Sitting of 31 October 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Memorandum No. 14, by the Health of Munition Workers Committee (Washing Facilities and Baths) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, numbered D.I.P. 381, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of All Souls College, Oxford, on 13th June, 1916, and sealed on 13th July, 1916, amending Statutes III. and IV. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Clare College, Cambridge, on 14th July, 1916, and sealed on 19th idem, amending Statute 29 of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 60.]
REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Treasury Order, dated 30th October, 1916, relative to Fees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (NEW DUTIES) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 3rd October, 1916, for securing payment of Table Water Duties [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copies presented of Papers relating to certain Trials in German South-West Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Colonial Reports Nos. 905 (Straits Settlements, Report for 1915), and 906 (Grenada, Report for 1915–16) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NIGERIA.
Copy presented of Particulars, Plans, Views, and Conditions of Sale of Enemy Properties to be sold by Auction in London on 14th November, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report and Tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Memorandum for the guidance of Controllers appointed under Section 1 of the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
Copy presented of Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKRUPTCY ACT (PROCEEDINGS).
Order [17th April] that the Account relative thereto be printed read, and discharged.
COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908.
Order [17th April] that the Account relative thereto be printed read, and discharged.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONSULAR SERVICE (FOREIGNERS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Consular officers of foreign origin there are in the British Consular Service; what is the approximate annual amount received by unsalaried British Consulate officers of foreign origin as stamp fees and office allowances; what is the smallest salary received by any British Consular officer; and whether, in view of the lessons taught us by the War, the Secretary of State will see his way clear in future to employ only men of British birth as British Consular officers?
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD ROBERT CECIL): The answer to the first and last parts of the question is that there are none but British—born subjects in the salaried Consular Service. Vice-Consuls are placed on a scale of salary, with a minimum of £300 per annum, rising gradually to £500. They do not retain "stamp fees" in addition, but in those cases where they are appointed to independent posts, they are granted office allowances to cover the cost of the upkeep of the office. The amount of stamp fees and office allowances received by unsalaried Consular officers varies according to the amount of fees collected and to the expenses of the post. It is not comparable to salary. The total amount provided for 1915–16 was £108,446, of which about 7 per cent, was paid to posts where the unsalaried Consul was a foreigner. Foreigners are only appointed to posts which are unsalaried, where no suitable
    1492
    British subjects are available, and where no appointment at all would otherwise be made.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint in future unsalaried Consuls of enemy origin?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have already dealt with that by question and answer in this House. I do not know that I have anything to add. No person of enemy origin will be appointed, whether salaried or unsalaried.

    CAPTAIN BOY-ED (SAFE-CONDUCT).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in view of the lapse of time, whether he is now at liberty to state the reasons of the Foreign Office for granting a free conduct to Captain Boy-Ed, formerly German military attaché in the United States; whether he is aware that Captain Boy-Ed was at the head of an organisation engaged in forgery, murder, and arson in the United States; whether he is aware that Captain Boy-Ed is now organising the occasional U—boat operations off the American coast from Lübeck; and whether, in view of the uniformity with which German diplomatic representatives violate the neutrality of the countries where they are guests, the Foreign Office will announce that no further safe—conducts will be granted?
    Lord R. CECIL: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division on 22nd December last, Captain Boy-Ed was given a safe—conduct in deference to the officially expressed wish of the United States Government. At the same time, in view of his activities referred to in the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government felt that his capacity for injuring the interests of this country would at least not be greater in Germany than they had been in the United States. His Majesty's Government, therefore, acceded in this instance to the request of the United States Government, and have since seen no reason to alter this view. With regard to the rest of the question, I have no reason to doubt that all that my hon. and gallant Friend says about Captain Boy-Ed's activities is true. Some of it is officially known to be true. But I do not think that anything would be gained my making the announcement suggested in the last part of the question.

    INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any neutral Government has yet intimated a desire that, in proof of the good faith of the Allies, a joint declaration should now be made by them of their concurrence with the claim of small nations to representation equally with themselves in the International Peace Conference to follow the War; in either case, whether such a declaration will be made; and whether the small nations will be named in it?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the rest, I can express no opinion.
    Mr. GINNELL: Do all the Allies concur in this?

    EMBASSIES IN ENEMY CAPITALS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can obtain through neutral Powers information as to what uses our Embassies are put to in the enemy capitals; and if he finds that they are not duly respected will he seize the German, Austrian, and Turkish Embassies here?
    Lord R. CECIL: The British Embassy or Legation buildings in enemy capitals are, I believe, being used, if at all, by the United States representatives, under whose protection they have been placed.
    Mr. WASON: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Embassy at Sofia has been seized?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, I am not aware of that. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me information on the subject.

    MISS EMILY HOBHOUSE (PASSPORT).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on what date a passport was issued to Miss Emily Hobhouse; if any particular destination was mentioned therein, and, if so, what destination; were there any limitations therein, and, if so, what limitations; whether Miss Hobhouse gave any reasons for requiring a passport, and, if so, what were the reasons given by her?
    Lord R. CECIL: Miss Hobhouse was—given a passport on 5th March, 1915, to travel to Italy, where she stated that she—wished to go for the benefit of her health. The lady having returned to this country, her passport was, on 29th November, 1915, furnished with a visa by the military permit office entitling her to proceed once more to Italy. She made a stay in Switzerland both on the outward and' homeward journeys, though she appears to have made no mention of any such intention when applying for the visa to leave this country. There was no limitation on the use of the passport specified in the document itself, except in so far as the mention of destination amounts to such.
    Mr. ASHLEY: May we assume then that this lady obtained the passport under false pretences?
    Lord R. CECIL: Everyone must draw his own conclusions from the answer I have given.
    Colonel ALAN SYKES: Is the Noble—Lord going to take any further action in this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I imagine Miss Hobhouse will not be allowed again to leave the country.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to a report in the "Times" yesterday that six Russian ladies have been received by the German Empress, and is there any particular reason why an English lady should' not go to inspect camps in Germany?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there no means of bringing to justice a lady who goes abroad for the purpose of betraying her country?
    Lord R. CECIL: My hon. and learned Friend will see that that is not a question which it is possible for the Foreign Office to answer. He may, if he desires, put it to the legal advisers of the Crown.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Is it not the case that immediately on her return to this—country Miss Hobhouse offered to give every possible information she had to the Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know anything about that, but I know that the general opinion of the House—and I believe of the country—is that Miss Hobhouse's activities have not been in the interests of this country.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any record is preserved of the particular circumstances under which passports for the Continent are granted to individual British subjects; if so, will he say on what representations by Miss Emily Hobhouse was a passport for Switzerland granted to her; whether she obtained a further passport from a British Consulate in Switzerland; and, if so, under what circumstances and on what representations by her was such passport obtained?
    Lord R. CECIL: The papers on which passports are granted at the Foreign Office are preserved. The passport which was in the possession of Miss Emily Hob-house was not issued for Switzerland, but for Italy, in March, 1915. It was issued on representations that the visit to Italy was necessary for reasons of health. The passport issued to her at Berne was for a direct return to this country only, and was given for that specific purpose.
    Mr. McNEILL: By what methods did she obtain leave from the Government to go to Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is impossible for me to say. She must have done that, of course, through the German authorities, and not through any intervention of the British.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does that require any sanction by the authorities of Switzerland?
    Lord R. CECIL: That will be a matter for the German Government, I presume. She would have to satisfy the German authorities that she was authorised to center Germany. It has nothing to do with the British.
    Mr. BILLING: When she applied to have her passport visé did she give any reason for visiting Italy? Was it again for her health?
    Lord R. CECIL: The application for a visé would not come to the Foreign Office, as I understand it. The Permit Office grants the visé, and I am not quite sure whether the Permit Office is under the Home Office or the War Office—probably the Home Office, in accordance with directions given by the War Office.
    Mr. BILLING: Will some arrangement be made so that this sort of thing shall not occur again?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is a very rare case, I am glad to think. The hon. Member will understand that when a passport is issued in the ordinary course it is valid for two years. When the immediate object of the journey is accomplished and the owner of the passport returns, before he or she can leave this country again he or she has to obtain a visé from the Permit Office. That is a matter which, strictly speaking, is not under the control of the Foreign Office. Once they have granted their passport their function, as I understand, is at an end.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked what particulars are required to be given by an applicant for passports to the Continent with respect to the purpose of the intended journey and the places or countries he intends to visit; which, if any, of such particulars have to be endorsed on the passport either before leaving England or in the course of travel; whether any undertaking is required to be given by the applicant limiting the scope of his travel after arrival on the Continent; whether any precautions are taken to prevent him entering territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy or having communication or dealings with the enemy; and whether it is a punishable offence to obtain a passport by false statements relating to any of these matters?
    Lord R. CECIL: Applicants for passports are required to state the country to which they desire to travel and the purpose of the journey, and the country concerned is endorsed on the passport. The destination and purpose of journey are again inquired into by the military authorities when the passport is presented to the Permit Office for the necessary visa, and such particulars are incorporated in the visa if granted. After arrival at the stated destination, journeys to other countries would depend upon they regulations locally in force. Permission to travel to enemy territory would certainly not be given by His Majesty's Government, who would take every precaution in their power to prevent such a proceeding if they had any reason to anticipate it. False statements in the declaration made by an applicant for a passport would constitute a punishable offence.

    Lord ESHER.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs

    1497
    whether Lord Esher is charged with any military or diplomatic mission in France; and, if so, what Department he represents?
    Lord R. CECIL: Lord Esher has no definite military or diplomatic appointment, but he is charged from time to time with particular tasks of a military character.

    ENEMY ALIEN.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if a special permit was issued by him on or about 14th December, 1914, for a Mr. Hochstetter to leave this country for Guatemala to assist in the management of the business in that country of Messrs. Rosing, Brothers, of Basinghall Street, E.C.; is Mr. Hochstetter an enemy alien; has he held a commission in the German Army; if so, will he say why he was not interned at the beginning of the War; and why this special licence was issued?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. There existed at that time no sufficient grounds, in view of the general policy then adopted, for interning this man or for refusing him a permit to leave the country for South America; but in the early part of 1915 the practice became much stricter; and a similar permit would not now be granted.

    BRITISH WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN FRANCE.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangements can or have been made to enable British women and children now detained in Belgium to return to this country; whether he has any information as to the detention of Mrs. James Alfred Ashley and her two sons, aged five and two and a half years, in Brussels since the outbreak of war; and whether he will consider the possibility, by exchange or other means, of securing their repatriation?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): A considerable number of British women and children have been allowed to leave Belgium in the past and
    1498
    have been enabled to do so by the provision of special trains arranged through the good offices of the United States Legation at Brussels. Since November last, however, no such facilities have been allowed by the German authorities, "who now refuse to permit the departure of British subjects of either sex from Belgium. Every effort has been made to secure the repatriation of Mrs. James Ashley and her children, but hitherto without success. A strong protest has recently been made against the detention in Belgium of British women and children.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: How many are there now?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is it possible to prevent the expatriation of German women from this country back to Germany until British women who are in Belgium and in France are repatriated too?
    Mr. HOPE: I shall be glad to bring that suggestion before the notice of the authorities.

    TREATMENT AND EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the neutral countries have made any protest to Germany with regard to their treatment of British and other prisoners of war; and what steps are being taken to keep a complete record of German atrocities since the outbreak of hostilities?
    Mr. HOPEWe are not aware of any neutral country having protested to Germany as to her treatment of British or other prisoners of war. Steps have been taken to keep a record of German breaches of International Law since the outbreak of hostilities.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the 7,000 German prisoners who are to be ox—changed for 600 British prisoners are in all cases men over forty-five years of ago; are they to be at once repatriated, or are they to be given the option of remaining in the United Kingdom; and, in the latter case, will such prisoners be given their freedom?
    Mr. HOPE: The arrangement for the mutual repatriation of British and German civilians, which is now being negotiated, applies only to men over forty-five and only to those who desire to go. It is not proposed to release those who do not desire to go. I should explain that the numbers involved are not yet definitely known.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Why is it that those who do not desire to go back are given the option?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      POSITION OF IRISH LABOURERS.
      Mr. DORISasked the Secretary of State for War whether Patrick Noble, migratory labourer, of Ballinamorrogue, Castlebar, county Mayo, now Private, No. 54283, I Company, 3rd Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment, has protested against being forced into military service on the grounds that he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain and that he has come to England only for a special temporary purpose for a few months of each of the last three years and returned home in October or November when his special work was completed; wheeher he is aware that Noble has been suffering from a diseased hip and consequent lameness during the past seven years and that he has been a patient in hospital continuously since his enlistment; and will steps be taken to have this case fully investigated and Noble discharged on its being found that he is exempt from the operations of the Military Service Acts?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have made inquiries, and I am informed that Patrick Noble was not forced into military service. He presented himself for enlistment at Seaforth Barracks, and was posted to a regiment in the ordinary way. Noble has been in hospital since the 25th September.
      Mr. DORISasked the Secretary for War (1) if he will have further inquiry made into the case of Michael Nolan, of Cloonagleeragh, Turlough, county Mayo, No. 85152, Royal Garrison Artillery, 4 Hut, Lenan Head Battery, Donegal, who, having come to England as a migratory agricultural labourer in March last, was seized by the military authorities
      1500
      on a farm at Mouldsworth and forced into military service, although he had never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain; is he aware that Nolan denies emphatically the statement that after his arrest he enlisted voluntarily; will he take steps to have Nolan, whose two brothers are in the Army, discharged from military service and permitted to return to his home in Ireland; (2) if he is aware that William Caine, of Cortoon, Newport, county Mayo, a migratory agricultural labourer, who left home for England on 19th June last, was arrested at 13, Darwell Avenue, Petercroft, near Manchester, and pressed into the Army, although he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and that Sergeant McGuire, Royal Irish Constabulary, Newport, in reply to official inquiries, has stated that before leaving home Caine reported to him that he was proceeding to England for a special purpose; will steps be taken to have Caine discharged from the Army on its being ascertained that he is not liable to compulsory service under the Military Service Acts; (3) if he will have further inquiries made into the case of John Battle, farmer's son and migratory labourer, of Muccanagh, Turlough, county Mayo, who on coming to England in March last for a special purpose was arrested under the Military Service Act on a farm at Knowsley, near Prescot, and forced to join the Royal Garrison Artillery at Gosport; if the military authorities are now satisfied that Battle was never ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and was, therefore exempt from compulsory military service; if so, will he be offered his discharge from the Army and allowed to return home to Ireland; (4) whether Luke Carney, of Castlebar, county Mayo, No. 5836, 7th Reserve Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, D Company, who left home in February last to take temporary work in Coventry, was arrested there on 5th September under the Military Service Acts, confined in a cell for sixteen hours, tried at the police station, handcuffed, and handed over to the military authorities, his plea that he was never ordinarily resident in Great Britain having been disregarded; will steps be taken to release Carney from military service and to permit him to return to his home in Ireland; and (5) if he will have further inquiry made into the case of Thomas M'Hale, of Oughterard, Turlough, county Mayo (Private, No. 4683, R.L.N., C Company), who was arrested on

      1501
      a farm at Holmes Chapel and forced into the Army in May last; whether he is aware that M'Hale is an agricultural labourer, who for years had come to England for a special purpose and returned home to Ireland on the completion of his work every year, and that he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain; whether he is aware that a registration paper produced at his trial and purporting to bear his signature was neither signed nor authorised by him; and whether steps will be taken to have M'Hale discharged from military service and allowed to return to his home in Ireland?
      Mr. FORSTER: The cases of all the men mentioned have been tried in the Civil Courts, which have in each case decided that the man is liable to military service. It is not proposed, therefore, to discharge any of them.
      Mr. DORIS: Is there any Court for a young man who comes over here on the invitation of the Department and is run into military service, although he is assured that he is exempt from it and the military ask him to come over?
      Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member knows that it is a question of fact. The man in question has an opportunity to establish the facts to the satisfaction of the Court, and where he does so he is not liable to military service. Where he fails to establish the fact to the satisfaction of the Court he is liable.
      Mr. DORIS: One of these young fellows has been taken, handcuffed, run in, tried at the Police Court, and rushed into a regiment. Is that the way to do it?

      ARMY AMENDMENT ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
      Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the Committee of Inquiry set up as a result of the passing of the Army Act Amendment Act of this Session has made its Report; and, if so, is he in a position to inform the House of its conclusions?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The Report has not yet been received.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the results to the House when the inquiry is complete?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must consider that.

      SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION FOR SOLDIERS (VICTORIA STATION).
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the lack of sleeping accommodation in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station for soldiers who are obliged to spend a night in London on their way between provincial centres and the front; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 24th October on this subject. My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State is personally going into the matter with the General Officer Commanding the London district.

      PROTECTION CERTIFICATE.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what is the nature and effect of the protection certificate issuable by recruiting officers on application by men in categories C2 and C3?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The effect of the certificates duly issued by recruiting officers to men referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend's question on 24th October is, that they have this certificate to show if they are called upon to produce a certificate of exemption. It is also an indication to an employer and others that the man is not a deserter or absentee from the Army, and that he may therefore be taken into employment. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the certificate in question.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It does not give a man any security as to the period in which he is called up, as to whether it will be a month or two months?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Then are we to understand that there is not even a declaration of intention?

      ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary for War whether the promised inquiry into the tortures inflicted upon three soldiers named Beardsworth, Dukes, and Benson is to be held by civilians or by soldiers; whether he is aware that Beards-worth and Dukes were informed on Thursday, 19th October, that an inquiry was to be held in respect of the allegations of brutality made by them at the

      1503
      court-martial, and that they were called upon to prepare their defence; that on Saturday, 21st October, they were moved to the detention room where privacy is impossible; that they have been refused even pen and paper, and also denied the opportunity to see their wives, any friends or witnesses, or even their solicitor; that the adjutant on Monday informed their solicitor, Mr. S. E. Doods, that they could not have a legal representative at the inquiry; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a judicial inquiry shall be held for the purpose of getting at the facts and not whitewashing the officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it is realised that the allegations which have been made by Privates Beardsworth, Dukes, and Benson are to the effect that offences have been committed against them which are punishable under Section 37 (1) of the Army Act, and under these circumstances the matter must be regarded as strictly sub judice. I do not understand the hon. Member when he suggests that on 19th October Beardsworth and Dukes were called upon to prepare their defence. These men have been tried by court-martial for their offences, and punishment has been awarded, so the question of their defence does not arise. It appears that Beardsworth and Dukes have been called upon to give evidence in support of their allegations of ill-treatment. With regard to the statement that they have been moved to the detention room, it seems obvious to me that the committal of these men to civil prison under the terms of Army Order No. X. of the 25th May has been delayed, as their evidence is required and, in consequence, they have been detained in military custody. At the same time their sentence is running. Under these circumstances they are naturally not permitted to see their wives, friends, witnesses, or solicitor, their situation in these respects being governed by the "Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." If the adjutant informed Mr. S. R. Doods that these men could not have a legal representative at the inquiry he was perfectly correct. As I have before stated, these men are witnesses, so the question of their legal representation does not arise. With regard to the hon. Member's request that I will ensure that a judicial inquiry shall be held, I can only repeat that the allegations are that offences have been committed under Section 37 (1) of the Army Act, and if those
      1504
      allegations are substantiated the procedure to be followed will be found by reference to Section 46 of the Army Act.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are we to understand that these men are denied any legal assistance in the preparation of the evidence which they are to give to this inquiry?
      Mr. FORSTER: All they have got to do is to tell the truth.
      Mr. MORRELL: Will the other men who are on their defence have legal assistance?
      Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Is it not a fact that this inquiry has been brought about owing to charges of a very grave nature made by these men against officers and non-commissioned officers, and is it considered possible that these men, serving in the ranks, can fully substantiate their charges unless they first of all have access to a solicitor, and, secondly, are allowed legal representation?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of argument.

      ROYAL PAVILION HOSPITAL, BRIGHTON (FOOD SUPPLY).
      Mr. THOMAS-STANFORDasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the wounded soldiers in the Royal Pavilion Hospital at Brighton as to the quality of the food supplied to them and the method of serving it; and whether he will cause some inquiry to be made into the matter?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir; I am aware that there has been some dissatisfaction, and an inquiry has already been instituted into this matter.

      MAN-POWER.
      Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the figure of 3,600,000 given by the senior Member for Trinity College as being the number of men in Great Britain of military age who have been exempted from military service is an official figure?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As 1 informed the hon. Member on the 24th instant, the exact number of exemptions varies from day to day. I would rather give no figures until the discussion on man-power that has been promised by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where this figure was obtained?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I cannot.
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for War whether, in view of the virtual failure of all plans for substitution, he will now contemplate taking all men up to twenty-two, extending the age year by year as may be found necessary and leaving industry to readjust itself by natural means?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the present scheme of substitution has only recently come into operation, I think the hon. Member will agree that it is too early to call it a failure.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting officers throughout the country have found it absolutely impossible to get the Ministry of Munitions or the War Office to work together on this question, so as to get a satisfactory scheme of substitution? If he has not heard that, will he have inquiries made?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the War Office are fully alive to the difficulties. We are doing our very best to adjust matters.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: Would it not simplify matters and ease the work of the War Office, if the suggestion in this question were adopted?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Have any substitutes in fact been found up to the present time?
      Mr. ANDERSONasked what arrangements are being made in respect of men now in Categories B and C who are to act as substitutes for fitter men now in industry and agriculture, but about to be drafted into the Army; whether the men returned from the Army to farmers and other private employers will have any voice as to their wages and conditions; and what measure of industrial freedom these returned workmen will enjoy, seeing that they are to be at the service of private employers concerned for their private gain?
      Mr. FORSTER: Men who are placed as substitutes will be in a position, so far as industrial freedom is concerned, similar to that of men who hold conditional exemption from tribunals on occupational grounds, unless they have entered into a civil contract or have enrolled as Army Reserve munition workers. Conditions and wages are made quite clear to men before they undertake work as substitutes.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Member aware that the military people in various parts of the country are continually laying it down in speeches that the employers will have special power over these men, and that if they misbehave in any way or? displease the employers they will be at once thrown back into the Army?
      Mr. FORSTER: No. As I explained last week to the hon. Gentleman, there is no such thing contemplated by the military authorities; and if anybody says so he is making a very grave mistake.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is not what is contemplated, but what is actually done that we are complaining of.
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of a single case in which it has been done.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Major Bassingham last week at Montgomery Appeal—
      Mr. SPEAKER: How can the hon. Member be aware of these things? Hon. Members must really exercise some control.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Appeal Medical Board to examine a man passed by the Hounslow Board for general service, but certified by a local practitioner to be absolutely useless for the Army; whether he is aware that the Staines Tribunal, of which Sir Edward Clarke is president, have granted the man temporary exemption, and have announced that the exemption will be continually repeated until the man obtains a medical re-examination; and whether he will inquire into the action of the Appeal Medical Board in this case?
      Mr. FORSTER: This case is down for hearing at the Guildhall on 7th November before the Appeal Tribunal, and it is not possible, therefore, to say anything further on the subject at present.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest at Stoke Newington on George C. Gorday, a private in the Army Service Corps, who was passed at the beginning of June for general service; whether he is aware that medical examination after death revealed that the man had no kidney on the left side and that the right one was extensively diseased; that on visiting Bethnal

      1507
      Green Military Hospital a day or two before his death he was given some pills and told to have his teeth seen to; that the jury found that death was due to acute kidney disease and that his condition should have been discovered when he "was examined for the Army; and whether steps "will be taken to provide a thorough medical examination and to prevent the recruitment of unfit men?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am calling for a report on this case.
      Mr. WINGasked whether, if an attested or an unattested man is called up for service and he was over forty-one years of age on 24th June, 1916, he is exempt from service?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An unattested married man or an unattested man deemed to be married who came within the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2) on the date of the passing of the Act (25th May), is not liable to be called up for service if he had attained the age of forty-one years before the 24th June (the appointed day). The unattested married man and the unattested man who is deemed to be married who did not come within the operation of the Military Service Act 1916 (Session 2), on the 25th May, is not liable to be called up for service if he had attained the age of forty-one years? within thirty days of his coming within the operation of the above—mentioned Act. Similarly the attested married man and the attested man who is deemed to be married, who if he had been unattested would not have become liable under the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), will on production to the recruiting officer of proof of age be relegated to the Reserve.
      Mr. THOMAS: Does that mean that the man who is forty-one, when he is called up, is exempted from service in accordance with the statement of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the answer.
      Mr. WING: What is meant by the reserve?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is security given to the man in that position that he may not be called up at any time?
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the
      1508
      question of man-power; and if he can state whether it is the intention of the Government to make all men up to the age of twenty-five, physically fit, join the Colours before raising the age limit?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The Man-Power Board are procuring returns from the various Government Departments in respect of the men employed up to twenty-six years of age, but the returns are not yet sufficiently complete to enable any conclusion to be formed.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Will there be inquiry as to first-grade clerks and second division clerks?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand the inquiry will include everyone available for military service.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to straighten out the present recruiting tangle and remove anomalies and hardships by the introduction of a Military Service (No. 3) Bill?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, there is no intention at present to introduce such a Bill.
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a day this or next week to deal with the question of Man-Power?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Facilities will certainly be given for such a discussion, but I am afraid I cannot yet name a definite date.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when a day will be given?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope it will be soon, but the delay has been caused by the Man-Power Board having been so busy in making new arrangements that have been found necessary
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Man-Power Committee will be submitted to this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Man-Power Board was set up for the purpose of deciding differences of opinion as to the distribution of labour arising between Government Departments, and it is, therefore, improbable that the Board will issue any public Report, especially as many of

      1509
      the facts involved are highly confidential and could not be published, but the Board will publish instructions from time to time when necessary for carrying its decisions into effect, as was done in the case of the Order of 29th September, 1916.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: Before a day is given for the discussion of man-power, will there be anything issued by the Man-Power Board for the guidance of Members of the House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present indicate anything that could usefully be published, but the matter will be considered?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the making of a Return of the number of men of military age in various employments—munitions, for instance?
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that from the time of the passing of the Military Service Acts until the present month the Government have consistently stated that they would respect the pledge given in this House that men over forty would not be called up; if he is aware that on the 16th February Lord Derby wrote, through his secretary, Colonel Henderson, that when a man reaches his forty-first birthday he automatically becomes ineligible for military service; that in a printed leaflet, No. 61, published with the approval of the War Office, it was stated that a man's age is reckoned from the present not from the past, therefore a man who was forty-one yesterday is not liable to be called up to-day; and whether, in view of these facts, he will extend the time for making applications to tribunals in all cases of this kind so as to mitigate, as far as possible, the special hardship that will be caused by the recent Order?
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he can give any estimate of the number of men who would be available for the Army if the age limit was increased to forty-two years?
      Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to call up for military service men who have passed their forty-first birthday before receiving the calling—up notice from the recruiting officer; and, if so, whether he will say on
      1510
      or before what date an attested man must have attained his forty-first birthday in order not to be liable to be called up?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already made a general statement on this matter, and to that I have nothing at present to add. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already promised a day for the discussion of the supply of men for the Armies in the Field, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by its discussion in the meantime by means of questions and answers. My hon. Friends will, moreover, have seen since they put down their questions the official statement published in the Press on the 28th instant.
      Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for so gross and deliberate a violation of the pledge as in this case?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, yes, there is.
      Mr. TERRELL: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has answered No. 92. May I ask whether he can really give an answer to that question which asks what would be the number of men available if the age limit were raised to forty-two?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is that I do not think it would be desirable to give this information until the debate in the House. I gave exactly the same answer to another hon. Member.
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that in the interval before the debate on this question, the pledge to these men will not be broken?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The War Office have issued a circular on the subject, as I have explained to the House.
      Mr. PRINGLE: And which is in violation of the pledge.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of employing men over military age in working the antiaircraft guns in this country, and thus release for active service abroad the large number of young officers and men at present engaged on this work?
      Mr. FORSTER: Men over military age are not suitable for anti—aircraft work which is performed mostly at night and requires considerable activity. The policy

      1511
      is to employ men not fit for general service as far as possible, provided sufficient men with the necessary physical qualifications can be obtained.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that there is a great number of young men, not necessarily acquainted with the machinery, who are associated with this work?
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the majority of men in Categories C2 and C3 are not likely to be required for the Army, but that the uncertainty hanging over them all seriously handicaps them in ordinary business operations, whether he can give a larger measure of security to the majority of them by saying that in the first instance only those who are unmarried or below a certain age will be called up, and that he anticipates that this will satisfy all Army requirements?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that, in view of the exigencies of the military situation. I am not able to give any such general assurance as the hon. Member suggests.
      Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has previously told me that these men are very unlikely to be called up, but that a certain proportion will be. As a proportion are to be called up, there is a paralysing uncertainty over all the rest which is destructive to business enterprise. In view of that fact, can he adopt any measure whatever to give these men the maximum possible security?
      Mr. FORSTER: I sympathise with these men in the difficulty in which they are placed. The matter has been very carefully considered, and I am afraid I cannot give the general undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks.
      Mr. SCOTT: Seeing that only a small proportion are to be called up, can the hon. Gentleman now select that proportion, and say, "These men will be called up first," thereby giving security to the others?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid not. I should have been glad to do that if I could. My hon. Friend suggested it last week. We looked into it, to see if it could be done, but I am afraid it is impossible.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Derby has already given a pledge that the men in Class C 3, sedentary work, will not be called up?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that at all.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: I have it in my possession.
      Mr. PRINGLEIf there is a declaration of intention, will that give security to anybody?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give a declaration of security.

      ARMY PAY CORPS.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in the Army Pay Corps classified under Category C have been asked to elect either to accept a reduction in pay from 4s. to 1s. 8d. per day or to be discharged; can he state how many men have elected to be discharged; and whether these men will be notified as early as possible as to the date of their discharge in order that they may make arrangements for return to civil life?
      Mr. FORSTER: The 4s. rate of pay was given to men of the Army Pay Corps who on enlistment were fit for general service. Those in receipt of this special rate who become unfit for service abroad are given the option of being transferred to the Reserve or of accepting ordinary rates of pay. This is in accordance with the general arrangement under which all men who have been enlisted at special rates of pay and who are found unfit for service abroad are being dealt with. The actual number of men who have elected to be so transferred cannot yet be stated. They will not be retained longer than is necessary in the public interest and until released they will continue to draw their special rate of pay. They cannot be released until efficient trained substitutes are forthcoming, and they will be told of the date of their realease as soon as it can be determined in each case.

      REJECTED MEN.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men who had been previously rejected as unfit for the Army and who had not been asked to present themselves for re-examination before the 1st September have since received calling—up notices and been harassed in various ways; and whether he can take steps to instruct certain recruiting officers as to the law in

      1513
      this matter and to impress upon them the fact that their actions should be in harmony with the law?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 26th instant.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see at any rate that these men are called up and not arrested in the first instance?
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Where a man has been rejected and has not received a notice before the 1st of September and there is no dispute about the facts and he is called up, what steps must he take to get the calling—up notice cancelled?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is the date of the dispatch of the notice and not the date of its receipt that counts.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is no dispute about the date.
      Mr. FORSTER: In those cases the man in question will have an opportunity of making his case in Court.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What steps does the man himself take to secure that when there is no dispute about the facts and he is called up, the notice will be cancelled?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend perhaps had better give me notice.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the man who knows his legal rights is let off, but that if he is ignorant you take advantage of his ignorance?

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the total number of conscientious objectors to military service who have been sent to France; in what circumstances are conscientious objectors being sent to Ireland; and whether some have been tried, or threatened with trial, by field general court-martial, a procedure depriving them of legal assistance?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have no information as to the total number of conscientious objectors who have gone to France. I understand that some 300 have gone to Ireland on the request of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief for employment on some military work. The last
      1514
      part of the question is inaccurate in its suggestion that trial by field general court-martial deprives the person tried of legal assistance.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that the accused are to be allowed legal assistance in these other cases, and the accused in Ireland were denied legal assistance before the same tribunal?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is taking any action upon the illegal decision of the Glasgow Appeal Tribunal which recently dismissed the applications of two men of eighteen years of age, members of the International Bible Students' Association, who claimed exemption on conscientious grounds, the tribunal dismissing the claim on the ground that persons of such immature years could not have definite convictions on such matters; and, if he has not already taken action in the matter, will he do so at once on the ground that this is a distinct violation of the Military Service Act, which gives to all men of military age the right to claim exemption on grounds of conscience?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): The information furnished by my hon. Friend is not sufficient for the identification of the cases to which he refers. Perhaps he will give me the names of the men and the dates of the hearings.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has given instructions to the Governor of Barlinnie Prison to release William W. Findlay, a conscientious objector, serving a second term of imprisonment as a conscientious objector, who has now agreed to accept the Home Office scheme; and, if not, will he do so at once?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This man was not found by the Central Tribunal to be a genuine conscientious objector to military service, and he will therefore remain in prison until the expiration of his sentence, and will then be returned to his unit.

      EXEMPTIONS (GRAVESEND).
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieutenant Hiscock, recruiting officer, Gravesend, granted an exemption to F. C. Honeysett, conditional, whilst employed

      1515
      by the A.P.C.M. (1900), Limited; will he say whether an exemption will be granted on condition that the man remains in the service of one particular employer; whether Lieutenant Hiscock has granted any more such exemptions; if so, how many; and what action will be taken in regard to them?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made into this case.

      32ND. BATTERY ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (GUNNER COWAN).
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner M. Cowan, now serving with the 32nd Battery of the Royal Field Artillery, at Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow, was arrested in Rathfriland, County Down, on 16th August, whilst working on his mother's farm and forced into the Army; whether he has ascertained that Cowan was only a few months in Scotland in his life, was not ordinarily resident there, and had returned permanently to Ireland a year before his arrest; and whether, as he is therefore illegally detained and has, moreover, been found to be physically unfit for drill, he will now be released?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have sent urgent telegraphic inquiries, but it has unfortunately not yet proved possible to obtain information as to Cowan's medical condition.

      CANADIAN UNITS OFFICERS.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the Candaian units officers are gazetted full lieutenant on first appointment, and that there are many second-lieutenants in the other units who have served since the early months of the War and have received no promotion; and whether he has considered the advisability of promoting all second-lieutenants to be full lieutenants after completing one year's service?
      Mr. FORSTER: The facts as regards Canadian units are as stated by the hon. Member. In the British Army the promotion of officers to lieutenant depends on vacancies, and it is not proposed to alter this.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Under the existing system are there not glaring anomalies?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that is very possibly the case.

      ARMY RESERVE AND MUNITIONS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give an option to be passed into the Army Reserve of munition workers to men called up under the Military Service Act other than those who have claimed an objection to military service and who have obtained conditional exemption from a local or appeal tribunal?
      Mr. FORSTER: All men who are called up under the Military Service Acts and are classified as B2, B3, C2, or C3, and can be spared from the Army, will be given the opportunity of being enrolled as Army Reserve munition workers, if they are suitable.
      Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the military authority who will be called on to decide what men in each training reserve or provisional battalion who are not fit for general service are surplus to the requirement of their unit and can be allowed to volunteer to leave their unit to undertake civil employment in the Army Reserve of munition workers; and is this option possible for all those not placed in Category A?
      Mr. FORSTER: The selection of these men will be in the hands of officers commanding units and representatives of the Board of Trade. Only men in classes B2, B3, C2, and C3, who are surplus to the requirements of their units, will be eligible for transfer.

      TRANSFERRED SOLDIERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
      Mr. CROOKSasked whether, under the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915, and the Military Service Act, 1915, all soldiers who are now being transferred from departmental to combatant corps retain their old ranks and rates of pay and allowances?
      Mr. FORSTER: Rank is retained when substantive. Detailed instructions are about to be issued as regards pay.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN M'NEILL.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary for War whether he will submit to Members of this House the evidence on which John

      1517
      M'Neill was sentenced to imprisonment for life in connection with the late rising in Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that John M'Neill used his influence to dissuade his followers from illegal acts, he will advise his immediate liberation?
      Mr. FORSTER: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone this question.
      Mr. LYNCH: I will postpone it—until what date?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. HAZLETONrose.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The question has been postponed.

      SHERWOOD FORESTERS (DUBLIN RISING).
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that many men belonging to the Sherwood Foresters were wounded during the recent rebellion in Ireland, and that many were recommended for promotion or other distinction for their bravery; if he can state whether the former are to be allowed to wear stripes similar to those given to men wounded in France; and whether the latter are to receive the honours for which they have been recommended, and when?
      Mr. FORSTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12th October to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division. The names of those who are considered worthy of reward will not be overlooked, but the hon. Member will be aware that the majority of the honours given so far have been given in connection with services rendered in France and in the other theatres of war.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Can any distinction be drawn between the cases of men serving by fighting the Germans in France and those who were occupied in putting down an outbreak of traitors in Ireland?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will certainly see that there is a difference.

      FUNERALS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the number of funerals from Dublin to Glasnevin after the suppression
      1518
      of the insurrection which even the nearest relatives were not allowed to accompany, with the official reason for this prevention, and the number of coffins burst open on the way by the military and police; whether anything was found in any of the coffins to justify this desecration; in view of the Irish feeling that the dead should be inviolable, who ordered it; whether the remains of Messrs. Sheehy Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre, when being stealthily conveyed by the military, were similarly stopped and examined; whether they were in separate coffins; in what condition were the remains of those summarily executed at Richmond Barracks conveyed to Glasnevin; whether they also were stopped on the way and examined; and by whose order was no priest allowed to attend them before execution?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am unable to state the number of funerals. Dublin was full of armed rebels, and it was necessary to try to prevent them or their arms leaving. A cordon was established and police officers attached to the pickets to pass innocent people through. Passes were issued to such people, and all supplied with passes allowed through. Funeral parties without passes were allowed to pass one relative and the driver only. No coffins were opened by military or police except one, which was empty. The fourth and fifth parts of the question do not therefore arise. Messrs. Sheehy Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre were buried by their relatives and every facility given to them. The answer to the seventh part of the question is in the affirmative. There were no executions, summary or other, at Richmond Barracks.

      CAPTAIN COLTHURST.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether Captain Colthurst has been dismissed from the Army; and, if so, on what date the dismissal took effect?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This officer was retired on 10th June, 1916.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the difference between being retired and being dismissed? Does the answer mean that this officer was retired with full pay, or with half—pay, or with any pay? This is a very important question, and I think that we are entitled to an answer. Has the War? Office retired this gentleman, and is he

      1519
      drawing public money after having been convicted of four murders and being declared by the War Office to be a lunatic?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without notice. I really must ask the indulgence of the House. There are over ninety questions every day to be answered. Personally, I was en-engaged at a War Office Committee up to two o'clock, and so I could not investigate this matter. I simply give the answers handed to me. It is not possible to go into all these matters. I am not sure that it might not be left to the House to curtail the number of questions. It is interfering very seriously with the work of the Department.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I shall repeat the question next week.

      PRISONERS OF WAR (CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS).
      Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that early this month a letter addressed to the prisoners-of-war branch of the Red Cross at Geneva was stopped by the Censor and returned to the sender here in England; whether this letter only contained a statement that the writer had been notified of his son being wounded in France on 16th August, and that as no further news had come to hand the writer concluded that his son might be a prisoner of war and that the writer would be grateful if inquiries might be made; and will he state why this action was taken?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no information about the special case to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will have the letter forwarded to me, inquiries shall be made.

      CANADIAN FORCES (RIFLE).
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether it is in the public interest to state what has been the cost of equipping the Canadian forces with the Ross rifle; and whether it is now in use?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir, it is not in the public interest. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      CIVIL SERVICE (MILITARY PROMOTIONS).
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the causes, quite irrespective of merit, which secure rapid promotion of officers in certain units and complete stagnation of promotion in others; and whether he can give an assurance that, in the selection of candidates for the Home, Colonial, and Indian Civil Services at the end of the War, officers who through no fault of their own have failed to secure promotion will not be prejudiced in comparison with officers who by accidental circumstances have secured more rapid promotion?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the hon. Member that, in the selection of candidates for nomination to the Indian and Colonial Civil Services, regard will be had exclusively to fitness for the posts to be filled, which will not necessarily depend upon military rank. It is not at present proposed to resort generally to nomination for recruiting the Home Civil Service, though military service will, of course, be recognised in this connection.
      Colonel GRIFFITHS: May I ask whether these matters cannot be postponed until after the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think in nearly all cases they are postponed.
      Mr. BILLING: Will that also apply to new appointments in the Cabinet?

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if he will authorise the calling together of the Select Committee which recommended the present allowances to soldiers' dependants for the purpose of reconsidering the raising of allowances to an amount which is equal with the increased cost of living, increased over 50 per cent, since such allowances were agreed upon?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider this suggestion.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question has been asked over and over again, and that this is the first indication that the Cabinet will consider it? Is he further aware that, as a matter of fact, the people in receipt of

      1521
      these allowances are in a very desperate condition in many cases owing to the delay?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer of the Prime Minister is that it will be considered, and my belief is that it will be considered quickly and, I believe, favourably.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any possibility of affording some allowance to a boy whose father was killed in action unfortunately before a legal marriage was celebrated; and if, in consideration of this "question, he will make himself aware that marriage in Scotland is legal under certain circumstances without clergyman or registrar?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. The absence of legal marriage may not be a bar, under certain conditions. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the case he has in mind.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the hardship inflicted by the War Office Regulation as between soldiers who fell in battle and soldiers who, after most gallant service, died in this country from disease probably arising from hardships suffered in the trenches; and if he will consider the advisability of altering the Regulation?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend, I understand, refers to officers' widows. Their pensions were very fully considered by the Select Committee, and the present rules are in accordance with their views.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the necessity in both cases is exactly the same?
      Mr. COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private William McCawley, of Beechvalley, Dungannon, attached to the 12th Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, owing to a fall sustained such serious injuries that he was discharged from the Army as unfit for further service; that his pay has been stopped as from the 28th July; that since then he has received no pension; and what steps 'he will take to maintain this soldier, who is unable to earn his living?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries have been made, but the man cannot be traced. Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know the man's regiment and regimental number.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a widowed mother who was dependent on a soldier killed in action has any statutory right to a pension; if not, by which authority and upon what basis such a claim is settled; and whether he is aware of the public dissatisfaction with a system which settled the majority of such claims as a matter of favour and charity, not as a matter of right?
      Mr. FORSTER: There is no statutory right to pensions from Army Funds; they are given under His Majesty's Warrant. That, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, completely removes from them any taint of favour and charity.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say whether adequate steps have now been taken to prevent the delays which have continued to take place in the paying of pensions to many disabled soldiers and sailors who are rightly entitled to receive them?
      Mr. FORSTER: As regards the payment of soldiers' pensions, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 17th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury.

      GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister if the Government have yet finally decided on the form of inquiry which they have decided to grant into the War Office contract in which the hon. Member for Devonport is concerned; or whether the whole matter will be referred back to the Public Accounts Committee for further report to this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I am in communication with the hon. Member for Devonport on the subject. The answer to the second part of the question is in the. negative.

      UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATION.
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee on Franchise and Registration will have power to consider and report on the continuance of the system of university representation in Parliament.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board on Wednesday last.

      GERMAN PRINCES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he has a Bill in preparation destined to remove from the Peerage and from citizenship in this country those Members of the House of Lords, for instance, German princes, who are now in arms against the Allies; if not, why is this not to be done; and, if so, why the introduction of the Bill is delayed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The exact form which the necessary legislation should take is now under consideration by the Government, and we hope to introduce it without undue delay, probably in another place.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask why there has been this delay? There has been more time wasted in answering questions than would have been necessary to pass a Bill through the House.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to the House a statement giving the names of all the Members of the House of Lords who are now in arms against the Allies, together with the amount of the pensions the payment of which may be still due to them, and also a statement of the services to this country which have placed them in a position of special privilege?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is, I am informed, doubtful whether the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany, whom I presume the hon. Member has in mind, are actually Members of the House of Lords. I do not know of any other persons in arms against us who could be considered Members of that House. The answer to the second part of the question is that no such payments are due, and the third part, therefore, does not arise.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on this point of doubt whether they are really Members of the House of Lords, he will see fit, if they really are Members of that House, to remove them from that position, instead of protecting them as the Government has been doing?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have just read the answer that it is going to be done.
      Mr. LYNCH: Yes, but there was a point of doubt.

      GERMAN CHANCELLOR.
      Mr. D. MASONasked the Prime. Minister whether, in view of the dispatch of 1st August, 1914, in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that the German Ambassador had suggested that, provided that we remained neutral, Germany might guarantee the neutrality of Belgium and the integrity of France and her colonies, he will now explain why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated as the view of His Majesty's Government that we had been asked by Germany to condone the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and to take whatever she liked of the French colonies?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the late Member for Merthyr Tydvil on 27th August, 1914, which deals in detail with the point raised by the hon. Member.

      VENEREAL DISEASE.
      Captain Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will introduce legislation to make compulsory the—notification of venereal disease in all its forms and criminal its wilful transmission by an infected to a healthy person?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury on Thursday last. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
      Earl WINTERTON: Can a day be given in the near future for discussion of the whole question?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my Noble Friend will put a question to the Prime Minister?

      ARMY UNIT DRAFTS.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War if a draft of 200 men from the Connaught Rangers have been taken from Kinsale, county Cork, and sent, not to the Connaught Rangers, but to the Seaforth Highlanders, and compelled, against their will, to don the kilt; whether he can say who is responsible; whether the men will now be restored to their own regiment, and, seeing that a number of similar instances have Occurred, whether he can state how the War Office proposes to keep the Irish regiments up to strength if men are withdrawn from them to fill up gaps in English and Scottish regiments?
      Mr. FORSTER: The Army Council have no information which corroborates the statement in question, but perhaps my hon. Friend would give me in private any information of which he is in possession.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: I am afraid I cannot do that. Cannot my hon. Friend ask the officer commanding whether this is the fact? He will find it is the fact.
      Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiry.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men serving at the front in the Tyne—side Irish Brigade have been withdrawn from their own battalions and attached to Scottish regiments; and whether they will be sent back to their own brigade?
      Mr. FORSTER: So far as I am aware this is not the case. Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish any particulars he may have.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have numerous letters from men so transferred?
      Mr. FORSTER: May I ask the hon. Member to forward those letters?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: We do not know what might happen to them if we did.
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the commanding officers of all Irish Reserve battalions have available records to show to what regiments the drafts supplied by them are sent; and whether he will call for a Return from these commanding officers of the number and strength of such drafts sent by them to units other than units of their own regiments?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion, but the information he asks for is already in the possession of the War Office.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has just told my hon. Friend (Mr. MacVeagh) that the War Office have not got that information?
      Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask whether it is or it is not the policy of the War Office to send Englishmen to English regiments and Scotsmen to Scottish regiments and Irishmen to Irish regiments?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend knows perfectly well that as far as the exigencies of the moment permit—and my hon. and gallant Friend knows as well as anybody that they vary from time to time—as far as the exigencies of the moment permit we send Englishmen to English battalions and Scotsmen to Scottish battalions and Irishmen to Irish battalions.
      Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: And Welshmen to Welsh battalions?
      An HON. MEMBER: Welshmen to all battalions.
      Mr. FORSTER: But as occasion arises, and in the interests of the Service as a whole, it may be imperative to send men to different battalions.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Has not the hon. Member denied to-day that the War Office has any information with regard to two hundred Reservists sent from Kinsale to a Scottish regiment?
      Mr. FØRSTER: What I said was that the information in our possession did not bear out the statement in question. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no!"] Certainly!
      Mr. PRINGLE: Was it the exigencies of the situation?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: If the hon. Gentleman will compare the answer which he gave with what he says he will find that is not so. What he said was that he had no information of the fact stated in my question.

      THRESHED HAY LICENCES.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct the withdrawal of the summonses issued for

      1527
      the Petty Sessions at Castlewellan, county Down, for the 7th proximo, against certain small farmers for selling threshed hay without a permit, seeing that the hay was in small lots of under a ton, that there had been much delay in inspection, and that farmers have since been authorised to sell small lots without permits?
      Mr. FORSTER: No inspection of threshed hay is necessary, and licences are issued at once, on application, to persons desirous of selling this class of forage. I regret I do not see my way to interfere with the discretion of the local military authorities in these cases.

      SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (DOMINIONS).
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the War Office has taken into consideration the difficulties that soldiers from Orkney and Shetland returning from leave had to encounter in visiting their homes, he will consider if similar privileges could be granted to soldiers from the Dominions who are anxious to have sufficient leave to visit their parents?
      Mr. FORSTER: The grant of leave to men from the Dominions involves considerations very different from those involved in the grant of leave to men from Orkney and Shetland, and the two cannot be compared.

      FOREIGN DECORATIONS.
      Colonel CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War whether any and, if so, what orders have been issued limiting the number of foreign decorations for gallantry in the field that can be granted to soldiers; and, if any and, if so, what restrictions are imposed on the granting of such decorations to officers?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Orders are in force that an individual soldier is not to receive more than one foreign decoration. The rule is the same for officers, with the exception that a general officer, or any officer to whom the head of an Allied Power has made a personal award, may receive more than one. This rule applies to all foreign decorations, and not merely to those which may be gained for gallantry in the field
      Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask whether the same Regulation obtains in the Armies of the Allied Powers, and if it has been made in conjunction with the Allies or for what reason?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like notice of that question.

      BODY SHIELDS.
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any practical outcome of the investigations and experiments into the problem of devising body—shields for the troops at the front; and whether he can say what the present position with regard to the matter now is?
      Mr. FORSTER: A report on the subject has been received from Sir Douglas Haig, and steps are being taken to meet his wishes. It is undesirable to give further details.

      OFFICERS ON LEAVE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether free passes are given by the War Office overland to officers on leave at home from Egypt, while officers of the Indian Army at home on leave from Aden or Mesopotamia are refused free passes overland by the India Office and have to proceed to Marseilles at their own expense; whether officers on leave from Aden or Mesopotamia are forbidden by the India Office to wear uniform during any part of the return journey, thus necessitating passports and much extra luggage and trouble; whether the same order is enforced by the War Office in the case of officers returning from leave to Egypt; and, if not, whether the India Office will conform to the War Office rules in this matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Officers from Aden or Mesopotamia normally proceed by sea, but are allowed to make private arrangements for travelling overland. As they travel overland in a private capacity they are not allowed to wear uniform.
      Colonel YATE: Why should there be any difference in the case of officers for Aden or Mesopotamia and those for Egypt in wearing uniform?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that there is.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (PROMOTION OF OFFICERS).
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the anomalies in the promotion of officers in the Territorial Force due to the large increase of that Force, the frequent introduction of Regular officers to take command of units and higher formations, the necessity of employing officers commissioned into particular units in other units, and to the fact that from time to time officers through wounds, sickness, and other causes are brought home, and so miss opportunities of promotion at the front, he will introduce into the Territorial Force a system of regimental promotion under which the above anomalies may be, as far as possible, avoided?
      Mr. FORSTER: This matter has been under consideration for some time; and it is hoped that new regulations will shortly come into operation.

      RECRUITING OFFICE (COUNTY TYRONE).
      Mr. COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why Lieutenant George Evans, of Clogher, county Tyrone, who on 8th November, 1915, was given a commission and appointed as recruiting officer to a recruiting area in county Tyrone, is not called up for active service; is he aware that the duties of Lieutenant Evans as recruiting officer ceased on 31st July, 1916, and that early in August he was attached to the 11th Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers, but since then has not been invited to join the battalion for training; and will he see that this delay is remedied?
      Mr. FORSTER: This officer was gazetted to the 11th Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers on the 23rd instant with effect from August 3rd last. There appears to have been some misunderstanding as to the position of this officer, but it has now been ascertained that he has definitely joined the battalion for duty as a regimental officer. The delay is regretted.

      TREATMENT OF DISABLED SOLDIERS.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State
      1530
      for War if he is in a position to announce whether the duty of restoring the disabled soldier to complete recovery, so far as medical and surgical science can do so, will be undertaken by the War Office?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The War Office is charged with establishing an organisation for the training and treatment of the discharged soldier, but this will be done by means of a civil organisation. The matter is receiving the most careful consideration.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will this civil organisation be under the New Pensions Board or separate?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not quite definitely settled.

      AIR BOARD.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he can say whether the War Office is satisfied with the quality and quantity of our aircraft output; if not, whether any defect or deficiency can be attributed to the present system of dual control and administration; and whether the Army Council is now in favour of a reconstructed or numerically strengthened Air Board with responsible executive powers?
      Major BAIRD: (representing the Air Board) I have been asked to answer this question. The matters to which it refers are dealt with in a Report which Lord Curzon, as President of the Air Board, has recently made to the Government. This Report is now under consideration, and it is not for the moment possible for me to say anything further on the subject.
      Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to lay the Report on the Table of the House?
      Major BAIRD: That question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister.

      BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he can say whether captive British prisoners of war in Russian-Poland and elsewhere are still less well treated than

      1531
      those of French and Russian nationality; if he can now give an assurance to this House that when the War Office took over the responsibility from the Foreign Office of dealing with the interests of British captive prisoners of war adequate steps were promptly taken to obtain for them an equality of treatment to that extended to the captives of the Allied nations; and if such equality has been refused, whether he will take steps to mete out to German prisoners of war in this country similar privations and hardships to those which British prisoners have been and still are made to suffer?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: As far as we are aware, there are no British prisoners of war in Russian-Poland. There were a few British prisoners of war at Brest Litovsk and Wilna, but these have been sent back to Germany. If, however, the hon. Member is referring to the British prisoners of war in Courland, we do not know with accuracy the actual conditions under which they are living, as all our efforts to induce the German Government to allow these places to be visited by a member of the United States Embassy at Berlin have so far failed. We are not aware whether there are any Russian prisoners of war in that portion of Russian territory which is in German occupation. We are informed that the French prisoners of war who were in Russian-Poland have been sent back to France. We have no reason to believe that British prisoners are worse treated than prisoners of other nationalities. The general care of the interests of British prisoners of war is a matter with which the War Office is now, as always, seriously concerned, and it is believed that everything possible has been done, both by the War Office and the Foreign Office, to ameliorate their condition: but the responsibilities of the War Office in this matter have not been altered by the policy announced in the Press on the 14th October. We have grounds for hope that a member of the United States Embassy at Berlin will be allowed to visit the camps in Courland in the near future.

      SEIZURE OF BOOK.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War will he explain why an officer from the War Office, accompanied
      1532
      by two officers from Scotland Yard, visited the premises of Mr. Henderson, publisher, Charing Cross Road, on Thursday afternoon last and seized a large number of copies of a small book, consisting of two plays by Mr. Miles Malleson; and will he point out, for the deterrence of other authors, what are the incriminating passages, if any, in the book?
      Mr. FORSTER: The facts are substantially as stated in the question. The book in question is, I am advised, a deliberate calumny on the British soldier. The visit to Mr. Henderson's premises was ordered by the competent military authority.
      Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this book has the approval of men very well known in the literary world, and of unimpeachable patriotism? Has the hon. Gentleman read the book; if not, will he do so?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am advised that the book is very properly suppressed, and I am sorry to hear that it has the approval of anybody.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman any personal knowledge of the book at all?
      Mr. FORSTER: No.
      Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps—
      Mr. SPEAKER: To ask so many supplementary questions is not fair to hon. Members who have given notice of questions to come on later.

      WAR DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if employés of the War Department employed in Ireland are to be denied the right to appeal to the War Office in the cases of status and pay; and whether he can say if any of the appeals were made by civilian employés in the Army Ordnance Department, and how such appeals were dealt with?
      Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I shall be glad to have more particulars of the cases to which the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether consideration will be given to the case of

      1533
      civilian clerks employed in War Departments in Ireland as regards war bonus for the two years up to 30th June, 1916; and whether he will specially consider the cases of employés of long service whose conditions were so much altered owing to the War as distinct from those employed during the War?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot go beyond the decision of the Government as announced in the instructions which have been issued, under which Irish cases are treated on the same lines as English.

      DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY (3RD ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked why and for what purpose Is. per week is deducted from the pay of the privates in the 3rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, now stationed at Litherland; and why an explanation has been refused to the men concerned?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will inquire and let my hon. Friend know the result.

      WOUNDED SOLDIERS (CLOTHING).
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is necessary for the Base and Southern General Hospital to send out fresh clothing for wounded men consisting of bright blue trousers and dark blue coats as they are now doing; and, seeing that the men dislike these parti—coloured suits, will he give these soldiers more consideration?
      Mr. FORSTER: This clothing is in accordance with the standard pattern and is considered suitable for the purpose by the medical authorities. I regret it is not possible to consult individual tastes in regard to general supplies of clothing of this nature.

      TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIEES (FURLOUGH ON RE-ENGAGEMENT).
      Mr. CROOKSasked whether time-expired men are entitled to a furlough at the time of their service being renewed; and, if not, can a recommendation be made that in all such cases leave be granted if at all possible?
      Mr. FORSTER: One month's furlough is granted to such men provided they can be spared from military duty and, in the case of men who are overseas, that accommodation on leave boats or transports is available.

      TREASURY EMPLOYES.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether there are still any Germans, naturalised or otherwise, or sons of German fathers still employed in the Treasury; and whether any have changed their names since the War?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 9th December, 1915 All employés in the Treasury are natural—born British subjects.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Why not ask the War Office?

      ENEMY BANKS IN ENGLAND.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that it is only British interests that are regarded in the winding—up of alien enemy banks, there is any sufficient reason why nominees of German banks should be employed as brokers for selling securities belonging to such banks on the London Stock Exchange in preference to firms of brokers of British origin; whether he will give instructions that in future only firms of brokers of British origin shall be employed in selling securities belonging to German banks on the Stock Exchange, and that firms in which the partners, or some of them, are of enemy origin shall not be so employed; and whether, if he has not got the necessary legal authority to give such instructions, he will forthwith apply to Parliament for such authority?
      Mr. McKENNA: The brokers employed by the three German banks are all members of the London Stock Exchange who are elected annually. The firms employed number thirty-seven, of which fifteen are composed of partners exclusively of British birth and twenty-two of partners partly British born and partly naturalised. Of the latter group of twenty-two firms, the partnership element consists of forty-two persons of British birth, forty-two persons of enemy origin who are naturalised, and four of allied

      1535
      and neutral birth. I will try and arrange that brokers of British origin will be employed in the future.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked if the licences to trade which have been issued to enemy-owned banks can be withdrawn; if so, whether the Board of Trade contemplate their withdrawal at any particular period or under any given circumstances; if so, what is the period or what are the circumstances; and if the withdrawal of these licences will be followed by winding-up under the Trading With the Enemy Act?
      Mr. McKENNA: The licence issued to the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, the Disconto-Gesellschaft, and two Austrian banks, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, cannot be called a licence to trade, inasmuch as the only business which may be transacted under the licence consists of such operations as may be necessary for making the realisable assets of the bank available for meeting their liabilities to British, Allied, and neutral creditors, and for discharging those liabilities as far as may be practicable. Outside this the licence does not enable any banking business to be done; and no such banking business has been done by these banks since the commencement of the War. The licence can be withdrawn, and in the case of the Deutsche Bank, where the main object of the licence, namely, the payment of British, Allied, and neutral creditors has been attained, has already been withdrawn. In the case of the other two German banks the licence will be withdrawn as soon as the object of the licence is attained. There is no necessity to wind up the banks under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as the present procedure makes a formal winding-up under the Act quoted unnecessary.
      Mr. BUTCHER: What is the date of the withdrawal of the licence?
      Mr. McKENNA: I think that appears in a later question.
      Sir H. DALZIELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the remuneration agreed to be paid to Sir William Plender for acting as controller of the various German banks in London?
      Mr. McKENNA: The professional fees of the controller and the expenses incurred by him are payable out of the funds of the banks, and there is no charge against public funds in respect of his services.
      The fees received by Sir William Plender for his own services and those of his clerks from August, 1914, to 30th June, 1916, were:—

      £

      Deutsche Bank

      …

      1,100

      Disconto-Gesellschaft

      …

      950

      Dresdner Bank

      …

      850

      2,900

      Sir HDALZIEL: That is not an answer to my question: What is the basis of the remuneration?
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the fact that the realisation of the assets and the discharge of the liabilities of the Deutsche Bank to British, Allied, and neutral creditors have now been completed and that, by the terms of the licence of 19th September, 1914, the, business of the Deutsche Bank was limited to the operations necessary for making the realisable assets of the bank available for meeting such liabilities, that licence will now be revoked and the business of the bank brought to an end; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the realisation of the assets and the discharge of the liabilities of the Dresdner and Disconto—Gesellschaft banks to British, Allied, and neutral creditors have now been completed, except that the liabilities to the Bank of England have not yet been fully discharged, and that, by the terms of the licence of 19th September, 1914, the business of these banks was limited to the operations necessary for making the realisable assets of the banks available for meeting such liabilities, that licence will be revoked and the business of the banks brought to an end except so far as may be necessary for the purpose of discharging their liability to the Bank of England?
      Mr. McKENNA: The discharge of liabilities, which was the object of the licence given to the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Disconto—Gesellschaft, has, in the case of the Deutsche Bank, been practically completed; and the licence in that case was revoked yesterday. The licence will be revoked in the case of the Dresdner Bank and the Disconto—Gesellschaft as soon as the necessary discharge of liabilities has been completed. There is not very much more to be done, and it is hoped that the licence will be revoked in the case of these two banks shortly. In order to complete the second branch of what has to be done in connection with

      1537
      these banks, namely, the divesting of the banks of any money and securities held by them on behalf of customers, a further licence will be required authorising the necessary correspondence and transfers, and also providing for the continuance of supervision and control for those purposes.
      Mr. BUTCHER: I understand that the new licences will in no way authorise their renewing any sort or kind of banking business?
      Mr. McKENNA: That is so, Sir. The new licences, like the old, do not authorise any business in the ordinary sense of the term to be undertaken. We regard it as essential that the link between these banks and their British customers should be broken. In order to break that link it is necessary to return to the owners of securities those securities which are now owned by these banks. If that is to be done it is necessary that the banks, for that purpose, should be licensed to carry on that particular business.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Will the correspondence which will have to take place with Germany be carried on by British subjects here rather than by German subjects?
      Mr. McKENNA: The correspondence will be by the authorities of the bank and the owners of these securities who are British subjects. What we desire is that the securities should be sent back to the owners, in order that all connection between the owners of these securities and the banks should be broken. If that were not done, the effect would be that after the War these British subjects would be writing to the banks to know what had become of their property. We want to settle up with them once and for all.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why was that not done two years ago?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is being done as fast as it can be done; but it is very, very difficult.

      SUGAR SUPPLIES.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received from a committee of wholesale tea dealers communications from their customers stating that they are unable to buy tea or coffee owing to the pressure put upon them by houses offering sugar who will
      1538
      only supply it on condition that tea and coffee are bought with it; and whether the Royal Commission can issue stringent regulations to prevent the continuance of this practice?
      Mr. McKENNA: I have received the communications referred to by my right hon. Friend. Wholesale dealers in sugar are not entitled to require purchasers to take other goods as well as a condition of obtaining sugar; and the Commission is ready to investigate any case of the kind, if brought before them with full particulars.
      Mr. LOUGH: Will the particulars I have already given be regarded by my right hon. Friend as sufficient of themselves to be examined?
      Mr. McKENNA: I have sent the papers on to the Commission, and I will inquire.
      Mr. BILLING: Will that apply also to the retail trade?
      Mr. McKENNA: There is a further question on the Paper.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether the Sugar Commission has yet come to any conclusion as to the amount of other goods which a retailer of sugar may be allowed to insist upon selling with every pound of sugar?
      Mr. McKENNA: The practice of requiring customers to purchase a certain quantity of other groceries as a condition of obtaining sugar is one that has been adopted by retailers of their own accord as a means of protecting their reduced stocks of sugar from too rapid depletion., The Commission have so far not thought it right to interfere beyond insisting that the customer must be left complete freedom of choice as regards the other goods to be purchased. But it will now further decline to countenance enforcement of the condition unless the value of the goods which a retailer may require to be purchased at the same time as sugar does not exceed 2s. in respect of each pound of sugar.
      Mr. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how an old age pensioner can afford to buy 2s. worth of grocery?
      Mr. McKENNA: He does not do it.
      Mr. CROOKS: Yes, he does.
      Mr. McKENNA: I do not suppose an old age pensioner can afford to buy 1 lb.

      1539
      of sugar at once in respect of each purchase. If an old age pensioner spends 6d. on sugar, he would be obliged to spend quite 2s. on other groceries. I assume that an old age pensioner will spend less than 6d. on sugar, and proportionately a larger amount on other groceries.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless there is some restriction imposed, well-to-do people go round from shop to shop buying up the sugar?
      Mr. McKENNA: That is the reason the restriction has been imposed by private shops.
      Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making it obligatory on the grocers to sell a minimum amount of sugar with other goods?
      Mr. McKENNA: That is open to the evil to which reference has just been made.
      Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is fair that poor men should be expected to spend 25 per cent, of their total expenditure on sugar?

      NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
      Colonel CRAIGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in taking into consideration the granting of a war bonus to Irish national school teachers, he will sympathetically consider the case of national school teacher pensioners who, owing to the increased cost of living, find it difficult to make both ends meet?
      Mr. McKENNA: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for South Kilkenny on 26th October, this question is one in the first instance for the consideration of the Irish Government.

      MILK SUPPLY.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, with a view to increasing the supply of milk, he has considered the advisability of strengthening the Order for maintenance of livestock by prohibiting the slaughter of cows under seven or eight years of age; and whether he proposes to take any action?
      Mr. TENNANT: This question is undoubtedly a serious one, and is engaging the close attention of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: But are any steps going to be taken?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

      DENMARK (GRASS MIXTURES).
      Captain CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can state the reasons for the sudden inability of Denmark to provide Great Britain with cocksfoot and rough-stalked meadow grass seed necessary to most grass mixtures for sowing pastures and usually grown for the British market in large quantities by Danish formers; and what steps the Board propose to take to supply the deficiency?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The prohibition of export of grass seeds from Denmark extends to all countries and is understood to be due to shortage of supply in that country. It is not possible to say to what extent we have hitherto depended on Denmark for the two grasses named, but our import from Denmark during the last two years has been rather more than 10 per cent, of our total import of all grass and clover seeds. Cocksfoot grass is grown in New Zealand and in this country, but no doubt there will be a shortage of seed owing to the discontinuance of the Danish supply. As, however, the chief value of this seed is for permanent pasture, and it is to be hoped that at present very little land will be turned to this use, the lack of cocksfoot ought not to be seriously felt. Rough-stalked meadow grass seed is relatively of minor importance.

      PALM PRODUCTS (WEST AFRICA).
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official information showing that merchant pools are now in existence in West Africa with the object of controlling prices paid to the natives for the products of the palm tree?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that certain of the West African merchants

      1541
      have come to an agreement among themselves which, in the districts where it is applicable, would have the effect of controlling the prices paid to the natives. As regards the object of the agreement, I have no official information other than is contained in a letter recently received from a representative body of merchants, in which they maintain that, owing to the uncertainty of markets at the outbreak of war, the probable lack of tonnage, and the limited storage accommodation in West Africa, an arrangement for steady purchase at a fair average price was preferable to an unregulated competition which would soon have resulted in a congestion of produce locally and would have been disastrous to both the natives and the Colony.
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his official information shows that immediately preceding the outbreak of the War the prices of palm kernels in Lagos ranged up to £19 per ton, and that to-day the price is only £8 per ton?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The price of palm kernels in Lagos in June and July 1914 was £14 18s. 4d. and £14 13s. 4d. per ton respectively. The latest available information as to present local prices is for the latter half of August, when the price was £9 10s. per ton.

      NUNEATON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
      Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an appointment by the Nuneaton Board of Guardians of a young man of military age passed fit for general service for the position of rate collector, whilst an application for a discharged soldier, who before the War broke out was employed as an assistant collector, was refused; whether this is in accordance with the policy laid down that all able-bodied men should, as far as possible, join the Colours; whether he is aware that public meetings have taken place in Nuneaton to protest against such an appointment on the grounds that it is contrary to the public interests and the policy laid down by the Government; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. REA (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked by the President of the Local Government Board to answer this question. The appointment referred to is not
      1542
      subject to my right hon. Friend's sanction. He is, however, in communication with the guardians on the subject.

      FREIGHTS (SOAP SYNDICATE).
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a certain soap syndicate have purchased vessels to enable cheaper freights so that they may best their competitors in the trade; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the advisability of making a large purchase of vessels to enable them to reduce the freights now charged by shipping companies on food imports?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that private firms sometimes find it cheaper to buy ships than to hire them; but, as I explained to my hon. Friend on 12th October, the same consideration does not apply in the case of the Government, which already has full control over the ships without buying them.

      ENEMY ALIENS (BRITISH CREDITORS).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the representations made to him by the Employers' Parliamentary Association respecting the safeguarding of British creditors of enemy aliens on the termination of the War?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The representations have not been overlooked, but any announcement as to the steps to be taken in the matter on the termination of the War would at present be premature.

      MEAT SUPPLIES (BRAZIL).
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that in June, 1915, he undertook to consider the question of getting larger meat supplies from the Republic of Brazil, and that three or four weeks after this promise satisfactory shipments arrived from that country, his Department then took any steps to develop this supply; if so, what steps were taken; whether, in view of the recommendation of the Food

      1543
      Prices Committee that the Government should expedite the establishment of refrigerators at Rio Janeiro, Santos, or Bahia, any commencement had been made in that direction; whether meat freezing in the port of Santos was still done in a Royal Mail refrigerated lighter; and whether he is aware that the last Brazilian census gave the number of cattle from twenty-five to thirty millions?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is only possible to provide a small amount of tonnage for chilled beef from Brazil, but it has been increased during the past twelve months. The exportation of frozen beef from Brazil for the use of the Allied Forces has been considerably increased and has nearly reached the maximum of the present plant. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Prices is under consideration by the Board. I am informed that one meat—freezing works at Santos has increased its freezing capacity by the acquisition of a refrigerated lighter. I would point out that, although the number of cattle in Brazil is undoubtedly very large, they are not all of quality satisfactory for export.

      BACON.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that about 250 tons of bacon has been sent from Hay's Wharf, London Bridge, to Messrs. Knight's soap factory, Silver-town, in the borough of West Ham; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: From the results of the inquiries I have made, it would appear that the consignment to which the question refers is the same as that regarding which my hon. Friend asked a question on 4th July last, and which was sent to the soap factory early in February, in consequence of damage from sea-water. If my hon. Friend knows of other instances, I shall be obliged if he will furnish me with particulars.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.

      SECRET SESSION.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether, following the precedent created by Lord Kitchener, he will arrange to meet the Members of the House in secret Session?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If there is a general desire among Members that I should arrange to meet them in secret Session I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. LYNCH: We should be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend avoid addressing sections of the House when he can address the whole of us?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If any section of the House wishes to meet me to ask any questions, of course I will meet them, but only at their request. Of course, I certainly could meet any section of the House. One or two sections of the House have asked me to receive them with regard to certain questions, and I assented. I shall be only too happy to meet them.
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Kitchener appealed to the Members then present not to put so many questions on the Paper, and they have increased enormously ever since?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I wish the appeal of Lord Kitchener had been responded to, because it is not so much that it takes up the time of Ministers, but it takes up the time of very important officials in the Department who are engaged in most anxious work. Only this morning it was stated that it was quite paralysing to have to deal with the questions.
      Mr. S. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion I made to the Prime Minister the other day that each Member shall be restricted to two questions per day?

    CHANNEL TRANSPORT SERVICE.

      ENEMY RAID.
      Sir P. MAGNUS(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any further information than has appeared in the Press as to the recent Channel raid on our transport service; and whether he can assure the House that effective measures are being adopted to insure the safety of our cross-Channed transport service?
      The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): The communication in last

      1545
      Friday's newspapers gave all the information with regard to the subject of my hon. Friend's question which was then in the possession of the Admiralty. I have now seen a report by the Admiral Commanding at Dover, and have had the advantage of a conversation with him. But I have no very important facts to add to what has already been said.
      The raiders had, of course, the advantage which raiders always possess—that of choosing the moment of their attack, its particular objective, and the course to be steered in order to attain it. I presume that in this particular case the intention of the Germans was to interfere with the cross-Channel service, which is a link in the main line of our communications with the Army at the front. If this was their object, it certainly failed. The only cross-Channel vessel (the "Queen") that was attacked was an empty passenger steamer and even this would have been saved had her captain realised that after the attack his ship would remain afloat for six hours.
      The "Flirt," a destroyer of old type, which was on patrol, appears to have been surprised in the darkness of a very dark night by the German destroyers, who fired on her at close range and sank her. The "Nubian" was torpedoed while attacking the German flotilla, but could have been brought into harbour but for the gale which soon after broke over the Channel. It is believed that she will be salved. Six drift—net boats were lost.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German claim is correct that there are no German losses?
      Mr. BALFOUR: So far as we know, the German claim is incorrect. We have no ground for thinking that any German destroyer was destroyed by the fire of the British ships. Of course they were hit, but there is no ground for thinking that they were sunk. There is ground for thinking, however, that two of the German destroyers struck mines we had laid, and I have no doubt they were blown up and probably sunk.
      Mr. BILLING: Is it a fact that these raids are only made possible by the use of Zeppelins by the enemy?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I cannot conceive that the Zeppelin would be of the least use on a night like that, which was exceptionally dark as well as stormy.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS.
      Mr. BUTCHER(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the Foreign Office with regard to the new arrangements for dealing with questions affecting prisoners of war, and whether the new arrangements indicate any change of policy on the subject?
      Lord R. CECIL: It has now been arranged that all questions affecting our prisoners in enemy countries should be under my Noble Friend Lord Newton, who will be represented in this House by my hon. Friend the Treasurer of the Household. That will not affect the enemy prisoners interned here. Lord Newton will be assisted by an Interdepartmental Committee, and in all matters connected with the War Office or Admiralty my Noble Friend would first consult those offices; and in case of any difference of opinion involving questions of policy the matter would be brought in the last resort before the War Committee. The Foreign Office will no longer be in any way responsible for the policy pursued with regard to prisoners of war, though the communications to Foreign Embassies will necessarily be transmitted through that Office.
      With regard to policy, I do not know that any change is contemplated, but perhaps the House will allow me, as I am, so to speak, taking leave of this question, to say a word about it. In the first place, I should wish to emphasise in the strongest language at my command, the deep debt of gratitude which, in my judgment, this country owes to Mr. Gerard and his assistants in Berlin. Wherever we have found thoroughly bad conditions prevailing, we have found also that for some reason or another the American Embassy has been unable to obtain facilities to inspect, and whenever such inspections have taken place, conditions have forthwith begun to improve.
      Whatever may have been true at the beginning of the War, I believe it is not now true that British prisoners are worse treated than those of other nationalities, and this relative decency of treatment is due almost entirely to the exertion of the American Embassy. But I should not like to conceal from the House that the conditions are, in my judgment, in some camps in Germany and in other countries, very

      1547
      far from satisfactory as yet. Indeed, I doubt whether the internment of a prisoner of war can ever be made better than just tolerable. For real relief from hardship and dangers there is only one expedient really practicable and useful, and that is exchange or internment in a neutral country. Whether exchanges ought to be carried out is a question which, in the opinion of the War Committee, must be decided chiefly upon military and naval considerations, and it follows that in this matter the War Office and the Admiralty must, subject to any fresh direction by the War Committee, direct the policy of tin country, and consequently must be responsible for that policy.

    ALLIES AND GREECE.

      RECOGNITION or M. VENEZELOS' GOVEENMENT.
      Mr. R. MCNEILL(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Foreign Office has issued to the Press in Athens a statement which the enemies of the Allies have interpreted as an announcement that His Majesty's Government, in concert with our Allies, has refused to give official recognition to the Government established by M. Venizelos; whether this statment has caused discouragement and dismay to the pro-Ally party in Greece, and jubilation to the pro-German party supporting the King; and whether, in order to avert disastrous consequences, he will announce that His Majesty's Government will immediately urge upon the Allied Governments the importance of promptly recognising and supporting M. Venizelos and his Government?
      Lord R. CECIL: I regret very much that I only received notice of my hon. Friend's question at one o'clock to-day, and I am sure that the House and he will see it is the kind of question which I could not properly reply to without longer notice. If he will repeat it to-morrow, I will try to give him an answer.
      Sir E. CARSON: With reference to the answer of my right hon. Friend, would it not be a good thing for the Government to give us some' opportunity to discuss the whole question of the conduct of affairs in Greece and in the Balkans?
      Lord R. CECIL: I will certainly convey that question to the Prime Minister.
      Mr. R. McNeill: As this is a matter—if I may employ a phrase of the Prime Minister—that brooks no delay, I propose to call attention to it on the Motion for the Adjournment this evening, and the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to say whether any arrangement to meet the request of my right hon. and learned Friend has been arrived at.
      Mr. LYNCH: Might I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this question? As far back as Saturday last I gave notice to the Prime Minister of a question contained in that just put by my hon. Friend, and your ruling was that that should be put down in the ordinary way. It was a question relating to the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Ministry of M. Venizelos. Might I put that question now, or might I have your ruling as to why it was not allowed as a question by private notice?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not remember having received the hon. Member's question. I was not here on Saturday, and I do not recollect anything about it.

    FISHERIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BOLAND(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the fishing industry off the coast of Kerry has been entirely suspended by order of the Admiralty; whether the restriction is temporary, and, if so, for what period; and can he state the reason for causing a further inflation of food prices by restricting a valuable source of food supply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The fishing has not been entirely suspended, but has been considerably restricted off the south-west Coast of Ireland, including the Kerry Coast. The restrictions have been carefully considered by the Vice-Admiral Commanding, and are necessary for the protection of coasts and shipping. No prospect can be held out of their being relaxed, at any rate during the winter months.

    Income Tax (Industrial and Provident Societies).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the 1 annual sum lost to the Exchequer by way

    1549
    of taxation from the date of the coming into operation of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, up to this year owing to the provisions of that Act by which such societies are relieved from the payment of Income Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in supposing that there is or has been a loss of Income Tax due to the legal provisions to which he refers. As has been repeatedly explained in this House, profits distributed by these societies are assessable in the hands of the individual members who are liable to Income Tax, and sums placed to reserve are covered by the payments of Income Tax, Schedule A., in respect of the annual value of the premises of the societies, which would be allowable as a deduction in computing the profits if the societies were directly assessable. What has resulted from the provisions in question is that they have rendered unnecessary an enormous number of Income Tax repayment claims. The public have gained in convenience and the State has been spared a needless expense. As has already been indicated, the whole subject will be brought to the notice of the Committee to be appointed after the War.
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: Would the same remark apply to the Surplus Profits Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: No; the same considerations do not apply.

    Cheap Railway Tickets (Ireland).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland gives a cheap ticket from Ennis-killen to Belfast every Wednesday and from Lisbellaw to Belfast every Friday, and that the same company gives only monthly a cheap ticket to Dublin, the capital of Ireland; and whether he proposes to take any action to secure equal treatment in this respect for Dublin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is not a matter in regard to which the Board of Trade have any statutory powers, but I have asked for the railway company's observations upon the hon. Gentleman's question, and will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.

    PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION.
    Mr. GINNELLrose in his place—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have received notice of the question of the hon. Member. It does not seem "urgent" within the Rule. The hon. Member can give notice of it.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer Gould Hunter-Weston, K.C.B., for the County of Ayr, Northern Division.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Beading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is not a Government Bill in the sense that it was prepared in a Government Department. It is a Bill which has been introduced in another place, passed through all its stages there, and has been sent down to this House. The Board of Trade have for a long time been sympathetic towards the general principle of this Bill, namely, that a person who trades should disclose who he is. Many Bills similar to that now before the House have been introduced in the House of Commons and the House of Lords during recent years, and it might be as well to shortly state the history of this subject. In the year 1900 a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee. They took evidence and made a special report in which they stated that it had been established before the Committee that it was desirable to obtain public disclosures of all individuals who, at a fixed place, employ for the purposes of trade, names or styles of companies or partnerships or any form of plural designation, and that an effective register of this information would not only tend to facilitate commerce, but would secure identification of persons liable to legal proceedings or amenable to local government and other requirements. The report stated, however, that there were grave departmental difficulties in carrying out the scheme of the Bill, and the Committee were of the opinion that the principle of the Bill should only be accepted in a measure more complete and practicable than that referred to the Committee. So that the principle of the Bill was fully approved by that Committee, but it was considered that the difficulties of details were insuperable. I may say that there has always been a considerable opposition to this Bill, and no doubt the House is aware when this measure was originally introduced into the House of Lords last January, the opposition was then sufficiently strong to
  1598
  defeat the Second Beading, and it failed to obtain a Second Beading in the House of Lords. Subsequently it was reintroduced, referred to a Select Committee, and passed through all its stages. I mention that fact to show that the Bill has never been regarded as non-contentious, as originally proposed. Perhaps I may also mention on behalf of the Board of Trade that I made inquiries last year, because we were rather desirous of introducing a Bill of this character in this House in order to ascertain if a measure-on these lines would be regarded as non-contentious. I found that it would not be so regarded, and, having regard to the pledges as to non-contentious legislation, the Board of Trade did not feel justified last year in introducing this Bill. Opinion has now changed, and I gather that there will be no objection raised, or, at any rate, no strong objection to the principle of this Bill. I think one consideration will be present to everybody's mind, namely, that the case for this Bill has been very much strengthened by circumstances arising out of the War. I think the original object in the minds of those who advocated this registration system was mainly to protect sellers, and those who sold goods to other traders such as wholesale dealers, particularly in the matter of credit. That was the main object originally in the minds of those who advocated registration, because no doubt there were a great many cases where dealers in a large way of business had sold goods to traders whose real identity was concealed, and they would not have given those persons credit if their real identity had been disclosed.
  I think our experience during the War has pretty well convinced us that it is not only sellers, but buyers who require to be protected, and that not only the man who sells to any business firm or any person engaged in business, but also anyone who buys from such a person should also have the right to know with whom he really is dealing, both as to individuality and nationality, and in some senses to the past business history of the persons with whom he is dealing. Of course, we are all aware that companies are already subject to registration, and that persons who really wish to do trade with a company can go to the registrar of companies and can there obtain full particulars as to the shareholders of the company, the directorate, its capital, and also as to' any debt to which that company is liable.

  1599
  There are no such protections or safeguards at present in the case of dealing with firms or with persons, but apart from that there is also the national purpose to be served which the War has suddenly forced upon our attention. We are now engaged in a national war, and although this is not a war measure, it clearly would have been very useful to the State to have known when the War broke out the nationality of all who had businesses trading with the enemy; and, further, it would also be useful to have this knowledge when we come to deal with the situation at the end of the War. Perhaps I may quote a few words from the last paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee which considered this Bill before it came to this House. They say:
  "Events have shown how desirable it would have been to have had at the beginning of the War and still would be to have ready to hand, such information as this Bill provides, and without entering' upon any controversial matter relating to trade after the War, it may be generally accepted that the identity of those concerned with trade will be in the future an element of the greatest importance."
  I believe the House will generally agree with that view. That, I think, pretty clearly states briefly the history of this question, and the reasons which make it desirable that this Bill should now be considered and, I hope, passed into law. The Bill may be divided into three parts. First of all, who is to be registered; secondly, how registration is to be effected; and thirdly, the penalties for not registering. With regard to the question of who is to be registered, shortly stated, it means all firms and persons trading in this country in names other than their own, and that question is dealt with by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. I think that practically covers the ground.
  Mr. LOUGH: What about companies?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They are already registered, and there is already a registrar of companies. This Bill deals not with companies but with persons and firms, and they are not registered at present. It deals with all persons and firms trading in this country in names other than their own. At this stage perhaps I might be allowed to say that this Bill has not been drafted in a Government Department, but I do not think that this is the important stage of the measure. The Committee stage is the important stage, and if the House thinks the measure is good enough to receive a Second Reading without very much discussion, I hope
  1600
  some little time may be allowed to elapse before we take the further stages of the Bill in order that there may be time for hon. Members to put down Amendments. I desire myself to suggest considerable Amendments which my Department think are necessary, and I hope we shall have a full opportunity of considering Amendments which may be put down by hon. Members, who will no doubt take a very great interest in this Bill. I thought I had better make that announcement at this stage. Then we come to Clauses 3 to 6, and Clauses 9 to 11, which provide the machinery for registration, and those Clauses indicate that there will be offices in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, for the respective countries, and every person or firm liable to register will have to deliver a form to those offices respectively showing, first of all, the business name; secondly, the general nature of the business; thirdly, the principal place or places of the business; fourthly, where registration is effected by a firm, the full name, nationality, usual residence, and other occupation, if any, of each of the individuals who are partners; and fifthly, where registration is effected by a person, the full name, nationality, usual residence, and other occupation of such person.
  If the business is commenced after the commencement of this Act, they must give the date of the commencement of the business; and where a business is carried on under two or more business names, each of those business names must be stated. It is provided by later Clauses that three months is to be allowed for the registering of firms or persons who have carried on business before the commencement of this Act, but, if not, registration must take place within fourteen days after commencing business. In this Bill no person is designated as registrar, and that is a matter which will have to be finally decided when we ascertain the volume of business that may have to be dealt with. Of course, the natural proceeding would be that the Registrar of Companies should also deal with this matter, but that has not yet been definitely decided. The Registrar of Companies naturally feels that the amount of business thrown upon him may be beyond his capacity, but that matter has not yet been settled. This Bill has not been drafted by us, and we have taken it up from another place. The remaining features of the Bill are the penalties which are dealt with in Clauses

  1601
  7 and 8. First of all, there is a fine of £1 per day under Clause 7; and secondly, under Clause 8, the rights of a defaulter will not be enforceable by action at law. These penalty Clauses certainly require some strengthening. The penalty under Clause 7 is only enforceable after the Board of Trade have required compliance. Obviously, the Board of Trade cannot require compliance until they have knowledge of the particular case. That, therefore, appears to be an extremely weak point, and it will certainly have to be dealt with in Committee. I understand that this particular point was very carefully considered by the Select Committee in another place, and that they were impressed with the danger of blackmail. The House will observe that any person may lay information under this Bill. It is a matter which we shall be able to discuss in Committee, but I understand that was the point of view from which this Clause was framed. It seems to me, if we leave the Clause as it stands requiring initiative on the part of the Board of Trade to secure compliance with the Act, and imposing no penalty until the Board of Trade had found out the defaulter and ordered him to register, that nobody, or very few people, will register until the Board of Trade have required them to do so. The penalty under Clause 8 also requires strengthening. It is a contingent liability. Nobody would suffer by it unless they brought an action at law. No penalty would be enforceable for non-compliance until some other action were taken. That is not a satisfactory state of things. Both Clauses will have to be considered in Committee. An important point, involving rather a matter of principle, is raised by the Definition Clause, Clause 15, taken together with Clause 1. The Definition Clause says:
  "True surname shall mean the surname under which an individual is for the time being known, not including a surname adopted or assumed for business purposes."
  The true surname under which an individual is for the time being known obviously may be a name which he has only recently assumed. That is very unsatisfactory and is not at all what we require. There again the Bill will have to be very much strengthened. I am inclined to suggest that it will be best dealt with by having some period of time within which any changes that have occurred
  1602
  must be stated on the form. That is certainly one suggestion which appears to have considerable weight. We shall have to consider in Committee what that period shall be. The House will notice that one question which has to be answered is that of nationality. Experience rather points to the desirability of any change of nationality being recorded however long ago it might have taken place. That again will have to be dealt with in Committee. I may say that the Home Office have communicated with the Board of Trade on the subject, and they are strongly of that opinion, which we on our own account had also arrived at. The Bill will require considerable strengthening on the question of nationality and on the point of the true surname. I have now shortly stated the three matters contained in the Bill, namely, who is to be registered, how they are to be registered, and what are to be the penalties for not registering, and I have indicated that the Bill may require considerable amendment in Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: When will the Committee stage be taken?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not this week. I do not think that it would be fair to take it this week. It is not as if it were a Bill prepared in the Department, which we had, so to speak, built up brick by brick, and in regard to which, if we required to amend it, we should know how to begin. It is obviously more difficult to deal with a Bill which has not originated in the Department itself. I shall therefore be glad if the further stage of the Bill can be deferred until next week. There are two matters which may be considered matters of principle on which I shall certainly propose Amendments and on which I have no doubt that hon. Members will also propose Amendments, namely, the question of surname and of nationality and the question of penalties. There is a third point on which I am not so sure that agreement may be quite so easily reached, but on which there will have to be some amendment, and that is the date on which the Bill can be brought into operation. We are all agreed that the sooner we can bring it into operation the better. I feel very strongly about that, but the number of firms and persons, to be dealt with must be enormous and the machinery will be very considerable. It is the opinion of those who will have to do the work and who will be responsible that, under present conditions, it will certainly be impossible to

  1603
  bring the Bill into operation next January as is indicated in the Bill as printed here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It will be physically impossible to 'bring the Bill effectively into operation next January, and I am sure that it will not be the wish of the House that the Bill should be brought into operation until it can be effectively done. If the Bill is strengthened, as we hope, it will clearly make it all the more necessary that it should be properly administered. I am not prepared now to indicate what time we shall have to ask for, but I am afraid it will not be possible to bring it into operation on a date quite so early as that indicated in the Bill itself. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading and that when we get to the Committee stage we shall have a full opportunity of making it a real Bill, which will be of use not only for the purpose for which it was originally designed, so that any Englishman, Scotsman, or Irishman who wishes to do business in the course of ordinary trade between one man and another, may know with whom he is really doing business, but that it may also be of value to the nation, so that the State or any Government Department may have a register available for State purposes giving the real identity of any individual who docs business within the jurisdiction of this country.
  Sir E. CARSON: I must say that, while in many respects I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Bill to the House, I think in other respects it was a very extraordinary speech, because he gave us to understand that in the view of his Department the Bill is of an entirely unsatisfactory character, and, in point of fact, will have to be amended almost out of recognition if it is to be of the slightest use in this country I entirely agree with the view the right hon. Gentleman put forward, but having stated that it is a Bill which may have a very important effect in assisting loyal traders in this country and those who deal with them, it strikes me that the proper course for the Government would have been to have drawn their own Bill in a satisfactory way. They received this Bill from the House of Lords as far back as 9th August, and I think it was before the House of Lords nearly a whole year from the time it was first printed. Now we are told that so much amendment will it require and so drastic will it be neces-
  1604
  sary to make the alteration in the law, that although we have been over two years engaged in this War we cannot hope to carry its beneficent operations into force even as soon as 1st January next. That is a commentary on the way in which the Government conduct the business, the importance of which anybody can see. The truth of the matter is that the Bill as it at present stands is no good. I admit that it may be amended, but the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for it being in this form was the history of the Bill. I wonder when people will begin to remember the great difference between peace and war? It seems only now, after two years and more, to be dawning on some people that laws that were very good for times of peace are not only useless, but absolutely harmful, in times of war. Looking back and taking this as an example, I think the House will agree, and 1 am sure that the country will agree, that it was a great pity that in times of peace we never contemplated what it would be necessary to do in times of war. There has been an outcry in this country ever since this War broke out that there ought to be something done to eliminate that German and other enemy influence from trading, financial and commercial, in this country which they have set up, and which they have set up not only here but in every other country, not merely as a commercial matter, but as part of the general war which they were going to wage.
  One of my chief complaints against this Government is that up to this they have really done nothing, indeed, in many cases they have thwarted others doing something, to enable us to eliminate, as we ought to eliminate, enemy influence in any quarter in trading and commercial relations in this country. The whole of this mischief, I think, will be found to arise from the little attention which we gave to our naturalisation laws. I am not going to discuss them now, but I am perfectly certain that one of the great difficulties of tracing enemy influence in this country has been that we made no provision when war broke out for dealing with those on whom we had conferred the full benefits of British citizens, although at the time their sympathies might be, and probably would be, with the enemy who were trying to overthrow the British Empire. There ought to have been a law—I do not understand even now why the Government did not include it in

  1605
  a, Bill of this kind—giving the Government power to review every certificate of naturalisation which had been given in times of peace when war broke out. Mind you, this question of nationality to which my hon. Friend briefly referred is one of the most vital importance, and it is only when you consider it that you see the difficulty of dealing with it. Take this case: A man is described as a British subject. He may have been born in this country of German parents, and that makes him a British subject. Although he may never have lived here for a single moment of his life after the time of growing up, you cannot treat him otherwise than as a British subject. But in addition to that—and after all this is a most important and difficult point—a man may go and register himself a national in America, and under their Naturalisation Laws he may become an American subject and come back here and pose as such, and not as a German, though he may have naturalised for the very object of gaining a footing in this country and carrying out operations damaging to our trade.
  I wish the Government had taken that matter up and had incorporated something in the Bill dealing with it. I do not believe it is impossible to deal with either of the cases I have mentioned. It will be seen that this Bill, even with the Amendments that may be made under the title, unless my hon. Friend proposes to alter the title of the Bill, will really be very insufficient for the purpose of doing what the public are asking for every day—eliminating German and other alien influences. There are one or two matters in the Bill to which I should like shortly to refer. The Bill, as at present framed, does not go back on nationality at all. If a man was naturalised, or had assumed for a year or so, or, I suppose, even when the war broke out, a particular name, under the Bill, as framed, he is not bound to disclose his original name. I understand the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic towards proposed Amendments in that respect. That, of course, is absolutely necessary, and I was glad to hear there will be no limit as to time. We must not go back merely to the date of the War, or five years previously, but we must go back to the real nationality of the man. I may say I entirely approve of that. It is one of the defects of this Bill which I am glad to think will be remedied.
  1606
  There is another matter to which I hope my hon. Friend will direct his attention. I hope he will see that these registrations do not merely lie in the offices in Somerset House, but that they shall be published broadcast, so that the public themselves may judge as to whether or not they ought to deal with particular firms. The hon. Gentleman reminds us that companies are already registered. But how does that work? If I want to know about a company I have to go to Somesset House, wade through a file until I get the latest return, which may be a year old, and then I may be able to ferret out the names of the manager and directors. I hope there will be nothing so unsatisfactory in this particular case, and that my hon. Friend will assist us in devising a plan by which, in every representation that these people make, they shall only be allowed to represent themselves as what they really are and not what they pretend to be. There is another matter, I do not know whether or not it will come within the scope of this Bill, but it is a matter I would be sincerely glad, and I am sure the public also would be glad, if it can be brought into the Bill. It is the question of allowing foreigners, whether they be enemies or neutrals, to usurp British titles, so as to put a fraudulent pretence before the public. There are many instances in which companies call themselves "British So-and-so Company," and when you come to look into them you will find there is nothing British about them, but that they are companies to promote German trade. Is not that a scandal? They use the word "Imperial" or "British Imperial" or "London and Liverpool," or "London" and some other place, or "the United Kingdom." Surely that is a matter to which the Government might very well direct their attention!
  There is a great deal of feeling as to the laxity of the Government in eliminating German and enemy influence generally in this country. Let us not care about what was done in peace time. We have our eyes open now. Let us do what is necessary. I got a letter the other day from a firm enclosing me an account which they had paid. The money was paid to a firm which had a very large business, and with which they had had very large transactions, and until they saw the receipt' to one of the accounts signed on behalf of the controller they had not the faintest idea that they were dealing with

  1607
  a German firm. These were people who had lost their only sons in fighting against the Germans, and all the time they had been paying money and the controller was collecting it, so that it might be handed back to their enemy. The sooner the Government devote their attention to this matter, not in a pettifogging Bill like this, the sooner they realise that we expect a Bill really dealing with enemy influence of this kind, the better it will be for this House and for the country.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: As far as I am concerned, I am very pleased, indeed, that this Bill is before the House at the present moment. I followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) in his criticisms. No doubt many of them were well founded, but they varied so much—sometimes he censured and sometimes he commended—that it was really difficult to know where he was. At any rate, he was very distinct in saying that the Government was doing everything wrong in every possible way. That may or may not be the case, but it does not advance the Bill, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the traders all over this country have been waiting for a Bill of this kind for years, and now one is before the House, one which has passed the House of Lords, and in support of which public meetings have been held all over the country. No doubt, as the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill pointed out, it is susceptible of considerable amendment. But I hope that, in the general discussion on the Bill, we are not going to allow the head of Charles I. to quite obscure from our view every other part of the body.
  There is something in this question outside the question of nationality. Seven million sterling is lost in this country every year through bankruptcies alone, 3rd a considerable amount of other money is also lost, information as to which never reaches the Bankruptcy Court, and all these losses are incurred because the creditor does not know the debtor to whom he is supplying his goods. That certainly is a thing which ought to be prevented. I quite realise that the Bill does not go far enough. Registration in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin would be insufficient, as well as inconvenient to large trading firms. I fully believe a very large number of firms will have to register under this Bill, if it is to be a
  1608
  proper Bill, and it must be obvious that between the end of October and the 1st January next it will be impossible to get the proper machinery in working order. It would therefore be better for the Bill to come into force a few months later, and then be worked under proper conditions, rather than that it should be now hurried through and be productive of further complaints of inconvenience and inadequacy throughout the country. I come next to the question of penalties. The proposed penalty of £1 is, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous.
  There is another part of the Bill which requires amendment. We want to know exactly who a man is, and under this Bill men not trading under their own names should be forced to disclose their real names, so that the public may know with whom they are dealing. Under the proposed method of registration in London and the two other cities, the provisions for securing that will prove absolutely insufficient. What we want is that if a man is trading, say, under the name of "Smith" when his real name is "Brown," that fact should be set forth not only on his business premises, but on the notepaper which he uses in his business and on his order forms. If a man goes to a Court and obtains a licence for a public-house, he has to have his name printed on his premises within a few days. A man who has a vehicle plying along the streets has to have his name painted in letters an inch long on that vehicle. Why should a man trading in business, if it is an honest business, wish to conceal his real name? We all understand the necessity for preserving old-established firms, but that is no reason why the members of the firm should withhold their names. There are, of course, firms which have been in existence many years, firms with adequate capital, firms well reputed. The owner may leave the business or die; some financial changes may take place. I submit that the new owners should be forced to disclose their names, and that those names should appear on the premises and on all their business papers. By registration only that end cannot be secured. You cannot expect a trading firm to keep a clerk to run to the London Registry several times a week to search the names of those who have registered a change in order to find one among the thousand or five thousand customers with whom they are in the

  1609
  habit of dealing. That difficulty, however, could be easily got over if the firm's registered name appeared on the business premises and on the business paper and material issued to the general public. In addition, there ought to be an adequate fine—not to go to the common informer but an adequate fine enforceable under the ordinary law by the Department represented by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. Such a provision would largely meet the case. No doubt before the Bill gets into Committee a large number of Amendments of all kinds will be placed on the Notice Paper. But I have not the slightest doubt that the House, if it chooses, can place the measure on the Statute Book in two or three weeks, and, if hon. Members are willing, we shall be able to get an Act which will be for the benefit of the community generally without injury to ourselves.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  5.0 P.M.
  The objects of this Bill, as indicated by the hon. Gentleman who brought it forward, are in every respect excellent, and those objects have been approved by various trading bodies all over the country. But the Bill itself has not been so approved, in fact, upon being considered by two or three business men, defects of such magnitude were immediately pointed out, that when one comes to look at the Bill itself, he finds there is hardly a Clause in it from beginning to end that would not require such drastic alterations that the question really arises whether the advice, given with all the experience and force of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson), ought not to be followed by the Government oh this occasion, and they ought not to withdraw from this House a Bill which will be seen on examination to be so obviously unsatisfactory and insufficient, and that the Board of Trade should take the trouble to deal with this very important subject in a proper manner by introducing a proper Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that there is no word in this Bill on the important question of naturalisation. There is nothing here to enable the trading community to
  1610
  spot the enemy—the German-who has been intriguing and has been guilty of all kinds of trickery in connection with matters of commerce as well as in matters of war in recent years. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Glanville) also called attention to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill insisting upon people who are using names other than their own for business purposes putting those names prominently upon their business premises, and also upon their notepaper, invoices, and other trading papers. That is another important point. I do not know whether, as a matter of order, it would be possible to put those two points, or either of them, into this Bill. The Bill as at present brought forward is so worded and constructed that it does not cover either of those two important points to any extent whatever, and I doubt very much whether, as a matter of order, the drastic Amendments which the hon. Gentleman himself has indicated on behalf of the Government and the Board of Trade he would require to propose would be capable of dealing with either of those two subjects in any shape or form.
  The first point in connection with the inadequacy of this Bill and its general scope is that if you are to catch by registration the dishonest trader or the trader who is endeavouring under the cloak of another name to conceal his identity, it is not sufficient to bring in a Bill saying that these particular people are to register. They have tried that in other countries, and found that it failed. They did not get the results which were anticipated from it, therefore, they adopted for instance, in "Germany, France, and other countries—a system under which all traders must be registered. The first thing to be done is to register all traders. Then you will find out at once whether the names under which the businesses are being carried on are correct. As a matter of fact, if we were to pass this Bill in its present shape, simply saying that those who are using names other than their own are to be registered, there would be thousands of people who are doing that whom you would never get to register at all, and at whom you would never be able to get. The invitation here to the common informer, which opens a wide door to blackmail, would be such as to make it almost impossible. Besides that, it must be remembered that a good many firms will be carrying on perfectly legitimate

  1611
  businesses in names which are not exactly their own now, who are first-rate people, too. If you are going to make this registration a sort of pillory of firms, why should you inflict a prejudice upon the perfectly legitimate trader, which would be involved by simply picking out one class? The simple thing to do is what Germany determined to do twenty-five years ago, what France determined to do some twenty years ago, and what other countries have also adopted, that is, to insist upon all traders being registered, and, in cases where the exact names of the partners do not appear in the trading name, to insist upon full particulars being given upon registration, so that anybody can be traced, and one can ascertain not only what firms are not trading in their own names, but also what firms are so trading. In order to catch those people whom this Bill is designed to catch, I respectfully suggest that you would require to have the registration of all traders.
  In the next place—and this goes to the root of the whole Bill—there is the question of its machinery. The suggestion is that the registration should be somewhat similar to that of public companies, that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies should be the registrar, and that there should be three offices, one in London, one in Dublin, and one in Edinburgh. We have to-day in the trading community of this country all the machinery for carrying out this Bill without creating three new enormous offices, and without practically taking up a building the size of Somerset House to do the work for England. We do not want another army of officials. We do not want this enormous change forced upon the country in this official way. No, Sir, the machinery is here already, if the Government would only use it. In France the registrations are all done by the Chambers of Commerce. There are chambers of commerce there all over the country. They have certain judicial functions, one of which is to keep a register of every trader in the district. If the trader is only in a small way of business, such as a small shop, the fee is only one franc, but if the business is a merchant's business, or a larger one, the fee for registration is larger. The effect of that is that every one of these chambers of commerce takes a position far superior, having regard to their judicial and registration functions, than any-
  1612
  thing we have in the way of chambers of commerce in this country. Our chambers of commerce have their secretaries and offices. I do not know whether they cover the whole area of the country, but it would be comparatively simple to bring the boundaries of one chamber up to and make them co-terminous with the boundaries of another. Chambers of commerce are the right people to keep these registers. They would receive comparatively small fees, although they would be larger in the case of larger businesses, and they would be self-supporting. That would prevent the idea which is in this Bill, which every Member of this House who knows anything of business ought certainly to have at heart, that is, the establishment and enrolment among us of three enormous new offices with three new sets of Civil Service clerks.
  I am very much afraid that this Bill cannot be amended so as to cover naturalisation. I will not delay the House today upon that question because the subject has been dealt with so effectively by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College. Neither will I elaborate the other very important point about the names of all partners in the firms whose names are concealed in the names of the firm being upon the note-paper, because that has been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Granville). But there are these two other points which go to the root of the Bill-first, that we ought to register all traders, and secondly, that we ought to put the working and machinery of this matter into the hands of those splendid chambers of commerce we already have, and who have a large portion of the registration work already done among their members. If the Bill is to be so amended as to include these points and also the points which have been left out, by means of the drastic alterations that have been indicated, the only way to achieve our object—we want something of this kind and as soon as possible—would be to have a clean, new Bill brought in by the Board of Trade dealing with the subject in the way they want to deal with it. What is the use of the hon. Gentleman introducing a Bill of this kind and telling us in every other sentence, "It is not my Bill; it is not my Department's Bill. We would have done it in a different way. We are going to introduce a lot of Amendments of our own." In an important matter of this sort the right

  1613
  thing for the Government to do is to study the question for themselves and bring in their own Bill after proper consideration. Then we should be able to understand what it was and try to deal with it. I ask the House, how are we in Committee as Members of Parliament, some of us with considerable business experience, to deal with a Bill when we have notice from the Government that they are going to propose a whole lot of Amendments of their own? What would be the utility of our proposing Amendments when we do not know exactly what Amendments the Government are going to bring forward? While I welcome the objects of this Bill, I cannot think it would serve any useful purpose for us to discuss it in its present form, and for that reason I desire to move its rejection.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: As a business man I should like to offer a few observations to the House upon this Bill. Those of us who have had a good deal of experience of trading, especially with foreign countries, must welcome anything that makes it clear with whom we are doing business. For my part, I do not think that merchants and business people in this country would have any objection at all to the whole world knowing who were the partners in the business. That, at any rate, is the point of view of the Briton. When you come to the point of view of the foreigner or the foreigner who has recently become naturalised, I am afraid the Bill will not do all the House would like, in connection with him, because he has a very simple remedy, that is, although his name may be Schmidt, Strauss, or Schloss, or any other name, he has only to form his business into a small company. Then he can take the most British name he likes, and very few people will know from the name with whom they are really doing business. They would have to go to Somerset House and find out who are the shareholders in the company. Therefore, I am rather afraid the Bill will not achieve all that most of us would like in regard to disclosing, to the person who is trading with this undertaking, who the people behind it really are.
  The other observation I should like to address to the Board of Trade is as to the difficulty it will have in defining what is the carrying on of business in
  1614
  this country. It is a very difficult point in law, and I think the Board of Trade will find it is up against a good deal of difficulty when it comes to deciding who is carrying on business in this country and who is not. One of the main difficulties I see in this proposal is with regard to the persons who are acting in this country as agents for persons abroad. Take a case of this sort. My firm has recently been selling, for the purposes of the War, a good deal of a commodity, not probably well known, called antimony ore. It is consigned to us here from a number of miners who have small mines up in the mountains of Bolivia. Apparently in this Bill it would be the duty of a firm here to declare who the partners are in this Bolivian firm, which is consigning ore here for sale. That is a perfectly impossible proposition, and, moreover, when you come to consider what disclosures have to be made, the general nature of these people's business, the principal places of their business, who the partners are, and within seven days every change of partnership that takes place in that foreign firm, it would be perfectly unworkable. The persons in this country who are acting as agents for foreign firms in all parts of the world and selling the produce for them could never possibly undertake to keep a record of all the changes of partnership of these people, and, indeed, in some cases, as business is done by cable, they would not know who is consigning the goods for sale here, and the transaction would be finished long before we knew who were really the firms offering it here for sale, and the conditions of the Bill under Clause 2 would be perfectly impossible. It would be all very well to disclose who the firm was for which you are acting as agent if it was in this country and you could find out all about it, but it is preposterous to suggest that a firm in Bogota consigning coffee, or in La Paz consigning silver ore, or offering by cable to sell it, must give the particulars which are asked for under Clauses 2, 3, 5, and 6.
  Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: These are not British firms in Bolivia. This is a British firms Bill.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is the duty of a British firm which is acting as agent to disclose the names of the partners of the firm for which it is acting as agent.
  Sir W. PRIESTLEY: Not for a foreign firm.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In no place do I find words limiting it to a British firm in a foreign country. It may be any firm in a foreign country for which a firm here is acting as agent. It is perfectly impossible to put that duty on British merchants or British consignees. But, apart from that, if we could arrive at a Bill which would do what the Government have in mind, namely, let us know who, at any rate in Great Britain, the people really are who constitute firms, I do not think there would be any objection from the trading community at all. No Briton would object to giving the names of his partners, and with regard to the foreigner who was trading here and pretending to be British it would be very desirable to have that disclosed, if possible; but I am afraid if he found it adverse to his business that it should be disclosed he would then adopt the very easy device of becoming a company.
  Mr. MACLEOD: While wholly in favour of the principle of the Bill, there is one question which it is necessary to put to my hon. Friend. Is it intended to include under this Bill partnerships which exist in connection with the working and labouring classes? I refer especially to partnerships in connection with fishing and also in connection with squads at engineering and shipbuilding work. There are many other businesses of a similar character, and they all really come under the partnership law, and if it is intended that all the different partners should be registered, it opens up an enormous field and will necessitate an enormous amount of work. There are other businesses whose inclusion in the Bill would cause great difficulty. I refer especially to underwriters. We know that each particular business or risk has its own underwriters, who are really partners in that risk. They are always changing, and therefore it would be very difficult indeed were they always to be registered. I should like my hon. Friend to consider whether it will not be necessary to have some limitation and exemption of trades and businesses under the Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the House ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. Macleod) for having drawn attention to the matter, which is quite deserving of attention in Committee, because it would be a disaster if one were by this Bill to interfere with the carrying on of these fishing partnerships, for instance, or with
  1616
  underwriting, which may be regarded from one point of view as a partnership. That is, however, a Committee point. I think the House is in enthusiastic general agreement with the principle of the Bill. The only regret I feel, and I think it is" shared by many others, is that it was not brought in a long time ago, because many of the evils which are aimed at in the Bill have been in existence in continually increasing force since the commencement of the War, even if not before. I was a little alarmed when my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) said the Bill would not come into operation before 1st January. There is no reason whatever why the process of registration should not be commenced within a fortnight after the Bill has passed. In other words, they should be compelled within a fortnight after the passing of the Bill to register in the form prescribed, though I have no doubt some further time will be required for making up the register properly. There were and are two evils which require to be dealt with by this Bill. Let me give one illustration of a practice which has been going on, I believe, since the commencement of the War, and which is of the most pernicious character to my mind. German firms which were in existence at the beginning of the War knew that if they retained their names no one would deal with them, even if they were not locked up themselves. By some secret agreement, sometimes in writing, sometimes not, they transferred their businesses to A, B and C, some clerks of theirs with good English names, so that Schmidt and Company became Brown, Jones and Robinson, and the unsuspecting public went on dealing with Brown, Jones and Robinson, not having the remotest idea that behind these apparently simple British subjects were German principals. In other words, the British subjects are mere trustees for the Germans. I think that has gone on to a considerable extent, and I am glad there is a Clause in the Bill which will compel a firm carrying on its business as trustees for someone else to disclose their names, and I think we ought to add in the Bill to tell us their nationality and also their addresses, so that the public may know with whom they are dealing. That is one point on which the Bill is valuable.
  There is another case which, as it stands, the Bill does not meet. That is the case of persons who ever since the War, or shortly before it, changed their German names and their German nationality into

  1617
  English names and English nationality, and whereas before the War, or immediately after it, they were Germans with full-blooded German names, after the War they became simply British subjects enjoying the privilege and advantage of the British name. I think this Bill ought to provide not merely that the existing surnames and Christian names of members of the firm shall be registered, but that the surnames which these gentlemen bore for some period previous to the War should also be registered, so that we should know whether the person with whom we are dealing is really the honest British subject he professes to be, or is able to pose as being by our defective naturalisation laws, or whether he is in fact the person whom we wish to crush out, but whom we are unable to discover because of his change of name. I gather that my hon. Friend will make a change in the Bill which will enable us to meet that case.
  The only other point I wish to touch on is the question of penalties. The penalty prescribed by the Bill is grotesquely insufficient. The penalty for not registering is £1 a day, while the omission to register goes on. In any big business surely it would be worth these gentlemen's while to decline to register at all and to run the chance of being caught. If they are caught they would pay £1 a day, and if it extended over a year it could not come to so very much, and they no doubt would have had an ample reward for their omission to register. Therefore if we put a penalty at all, and indeed a penalty is absolutely necessary, it should be a substantial one which will force people to comply with the law, and I should not only have a fine but imprisonment as well, because there are persons to whom a fine, unless of enormous amount, is really no deterrent at all, whereas imprisonment may be a little helpful to enable people to comply with the law. I am glad my hon. Friend is going to move some Amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Rutherford) that the Bill should be withdrawn altogether. I think with proper Amendments it will be a most valuable Bill, and I do not anticipate that the discussion of those Amendments which will be necessary to make it into a useful measure will take so very long as some hon. Members seem to anticipate. I hope we shall go on with the Bill and get it through by next week, and get it into operation as soon as possible.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope the House will accept the Second Beading of the Bill. It is rather interesting to hear from the representative of the Government that this is a measure which should be considered from the point of view of the War issues. I understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) recommends this measure because it has an important war bearing. When we remember that this Bill was kicking about the House of Lords more than a year ago, that no support of any tangible character was given to it by the Government at that time, and that now we have it recommended to us in order to help us to win the War, I think it is a very pleasant commentary on the sort of action which the Government take in regard to these matters. I confess that the only attraction the Bill has for me is whether it is going to help us to kill and find out enemy influences in this country. That is the only value of the Bill at the present time if we are to pass it. This is not the time for considering the whole question of partnership, liabilities, and all that sort of thing. Every measure should be tested as to its value in regard to the winning of the war and the fighting of Germans and Germany. When we are told that we must not hold out hope that the Bill is going to be brought into operation by 1st January—and the hon. Gentleman does not know how long after that—I doubt more than ever the sincerity of the Government in the object we have in view.
  At the present time we cannot get to know with what Germans we are trading. We have been told, on the other side of the House, of the consternation of a firm who did not know that they had been dealing with a German firm until they saw a document signed by the controller. What do the Government mean by screening German firms day after day and month after month? At the present time they have the names of three hundred or four hundred of these firms, but they will not give a British manufacturer the names of one of these firms which are governed by German influence and run by German money. They keep the information secret. I have sent to the Board of Trade myself, I have sent on behalf of firms in which I am interested to try to get the name of one firm that belongs to Germany and is controlled by Germans, but the Board of Trade refuse to publish any list of firms controlled by them and now in the process of liquidation. Is that sincerity? Is that vigour in killing

  1619
  German influence? Does that show any real desire to crush the thing which they profess they are anxious to crush? Nothing of the kind. They are halfhearted in this matter, as they are halfhearted in everything else. They only act when they are kicked into action. They are only acting now on this Bill after fifteen months. This is a private Member's Bill, and they are only doing this now out of shame because they know that if they do not do it public opinion, in a week or two, will force them to do it. I do not think we have got the driving power behind the Board of Trade to make this Bill a success. Of course, we know they are busy. They should get more help. They should appoint another Department to do this business, but because of official jealousy they will not do that. It is like it was in regard to the winding-up business, and the result is chaos and inaction. This Bill is only worth passing now if we make up our minds to entirely alter it and make it a real measure and not a shop-window measure. It is only in that hope that I shall support the Second Beading of the Bill.
  Mr. DENNISS: I rise to support the Bill on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, and that if we do not use the framework of this Bill now it must be many months before a new Bill can be drafted, and we may not get a Bill at all. I am extremely glad that the Minister in charge of the Bill has said that the principle of it is no longer contentious. I know that the author of the Bill in the House of Lords (Lord Southwark) is a business man and has been a business man all his life, and that this Bill has been drafted by him in collaboration with a large number of other business men. It is by no means the unpractical measure that some hon. Members on this side of the House regard it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) that it is very unfortunate that a Bill like this was not passed into an Act of Parliament before the War. If it had been passed before the War, we should have known all the enemy businesses there were in this country, and we should have had machinery for the purposes of finding all the necessary information about them. I suppose that at the present time the hon. C4entleman who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill does not really know how many enemy businesses there are in this country, and
  1620
  he never will be able to discover without a Bill of this description how many enemy businesses there are yet unwound up.
  I do not propose to say much about the Bill, but I want to make one or two observations somewhat on the lines of the last speaker. I am extremely glad that the Government consider that this Bill is capable of amendment, and of being made a useful measure. The machinery of the Bill will be enormous. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) suggested that the chambers of commerce should undertake this work. I would point out, however, that chambers of commerce are not official bodies, and have not got official areas. It has always struck me "hat it might be possible for the Board of Trade to use the machinery of the County Courts of this country for this purpose. The County Courts map out the whole country into separate, well-defined areas; they are official bodies, and they have a registrar who is quite capable of doing this sort of work, and if the Board of Trade would only part with this branch of its work and allow the County Courts to take it up, I think the machinery would become manageable and very much more simplified. With regard to the changing of names recently by foreigners who are carrying on business in this country, I have had an Amendment sent to me from members of the London Chamber of Commerce, who want it to be put down on the Paper. It is that after a certain day, say, the 31st December, 1913, the December before the War, anyone who has changed his name or assumed any name other than that by which he has been previously known, shall be compelled to register in the original name that he had before the 31st December, 1913. I am not particular as to what the date should be, but at any rate it should be some date which will rope in all these changes of names that were made by Germans and other foreigners in anticipation of the present War. In regard to the point raised by one hon. Member as to agents in this country for foreign firms registering the names of their firms, I do not think that the Bill ought to be burdened with that. I think it would be an impossibility, and that it would overburden the Bill. So far as I can see, the Bill does not anticipate that that would be a particular function of registration at all. The Bill seems to contemplate only the registration of British firms and foreign firms trading in this country, not merely being represented here by agents.
  Mr. D. MASON: I think the hon. Member will find that Clause 2 provides for "every such person or persons." It does not say nationality.
  Mr. DENNISS: I have read that, but you must take that in regard to the purview of the whole Bill, and if you take the purview of the whole Bill you will see that it is not intended, for instance, that every merchant in South America who happens to have an agent in this country for the selling of goods shall be obliged to register within seven days the names of all the members of his firm and the changes in the members of his firm from time to time. The mention of seven days in the Bill shows that it is not intended to apply to such cases. I hope that no Amendments will be brought forward to try to alter the nationalisation law in a Bill of this kind, which is merely a registration of business names Bill. Any attempt of that kind must be very prejudicial to the Bill and might wreck it. If the nationalisation laws are to be altered, they must be altered as a whole in one Bill which has no other purpose at all. I know from my experience of chambers of commerce that this Bill has been very anxiously awaited by the business community in this country, and as far as I am personally concerned I shall give all the support I can in carrying it through.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I shall only make a few observations at this stage of the Bill. I think there has been some misapprehension as to what this Bill will do. It is quite obvious that this is a Bill the object of which is simply to give information and then allow people to act upon that information when it has been obtained. When we talk about the elimination of German trade we must remember that this Bill, as such, is not intended to do that, nor will it have that effect. It will give certain information, and when people have the facts before them they will have the opportunity of dealing as they wish with regard to these German firms. There has seldom been a Bill introduced upon which there has been so much agreement, but upon which everybody has spoken in so half-hearted a manner. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading gave us the cue and, such is his influence in the House, everybody has acted upon it. Every speaker has denounced something in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman himself said that upon three matters, what he called three leading principles of the Bill
  1622
  —the penalty, the definition of surnames, and the date-there would have to be Amendments. No doubt that is so. In order that the information may be such that people can act upon it, I think there ought to be, at any rate, a modification of Clause 3 in this respect, that not only shall a man put down his own nationality, but that he shall put down all his nationalities from start to finish; and secondly, that he shall not only put down his name, but all his names from start to finish, so that we shall know his history, so far as surnames and nationality are concerned. In regard to the Penalty Clause, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that it will not do. It is quite ineffective, and, if I may say so, preposterous. With regard to the registration, it appears tome from the reading of the Bill that this is a Bill under which the man registers himself in a curious way. It is not that the public servant registers him, but the moment he sends his particulars to the Government Department the mere sending of those particulars is the registration, and when anybody inquires he gets a copy of what the trader has sent in in regard to all these particulars. I do not know whether it is intended that that should be so, but it is a very curious state of affairs. What the man is punished for is not false particulars, but that he is false in registering himself. That has got to be remedied.
  We have gathered, more or less, the sense of the House from the Debate that has taken place, and I think the sense of the House is that something must be done upon the general lines of this Bill. We are most anxious to make it a workable Bill. Take the question of area. There is London, Dublin, and Edinburgh. I will suggest a fourth area later on. I feel certain that these areas are too big. It is almost an impossible task for London to provide registration for all the traders who will come in from all the counties of England and Wales. I do submit to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should localise this work to some extent. I know there is a difficulty in that, because the more you localise the work the more difficult it is to get information, and unless you have all the information at a central place it is very difficult to obtain it. I suggest that it would not be the 1st of January, but a much later date in 1917, before all this information could be centralised in one place. I have one appeal to make to the hon. Gentleman,

  1623
  and I think I shall make it with the general consent of the House. We are anxious that this Bill shall take as little time as possible in Committee. My hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss) says that half a loaf is better than no bread. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) that he might well consider the question whether he should not be his own baker. He has taken this half-loaf from some other Department, and I think it would be well I say this with great respect-even at this stage if he considered whether it would not save time in the end if this Bill were reframed. Of this I am quite certain, that two or three days before the Committee stage is reached we might expect and call upon the Government to put all their Amendments on the Paper beforehand. That would shorten the discussion very much. If the hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking that that will be done, I am sure that it will expedite the passage of the Bill through the House. I make these remarks in the most friendly spirit towards the Bill, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will take them into account and that he will, even at this late hour, when he has consulted his Parliamentary draftsman, consider whether it would not really save time in the end if we had the Second Beading of a simpler, shorter, and much more workable Bill than this. It would facilitate the passage of the Bill through Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that the more Amendments there are on the Paper the more discussion there is. We know perfectly well that this Bill will have to be amended practically Clause by Clause to a very great extent, and I think that the hon. Gentleman might consult his experts as to whether even now it would not be better to have a new Bill than to go on with this Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to find that the House agrees with the principle of this Bill. As the House has accepted this principle in a very friendly spirit-certainly my right hon. Friend who spoke last has been very friendly-my Department will certainly consider the suggestion which he has made, and all the suggestions which have been made. Though this Bill will be very useful to us in connection with the War, it is not a Bill which was originally conceived, or is even now introduced, as a war measure dealing directly with war questions. I do not bring it forward on that basis, and the attacks which
  1624
  have been made upon the Government and my Department for the method of introducing this Bill are quite misconceived, because they attack the Bill from a wholly false standpoint. It is with great diffidence that I criticise anything said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), who has now left the House. But I suggest to him, with his great legal experience, that to attempt to alter the nationalisation law within the compass of this Bill would be wholly foreign to its purpose. This is a Bill which was originally proposed long ago for the registration of the names of all British firms and persons who trade in names other than their own. This limitation was imposed because so far as those who trade only in their own name are concerned everybody knows already who they are, and there is, therefore, no necessity to register them. That was the simple object of the Bill. It was proposed for purely commercial purposes.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The Government, through the Prime Minister, are pledged not to introduce any measure unless it is a war measure.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend will let me make my point. Apparently he thinks that he is the only individual in this House who has any knowledge of—
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On a point of Order. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak at all without the indulgence of the House, and he has never asked for it. If he is going to make a controversial speech, I hope that there will be the right of reply.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Gentleman looked towards me in the usual way in which a Minister looks towards the Chair when sometimes he is not strictly in order, and I think that he understood that it was with the assent of the Chair that he made his remarks.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree entirely, and I apologise to the House for not having asked for the indulgence to speak again, which is so usually accorded to anyone in charge of a Bill. I ventured to take it too much as a matter of course. The point which I was making is not at all affected by what the right hon. Gentleman says. This registration was not originally suggested as a war measure at all. It was a matter which was regarded as controversial, and, as my hon. Friend says, and

  1625
  I was about to say myself, it could not be introduced now except for the fact that the War has removed the opposition to it, because it has shown that this kind of registration is very necessary, not only from the business point of view, for which it was originally proposed before the War, but in reference to the position in which we now find ourselves during the War. It-is not a war measure, in the sense in which the Enemy Trading Act is, for the direct destruction of enemy influence. If we try to make it into that, I am afraid that we shall get into a very difficult region. I think we shall be wise to confine the Bill to the purpose for which it is designed—that is, to give us a real register of the exact identity of persons who are trading in this country. That is really all that the Bill purports to do, and the speeches made in the House show clearly what a very difficult matter it would be to do more. It sounds comparatively simple, but when you come to deal with it administratively, with all the points concerned, there would be great difficulties. There are three things which this Bill sets forth: First, who are to be registered; second, how they are to be registered; and, in the third place, it states the penalties for not registering. It sounds so simple to state those three points, but when you come Co work them out administratively it is difficult.
  It is comparatively easy to stand in this House and say that this, that and the other ought to be done, and to accuse the Government of want of patriotism, because they do not succeed in a very short time in destroying the roots of the whole structure of enemy influence on trade in this country. My right hon. Friend forgets that those roots are very deep, and he forgets that, for many years before the War, the whole tendency of trade not only in this country but throughout the world was to become cosmopolitan and international, and that the roots of trade are entertwined as between one country and another. If you had simply to uproot the German firms, and the roots were not intertwined with those of British firms in many cases, the Board of Trade would find no difficulty, and the speed at which this work would be done would be quick enough for the right hon. Gentleman. But the Board of Trade have responsibility to British traders as a whole, and to individuals, and I do suggest that however anxious we are—and I am as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be—to get rid of German influence, it may be that in a particular case
  1626
  we may be doing more harm to British trade than to German trade in dealing with some particular case. Responsibility rests with the Board of Trade, and they have to exercise it, and it is grossly unfair to point to some individual case, and to say that because this or that particular German firm, which is sometimes very small, has not been eliminated, that shows want of patriotism on the part of the Government and the Board of Trade.
  Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give us credit for fulfilling the duty which we have undertaken to this House, to the best of our ability. We are as anxious as he to eliminate the whole element of German trade, but we have to do it with regard to British traders, and we should be given some credit in a time like this for having some good reason for apparent delay in these cases where, if hasty or ill-considered action were taken, we should be doing very much more harm to some individual or class of British traders than to German enemies. This Bill will not directly effect the War purpose of destroying enemy influence, but it will assist us from that point of view, and therefore I think that we are perfectly logical now in asking the House to do what we were not entitled to ask before, to give the Bill a Second Reading, and carry it through, because it is no longer controversial. The right hon. Gentleman suggested just now that we had no right to bring this Bill forward because it was a controversial measure. I am glad that he makes that statement, because it is an absolute answer to the accusation that we should have brought in this Bill long ago.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I never used that word.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Last year I took steps to ascertain whether, if the Bill were brought forward, it would be regarded as controversial or not. I was informed that it would be regarded as controversial. Therefore it could not then be brought forward. The Debate which has taken place has, at any rate, justified our conclusion that the principle of this Bill is no longer controversial. Therefore I have introduced the Bill, and am glad that the House accepts the principle. I agree that the Committee stage will be difficult, and anything that could be done to accelerate and simplify that stage I am sure will be done, not only by the Board of Trade, but by the House. This Bill was brought forward with the full knowledge that the view of the Board of Trade

  1627
  and of the House would be the same, namely, that we want to get as complete a register as we can, one which will be as valuable as possible to the public. I do not think that there is really any matter at issue between us, except the one point which has been already referred to, on which I hope hon. Members will use some care. I think that it would be a pity to overload the Bill by trying to make it into what it does not purport to be—a Bill for the destruction of enemy influence. If we can avoid that, I hope that we may, without having to introduce a new Bill, make a good Bill of this in the Committee stage. I will certainly endeavour to get the Amendments proposed by the Board of Trade put on the Paper at as early a date as possible before the Committee stage.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY(indistinctly heard): The House is still master of the decision whether it will read this Bill a second time. For my own part my consent has been very strongly conditioned by the expectation that this Bill will be, in the first place, proceeded with all due dispatch, and, in the second place, that the shortest possible methods will be taken for shaping it in the way in which the Government wish to see it presented. I wish to refer to a procedure which I have seen adopted in this House—I admit not often of late years—which is a pro forma committal immediately after the Second Reading—that is to say, the Government Amendments are put down on the Paper, the House goes into Committee, the Motion is made that these Amendments be there inserted, they are inserted en bloc, and the House goes out of Committee, and then subsequently what is the real Committee stage is taken, which is called technically a recommittal of the Bill. Then you have a full discussion of the body of Amendments so put in, and of any Amendments to them which it may be desired to make. I do not know whether it is possible to revive this old procedure or not, but I suggest that it would be a good procedure in the case of this particular Bill. I am rather uneasy about the future of this Bill. The Government say that it is not their own child, and they may not be so anxious for its vigorous life as they might be in the case of a creation of their own. In consenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that it will not be taken that I agree to inaction, or lethargy, or postponement in the matter
  1628
  or in reference to any of these questions which the mere sight of this Bill brings to our minds.
  6.0 P.M.
  By this Bill you secure the minimum ascertainment of certain material facts which might be said to be necessary to be ascertained before we can proceed to other fields of legislation. What are those other fields of legislation that you cannot deal with in this Bill? I refer to the lamentable state of the naturalisation laws, and the barbarous practice followed by the German Government in exacting a double allegiance from Germans naturalised here. There is the question of the lamentable deficiency in our company registration law, which makes it possible for national and local names to be filched by those who are giving titles to limited companies that they are forming for the express purpose of giving a false representation as to the origin of their goods. Then there is the ridiculous state of the freedom which the law gives for the changes of name, under the baleful and long-forgotten shibboleth which presumes that everybody has the utmost freedom to change his name, whereas the presumption should be all the other way, and he should be called upon to give stringent reasons for any change. I hope that in the consideration of this Bill these things will not be forgotten, and that the Government will proceed with the measure with all due dispatch.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: This Bill is a very old one, and it was brought forward for many years by private Members for a totally different object from that for which it is now brought forward. The House and the country are under the opinion that the Government at last are going to do something which will prevent enemy people trading in this country and to allow Englishmen to know with whom they are dealing. This Bill will not in the least do that, and the result of it, as it is now, will inflict such a tremendous amount of work and detail upon the Board of Trade that it would be impossible to get anything like a complete register within several months. If hon. Members will only look at the Bill, they will see that every firm, however small, every blacksmith, every small grocer, many of them with trading names of their own, will have to be dealt with, and the result will be that the work will be so enormous that it will be impossible to bring the Bill into operation in anything like what may be

  1629
  considered a short time. What the House and the country desire is that enemy aliens should not trade in this country without everyone knowing with whom they are so trading. It would be perfectly easy for the Government to enact that no German or Austrian or enemy alien-it need only be a short Bill of one Clause-can trade in this country without disclosing on his notepaper, or his office door, that he is an alien or a naturalised alien, and that his name, originally Schmidt, was now Brown. A still simpler way would be to enact that every person trading in a name which is not his own should make that known on his invoices, notepaper, and office door, and if he did not do that there should be a penalty. A measure like that could be carried through effectively very quickly. You have brought forward a Bill which is an old one, which was not intended for a state of war, nor intended to deal with alien enemies, but was intended to deal with certain firms in this country. It will not effect the object which the country desires, while you will overload the Board of Trade with details and work, so that nothing will be done for many months. I really think it would be very much simpler to have a short Bill, something on the lines I have suggested, and that this Bill should be withdrawn. It is almost impossible in Committee to so alter a Bill formerly introduced for one purpose that it may be used for some other purpose that it was never intended to fulfil. I have no right to speak for anybody in this House, but I submit that a Bill such as I have outlined could be passed in two or three days in this House and could be put into operation, so that the desire of the House and the country could be attained.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Bea.]

  ANZAC (RESTRICTION ON TRADE USE OF WORD) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This is a short Bill which we introduce in accordance with the wish of the Commonwealth Government. The origin of the word "Anzac" is well known to us. It is a word which has
  1630
  become almost sacred from its being associated with deeds of heroism and sacrifice. It is not right or fitting that a word associated with hallowed memories of brave and gallant men should be used for trade purposes and as a trade mark, and that we should have "Anzac soap," and an "Anzac Motor Company," which, by the way, is not a British company at all. Worst of all, everybody will recollect that the word "Anzac" was used in the "Anzac-on-Sea" case where it was certainly put to a very base and improper use. No doubt there is a very strong feeling on this subject in Australia and New Zealand, and the Commonwealth Government expressed the wish to the Government here that its use for trade purposes should be prohibited. The Government gladly give effect to that wish by complying with it at the earliest possible date, and therefore we are introducing this Bill, which simply enacts that, "As from the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful in connection with any trade, business, calling, or profession to use the word 'Anzac,' or any word closely resembling that word." Suitable penalties are imposed for any contravention of the provisions of the Bill. The matter is one which I am quite sure the House will receive with sympathy, and I hope hon. Members will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading without any dissentient voice.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Gentleman has said Anzac is a name which is of hallowed memory, and I myself think it ought to be protected from being used in certain directions. I submit, however, that this Government did nothing to prevent the use of this word in the manner to which objection is now taken, and it was not until the Commonwealth Government expressed their wish, and made a representation on the subject, that the Government took action; it was not until the Commonwealth Government pointed the matter out to them that the Government woke up to their duty and sought to give expression to the wish of the Australian Government. This measure raises a very important point, apart altogether from its merits. It raises the question whether the House is justified in fresh retrospective legislation. The House is very chary with regard to such matters. In regard to this Bill, I would point out that the Government did not intervene or object to money being spent by firms who used this word, and it was for the Government to have

  1631
  made up their minds a year or two ago not to allow to take place what ought never to have been permitted at all. I therefore protest against this retrospective legislation, and I submit that once you open the door to it the result may be all kinds of possible injustices and anomalies. If a person obeys the law today and is to suffer financially or otherwise later, I do not know where the business community is going to be at all. I trust, therefore, that the House will not pass this retrospective legislation, unless those whom it will affect are properly reimbursed. There are persons who may have incurred financial responsibilities and obligations which they would not have undertaken unless the Government had given them permission.
  What is the position with regard to this matter? The Government have taken money from British traders or firms for registration purposes and to protect them, and now they propose, by this Bill, although they have taken this money, they want to alter the law. I submit that they ought never to have given permission. Take the case of the Anzac Motor Company, which was registered some time ago-a company which the hon. Gentleman says is not a British company, though every shilling of its capital is British. The point I press upon the Government is, having received this money for registration purposes, are going to enter upon a course which would mean confiscation if continued. The hon. Gentleman the other night, when he was being pressed upon the importance of winding-up speedily enemy firms in this country, said we had never heard of confiscation in the history of this country, and he was not going to begin it now with the Germans. I only ask him to show the same tenderness to Britishers that he is ready to show to Germans. I submit that the Bill which you are asking the House to consent to means confiscation. Is that true or is it not? Is the hon. Gentleman going to return the money which the Government have received? I contend that if this legislation is carried the people who have acted under the authority of the Government and spent their money ought to be properly compensated.
  It is not a crime using the word Anzac; it is a popular name, and as long as the Government received money for its registration it was not criminal or otherwise to use it. Therefore I submit that the
  1632
  Government ought to compensate those who acted in reliance on its good faith, and spent money amounting to large sums in endeavouring to popularise the name. But this Bill does not stop the use of the word Anzac at all; it only removes the authority to the Secretary of State, and no one in future will be allowed to use the word Anzac in respect of any company, or any motor company, or any production, without first applying to the Secretary of State, who might give authority to use the word, and all these provisions would be of no avail. If you stop the use of this word it should be stopped altogether. You ought not to use backstairs methods to bring things before the Secretary of State in order that he may authorise something which you yourselves suggest is against the public wish. The Bill, so far as it is retrospective, is most objectionable, and sets a bad precedent that would probably be followed in the future. If you confiscate the goodwill of people who, under the licence of the Government, have been permitted to carry on their business affairs in a certain way, then all I ask is that you should make proper provision in the measure that, after due examination, those who have spent their money with the permission of the Government shall be properly reimbursed. Let the House note what an extraordinary state of things prevails in regard to legislation as regards the Coalition Government. Those people who have been using the name were asked, without any compensation, to give up the word which they had registered, and the threat that was made to them was that "unless you do so we will carry a Bill through the House of Commons to carry out our wishes, and you will get nothing at all." That is a curious state of things, the Government going down and threatening an Act of Parliament through this House, before the House is consulted, to deprive them of their goodwill and property. Those are rather shady methods of legislation. I urge the Government that in justice and fair business dealing they should insert a Clause to provide proper compensation to those who spent their money on the faith of the good will of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message received to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 5) Act, 1916.

  2. Court of Session (Extracts) Act, 1916.

  3. Larceny Act, 1916.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Order for Second reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is designed to strengthen the law against corruption. Public attention was drawn to this matter recently by the case against officials of the Royal Army Clothing Department, who were charged with corruption and receiving bribes from contractors to induce them to pass certain goods which it was their duty to inspect. In passing sentence upon those offenders, the learned judge who tried the case used these words:
  "I should like to add this, as a respectful suggestion to the Legislature, that it is high time that a short measure should be passed giving power to the Courts, at all events during the continuance of the War, to inflict on persons convicted of bribery or attempting to bribe Government employé's a long period of penal servitude, because the penalties provided by the Corruption Act are absolutely useless and inadequate to deal with matters of this sort."
  The House will agree that these offences are of a kind most dangerous to the State. If corruption in any degree spreads among Government officials, the body politic is affected with weakness in all forms of its activities. We are very happy to think that hitherto our public service has been in the main remarkably free from corruption, and this House will desire to take any measures that may be necessary and well devised to ensure the continuance of that state of things, and to penalise individuals here and there who may have acted on a lower standard of honesty and public duty than the rest. In time of war it is clear that if officials corruptly passed goods presented to them for inspection, if those articles which are passed are munitions of war, the effect on the efficiency of our arms may be very great; but it is a
  1634
  matter which cannot be dealt with only in regard to war conditions, and the Government have thought, in adopting the suggestion of the learned judge, that we ought not to limit our Bill to war times, but that the offence of corruption in the public service is so grave that the penalties ought to extend also to the time of peace. The offence is one which it is most difficult to discover, because both parties to it always have every interest in concealing the facts. All the more necessary therefore is it, when discovery is made, that severe penalties should be inflicted. The matter has been dealt with by Parliament in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, which provides that if any employé, not in the public service only, but generally, corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration by way of a bribe, he shall be subjected to a penalty; and similarly, if any person corruptly gives, or agrees to give, or offers any gift or consideration to any employé he is liable to penalty. So that the law strikes both at the man who gives or offers and at the man who receives or expresses willingness to receive. The law also regards as a bribe not only money, but valuable consideration of any kind.
  So the ground is well covered in that respect, and the only manner in which we propose to ask Parliament to amend the law is in relation to the penalties imposed for these offences. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, limits the penalty to two years imprisonment with or without hard labour, or a fine of £500 or both. In the case of Asseling, it is true he was in fact sentenced to penal servitude for five years, but that was because it happened that the facts were such as to support a charge of obtaining money by false pretences. He was therefore sentenced under the Larceny Act, 1861, to the heavier penalty. If such evidence had not been forthcoming, as might easily have been the case, the offence would have been just as bad, but he could have been proceeded against only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which I have cited, or for conspiracy, and in either of those cases the maximum penalty would have been two years imprisonment. The Bill is not intended to repeal the power to inflict imprisonment or fine. That still remains under the Act of 1906, but the Bill proposes to raise the maximum penalty and to allow penal servitude to be imposed with the usual minimum of three years-which is the

  1635
  least term of penal servitude that can be inflicted under our penal law-and we propose a maximum of seven years.
  The Bill applies to cases in which there are contracts or sub-contracts with His Majesty's Government or with any Government Department. There is another Act which deals with these matters—the Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act, 1889—which imposes penalties upon members, officials, or servants of local bodies who receive bribes, or persons who endeavour to induce them to accept bribes, or who succeed in inducing them to accept bribes. That Act contains similar provisions to those in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906. It penalises both the briber and the bribed, and it includes valuable consideration as well as money in the definition of bribery. It imposes also the same penalties as the Act of 1906, with the addition of disqualification for office in the case of members of local authorities, and some other additional penalties which I need not detail. We thought when we were dealing with the case of Government contractors we ought not to put on a different footing the officers or members of local bodies, otherwise it would appear as if Parliament regarded as a much more venial offence bribery connected with a local authority than bribery connected with a Government Department. Consequently the Bill adds to the maximum penalty both under the Act of 1906 and under the Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act, 1889.
  This Bill consists of only two Clauses. The first is of the character I have described. The second Clause proposes to remedy an obvious defect in the law. A case has recently arisen in which an officer of a Government Department was under suspicion of having been bribed. He was found to be in possession of certain bank-notes. These bank-notes were traced to have been previously in the possession of the contractor who was suspected of having bribed this official. Therefore you had apparently a clear case an officer of a Government Department whose duty it was to inspect certain goods, a contractor whose goods were to be passed by that official, and bank-notes which had passed from one to the other and yet, as the contractor denied all knowledge of the matter, as he naturally would, and as it was impossible to prove that the bank notes had been given for a
  1636
  corrupt purpose it was impossible to take proceedings, and the ends of justice were clearly defeated. I am sure the House will agree that it is both reasonable and equitable in such a case as that to put the burden of proof on the person charged. If the payment was innocently made in respect of some matter wholly apart from the contract, and having nothing to do with the official's duties, it would be easy to prove in Court when proceedings were taken in respect of what purpose the payment was in fact made, and there would be no risk of innocent men being unjustly convicted. But if there is, on the one hand, a Government official having certain duties of inspection, and, on the other hand, a contractor whose interest it is to secure that his goods shall be passed by that official, and if it can be proved that money has passed from one to the other, surely the Court ought to be entitled to infer bribery unless the contrary is proved. That is the purpose of the second Clause. We do not engage in a general review of the law of corruption in ordinary business. The House is desirous of limiting legislation to matters arising directly from the War, or closely related to war conditions, and for this reason our Bill is of moderate scope.
  Sir ALBERT SPICER: As I have been rather closely connected with a society which has been doing a good deal in support of a movement of this kind for some years, I am thankful to the Government for producing this measure. I am glad to notice that it is for the prevention of corruption, and not simply for the prevention of corruption in connection with Government Departments. After all, corruption in commerce is one of those insidious temptations which are constantly creeping in, very often in unknown and unsuspected quarters, and we business; men want all the support we can get in trying to eradicate what is such a great evil, not only in public work, but in business and in private houses. There is a great deal of it which it takes a good deal of moral courage to oppose and defeat. I am extremely glad that the Government have brought in this Bill, and I shall support the Second Reading very heartily, although I hope that when we get into Committee we may be able to improve the measure in some respects. One point is in connection with the penalty. I have nothing to say against the seven years, but in regard to the three years it will be a question whether we ought not to

  1637
  leave the Court at liberty to decide. It seems to me that if you keep the comparatively high term of three years you may defeat the object you have in view.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: As I explained, you cannot have less than three years' penal servitude. But the Court can impose imprisonment.
  Sir A. SPICER: I suppose that that might be altered slightly? At any rate, it can be looked at. The Bill applies to those holding contracts. I think it needs to be enlarged, so as to include those who are seeking to obtain contracts. That is, after all, a dangerous point. The danger of corruption comes in just as much when a person is trying to obtain a contract as when he has obtained one. Further, I hope it may be possible in Committee so to enlarge the Bill as to do away with what we think is a real weakness in the Act of 1908—the fait of the Law Officer of the Crown. That has been a hindrance. I do not think it has worked in the way intended when the Act of 1906 was passed. Same of the highest authorities—judges who have occupied the position of Attorney-General—have been against this fiat, and I hope we shall be able to abolish it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not think there will foe in any part of the House opposition to this measure, but it is right that we should understand exactly what is the genesis of the Bill. The Government are bringing it forward to-day as a sort of indication of absolute virtue in regard to the recent case which was so prominently before the public. The Home Secretary says, "We must secure the ends of justice." It is rather curious that while the Government are so keen to secure the ends of justice, the counsel who prosecuted in the recent case" stated in Court that it was with the greatest difficulty he could get any assistance at all in presenting the evidence on behalf of the Government. I know that that was not in the Department of my right hon. Friend. I think it is a scandalous position indeed when, in a case of admitted corruption, the prosecuting counsel apologises and says that it has been with the greatest difficulty that he has presented the evidence or got any assistance at all. In view of such a statement, I do not think the Government ought to come forward and declare that they are so anxious to secure the ends of justice. The origin of this Bill is very simple. It is to cover
  1638
  loose and imperfect management on the part of the Government. All the bribery that has been going on could never have gone on in a private firm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It could not go on to such an extent in a properly managed private firm. No two persons, buyer and seller, would have the opportunity of doing it without proper supervision on behalf of the firm. Otherwise the firm would soon go into bankruptcy. The Government are bringing forward this Bill to try to kill these practices by a threat of long imprisonment, which, with great respect, I do not think will have the effect to the extent that they themselves anticipate. What the Government ought to do is so to fashion their business that these things could not happen. [An HON. MEMBER: "It cannot be done!"] Oh yes; it might be done perfectly well. It is only crass neglect and mismanagement that allows it to exist at the present moment. It has been going on for years. We have been hinting at it, but have been unable to get the Government to take any action.
  What did I propose some time ago, without, as far as I know, anything being done yet. I asked the Government to compel every war contractor, or every contractor doing business with the Government, to state through what other channels they were doing business, not in their own names, but through small middlemen, who were obviously able to get orders which they themselves could not get. Only within the last few days I have sent to a Government Department the names of large manufacturers who are doing enormous contracts for the Government in a certain class of goods, but who cannot get the direct order. It is got by someone of no financial standing at all and that they would not trust with a £20 note. What I asked the Government to do, as I have said, was to make the man on the list give a return of the channels through which he was doing business; not directly himself. They do not do anything of the kind. All they do is to increase the earlier penalties. I say that the penalties are large enough at the present time if the Government had proper supervision. I do not object to the increase, because I think the offence is a very serious one indeed. It may have some good result. I doubt very much whether it will have the proper result. The real way to stop this is to have real supervision and proper business methods. So long as the slackness prevails that does prevail, you will never be

  1639
  able to put a stop to what is going on. Therefore there are one or two Amendments which I shall certainly bring up in Committee. I think there is something to be said for the Attorney-General having a monopoly, if I may say so, of taking action in regard to this matter. I think that is the case for the whole Bill. I remember we had that point debated previously. I think the fear was that blackmail of a kind might be levied unless there was proper supervision. I should like to hear from the Government, when the time comes in Committee, if they think the public interest is served by keeping the initiative entirely in the hands of the Attorney-General.
  There is one legal point I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General who, I hope, is going to take part in this Debate. As I read this Bill, any Government employé who accepts money for the purpose of a bribe, or to see that an undertaking is carried out, comes within the scope of the measure? What I want to know-only for information—is this: Supposing anyone desired to say to any Government Department—and I suppose there are some people to-day who take such an exalted view of the Government that they might, for the sake of argument, say it—we should like to present, say, the Whips Department with £40,000 or £50,000. Would that come within this Bill, because the Whip is at the head of a Government Department, and is an employé of the Government? The man who gave the gift might say, "I wish you to spend this money in carrying out a public purpose"—it might be the propagation or support of Free Trade or Protection, or he might think there was some defect in the law, or it might be any other purpose of the kind. Would, therefore, the person who received the money—
  An HON. MEMBER: Try it on the Labour party!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am afraid it would not be that channel through which I would give it. The Labour party are able to get anything they want without pecuniary considerations. All I want to say is this: Supposing anyone was so high-minded as to say to the Whips Department that they would give such a gift, would that prevent that man for the rest of his life receiving any honour from the Government? I think that is a point upon which my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General might be
  1640
  able to give us some sort of information. As I read the Bill, it would be absolutely impossible for that gentleman to be rewarded in any way for his public philanthropy and purpose. Therefore I would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give us a clear definition on this point.
  Mr. LOUGH: I agree with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that no one can say anything against the provisions of this Bill. But I, for my part, would like to warn the House that this is the third attempt we have made by severe penal legislation to deal with these evils. In 1899 we passed a most severe Act, which is referred to in this Bill. Then we had the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1906, which the judge in the recent case said was altogether inoperative. Now we have the Home Secretary coming down once more and just quoting one passage from the severe strictures which the judge made on the general work of the Government and the general conduct of Government business. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one observation only of the judge. Now we have this very severe Bill put forward. In my belief it will not check the evil. No one can have read the recent painful case without seeing that the source of the evil was the unbusinesslike management of the whole matter by the Government officials. The judge said a great deal on this point which has not been quoted to us to-day. He told us, in one sentence in particular that remains in my mind, that the honest contractor got no fair play from the Government and was almost afraid to come forward, and that it was shady people who were selected for a contract. He told us that there was such a system of checking observed as could not exist in any business firm. The judge spoke of a document which was initialled by twenty-five persons. The judge also brought out, and animadverted upon the fact, that 387 firms were asked to tender for a certain contract—I believe for razors and finally that the contract was given to some firm in Stoke Newington who had never made a razor before. It is useless for us to deal with a grave evil of this kind by passing a Bill which embraces severe penalties and not taking the least notice of what the judge said.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, no—
  Mr. LOUGH: Well, that is so far as the speech of my right hon. Friend is concerned. We have heard of no notice

  1641
  being taken of the very severe criticisms which the judge made on the unbusinesslike conduct of the whole affair from beginning to end. I think the moral of the whole affair-and I trust that the Attorney-General when he comes to speak will agree with me-for this House is, that there is no business system at all in the conduct of many of these affairs. No business could stand it. What opportunity is there for putting things on a better footing when the most extraordinary people, who know nothing at all about the matter they are handling, are put into control, as the judge said, of vast contracts. I quite agree with what has been said, that we do not find in any well-conducted business any necessity for these severe measures. In a long business experience I have found very little of this robbery or corruption. I only remember, in fact, one case. The judge said the Bill of 1908 was inoperative. Why is it inoperative? We made it a strong Bill—as strong a Bill as we could. Then there is the Bill of 1899. That appears also to be inoperative. Now we are bringing in a huge measure of the same kind. No one can take any exception to it. But I do say the moral of the whole proceeding is, if the Government will not, in its organisation of the business of the country, and especially in its dealing with contracts, deal with them on a more businesslike basis, Bills of this kind will not put them right.
  Sir W. BEALE: I am sorry to say that through a great number of years I have seen a great many instances of direct and indirect corruption, not by the Government, but more in connection with public works and private firms. I, therefore, do not feel justified in giving simply a silent vote in favour of this Bill. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy who said that you will not stop this kind of thing by severity of punishment. What you must aim at is certainty of detection and punishment if you can get that detection. Then my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough), referring to the other Acts, said that the real difficulty was to bring the case home and convict; to get evidence, and to get people to disclose what has been going on. One way in which something effective might be done by the Government would be by, so far as possible, a discontinuance of the habit of giving contracts through middlemen, and employing one man, and so, as the right hon. Gentleman said, you might have a list of those employed, and
  1642
  then the Government or the Department would know exactly with whom they are dealing. They would know the manufacturers and would be able to form some clearer idea as to where to look for any corruption. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this sort of thing could not happen in private establishments.
  Mr. LOUGH: I did not say that.
  Sir W. BEALE: I cannot, of course, mention names, though some of whom I might speak are dead and gone, and they enjoyed, some of them, a great reputation. These bribes—or shall I call them inducements?—are not given directly and are not generally given in a way that it is easy to define or to find out. I have known cases of this sort. I want a contract from an engineer to a railway company. That gentleman takes out a patent. Now is my chance! Then it is all right. I put things in his way, and naturally he is friendly to me. I do not really need his patent. There are other cases, actual cases, in my knowledge. A large firm wants orders from a railway company. They take the son of the engineer into partnership. That is the sort of thing that goes on: "You help me and I will help you." I could mention some very comical instances that recollect, though, of course, they are not the thing to elaborate here. I only want to note the small scope of the Bill, and to ask that if possible it should be extended and made more perfect in its operation. One thing I should like to point out, and that is that it does not touch one of the most dangerous, most common, and most insidious methods of obtaining benefit through corrupt methods. It is not so much in the placing of contracts as in the acceptance or rejection of goods that these things occur. A very well-known Member of this House who died a decade ago—I think a very large manufacturer—told me that he found out what went on through his travellers. His people told him, "We must have a lot of money to give away at Christmas time." He replied, "I do not like it, and I will not have such a system going on." He did not allow it. What was the consequence? He was always getting reports that material that he supplied was defective, and would not do. His reply was that it was cut from the same samples that had been sent forward months before. Nevertheless, foreman and workmen came forward and said that they would not have it, and they influenced

  1643
  their firm in favour of some other manufacturer. I therefore ask the Committee that they should extend the Bill to cover not only cases where people are applying for contracts, but others. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you must not make liability dependent upon whether those concerned do or do not get the contract. It is a question of whether they did these acts for the purpose of getting the contracts. The question is whether any inducement, bribe, or consideration is given to a man in such a way that it may influence him in accepting or rejecting goods under a contract; if so, that man shall fall under the same penalty. Effective as I think the Bill is and must be, yet so far as the Bill will have operation or be operative, I want it extended to cases such as I have mentioned, as well as to the cases at which it is primarily aimed, where money or inducement are given in order to obtain a contract.
  7.0 P.M.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith)(indistinctly heard): The Bill which has been recommended to the House by my right hon. Friend has not met with much opposition in any quarter of the House. All those who have spoken have said that they approved of the object, although some of those who have spoken have expressed themselves as doubtful whether this Bill covers the whole ground which, in the public interest, it is desirable to cover. The House would do well, I think, to remember that this Bill is, and only purports to be, the fruit of the suggestion made by one of His Majesty's learned judges, who tried a recent case which is within the recollection of the House. His experience was that there was a lacuna in the criminal law. I would like, said the judge, to add this: It is high time that a short measure was passed giving power to the Courts to inflict upon persons convicted of bribery or attempting to bribe Government employés a long period of penal servitude, because the penalties provided by the Corruption Act are inadequate to deal with matters of this sort. I would remind my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) that it is not quite accurate to say that the learned judge said the Act was inoperative. The learned judge is far too experienced to have made such an insupportable statement. The Act has not been inoperative. On the contrary, it has been operative. The criticism that was passed by the learned judge was that the penalties were
  1644
  inadequate. To have dealt with the whole subject would have required a much more complicated and complex measure than this, but the Government had to consider whether or not the suggestion made by the learned judge to deal with a definite gap was one that ought to be adopted by the Legislature. The Government decided—and, I think, rightly decided—that the learned judge made an admirable suggestion which ought to be accepted, and this Bill is only with the object of giving effect to that suggestion. I said "only with the object of giving effect to that suggestion," but I ought to add, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, in Clause 2 we introduce what I certainly recommend to the House as a valuable reinforcement of the law of evidence, which is applicable in these cases. At the present time it may be true, as has happened in one or two cases, that a person in the employ of His Majesty or any Government Department or public body has received certain pecuniary payments from a contractor. As the House is well aware, the principle of our criminal law in these matters, consecrated by centuries of tradition, is that the whole onus is thrown upon the prosecution, and, even supposing the prosecution is in a position to establish that moneys have found their way from a contractor to a public servant, it is necessary, as the law stands at present, in order that the prosecution should succeed, that they should not only show there is a ground for suspicion, but that they should also show that the payment of the moneys was in itself improper and dishonest. What we propose in Section 2 of this Bill is to shift the onus by a provision which the House will consider moderate, but, I hope, not inadequate for the case which has arisen. In other words, supposing hereafter it is found that a person, whom I may shortly describe as a public functionary, has received money from a contractor, the person who has received that money will be put in the position that the prosecution has the right to say to him, "Why did you receive that money? Show that the receipt of that money was consistent with your honesty and integrity."
  If I may reply to the only criticisms—I hardly like to say "criticisms," because they were more in the direction of extending the Bill than criticism of the actual scope of the Bill—my hon. Friend has said this Bill is inadequate, and the same

  1645
  point was made a little more vehemently by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy will agree with the suggestion 1 will make that, where you are not dealing with grave fundamental cases, the more obvious instances of which will readily suggest themselves to the mind, the proper treatment is disciplinary by heads of Departments, and I am not sure he will dissent from the view that in the ordinary small cases the proper course to be taken is that those persons who are found guilty should be severely punished by those who are in authority over them. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government, in introducing this Bill, are making a great claim to virtue in doing so. I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made any great claim to virtue for himself or the Government, and certainly no one will say that I am doing so. I think the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, did a little injustice to the Government and the authorities generally. After all, this prosecution was a Government prosecution. I myself ought to know, because the Director of Public Prosecutions is in my Department. If this prosecution was directed, as I believe is the case, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, he acts, of course, on the instructions of the Attorney-General. My recollection is that it was a prosecution ordered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I do not think the learned counsel who prosecuted would be content with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the delinquencies of the Royal Army Clothing Department. I find in the "Times" report, which is the only report available, that Mr. Muir said:
  "He desired to make an explanation as to what he said in opening the case for the prosecution, as he might perhaps have been misunderstood. He had stated that the Royal Army Clothing Department did not view a prosecution with enthusiasm. He wished to say that those remarks did not apply to the heads of the department, and Army officers."
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that the mere making of that observation at any stage by counsel of Mr. Muir's position and responsibility, acting as prosecutor, is rather significant, and requires and deserves some inquiry. Apparently what Mr. Muir said was that the Royal Army Clothing Department did not view a prosecution with enthusiasm, and he expressly made it clear that, in making that observation, he was not referring to
  1646
  the heads of the Department or the Army officers who occupy responsible positions in connection with the Department.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: To whom did he refer?
  Sir F. SMITH: It was felt by those who are responsible for these matters, especially in a prosecution instituted, as I think this was instituted, by the Government, that these words, coming from a counsel appearing for them, certainly required examination, and I may perhaps answer my right hon. Friend at the same time, if I answer my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite, by saying it was with the express object of instituting inquiries into this particular complaint, and complaints of this kind, that Lord Rothermere, who is a gentleman with very great business experience and force of character, was put at the head of this Department with a mandate and instructions to deal with these very matters, and to correct by any disciplinary or expulsory steps, faults, if there were faults.
  Mr. LOUGH: Since the trial?
  Sir F. SMITH: Really, I do not understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman. We are all admitting that it is in consequence of the trial, the lessons of the trial, and the judicial observations at the trial, that this Bill is being introduced. It is not a very helpful observation to say that these steps have been taken since the trial. I understood my right hon. Friend's complaint to be that this Bill, introduced since the trial, did not go far enough, and I reply to that by saying that the Government have put a business man at the head of the Department since the trial, and it is certainly the desire of the Government to take advantage of the lessons learnt from the trial, and the scandals disclosed as the result of the trial. I hope no one will make the mistake of supposing that the fiat of the Attorney-General or its retention in any particular ease is a personal privilege. I can only assure the House that the obligation is no inconsiderable addition to the labours of the Attorney-General. That is a matter which can be properly raised in Committee. In these cases, and many similar cases, the law has said that the fiat or the consent of the chief legal adviser of the Crown should be necessary. I have only to

  1647
  say on that point that I shall submit myself on this matter, when discussion arises in Committee, entirely to the judgment of the House. I have no official view other than this, that the House should consider this, not as an individual case, but should consider the whole question of the fiat of the Attorney-General, and if persuaded that it is desirable in certain cases that the fiat of the Attorney-General should be imposed, to ask themselves categorically whether there is sufficient reason for this class of case being proceeded with on the fiat of the Attorney-General.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I have not heard it said in Debate that the number of these crimes has increased of late, and I should like to ask one question as to whether it is necessary to increase so largely the amount of punishment to be inflicted, instead of adopting the method of more frequent prosecutions? I should like to know, before this Bill is passed, whether anything has been done in that direction. I think, before such a penalty is inflicted, some further reason should be given.
  Question 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.
  Order for Second Reading read
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is quite a small Departmental measure which I hope will receive the approval of the House without a long discussion. It consists of three Clauses. The first Clause arises from a procedure which has been established in connection with the War whereby it is necessary to obtain licences for two purposes. The first case deals with the obtaining of any licence, authority, or approval for any transaction or matter under or in connection with any Proclamation or Act relating to trading with the enemy, and other small matters. The second case is where it is desired to obtain a licence to export any goods, the exportation of which without a
  1648
  licence is prohibited mainly for contraband reasons. The purpose of the first Clause is to provide that in an application for both of those licences any false statement shall become a criminal offence—that is to say, to obtain a licence by making a false statement will be made a criminal offence. I cannot imagine that there will be any difference of opinion about that proposal. There are numerous cases in dealing with the question of sending particular goods and obtaining a licence for the export of goods the exportation of which is prohibited where certainly very reckless statements have been made and licences have been so obtained in some cases which, if the whole of the facts had been disclosed, would never have been granted.
  One finds occasionally that an application has been made to export a certain article and the amount to be exported is said to be quite normal, but when the thing comes to be looked into it is found that, with other similar applications, the amount, far from being normal, is three times the amount ordinarily taken to the country to which it is proposed to export it. Another case is an application to import to a consignee in a neutral country bordering on Germany accompanied by a statement that the applicant has dealt for many years with the particular consignee. An investigation shows that the consignee is a firm which has only grown up during the War, and probably grown up for the purposes of this particular trade. Those are the kind of cases which crop up. I do not suggest that the evil to be dealt with is very extensive—in fact it is very small relatively—but still the matter is serious, and it is important that these applicants should not be allowed to get an unfair advantage over those applicants who are perfectly honest, and I am advised that this particular change in the law would strengthen very much the hands of the War Trade Department in dealing with this matter. The Bill also makes it an offence for a person knowingly to give a guarantee as to the ultimate destination of goods which to his knowledge is false. That really is the whole contention of the first Clause.
  With regard to the second Clause, it is much smaller and deals with a far less important matter. Sub-section (a) is designed to remove a small difficulty which has arisen in connection with the decision given in one of the Scottish

  1649
  Courts. I understand that under the Customs (Exportation Restriction) Act of 1915 the penalty imposed for an exportation in breach of any Proclamation or Order was increased, I believe, from £100 to £500. It has been held in Scotland that the offence is not committed and the penalty is not incurred in a case where an exporter has brought the goods down to the quay for the purpose of being shipped for exportation and has not actually put them on board. In England the opposite has been held, and this provision is to make the law the same in both Kingdoms. I cannot doubt that a man who brings down goods to the quay for the purpose of shipping them for exportation has really committed an offence. Subsection (b) is a still smaller matter merely designed to remove a doubt as to whether a Section of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 which imposes a penalty upon those who try to import goods which are subject to restrictions applies to a similar offence to export such goods. It is a very small matter, but undoubtedly difficulties have arisen in this connection, and as this Bill was being brought in I was asked to include that Sub-section. That is the whole purpose of the Bill, which is merely to strengthen the machinery by which part of the blockade is being really enforced. For these reasons I appeal with some confidence to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman, in explaining the Bill just now, used the word "knowingly" which, he said, was in the Bill. I do not find that word in the Bill.
  Lord R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman will find at the end of Clause 1 the words,
  "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the truth of the statement made or contained in any document so presented."
  Mr. LOUGH: I noticed those words and I am sure my right hon. Friend will take a reasonable view of this point at a later stage. What I say is that the word "knowingly" does not occur in the Bill. With regard to paragraph (a) which provides that if any person
  "makes or presents any declaration or statement or representation which is false in any material particular,"
  1650
  no objection can be made to that proposal. When we come to paragraph (b) it deals with a person who
  "produces a guarantee, certificate, or undertaking which is false in any material particular, or has not been given by the person by whom it purports; to have been given,"
  the House ought to remember that these things are done under a scheme prepared by the Government itself. These guarantee certificates are often given by persons in a very distant country, and it is almost impossible to make full inquiries as to whether all these statements are true or false. The Consul himself would be in the best position to do that, I think it is difficult to throw the onus upon the exporter to test everything that takes place in a foreign country, With the general object of the Bill I have no fault to find, although I think that the word "knowingly" may be required, and it is really more in the interests of the Government to secure the completeness of the certificate than it is in the interests of the private individual. If my right hon. Friend will promise to look at the phraseology when we come to the Committee I have nothing else to suggest.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [25th October], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to say a few words upon the Third Reading of this Bill, and I should be much obliged if the Government would arrange that some Minister should be in charge, as I wish to ask him a question. This Bill was introduced some time ago, I think in June, and as it was introduced it was the opinion of a great many Members of this House on both sides an extremely bad Bill. This is an instance of how a Bill may be improved if hon. Members on both sides set to work honestly to endeavour to improve it. In this particular case I think the result has

  1651
  been good, although the measure is still capable of improvement. The Solicitor-General will remember that on the Report stage the Government introduced an Amendment into Clause 13 which deals with the acquisition of land belonging to any local authority or to any public company, and I moved an Amendment to leave out the words which were then introduced, and to put in the word "statutory." The Solicitor-General, in answer to my Amendment, which he did not accept, said:
  "If the right hon. Gentleman knows in any places of railways affected by his point, we certainly would not desire to include them under this Bill."
  I have only lately become acquainted with the Government Amendment, and at that moment I did not answer my right hon. Friend. Since then I have been given two instances which I will now give. Some land has been taken by the Great Northern Railway to widen the line, and it has not been used for the undertaking to widen the line, and in order to make a bridge to do away with a level crossing This land has been taken by the Government for munition purposes and stores. At Grantham the workhouse has been bought by the Great Northern Railway for an extension of the station and the widening of the line, and the workhouse at Grantham has been taken possession of by the Government for the purpose of stores. There are two instances which have been brought to my notice, and which I have been requested to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. Of course, we can do nothing in this House, but, in view of the undertaking which was given me upon the Report stage, I would ask the Government to consider this question in another place, and I feel certain that my right hon. Friend will agree to do so. I have to thank the Government for accepting a considerable number of Amendments, all of which, with the exception of one or two Amendments of the Government, improve the Bill, and I think the Government will admit that those of us who opposed the Bill opposed it in a reasonable spirit and that our efforts have been successful in making it a better Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me an undertaking to carry out the pledge that he gave to consider this point further in another place.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend will not expect me to deal with the special cases
  1652
  which he has mentioned to-day, but we will certainly look into them and consider them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE, IRELAND [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the further provision out of moneys provided by Parliament for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police and for pensions, allowances, and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows, and children."
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This Resolution is necessary to found the Bill by which the Government propose to meet the representations made to them as to the inadequacy of pay of both the Irish Police forces. The Committee is no doubt well aware that both the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary, bodies which in point of numbers stand in a ratio of one in Dublin to ten in the country at large, are in the main dependent upon the Imperial Exchequer for any improvement in their position in respect of pay. There are contributions from localities which are regulated by Act of Parliament, but the maximum has long ago been reached in the case of most, if not all, of the contributory localities, and any increase of pay must necessarily fall upon the Exchequer. Hence the necessity for a measure of this kind if the pay is to be increased. The difficulty of the Irish Police in both forces in regard to their pay is not by any means a new matter. There have been two inquiries within the last ten years. There was an inquiry in 1908, which resulted in some improvement in pay, and there was a Royal Commission in 1914. The result of the very moderate extent to which the recommendations of that Commission were given effect to has not been satisfactory. In considering the present position of the police, I have been very much struck by the information I gained by a perusal of the evidence given on the part of the police before the Royal Commission of 1914, as well as by a good deal of knowledge otherwise acquired.

  1653
  In August, when I was appointed to the office which I now hold, I found it represented from both forces with a gravity which I could not lightly regard that the pay of the lower ranks was inadequate to provide for the maintenance of the police And their families in a manner which would warrant an expectation of the proper performance of their duties. Those representations came from every quarter, and I am bound to say that the Chief Commissioner in Dublin and the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary joined in the representations that concessions were necessary for the purpose of securing the proper efficiency and the reasonable contentment of the two forces. In the multitude of the labours of the Irish Office the necessary investigations could not be made in a day or a week, but they have now been made, and the necessary sanction of the Treasury was obtained a few days ago. This Resolution is the result of the investigations which have lately been made and the sanction which has been given by the Treasury to the increases which are proposed, and it is necessary to found the Bill, which I hope will find an easy passage through this House.
  The increases of pay which are proposed are to both forces, and I think there are no members of either force below the highest ranks who will not receive some benefit by virtue of the measure which is proposed. I cannot hope that the benefits will be commensurate with the expectations which have been encouraged, or even the amounts for which application has been made. May I say that there has been a serious demand made that there should be an increase of 50 per cent, in pay, in addition to a war bonus which has been given to both forces this year, with regard to men who are receiving between 20s. and 30s. per week—an increase of pay at the rate of 12s. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that it was impossible to expect the Treasury to consent to increases of that kind, but, as I say, there will be increases in pay which will touch the two forces throughout excepting the highest ranks, and which I expect and believe will lessen, if they do not entirely remove, the difficulties which have been represented as existing in the proper maintenance by the police of themselves and their families.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will they include the county inspectors and the district inspectors?
  Mr. DUKE: Yes; there will be increases. I am not able to tell my hon. Friend in detail at the moment. When I spoke of the highest ranks I was thinking of the Chief Commissioner and the Inspector-General. I think I am right in saying—I have not the details before me; they will be circulated in the Schedule of the Bill—that there are concessions either in pay or allowances to the ranks my hon. Friend has mentioned. In order to appreciate the scope, I will not say of the concessions, but of the increases in pay which the Treasury has seen its way to approve, I think I ought to say a few words as to the position of the several ranks in the forces with regard to pay and allowances. The regulations of the two forces have this effect with regard to the distinction between single and married men: The single men, I think, of both forces—it is very conspicuously so in Dublin—are found residing in barracks. Practically the whole of the single men of the Dublin force reside in barracks, and in the country at large the single men of the Royal Irish Constabulary are generally, if not universally, found in barracks. The married men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police—the regulations contemplate their marrying after some years' service—receive a lodging allowance of 3s. per week. The married men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, if they marry after seven years' service in conformity with the regulations of the force, become entitled in the country districts to a lodging allowance of 2s., and in the urban districts, in Belfast and the other large cities, to a lodging allowance of 3s. per week.
  There is this in common with regard to both forces. They all receive a boot allowance. I think it is at the modest rate of 8d. a week. They are in both cases, however, free from any deduction of pay on account of pension. In the English forces, as many members are aware, there is a deduction from pay at the rate of 2½ per cent, of pay to procure the pension. The pension of the Irish forces is one of the conditions of service, and the pay is net to that extent. It is increased by the boot allowance of 8d. per week which I have mentioned. It is not necessary to consider the war bonus. That is of an exceptional nature. It was granted in the summer, and it does not enter into the considerations which affect the questions which have to be decided here. Those are questions of a normal and permanent

  1655
  character, and I propose to deal with those questions quite concisely. I am afraid that some anxiety must have been caused by alarming and, in some cases exaggerated, and wild stories which have been circulated in regard to the condition of affairs in Dublin. I have been long enough in Ireland to know that you must not take any statement circulated at its face value. Some of the statements which have been circulated seem to me to have been almost purposely alarming and mischievous. I will return to this matter. As to both forces, however, I may say that whenever the pay of the police in Ireland has been dealt with the conditions of the police in Dublin and the towns, and the conditions in the country have been treated as one matter, and the circumstances which were to govern any amelioration have been treated as circumstances which affected the police both in town and country. The two react one upon the other, as everybody will see, having regard to the common conditions which underlie life, and the varied circumstances between town and country.
  With regard to the Dublin police, what has been done can be summarised, as to the rank and file, in a few words. With respect to the whole rank and file of the force, except those with less than three years' service, we propose to provide for an increase in the permanent pay of 3s. a week, and with regard to the men who have been in the ranks less than three years, there will be an increase at the rate of 2s. per week. There are advantages corresponding in ratio for the sergeants, the station sergeants, and the ranks above to which I have referred.
  With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary—I dare say I am stating facts which are familiar to Members—the scale of pay is a lower scale. For instance, where at present the scale in the Dublin force is 26s., the rate of pay in the Royal Irish Constabulary is 23s. It appears from an examination of the varied literature there is upon this subject that this difference represents the average difference in the scale of living between town and country, bearing in mind also the question of house accommodation. At present the scale of pay after six months' probation in the Royal Irish Constabulary is a commencing scale of 23s. It is proposed to increase that as a permanent matter to 25s. After the first two years of service it is proposed to bring into
  1656
  effect throughout all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary-constables and sergeants-a series of increase which would not be less than 3s. per week in each case. I do not pledge myself to the statement that the increases are absolutely uniform. It is almost impossible, in endeavouring to make the scales proportionate, that they should be absolutely uniform, but for the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have not less than two years' service, there is proposed to be a uniform increase of pay at the rate of 3s. per week. There are besides allowances and advantages with regard to the higher ranks—although not the highest—particulars which will be found in the Bill—allowances and advantages which have been urged upon the Irish Office and on the Treasury by the officers of the force as absolutely necessary to their position in view of the times and surrounding circumstances.
  In Ireland last summer there was a grant of a war bonus which, in itself, was recognised on all hands to be a not ungenerous allowance in respect of the increased cost of living. But much disappointment was caused by the fact that the war bonus took effect either at the time at which it was announced or very shortly before. I am glad to say with regard to the proposals which I am now introducing to the Committee it is intended, subject to the sanction of the House, that they shall take effect as from the end of the last financial year. That is done on absolutely sober and necessary grounds. I am satisfied that, under existing conditions, many of the married men, and especially those of the Royal Irish Constabulary, have had to fall into debt. It is very undesirable that any police force should be in such a position. The reason which seem to make it necessary to ask that these increases should not commence at the date when sanctioned, or at the date of the passing of the Bill, but should have a retrospective effect, is to be found in the fact that without a proposal of that kind you cannot secure the benefit which it is desired to secure for the general body of the men. There are some minor advantages also embodied in the Bill. There is a provision for equalising the position in the City of Dublin with the situation as it is in Ireland at large where a member of the force who is killed in the course of his duty leaves a widow or dependant. The widows and dependants of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are in a better

  1657
  position under the law as it stands than those who may be similarly situated in the City of Dublin, and it is intended to remove that anomaly. Then there is also the question of the allowances paid to men on active service. But that does not affect the larger question in the Bill.
  I want to show with regard to these proposals that not merely has attention been given to the question of securing a living wage, but it has also been given to the necessity for securing a fair wage. Comparison has been made, as far as possible, in connection with the proposed scales of wages with those in force in English police forces. It is not practicable to compare Dublin with this Metropolis, and it does not help very much to compare it with Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, or Birmingham. But the evidence, so far as it has been adduced upon this subject, does point to a somewhat lower scale and lower cost of living in Ireland. The matter, in fact, has been the subject of a good deal of evidence at one time or another—some comparatively recent—on the question of relative pay, and I cast about to see whether I could get some standard which might apply to the pay of the Dublin Police Force as compared with some British police force. It appeared to me it would not be unfair to Dublin to make a comparison with the city of Bristol, which has a population of much the same size as Dublin, including the suburbs. The Dublin population numbers about 400,000; the Bristol total is somewhat below that. The Bristol police area, however, is not framed on so extensive and ample a plan as the Dublin police area. Everybody knows you may go a long way outside the city of Dublin and still find yourself under the care of the Dublin Metropolitan police. The populations compare in one way, but the rateable values compare in an opposite way, because the rateable value of Bristol is one-fifth higher than that of Dublin. In Dublin it is £1,500,000, in Bristol it is £1,900,000. I assure the Committee that these proposals have not been lightly made or made without regard to all the circumstances which should be taken into account, and I want hon. Members to appreciate the comparisons of pay as between the Bristol constabulary and the Dublin constabulary.
  I will take the first year—the year of entry. The Bristol policeman has to pay 2½ per cent, of his pay towards pension, while the Dublin policeman pays nothing in that regard. The Bristol policeman
  1658
  does not get the 8d. per week boot allowance which the Dublin man receives. I am dealing with the money which goes actually to the man, and, in so far as I have been able to ascertain-and 1 have made inquiries of the police authorities at Bristol for that purpose-it would appear that the money which the Bristol police constable receives in his first year of service is 27s. 4d., while, bearing in mind the allowances which I have mentioned, the Dublin constable receives 27s. 8d., or, rather, that is the amount he will receive under the proposed scale if the House sanctions them. He will, in fact, be a few pence better off than his comrade in Bristol.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Does that include the War bonus?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. DUKE: No. At the time I made my inquiries, seven or eight weeks ago, there was a war bonus in Bristol, I think, of 2s. or 2s. 6d., while that which was then in existence in Ireland was a flat rate of 3s. 6d. But I cannot think that that should be brought into account for the purpose of deciding what is fair and reasonable pay for the police constable. The War may come to an end at no very distant date, and we may hope that at some reasonable period after that—perhaps it is a sanguine hope—it will be possible to modify the war bonus. In the fourth year of his service the money received by the Bristol constable amounts to 30s. 3d., as compared with the 32s, 8d. which it is proposed the Dublin constable shall receive. After the eighth year the Bristol constable gets 32s. 2d. But now comes into operation the beneficial provision under the Irish police system which gives the constable who marries with leave a lodging allowance. The unmarried constable after his eighth year of service will have in Dublin as pay, with his boot allowance, 34s 8d., but the married constable in Dublin will have 34s. 8d., plus 3s., and at that stage he has a distinct and specific advantage over his comrade at Bristol. Next I take the twelfth year of service. While the Bristol man's pay is 35s. 1½d., the pay of the single man in Dublin is 34s. 8d., and of the married man 34s. 8d., plus 3s. lodging allowance. I do not propose to pursue the comparison much further, for any comparison in these matters is apt to be misleading. But in order to deal with the case, so that those who are interested may fairly understand what

  1659
  my mind is on the subject, I must mention wth regard to this comparison of Bristol with Dublin that in Bristol the men may receive duty pay. A man may receive allowances for overtime, and he may receive an allowance for special duties. It has not been the practice, so far as I have been able to Ascertain, to make the same kind of payment in Dublin. That is not for want of statutory powers. It is not necessary to come to this House and ask for new power, because I find on referring to the Dublin Police Act, I think of 1336, that the Chief Secretary, who has been entrusted with this task as he has with so many others, may propose, and I think may direct, if the money can be found, that payment shall be made for exceptional services. I know no reason why that power should not be availed of. There must be occasions in a city like Dublin when exceptional services are imposed upon the police, and so far as I am concerned, I tell the Committee, and I tell those who are concerned, that if, during any period of time I may have responsibility in this matter, exceptional services are thrown upon the police, I shall regard it as my duty to use any exertion I can to see that those exceptional services are provided for in some additional remuneration.
  I would have been glad to stop at this point, and to say that these proposals for payments out of the Exchequer which I venture to recommend to the House are necessary and just. But it is impossible t) stop at this point, having regard to the position which has, in fact, existed in Dublin during the past few days, and having regard to what has been represented to be the condition of things in Dublin in the past few days. Two matters have come into great prominence. One is the holding of meetings—not meetings of the police in their barracks which have been sanctioned, but meetings of the police convened by people outside and directed by people outside for the purpose of using the condition of the police as an instrument of pressure upon the Government, such meetings being held contrary to what are known to be the regulations of the force. The second matter is the enrolment of a considerable body among the constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in a society called the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Both of those are matters which have necessarily attracted very close public
  1660
  attention, and in some aspects of them they have excited in some quarters a good deal of alarm. I want to say, with regard to both these matters, that the holding of meetings under any except the extremest circumstances was a breach of discipline which must be accounted for as a breach of discipline. It is impossible, where meetings of a particular class are prohibited for the general good of the police force and for the well-being of the community, that such a prohibition should be disregarded and set aside as if there were no authority behind a regulation of that kind. That, however, is not the gravamen of the matter in the eyes of those who have been considering the recent condition of things in Dublin. As I have said, a very considerable body of the police of Dublin—I do not know what number, because these proceedings have been conducted in private and behind closed doors—have undoubtedly been persuaded to enrol themselves in a society called the Ancient Order of Hibernians. There are two things to be said about that. One is, that during many years now that society, in its various phases, has been closely associated with the fortunes of a political party. What is its exact constitution nobody whom I have met has been able to tell me. I should not be betraying any confidence if I say that one of the hon. Members who sit usually on the benches below the Gangway opposite made two absolutely conflicting statements to me in the Lobby this afternoon as to whether, in his judgment, this society was or was not a political society. But it is a society which, in the minds of a very great number of people in Dublin, is so closely associated with political action as to cause them alarm.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Was the hon. Member to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians?
  Mr. DUKE: I believe so. He professed to know, and I think he was. But he was in doubt as to whether a certain thing had happened which has, if I may so put it, expurgated a political character from one of the branches of this society. Every man at the present time who is invited in Ireland to join the Ancient Order of Hibernians knows what is the nature and effect of the invitation which is extended to him.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I am very averse from inter-

  1661
  vening, but it does seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman is going into the question of the constitution of this body to which he is making reference. It is quite obvious that I could not shut out any reply upon it, and I am afraid we should be lost in a general debate which is not really relevant to the Resolution before the Committee. These matters may be raised, of course, on the Second Reading of the Bill, which will be founded upon this Resolution; but I think I must draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my view that this matter is really outside the scope of the Resolution at present before the Committee.
  Mr. DUKE: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I am sure I have travelled further than the purview of this Resolution, but if any Member who is here had spent the last three or four days in Dublin, as it has been my business to do, he would feel anxiety. I could not introduce and explain these proposals—I mention it by way of apology—knowing what has occurred and the view which exists in Dublin and elsewhere in regard to the matter, without making an allusion to it, which I did not intend to elaborate in any detail. However, I pass from that. These incidents have occurred, but they do not seem to me to warrant any failure on the part of the Government to redeem the pledge which was made some time since, and which I made myself when I became Chief Secretary, that the grievances with regard to pay in the Dublin Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary should be examined, and that, so far as was practicable and proper, means should be taken to remedy them. I say no more as to these other aspects of the matter, except that, whether it is a stinted pay or a more generous pay, it is earned in a police force only by a disciplined body of men. It is obvious that discipline and the observance of the conditions of employment are of paramount necessity in a police force if they are necessary anywhere. I present these proposals and press them upon the Committee as proposals which are necessary in order that justice may be done in the matter of pay both in Dublin and among the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are a much larger force, and just as I believe that discipline is necessary, I believe, that justice is necessary. I trust it will be found that justice will help discipline. It is on these grounds that I move the Resolution.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I intended to reserve my observations until the Bill is introduced, especially as I understand another subject is to come before the House presently. I would, however, make one or two observations. In the first place, while I acknowledge the promptitude of my right hon. Friend in meeting the wrong, I think it is lamentable that the wrong has been so long unredressed. He said it was an injustice that these men were underpaid and he illustrated that by an observation which I am sure astounded every Member of the Committee, namely, that he thought a number of these policemen had got into debt. It is a shocking thing for this House to find that in a police force such as the Dublin Metropolitan Police a policeman should be so underpaid that he should be subject to the necessity of running into debt. An hon. Gentleman near me says that it applies to all Ireland as well. That makes it worse. If my right hon. Friend had persisted at any great length in going into the question of the connection of these men with the Ancient Order of Hibernians, I should have had to say something too, but as you, Sir, have ruled that out, I content myself with just a sentence. If my right hon. Friend excludes the police force of Ireland from the right to join an organisation outside the police, I think he must extend that principle a little more impartially. I understand—it is an extraordinary position—that while, as my right hon. Friend says, a member of the police force cannot join the Ancient Order of Hibernians, he is at liberty to join the Freemasons.
  Mr. DUKE: That is perfectly true. There is a Section in the Police Acts of the thirties under which I think a man in both forces of the constabulary takes an oath with regard to political and secret societies that he will not be a member except of the society of Freemasons. I will not say a word about that matter except that what the hon. Member says is true.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: After what has been said from the Treasury Bench and from the other side of the Committee, I hope that further discussion on this subject will be reserved.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I am quite content that the same should be applied all round. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to bring the Bill forward for two or three days.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Those who have known the Irish Constabulary for a number of

  1663
  years, and seen the splendid discipline of that force, and the admirable way in which they have served in Ireland, will be indeed grateful to my right hon. Friend for having brought in this proposal. We are all agreed that it is a reform which is long overdue. This increase ought to have been brought forward many years ago, but now that it has come we can only welcome it with regret that it did not come earlier. Am I right in supposing that the Bill also proposes an addition in the salaries of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. DUKE: Certainly it makes a proposal for an improvement in the case of the officers to the extent which I mentioned, as well as of the sergeants and constables.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am glad to hear that. I reserve any observations upon the nature of that increase till we see the Bill. There is only one other subject I want to refer to. Many of the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary suffered either death or serious injuries in the late rebellion. I should like to know whether there is anything in the Bill which will enable the Government to afford increased pensions or gratuities to the relatives of those who have suffered, or to the men themselves. I presume there will be no objection to including in this Bill a provision for increasing the admittedly totally inadequate amount which, according to the existing practice, or law, is provided for the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been bereaved. Does my right hon. Friend consider that the amount provided by the existing law for these officers and men who have suffered in the rebellion is adequate, and, if not, is there any provision in the existing law by which an adequate amount can be given? That is an urgent matter, and I am certain that anyone who knows anything about what happened in the rebellion, and the amount which it is proposed to give these officers and men as compensation for what they suffered, will agree that the amount proposed is totally inadequate, and I think I shall have the sympathy of the Chief Secretary in these observations. If there is no provision in the existing law for giving them adequate compensation, could he not utilise this Bill for making such provision? I am sure it would have the consent of the House. It is only a question of the Treasury, and in a matter
  1664
  of that sort I think the Treasury will have to be stirred up, and, if necessary, coerced by this House; but, at any rate, I urge my right hon. Friend, if there is not an existing provision to meet the case I have put, to utilise the Bill and insert such a provision in it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I understand that the increases in pay which are proposed under this Bill will be inserted in the Schedule, and that when it is printed and circulated the House will have an opportunity of studying the proposals in print. I have listened very closely to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and I am afraid amongst those who are concerned the scale of increases which he has announced will be considered very inadequate indeed. I do not know whether he has made up his mind that this is the. ultimate limit to which he can push the Treasury in this matter, but I am afraid he will not find that this new scale will give general satisfaction. Of course we cannot go into that matter until fuller details have been placed before the House. I am precluded by the Chairman's ruling from referring to the other matter which was raised in the speech of the Chief Secretary. I think he conveyed a somewhat wrong impression when he led the House to believe that in the matter of the trouble in Dublin there were two charges by the police authorities against members of the police force. I think he will find that this may properly be regarded only as one.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will very properly come on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. HAZLETON: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) made an appeal to the Chief Secretary with regard to gratuities to the relatives of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am afraid the Chief Secretary has held out no hope whatever to him in that matter. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say there is to be a change and a raising of the scale in the case of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but not in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I should like to press the Chief Secretary with regard to the case of those men who are either injured or were killed in the late rebellion. I brought before the Chief Secretary a case of very considerable hardship indeed, where a family was largely dependent upon a police-constable who was killed, and the parents had to

  1665
  bring the body a very considerable distance and to pay for that one service alone over £10 to the undertaker, and yet all the compensation that they were given by the Government was a paltry £20. I hope there is provision in this Bill, or if not that the Irish Goveriment has the power to press the Treasury to a more generous disposition in these cases, and that what is undoubtedly and rightly considered a hardship will be removed.
  Mr. DUKE: The matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. Member (Mr. Hazleton) has been under consideration.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it included in this Bill?
  Mr. DUKE: It is not included in this Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Cannot it be done without this Bill?
  Mr. DUKE: I can only say that it is not in this Bill. Whether it can be done without this Bill is a matter of consideration.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES [REMUNERATION].
  Committee to consider of authorising payment of Remuneration in respect of duties performed under any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business under business names (King's Recommendation signified) To-morrow.—[Mr. James Hope.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That Mr. Baldwin be a member of the Select Committee." A vacancy has been created by the retirement of Colonel Henderson, and it is thought that Mr. Baldwin "would suitably fill his place.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ALLIES AND GREECE.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTV-SPEAKEB, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. R. McNEILL: At Question Time to-day I addressed a question by private notice to my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the condition of Greece. My Noble Friend, who, unfortunately, did not get my notice until a late hour, was unable to give any reply, owing to the fact that he had not had any opportunity of consulting the Secretary of State. I then gave notice that I would refer to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. In touching upon this subject I want to say that I realise—no one realises more clearly than I do—that at such a time as this the question of our foreign relations is like a very delicate instrument which cannot be touched except with great care and discretion. I think we all feel that in introducing into public debate matters touching upon the conduct of the Foreign Office we are always a little apprehensive lest we may do more harm than good. It is, therefore, my intention, as far as I can, to say nothing which can in any way embarrass my Noble Friend or the Foreign Office, and I hope that I shall say nothing which he would regard as indiscreet.
  I am sure that my Noble Friend realises, and the House realises, that at the present moment there is something of a climax, a misgiving in the country with regard to the whole of our position in the Near East—with regard to our position in the Balkans generally, and especially with regard to our position in Greece. Let me recall a few circumstances. We have an Army of undefined size at Salonika. We have been engaged there for many months in defensive and now in offensive operations. We are on the soil of a State which is not a fighting Ally of ours, but a neutral, and we are there under rather peculiar circumstances. We are there, invited by the constitutional Government of Greece, and that invitation affords our justification for being in that place. As all the world knows, that constitutional Government has been replaced, and for some time past M. Venizelos, the statesman who issued the invitation to the Allies to use Greek territory for operations in the Balkans, has been dismissed from office. In spite of an election which gave him popular support, he has, by circumstances with which the House is familiar, been compelled to relinquish the task of forming a Ministry, and he has been driven into opposition, constitutional or unconstitutional, to his

  1667
  Sovereign. He has formed a provisional Government, and he has formed, at all events, the nucleus of an army, and these civil authorities and military authorities are, to the best of their ability, supporting the cause of the Allies. We are, therefore, confronted with the extraordinary anomalous state of affairs of a de jure Government, presided over by one hostile, and openly hostile, to our cause and the cause of the Allies, and we have at the same time a rival Government presided over by the constitutional statesman who is responsible for our presence there. The question arises, What should be the attitude of our Government towards these rival authorities? If one were to approach the question altogether apart from what the Prime Minister has called juridical niceties, we should support that authority which is on our side rather than that authority which is not on our side. That is what would appeal to the ordinary plain man who is unconcerned with diplomatic niceties. That, up to the present, has not been done. We are taking up an attitude which does not appear to be pronounced on one side or the other.
  Certain news has been published to-day—and that is why I venture to bring the matter before the House—which, I think, adds to the disquiet and misgiving with which the attitude of our Government is regarded in the country, and, I believe, in this House. It is stated in the Press to-day that the Foreign Office at Athens has issued an official statement to the Press. I am not going to refer to the precise terms of that statement, because I am not sure that it is accurately reported in this country, but what is of much greater importance than the actual terms is the way in which they are regarded in Greece by the rival parties. That official statement, I understand, is accepted there as an announcement that the Governments of the Allies have definitely refused to extend any official recognition to M. Venizelos, to his Government or to his party. The news goes on to say that this announcement is regarded, as one would expect it to be, with very great jubilation by the King's party, the pro-German party, which is hostile to us, and that it is causing corresponding depression and discouragement to those who are our Allies, supporters, and friends. Nor does it stop there, because,
  1668
  apparently under the influence of this idea, right or wrong, that M. Venizelos, if not repudiated is not supported by the Allied Governments, we are told that his supporters have been arrested. There is obviously the danger that if they are arrested, and if the officers who have given their adhesion to his movement are cashiered, he will necessarily lose all the authority he possesses, he will lose the support he hitherto enjoyed, and, consequently, the party in Greece which supports us and our Allies will decline in strength and authority, and those who are hostile to us will correspondingly grow in strength.
  If that is the position of affairs, certainly it is not one which we can regard with equanimity and still less with pleasure. I do not want to lay any stress on the fact that it appears to irregularise our position in Greece even more than before. We are there at the invitation of M. Venizelos, and, apart from any other reason, I should have thought that that in itself would have imposed the obligation on us to do everything possible to support him at the expense of his enemies. But I quite realise that there is a number of forces at work on this very complicated problem of Greece and the Balkans with which none of us are familiar. There are, obviously there must be, circumstances which are known to the Foreign Office and which are not known to us. I do not think that they can be known to us. Therefore, I am not going on this occasion to press the point that I have raised in any spirit hostile to the Government or the policy which they are pursuing. I am merely stating the facts, or the alleged facts, as they present themselves to my mind, and as I believe they present themselves to a great number of minds in this country. And my Noble Friend will realise that if those facts do so present themselves to our minds, it is inevitable that there should be much misgiving and much dissatisfaction, resulting perhaps in criticism of the conduct of our foreign relations, which is not finding hostile expression, for the reason which I have already given.
  We do not wish to do anything which might prove to be more harmful than useful, but I do hope that my Noble Friend will respond to the invitation extended to him at Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University. My right hon. Friend suggested

  1669
  that if I mentioned the subject this evening—and I hope that I have done so without any hostility to the Government—as showing what was in our minds, the Foreign Office would find some means of allaying the feeling which is existing by making a statement to the House, it is not for me to suggest in what way that opportunity can be afforded. We have had a secret Session of this House, and I do not know that the precedent has impressed us very favourably. But still it does not at all follow that, because the secret Sessions which we have already had were not quite so successful as we might have hoped, when we have a subject like this, which is definitely acknowledged to be one which cannot be openly treated, but about which there is a great deal of anxiety, that the precedent of the secret Session might not be followed with great success.
  Then there is the other precedent which has been referred to several times by Members of this House both at Question Time and I think in debate, the precedent of the French procedure of commissions. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would consider it possible—and I do not know whether it would be favoured by the House—to have a Commission, of some sort, of responsible Members representing different parties in this House, to whom the Foreign Office could feel that they might make communications in safety. This might give a certain amount of confidence to the House and to the country. I do feel very strongly that unless the Foreign Office can devise some way of taking the House, or a portion of the House, more into their confidence than they have done hitherto, this disquiet, which is at present spreading through the country, may grow, and it may become very considerable, and before long it may be impossible to restrain criticism of a type very different from that which I have advanced this evening. The Foreign Office, therefore, in their own interest, in the interest of the Government and in that of the country, which after all ought to be identical, would be well advised, if not now, then at some convenient time, certainly at some very near date, to make a statement which would remove the disquiet which at present troubles the country.
  Mr. LYNCH: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has disappointed me. When he rose like a pillar of strength I thought that he was going to set the axe,
  1670
  like a backwoodsman, at the evil; but he touched on it with a light touch, as he said, the touch of a lady pianist. In the course of his remarks he proposed a secret Session. If that secret Session were promised, I do not know that I would not withhold some of the observations which I may make to-night. That proposition has been already made and rejected by the Foreign Office, in their wisdom.
  After all, I do not know that we have not arrived at a crisis when we must speak to the country as well as to this House with the utmost frankness and candour. For the lack of frankness and candour is what is killing the operation of our Front Bench. At this stage, however, I want to take to task the Noble Lord personally. I spoke on a subject relating to this a few nights ago, and in the course of his reply, which contained no argument at all, he concluded by saying that my observations were unworthy of a Member of this House. That was intended to be offensive. There was a time, which I somewhat regret, when for a remark of that kind I would have had a man out on the terrain. To-night I will content myself with saying that these observations of the Noble Lord were worthy of a member of the Government, for they were lacking in courage, in candour, and in truth. For what I said I had grounds for saying. Those grounds I will make patent to this House and this country. I was called to order quite rightly by the Deputy-Speaker, who informed me that some of my remarks were not in order unless they were preceded by a substantive Motion. I declare to this House that if matters proceed in this fashion I will not hesitate to put down that substantive Motion, so that I can speak on that subject also with the utmost freedom.
  We have reached a state of affairs in Greece which may be the turning-point of the whole of this campaign. Our handling of the situation in Greece will determine the Eastern Campaign, the campaign in the Balkans. It will determine whether Bulgaria shall be crushed, and Turkey isolated, and Germany hemmed in, or whether Germany will continue months hence, and perhaps years hence, to have free access to the East. So that the question which we are discussing is one of the most vital importance.
  On the one hand we have an enemy king. Does any man in this House doubt, does any man apart from the Foreign

  1671
  Office, which always hoodwinks itself, or takes the attitude as if it were hoodwinking itself, doubt for one moment what are the real intimate convictions and the whole attitude of King Constantino of Greece? He is a relative of the Kaiser a relative of all the Royal families of Europe. The Kaiser is a relation to whom he looks, singular as it may seem, with fervid admiration—even adoration. He has adopted in the reality the fulsome expressions which we used to read in the daily Pres3 ten years ago with reference to that august person. King Constantine is an outpost of Germany; that is known to every man in this House who thinks at all. He is a man who has set himself to use all his abilities—limited, I am glad to say—all his obstinacy, all his powers of intrigue, and all his influence, backed up by the prestige which still clings to the Royal office, to defeat the ends of the Allies. No methods are too tortuous, no design too dark for his acceptance, and that man is being propped up on his shaking throne by our Foreign Office.
  We have, on the other hand, M. Venizelos, a great Liberal, one of those men who have shown themselves devoted to the purest ideals of progress, a man who has sacrificed his whole career, who has done more—who has placed his very life in the scale in the cause of o the Allies. Are they prepared to desert him? I will tell the Front Bench a story of a great Englishman, Nelson himself. He was being pursued by a Spanish fleet, and one of his ships got behind. It was commanded, I believe, by Captain Hardy, the man in whose arms he died. What did Nelson say? "We cannot desert Hardy," and, in spite of vast and overwhelming odds, he turned his face to the enemy and put them to flight. The Foreign Office would have said "No; we cannot afford to offend the Spaniards." They would have sacrificed Captain Hardy, to their shame. I say that if they persist in this policy of theirs, of propping up the tottering power of this enemy king, and sacrificing the great man who is representative of the people of Greece, they will not save themselves from ultimate defeat, and they will have associated it with eternal disgrace. Even if successful in that policy, they will have saved everything but honour. There is not merely one party in this House concerned in this matter; it is the affair of the whole of the Dominions whom you have asked to flock to your
  1672
  standard. What will the people of Australia, the great, strong, democratic people, with its visions of the future, think if you say to them, either in words or by implication, "No, your sacrifices may count for nothing, the blood of your best men in Australia may count for nothing, your deathless heroism may count for nothing, weighed in the scale against the safety of an enemy King. The tottering Throne in Greece counts for nothing against the democracy of Australia. Your blood may be shed in rivers, but all will not weigh against the preservation of the superstition of royalty. My words are going to Australia and South Africa; and they will go to America, they will go all over the world, and unless by some means you show them to be misconceived how can you put forward before the world that banner of yours, that banner of ours, the great ideal of Western nations, fighting for civilisation, progress and liberty, against the crushing military despotism of the Germans. I say you are sacrificing Greece for the support of a military despotism. It is a course which I am certain the French Government and the French people do not desire to follow. You wish to preserve in Europe this dying myth of the "divinity which doth hedge a king." I hope that in Greece itself the men whom you have so treated will give you the lie and that soon the streets of Athens itself, alive once more with all the glorious traditions of the past, may resound with that eagle-cry: "Vive la République!"
  Lord R. CECIL: We have just listened to a speech which, I think, affords perhaps a stronger argument than I could put forward as to the great difficulty and undesirability of having a discussion of foreign relations between this country and other countries in this House. However temperately such questions may be raised, and it was raised with the greatest temperateness and the greatest moderation by the hon. and learned Member, it is possible for an hon. Member to rise and gratify his own feeling by delivering such a speech as that to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Clare said, and I dare say rightly, that his words would extend far beyond this House, and that would, in most cases, point to the fact that there ought to be a certain sense of responsibility on the speaker.
  Mr. LYNCH: I spoke with full responsibility.
  Lord R. CECIL: But it did not impose the slightest sense of responsibility on the hon. Member here. With regard to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. McNeill) I have no such remarks to make as those which I have just made. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us, and I think it was quite true, that the course of events in Greece has attracted widespread attention and some misgiving in this country, and he told us that they had culminated in the official statement which appeared in the Press this morning, that the official statement had been published in Greece, and that the effect of it was to encourage our enemies and discourage our friends. I am not aware of the terms of that publication made in Athens, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. I think if he will allow me to say so we shall do well to treat with some caution reports that come from Athens. I am not saying anything offensive about the great Athenian people, but they are undoubtedly somewhat excitable, and the reports that reach us from that capital are not always so moderate as the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. As to the substance of the matter, I desire to protest in the strongest possible way against the allegation made by the hon. Member for Clare that we were propping up King Constantine to assist the German propaganda in Greece or the German party there. I am quite sure that King Constantine would not take that view. That is not at all his view. I say quite frankly that I believe that the reunion of all the Greeks would be desirable, very desirable. I hold the view very strongly, and we who have a very special position and this nation has a very special position-with regard to Greece desire nothing more, and we do desire nothing more, than the greatness and prosperity of Greece. We believe that that greatness and prosperity can be achieved, and can be achieved only, by close association with the Western Powers. We believe that the old phrase of "Benevolent Neutrality" is one which conveyed a great deal of truth as to the proper attitude that Greece should assume, but we believe strongly whatever attitude, whatever the particular version of her attitude towards the Entente Powers should be, anything which separates her from them must end in disaster to Greece, and to a serious state of things which will last far beyond
  1674
  the end of the present War. My hon. Friend suggested that we were under a special obligation to M. Venizelos because we went there at his invitation. I suppose everybody who has followed the career of M. Venizelos has a profound admiration for that statesman. We all know his great capacity, his great courage, his unerring sagacity, and his fine public spirit and the single-mindedness which he has shown not only on this occasion, but on previous occasions. But I do not think that it is a true statement or a useful statement to say that we went there on the invitation of M. Venizelos. We were there on the invitation of the Greek Government, of which he was the head; but it was the Greek Government that invited us, and not an individual. The Government itself invited us, and we are there because they invited us.
  There is another observation which I should like to make. The hon. Member for Clare expressed the view that the French people and the French Government thoroughly disagreed with our policy. I am in a position to assert in the strongest way that that is utterly untrue. We have acted throughout in the closest concert with all our Allies, and with the French among them. At the Boulogne Conference, held only the other day, I was assured by those who were there that there was absolute complete unanimity of opinion between the French Government and the English Government as to the policy that should be pursued in Greece. There is not a shadow of difference between them, and there is not at the present day. Therefore any statement which is made, a statement which can do nothing but harm, that we in this respect are diverging from the policy of our Allies, is absolutely without the slightest foundation or basis, and is one which ought never to have been made. As to our attitude towards M. Venizelos, the House will recognise the extreme delicacy of saying anything about it. I only say this, that wherever we. find a part of Greek Dominion, which is, in fact, under the Government of M. Venizelos or his Provisional Government, where the great majority of the people recognise him as their Government, we recognise him as the de facto ruler of that portion. More than that I do not think it will be right for me to say now, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire me to go beyond that.
  Mr. McNEILL: Has that been officially conveyed to M. Venizelos?
  9.0 P.M.
  Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to answer that without looking up the actual facts. I have said all I think that I can usefully say at the present time about M. Venizelos. I recognise the great desirability, in a democracy such as we have in this country, of the Government working in close union with the democracy, particularly at a time of great stress like the present. I think nothing is more difficult than to settle exactly how that union is to be brought about in the domain of foreign affairs. We have not only this Government to consider, but the Governments of our Allies, our French, our Russian, our Italian Allies, and the others. We cannot do anything, we cannot say anything, without considering the way in which that will appear to our Allies, and their peoples in foreign countries, and to our enemies and to neutrals, and to ask the Government to carry on negotiations, or to make a clean breast of it, and to take the House and the country fully into their confidence, is, I am satisfied, to ask what is really not in the public interest. I would gladly consider whether there is anything else we would do in order to increase the confidence of the country in the Government. I must say, speaking off hand and speaking without any consultation with anyone else as to some of the suggestions made by my hon. and learned Friend, that I think they will have to be looked at very closely and very carefully. I do not think it would be a desirable thing to establish without very mature consideration a new form of directing foreign affairs in this country. I have, I confess, some doubt whether it would be desirable in the public interest to share the responsibility of the Government in these matters with any Commission, however constituted. That does not mean that information should not be given, I quite agree; but any advice of a specially constituted Commission of this House would, I think, be one which ought to be very, very closely, and very carefully, considered before it was accepted. As to the question of a Secret Session, if my hon. Friend thinks, after listening to the speech of the Member for Clare, it really would be an illuminating process to have a discussion on foreign affairs, I will certainly convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But I would venture very respectfully to appeal to the House
  1676
  in this matter and in all others. No one is more conscious of the defects of the present Government than every member of it. We all know that to undertake to govern a country at a time like this is to undertake a task which is really beyond human powers. We all recognise that. We are perfectly conscious of the many mistakes we make, of the many deficiencies of which we are guilty, but I cannot believe that anything which waters down the responsibility of the Government is likely to improve it. We must do what we think right. We must carry on the Government of the country, badly I agree, but as well as we can do it; and we cannot share that responsibility with the House of Commons or with anybody else—not during the War. That seems to me the only position we can take up. If the House of Commons arrives at the conclusion that we are so bad that really we must be turned out and somebody else put in our places, be it so. That is a perfectly reasonable policy, and one which we shall be delighted to facilitate if the House of Commons has arrived at that conclusion. But until it arrives at that decision, though I am a very junior member of the Government, I appeal to the House to give us confidence and support, and not to try to take upon itself duties which, with all the respect I have for the House, I am satisfied it is incapable of discharging, namely, the administration of the affairs of this country in a time of great stress and strain, such as that through which we are now passing.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not wish to say anything about the concluding and somewhat pessimistic remarks of the Noble Lord. I do not see why he should take such a pessimistic view of the Government, because we know they are indispensable. But if they are indispensable and so bad as he says—
  Lord R. CECILmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: It is very difficult to compare what has been and what might be. At any rate, the subject of the discussion to-night is far too serious for any personal considerations or any personal points. We shall all agree that the Debate has answered one very useful purpose. The Noble Lord told us, I think for the first time, that where as a matter of fact

  1677
  Venizelos exercises the functions of government the British Government so far recognise his authority.
  Lord R. CECIL: De facto.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I am not sure what I understand by de facto. Do I understand by de facto that where Venizelos is in supreme command, where his forces are m control, where the King exercises no functions and has been deprived of them—as in the island of Crete—the position of the British Government is that Constantine is de jure king and Venizelos is de facto ruler? It is an extraordinary position. It really means, if anybody can hold these two inconsistent views simultaneously, that you recognise the authority of King Constantine and at the same time you recognise the authority of a traitor to King Constantine. That really is the position. It is a very serious one. What does throw a good deal of light upon this subject, and, I think, justifies the feeling of great anxiety and misgiving which there is in this country, is that the Noble Lord—he is no ordinary Under-Secretary; he not only answers in the House of Commons, but we know is in the confidence of his Chief—after some hours' notice of this Debate comes here and tells us upon the authority of the Foreign Office that, although that is the fact, he does not even not know whether Venizelos has been made cognisant of that fact. That appears a very serious admission. I hope, if it be so, that the Noble Lord will take the very earliest opportunity of conveying to Venezelos the fact that we do recognise his authority in places under his control.
  The Noble Lord has, in words beyond praise, as far as I am concerned, passed an eulogy on the character and achievements of Venizelos. I really think that what Venizelos wants is not praise but recognition. Is it not a curious thing—it is common knowledge; it has been published in the Press, and the Press is subject to the Press Bureau—that the Allies have made a grant of money to Venizelos. The Bum was mentioned, £400,000. We give him our praise, we give him our money, but we do not give him our recognition. A man who deserves the epithets which the Noble Lord applied to Venizelos to-night will, I think, come to the conclusion that, far better than our praise, far better than our money, is our recognition of him in the great step he has taken. He has not only sacrificed his reputation and his career—that is nothing; he has sacri-
  1678
  ficed his life—at any rate, he has risked his life—in order to prove his bona fides and his allegiance to the cause of the Allies. We are the champion of small nations. We have not been exceedingly fortunate or successful up to now in our championship of small nations. Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro—their record shows—I do not say that it is blameworthy—a lack of success which we all deplore. Koumania is now in peril. Greece also is a small nation. She is struggling against her King. I know perfectly well that in a Debate of this kind one has to speak with considerable reticence; one cannot say what one would like to say. But just as there is a tradition of secrecy in the Foreign Office, so also there is really a support for a particular form of government for kings. It is idle to shut our eyes to it. There is a cameraderie amongst the ruling families of Europe.
  It is a difficult thing to speak about, but when you have a Debate, either you say what is really in your mind or you do not take part in it at all. What I say is this—that you must choose between King Constantine and Venizelos, not because one is King and the other is statesman, but regarding them as two men, each of whom says that he represents Greece. That is all. The kingship of the one and the statesmanship of the other must not be taken for an advantage or otherwise. You must consider this question only: Which of these two men, the King or the statesman, represents the real opinion and feeling of the Greek people? If you come to the opinion that King Constantine represents the Greek people, have nothing to do with Venizelos. On the other hand, if you think that Venizelos represents the Greek people, I do not think you ought to negotiate longer with King Constantine, who has turned out to be a very poor friend to the Allies, and who has done all he could to support our enemies. In conclusion, I am concerned about public opinion in this country. That is a matter to be taken into account. There is a feeling of great disquietude that the Government are not doing the right thing by their friend Venizelos. That is a very serious feeling to get abroad. Even tonight, when the Noble Lord has told us what he thinks it right to tell us, I hope that after this short Debate the country will be reassured, at any rate, to this extent, that the Government will give not only money and eulogy, but also actual and definite recognition to Venizelos. I do not think that anything else is worthy

  1679
  of us. First of all, it is only ordinary common gratitude to do so; and secondly, not only is it gratitude but it is policy as well.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend has stated ably and temperately the views which I am sure are entertained by a vast majority of Members of the House, and by a vast majority of the public outside. We all recognise the very difficult task of the Noble Lord, who had to state the views of the Government and at the same time to deal with what is still a very difficult situation. But he must not really make too big a claim upon the patience of the House in regard to this matter. This is no new subject. Month after month we have seen the prestige of the British Government severely damaged in these negotiations. You cannot get away from that. We as Members of this House have a responsibility as well as the Government. I must enter my caveat against the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord that in matters of this kind, in foreign affairs, the Government must do as they please, independently of the House; that they will deny to the House any share of responsibility. That is a new doctrine which I suppose is one of the products of the Coalition Government. But I should like some of our once Liberal statesmen to get up in this House and say that they thoroughly endorse the statement of the Noble Lord that the House of Commons has no responsibility whatever for the action of its Government in regard to important foreign affairs. No, Sir; it will not do!
  We have got to share the blunders of the Government, and for their few successes we deserve some credit. We have to judge what will be the result of this policy-this policy of secrecy, this policy of keeping to yourselves all that is going on in this important arena of the War. What is the result? We have seen hundreds of thousands—I suppose I am correct in that figure—fighting men held up. We have seen King Constantine holding
  1680
  us all at bay month after month. We have seen the whole foreign situation absolutely governed, as it were, from Athens, and all our efforts paralysed. Do you think the British public is going to stand that for ever? To look on, day after day, and see our Ambassadors going hat in hand to this King who has defied you at every point; who is, as my right hon. Friend truly said, an agent of the German Government? Is there to be no end to this? What do we see to-day? To what position has this policy brought us? That to-night we see that the two opposing forces, the forces of the King and the forces of M. Venizelos, are actually firing shots at each other. That is the message of peace and good will that King Constantine has assisted us in bringing to Greece. I say the situation is serious, and I say we have got a responsibility. We cannot go on day after day seeing British diplomacy slapped in the face, and the whole position of this country, in my opinion—and I am only speaking for myself—damaged throughout the world. There is a growing feeling that there is some secret explanation of all this, and that it has not been forthcoming. We cannot understand why we are suffering all this damage just because of the act of one man! I say that it is a good thing in diplomacy and international action to support your friends and very often to defy your enemies. There is a feeling that we are not supporting M. Venizelos as we ought to do. I do appeal to the Government to make the situation clear—that we are going to stand by him in the difficult situation in which he has been placed, and after he has shown his loyalty to this country. If we do not do that we will make the position intolerable, and we will not deserve to have any friends, and it will be a lasting disgrace to this country. I hope before it is not too late we will support our best friends in that arena of warfare.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes after Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  CASUALTY LIST (BRITISH CIVILIANS).
  CASUALTY LIST (BRITISH CIVILIANS).
  TRAINED NURSES (REGISTRATION).
  TRAINED NURSES (REGISTRATION).
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL.
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL.
  WAR INSURANCE PREMIUMS (INCOME TAX).
  WAR INSURANCE PREMIUMS (INCOME TAX).
  FRENCH NATIONAL LOAN.
  FRENCH NATIONAL LOAN.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
  PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
  POLITICAL SONGS.
  POLITICAL SONGS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (PENSIONS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (PENSIONS).
  PRIZE STEAMER "PRINZ ADALBERT."
  PRIZE STEAMER "PRINZ ADALBERT."
  STRANDED BARGE ("TEUTONIC").
  STRANDED BARGE ("TEUTONIC").
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (BELFAST).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (BELFAST).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    IRISH BRIGADE.
    IRISH BRIGADE.
    MEN OF MILITARY AGE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
    MEN OF MILITARY AGE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
    SERVICE ABROAD.
    SERVICE ABROAD.
    POST OFFICE SERVICE (IRELAND).
    POST OFFICE SERVICE (IRELAND).
    EUROPEANS IN INDIA.
    EUROPEANS IN INDIA.
    ARMY RESERVE MUNITION WORKERS.
    ARMY RESERVE MUNITION WORKERS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    RAILWAY MEN OF MILITARY AGE.
    RAILWAY MEN OF MILITARY AGE.
    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    ORKNEY TRIBUNAL.
    ORKNEY TRIBUNAL.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY PAY CORPS.
  ARMY PAY CORPS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (BELFAST).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (BELFAST).
  HAY PURCHASES.
  HAY PURCHASES.
  DETENTION OF SOLDIERS.
  DETENTION OF SOLDIERS.
  SUBSTITUTION OF LABOUR.
  SUBSTITUTION OF LABOUR.
  MILITARY TROUSERS.
  MILITARY TROUSERS.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  TINNED FRUIT (ARMY SUPPLIES).
  TINNED FRUIT (ARMY SUPPLIES).
  TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS (TRANSFERS).
  TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS (TRANSFERS).
  MILITARY MOTOR CARS.
  MILITARY MOTOR CARS.
  MUNITIONS.
    YORKSHIRE FACTORY EXPLOSION.
    YORKSHIRE FACTORY EXPLOSION.
    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    TRANSPORT WORKERS' BATTALION.
    TRANSPORT WORKERS' BATTALION.
  TROOPS AT ADEN AND SHEIKH.
  TROOPS AT ADEN AND SHEIKH.
  PROFESSOR ETHE.
  PROFESSOR ETHE.
  ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
  ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
  PICRIC ACID.
  PICRIC ACID.
  EXPATRIATED ALIENS.
  EXPATRIATED ALIENS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
    CHANGE OF SURNAMES.
    CHANGE OF SURNAMES.
    BUSINESSES IN FOREIGN HANDS.
    BUSINESSES IN FOREIGN HANDS.
    ATTEMPTS TO PREJUDICE RECRUITING.
    ATTEMPTS TO PREJUDICE RECRUITING.
  INTERNED ALIENS.
  INTERNED ALIENS.
  GERMAN WOMEN IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  GERMAN WOMEN IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  ARMY DISCHARGES.
    MEN RETURNED TO COAL MINES.
    MEN RETURNED TO COAL MINES.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  WAR PENSIONS STATUTORY COMMITTEE (ALLOWANCES).
  WAR PENSIONS STATUTORY COMMITTEE (ALLOWANCES).
  BRITISH TEADE OVERSEAS.
  BRITISH TEADE OVERSEAS.
  SUGARED GOODS EXPORTED.
  SUGARED GOODS EXPORTED.
  WOOD PULP.
  WOOD PULP.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  FOREIGN HOPS.
  FOREIGN HOPS.
  SYNTHETIC INDIGO.
  SYNTHETIC INDIGO.
  WHEAT PRICES.
  WHEAT PRICES.
  SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (CARRIAGE OF BEER AND FOODSTUFFS).
  SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (CARRIAGE OF BEER AND FOODSTUFFS).
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  BRITISH TRADE BANK.
  BRITISH TRADE BANK.
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (FOOD EXPORTS).
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (FOOD EXPORTS).
  HOP IMPORTS (LICENCES).
  HOP IMPORTS (LICENCES).
  DUBLIN POST OFFICE (BONUS).
  DUBLIN POST OFFICE (BONUS).
  WAR OFFICE TELEGRAMS TO PARENTS AND RELATIVES.
  WAR OFFICE TELEGRAMS TO PARENTS AND RELATIVES.
  SMALL HOUSES (SALE).
  SMALL HOUSES (SALE).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Cocaine in Dentistry.
  Cocaine in Dentistry.
  Small Holdings.
  Small Holdings.
  National Insurance (Doctors' Remuneration).
  National Insurance (Doctors' Remuneration).
MUNITIONS.
  UNEMPLOYED LABOUR (BELFAST).
  UNEMPLOYED LABOUR (BELFAST).
  WOMEN WORKERS.
  WOMEN WORKERS.