirect effects of the action which the War Office has taken. I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has made out a good case so far as the indirect effect of what has been done is concerned. I think that my right hon. Friend, who gave the pledge that these men should not be placed in any worse position, undoubtedly had in mind, and I think the War Office also had in mind, the direct effect of the Orders issued and the

  441
  interpretation of the provisions of the Act. However, I will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the indirect effect to which my hon. Friend has referred. With regard to those who are placed in medical groups and categories, what are known as C 2 and C 3, my hon. Friend said that these men are placed in a position of great uncertainty because we cannot give them a final and definite undertaking either that they will be taken or that they will not be taken. I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is impossible for us to say—admitting that we must have a certain proportion of those who are in these categories—how many we shall want and how many we shall not want.
  Mr. SCOTT: That was not the point I raised to-day. My point is that there is uncertainty among these men as to which category they are in, not as to whether the category will be called up. There is uncertainty as to which category they are in owing to the constant examinations and re-examinations.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is a different point from the one I thought my hon. Friend was making. I do not see how that is to be avoided in regard to the point of health. Naturally one's own condition of health varies from time to time. Occasionally I am fit to encounter my hon. Friend almost on equal terms, and on other occasions I am not fit.
  Mr. SCOTT: The advantage is on your side.
  Mr. FORSTER: That is how the position stands in the matter of health.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are not the doctors capable of preventing that kind of thing?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that medical opinion differs with different individuals. We cannot—I wish we could—find a standard which we could get all doctors to apply to the same individual.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Cannot they do that in regard to blind people and tuberculous people?
  Mr. FORSTER: Of course, there are categories which are so obviously unfit that no medical man in the world would pass them.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: They do; hundreds of them.
  Mr. FORSTER: What, blind men?
  An HON. MEMBER: Yes!
  Mr. FORSTER: Not blind men, surely! I know nothing of that. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) could give a case where a blind man has been passed for service. Attention has been called to the question of certificates. I have already dealt with that. My hon. Friend (Mr. M. Scott) raised a further point which was also touched by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) as to the terms of service in regard to substitution, and the hint of industrial compulsion contained in the Order, the terms of which were read out. In regard to the terms of service, as I have explained to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division, substitution does not make it a condition that the man released shall cling to the service of one particular individual employer. It means, where he is released, to take part in some-specific branch of industry, he must confine his activities to that specific branch of industry. For instance, if he is released to take part in agricultural work he is not free to leave agricultural work and go into another industry.
  Mr. ANDERSON: If the War Office says to an employer, "You have got ten fit men; we are prepared to give you ten men as substitutes in their place," and the employer gives up the ten fit men on the distinct understanding that he gets ten substitutes, does the hon. Member tell me that those ten substitutes could leave that employer next week?
  Mr. FORSTER: They will have the same freedom as the ten original men.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Then you have broken your word to the employer.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think not. What we have said to the employer is, "We will give you ten substitutes." We do not say "We will give you John Smith, or William Brown." What we say is, "We will give you ten individuals in place of the ten men who are released." The employer releases ten men, and ten substitutes are found. If, say, two of the original substitutes leave the service of the farmer, it will be the duty of the War Office to find two more substitutes. I hope I have made that clear to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. ANDERSONindicated assent.
  Mr. FORSTER: A further point which my hon. Friend raised was the financial position of men who are being taken into the Army at the present time. He said a great many unfit men are being taken into the Army, and he asked whether we are going to see that if they are discharged upon medical grounds they are properly dealt with from the financial point of view. My hon. Friend is asking me to give a definite undertaking on a very difficult question. From the point of view of all of us, I think our present arrangements are not entirely satisfactory. I will take note of the view that my hon. Friend has pressed upon me very strongly to-night, but I cannot give him at the present moment a direct undertaking that we are going to take financial responsibility for all the men we take into the Army. I cannot go further than that, although I sympathise strongly with a great deal of the point of view that he has expressed. I should like to make a further observation with reference to the position of uncertainty in which so many people find themselves at the present time. I am afraid we all find ourselves in a position of uncertainty. I wish we did not. It is the uncertainty that is inseparable from a state of war, and I am quite sure that even those who are suffering most severely from it will realise that the uncertainty which is inflicted upon them is not inflicted intentionally by a harsh bureaucracy, but is part of the general condition of affairs from which we all suffer.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) in regard to the notice forms served on rejected men after the date provided in the Act? That applies to quite a number of other cases.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry that I did not mention it. I am afraid that I have not got information upon that point, but I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, and I will have the matter looked into.
  Mr. SCOTT: I am not entitled to speak again, but I should like to ask a question, and in so doing to thank the hon. Member for his reply, which I realise is as far as he could go. Will he represent to the Secretary of State for War, for his consideration, the desirability of issuing some general statement with regard to the position of men who have been rejected, and put into categories as unfit? There is the very greatest uncertainty, and such general statement might have a reassuring effect.
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, certainly I will do that. It is a very reasonable request to make, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will consider it very carefully.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  POSTPONED BANK HOLIDAYS.
  POSTPONED BANK HOLIDAYS.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL).
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL).
  ADVANCES TO ALLIES.
  ADVANCES TO ALLIES.
  COST OF WAR.
  COST OF WAR.
  PORTUGAL (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  PORTUGAL (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  SURVEYORS OF TAXES, IRELAND (CLERKS' ENLISTMENT).
  SURVEYORS OF TAXES, IRELAND (CLERKS' ENLISTMENT).
  "MANUAL OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION."
  "MANUAL OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION."
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  TRAIN SERVICE (IRELAND).
  TRAIN SERVICE (IRELAND).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
  MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  EXEMPTIONS.
  EXEMPTIONS.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (ALLEGED WASTED SUPPLIES).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (ALLEGED WASTED SUPPLIES).
  EASTERN NON-COMBATANT CORPS, NEWHAVEN (FOOD).
  EASTERN NON-COMBATANT CORPS, NEWHAVEN (FOOD).
MUNITIONS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  CONSCRIPTION IN AUSTRALIA (REFERENDUM).
  CONSCRIPTION IN AUSTRALIA (REFERENDUM).
  ERNSTHAUSEN, LIMITED.
  ERNSTHAUSEN, LIMITED.
  COCAINE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  COCAINE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
FOOD SUPPLY.
  RICE (POLISHING).
  RICE (POLISHING).
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (MANUFACTURING INGREDIENTS).
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (MANUFACTURING INGREDIENTS).
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  FLOUR.
  FLOUR.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  INCREASED PRODUCTION.
  INCREASED PRODUCTION.
  TUDOR ACCUMULATOR COMPANY.
  TUDOR ACCUMULATOR COMPANY.
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
  LEATHEE SUPPLY.
  LEATHEE SUPPLY.
  STEAMSHIP SERVICE (HEYSHAM AND BELFAST).
  STEAMSHIP SERVICE (HEYSHAM AND BELFAST).
  COLOURED LABOUR.
  COLOURED LABOUR.
  GREENWICH TIME (IRELAND).
  GREENWICH TIME (IRELAND).
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (POST OFFICE).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (POST OFFICE).
  MAIL SERVICES (IRELAND).
  MAIL SERVICES (IRELAND).
  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE (SCHOOL INSTRUCTION).
  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE (SCHOOL INSTRUCTION).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  EGYPT (COURTS).
  EGYPT (COURTS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION).
  VACANT LAND (METROPOLITAN AREA).
  VACANT LAND (METROPOLITAN AREA).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Withdrawals).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Withdrawals).
  Scottish Housing Commission (Report).
  Scottish Housing Commission (Report).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DISTRICT COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  DISTRICT COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).