Sitting of 4 April 1917

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Copy presented of Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1916, with Appendiees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 60.]
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 55 (St. Andrews, No. 10), supplementary to Ordinance No. 53 (St. Andrews, No. 8), of the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary for Scotland:—
County of Fife
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts for the month of July, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Return presented relative thereto [Address, 3rd April; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 62.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons. Provisional Amendment [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (EXCEPTION TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Noneffective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision), 1917, dated 4th April, 1917 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INDENTURED EMIGRATION, INDIA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement regarding the present position of and the attitude of the Government of India towards the question of the abolition of indentured emigration?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The position was explained by the Viceroy in his speech in the Legislative Council on the 7th February, in the course of which he said:
    "Our decision that the present form of emigration must cease has been whole-heartedly accepted by the Colonial Office, and they are busily engaged not merely in improving the conditions of labour in the interval, but in making ready for the great change which has to take place."
    An Interdepartmental Conference, on which the Government of India will be represented, is to be held in London next month. Meanwhile it has become necessary to stop indentured emigration so as not to interfere with military recruitment, and the Viceroy informs me that it is the wish of himself and his Government that Colonial recruitment should not be resumed under the indentured system.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PROMOTION.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a Court of Inquiry was held in regard to deficiency of stores on H.M.S. "Satellite," and H.M.S. "Princess"; whether the assistant-paymasters were exonerated from blame on the ground of lack of experience; will he state the value of the stores unaccounted for; whether these assistant-paymasters were appointed from the Royal Naval Rreserve or from civilians; will he state whether the work of a writer gives the necessary experience; and will he, in the interests of economy, cause writers to be promoted to these positions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Deficiencies of victualling stores in "Satellite" and "Princess" were the subject of Courts of Inquiry in August and November, 1916, respectively. In both cases disciplinary action was limited to an admonition by reason, partly, of the lack of experience of the accountant officers. In the case of "Satellite," the stores deficient were value at £100 18s. 2d.; in the case of "Princess," the deficiencies on some items were more than balanced by surpluses on others, resulting in a net surplus of £108 6s. 3d. The assistant-paymaster in the "Satellite" joined the Royal Naval Reserve in March, 1910, and the assistant-paymaster in the "Princess" was a purser before entry in 1915. As regards the last two parts of the question, the inquiry in each case related to victualling stores, and, as writers have no experience whatever of victualling work, the appointments could not have been filled by the promotion of writers.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was a recommendation of the Thursby. Committee to reduce the age limit for promotion to the rank of warrant writer from thirty-five to thirty: what are the grounds for neglecting to act on this recommendation and of postponing the consideration of the question till the end of the War; is he aware that since the War 1,200 civilians have been granted the warrant rank of assistant paymaster, and that it is proposed to grant the like rank to about 250 more civilians; is he further aware that not one commission has yet been granted to a regular service writer; and will he at once take steps to end this injustice?
    Mr. FLAVINasked, in view of the recently promulgated decision of the Admiralty to promote to lieutenant rank a number of commissioned warrant and warrant officers, between the ages of thirty-eight and forty-three, of the engineering branch of the Royal Navy, whether a similar concession will be given to commissioned warrant and warrant officers in the accountant branch of the Royal Navy, whose duties are set forth in Article 1,338, Clause 6, and Article 1,602, Clauses 6 to 8, of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions as being similar to those performed by commissioned officers in the accountant branch of the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, there is at present no object in reducing the age for promotion to warrant writer, as the number of candidates over the age of thirty-five who are eligible and recommended is quite sufficient to meet all requirements for warrant writers that may arise. As regards the third part of the question, the numbers of assistant paymasters, R.N.R. and R.N.V.R. respectively, entered since war broke out, are approximately 1,000 and 100. About seventy of the 1,000 R.N.R. assistant paymasters were permanently entered, as were all the 100 R.N.V.R assistant paymasters.
    As regards the last part of the question —and here I will, if I may, answer at the same time question No. 10, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry—we are now seeking authority to open commissioned rank to the writer class. We propose to grant five commissions to the rank of assistant paymaster, R.N. with two stripes—that is to say, with the relevant rank of lieutenant, at once and then one each year until a total of ten is reached.
    Mr. HOHLER: May I ask when that authority to promote these writers to the position of assistant-paymaster may be expected? Will it be immediately given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are awaiting the Order in Council, and all steps have been taken.
    Mr. HOHLER: I suppose it is reasonable to expect it in a week or two?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot imagine it would be longer.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is it not time a small beginning should be made, and is not this beginning quite insufficient to meet the necessities of the case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will see from my reply that we are making a beginning.
    Mr. FLAVIN: It is about time!
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say quite categorically that there is no intention of promoting any Admiralty clerk of military age to these posts?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I gave an assurance the other day. The hon. Member asked if 200 Admiralty clerks would be made assistant-paymasters, and I answered in the negative.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the statement made in this House on the 22nd November, 1916, to the effect that further promotions to warrant writers would be considered next year, 1917, whether consideration can now be given to the desirability of increasing the established number of warrant writers to permit of such promotion being secured at an earlier age than has hitherto obtained?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The age at which chief writers reach warrant rank has already been considerably reduced since the rank of warrant writer was first instituted, and it is regretted it does not seem possible to reduce the age much further except in very special cases of outstanding merit.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that entries into the seaman branch of the Royal Navy can obtain warrant rank after seven years' service from date of entry as boy and entries into the engineer branch of the Royal Navy can obtain warrant rank after eight years' service, he will explain why entries into the writer branch of the Royal Navy cannot obtain warrant rank until after seventeen years' service; and whether, in view of the official intimation that equal opportunities for advancement would be given to all ratings in all branches of the Royal Navy, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think the analogy between the seaman and engineer class on the one hand and. the writers on the other is altogether complete. In the
    1260
    military branch it is desirable to obtain warrant officers at as early an age as possible in the interests of the early inculcation of the sense of responsibility and command. The argument does not altogether apply to the writer class. What is wanted in a warrant writer is experience and trustworthiness in clerical work. As regards the last part of the question, it is perhaps sufficient to remark that, taking the numbers of seamen and writers who were in the Service when war broke out, the present number of commissioned writers and warrant writers bears a higher proportion to the writers than the present number of lieutenants promoted from commissioned warrant rank, commissioned warrant officers, and warrant officers, bears to the number of seamen.

    ROYAL MARINES (NON-COJIMISSIONED OFFICERS).
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether those non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines called up to serve during hostilities and those who have completed twenty-one years' service since the 4th August, 1914, who already have earned the maximum pension allowed under paragraph 1,198 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, will, by reason of their additional service, be permitted to exceed the maximum pension of their rank; and, if so, to what extent; and (2) whether those non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines called up to serve during hostilities and those who have completed twenty-one years' service since the 4th August, 1914, who already have earned the maximum pension allowed under paragraph 1,948 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, will, by reason of their additional service, be permitted to exceed the maximum pension of their rank; and, if so, to what extent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I had hoped to be in a position to give my hon. and gallant Friend a final answer one way or the other to his question. I am not quite in that position. But we hope in a day or two to announce an Amendment of our Regulations which will give increases for each year of service beyond twenty-one—on the same principle as Article 1,155 of the Army Pay Warrant—to the Marine non-commissioned officers who complete time during the War, are not discharged to pension, and whose service is extended without

    1261
    receipt of pension. The additions to pension for extended service will not be given to those non-commissioned officers, Royal Marines, who, having been already discharged to pension, are recalled to Service for the period of hostilities.
    Colonel WILSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me if it is not the fact that there is no maximum pension laid down for petty officers of the Navy, and, if that is so, why is not equality of treatment meted out to the non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines, who serve alongside them and are equally under the administration of the Navy for the purposes of pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. Gentleman is right in his first statement. As regards the second, I have already said we hope to be in a position in a day or two to announce additions for extended service when the non-commissioned officer has completed the service for which he would otherwise be pensioned.
    Colonel WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines should not be put on an equality with the petty officers of the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot carry the matter beyond the answer I have given.

    THIRD WRITERS.
    Mr. FLAVINasked whether the recent invitation, October, 1916, to third writers entered for the period of the War to transfer to continuous service was readily responded to; and, if not, what theory is advanced to account for the lack of applicants?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of third writers entered for the War who have applied to transfer to continuous service is not large. I assume that the reason is that many men who have been patriotically willing to enter in the present emergency are not desirous of continuing service after the War.

    VACCINATION (H.M.S. "OPHIR").
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the officer responsible for placing a notice on His Majesty's ship "Ophir," on approaching land, to the effect that only men who had been vaccinated would be allowed shore leave, was
    1262
    acting on instructions from the Admiralty; whether he is aware that there were no cases of small-pox either on the "Ophir" or in the district the ship was approaching; and whether he will issue instructions to ships' officers directing them to give the usual leave to all men, irrespective of vaccination and inoculation, unless there are special circumstances warranting their withholding it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The King's Regulations direct that persons declining vaccination are not allowed to land in ports where there may be any danger of contracting small-pox. The suggestion that there were no small-pox cases on "Ophir," or in the district she happened to be approaching at the moment, does not render the Regulation inapplicable.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the captain of the "Ophir"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the Admiralty going to take any steps to correct the officer in question of this breach of the Regulations?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that there has been any breach of the Regulations; I do not think so.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that where there is no disease there is always a risk and that, therefore, invariably every person on board ship must be vaccinated, whether he is in the Navy or not?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated what the King's Regulations are; they direct that persons declining vaccination are not to be allowed to land.

    TRANSPORT "TYNDAREUS."
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to furnish the name of the captain of the transport "Tyndareus," and whether in future official Reports which are published dealing with similar cases he will follow the naval custom in including the name of the captain unless there may be some particular reason or reasons for not doing so?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is Captain

    1263
    George Flynn. The answer to the second part of the question is "yes" in cases in which the Admiralty is responsible for publishing the information. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the communiqué regarding the transport "Tyndareus" was issued by the War Office.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CEREALS.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the tonnage of cereals destined to ports in the United Kingdom that, during the months of February and March, as far as can be determined, has been lost by the action of submarines, raiders, and other causes; and if he can state how the percentage or proportion of the quantity lost compares with the quantity that has arrived?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It is not in the public interest to give the particulars asked for by the hon. Baronet.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister the desirability of not keeping the public ignorant if the position gets critical?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can only say that in the opinion of the Admiralty, the Food Controller and the Board of Trade, it is undesirable to give the figures.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people in this country do know the actual facts, and what possible service can his Department give to the public by concealing the fact that there is a shortage of food in this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think it does conceal it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask whether the German commanders of submarines do not discover in most cases what is the nature of the cargoes of the boats they sink?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: They do not all get home, dear boy!
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

    RABBITS AND CHICKENS.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that quantities of rabbits and chickens are now being exported from Holland into Germany, whilst hardly any are being sent to this country; and whether he can take steps to obtain half the supply exported from Holland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): It has been reported that certain quantities of rabbits and chickens have recently been exported from Holland to Germany. Under existing arrangements any such export entails an export to the United Kingdom of an equivalent quantity of meat.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we get the meat from Holland?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that the arrangement that has been come to is being fully carried out.

    FRESH FISH (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, having regard to the value of fresh fish as food, the fact that the best fishing season is now opening, and the freedom of the West Coast of Ireland from difficulties which beset the industry elsewhere, whether he will take immediate steps to remedy two defects now threatening the industry there by having rapid transport established between the Aran Isles and other fishing points on the West Coast and the English markets and having the empty boxes returned, which the railway companies now refuse to do, or sending the fishermen an adequate supply of boxes in advance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the matter referred to in the question.
    Mr. GIN NELL: is the hon. Gentleman not in a position to go further than that in this important matter?
    Captain BATHURST: No Sir, I cannot at the present time. The matter is being investigated in conjunction with the Irish Fisheries Department. As regards the

    1265
    empty boxes that has been taken up by the Fish Food Committee with the Railway Executive Committee.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to let me have a reply during the Recess?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

    IRISH BACON.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can state if any bacon curer residing in Ireland was present on 9th March, 1917, when the price of Irish bacon was fixed at 140s. per cwt.; and, if so, will he give his name and residence?
    Captain BATHURST: The answer to this question is in the negative. As I have already stated in the House, in view of the short time available, it was not possible to arrange for the attendance of Irish representatives when prices were first fixed, but representatives were present at the subsequent conferences on 22nd March. I may say that the prices of the bulk of Irish bacon have always been fixed in London, as the values are affected by those of other descriptions of bacon which are imported into this country.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask why, in this great industry in Ireland, which is one of our principal mainstays of food, the Irish bacon industry and the Irish farmers were not even invited or consulted in connection with the prices fixed for their produce?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already pointed out that owing to the sudden inflation in the price of bacon it was necessary, in the interests of the consumer, to hold a conference somewhat rapidly—that was the first conference. At the second conference the Irish representatives had the opportunity of being present.
    Mr. FLAVIN: But surely a telegram would have brought any of the Irish bacon curers here in defence of a great industry in which thousands of men are employed?
    Mr. GINNELL: Why has not the hon. Gentleman given the House the significant fact that of all the Irish bacon curers present at the second conference not one consented to the 140s. per cwt. maximum price except Mr. Denny, who is an agent of the Government?
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
    1266
    whether he is aware that at the second meeting held on 22nd March Irish curers were present and a full discussion took place, with the result that it was unanimously agreed to recommend that the maximum price for Irish Wiltshire cut be fixed at 145s. f.o.b., and that the Controller fixed the price at 139s. f.o.b., and the list of prices issued by the Exchange contains the statement that prices are fixed by order of the Food Controller; and whether he can state why the recommendation of the food representatives at the Exchange of 145s. for Irish bacon was not given effect to?
    Captain BATHURST: The prices were fixed by the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, after a conference at which all London and provincial exchanges and the Irish curers were represented. It is not considered that the price fixed for Irish bacon is inadequate. The present price is, in fact, 10s. per cwt. higher than it was at the beginning of the year.
    Mr. FLAVIN: My question is a direct one, that is, the representatives at the Exchange unanimously agreed that the price of Irish bacon should be 145s; if that was their recommendation why did not the Food Controller carry it out?
    Captain BATHURST: In the first place there was no unanimous agreement, and in the second place the prices were fixed, as they have been for some time in ordinary and normal times, by the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, and not by the Food Controller.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the representatives of this Exchange met and recommended that the price of Irish bacon should be 145s.—will he say whether they recommended that or not?
    Captain BATHURST: I Should think it extremely likely that that recommendation was made, but it does not necessarily follow that, in the interests of equity, the recommendation should be adopted
    Mr. FLAVIN: Did not the hon. Gentleman tell the House on Friday, 23rd March, that the difference in price of 10s. per cwt. as between Irish and English bacon would be considerably reduced, and why was not the hon. Gentleman's promise fulfilled?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir, I did not say that. What I said was that the matter came up for reconsideration at fortnightly

    1267
    intervals. As a matter of fact, it is only right to say that I have had a Return made of the relative prices of English and Irish bacon for the last four years, and the difference has never been less than 6s., while sometimes it has been as high as £l.
    Mr. FLAVIN: That is your opinion!
    Mr. FLAVIN(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food Control whether he is aware that, as a result of the fixing the price of Irish bacon 11s. per cwt. under that of English bacon, the number of pigs killed for the week ending 29th March, 1917, is as follows:—Ulster and Connaught, 4,863; Munster and Leinster, 10,877; total for Ireland week ending 29th March, 1917, 15,740, and the corresponding week for 1916 the total pigs killed in Ireland was 22,118, showing a reduction of 30 per cent. of the food of the nation, and whether, even now, he will place the price of English and Irish bacon on a level, as otherwise the Irish farmer and cotters will cease to breed and fatten pigs for the market?
    Captain BATHURST: There is clearly a discrepancy in the figures given by the hon. Member. I would suggest that he should revise his addition. I am making inquiries, and will communicate the result to him as soon as possible

    BREAD AND FLOUR.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any resolutions from any local authorities asking the Government to fix the price of bread at 6d. per 4–lb. loaf, and if it entails a loss the charge to be a war charge borne by the Government; if he is aware of the discontent and unrest that are being created in consequence of the price of all commodities; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: I have been asked to reply. Resolutions of the nature referred to in the question have been received from a small number of co-operative societies and trades councils, but not, so far as I am aware, from any local municipal authority. I am aware of the difficulties produced by the increased price of commodities, but I hesitate to believe that there is any general unwillingness to share in the common sacrifice in-
    1268
    evitably resulting from existing war conditions. I have already informed the House that the question of fixing the price of wheat, flour, and bread is now being considered by the Government.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller if he is satisfied with the voluntary diminution in the public consumption of bread, or if he desires further economy in that direction?
    Captain BATHURST: A further reduction in the consumption of bread and flour, and the avoidance of all waste of either, have now become absolutely essential both for the civilian and military population. There is no other article of food in the use of which it is so important to exercise economy at the present time.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is the bread ration of 4 lbs. per head per week to be cut down, or ought it to be cut down?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. The proposed voluntary ration of bread is intended to be an average, and it is left to the general public to observe the average in the spirit of the appeal. It is common knowledge that in the case of agricultural and other workers the normal consumption of bread always is and must be more than the amount suggested.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What substitutes which would lessen the consumption of bread are suggested by the Department, or is it intended that there should be a reduction in the total consumption of food by the people?
    Captain BATHURST: I do not propose to suggest by way of answer to a question in this House all the various substitutes that might be adopted for wheat and bread. Of course, the hon. Member is aware that a good many other cereals enter now into the constitution of the loaf, and it is very desirable that other cereals where possible should be substituted for flour of wheat in the ordinary domestic economy. It is hoped in the case of the well-to-do classes, who do not normally consume as much bread, that they will abstain still further from their ordinary allowance of bread, so as to render more bread available for those for whom it is most essential.
    Sir C. HENRY: Has my hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the normal

    1269
    wastage in the present quality of bread supplied owing to it crumbling up and people being unable to use it?
    Sir W. ESSEX: Has not the Ministry of Food taken into account the great waste which still goes on in the use of cereals for brewing?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a fresh rationing Order is about to be issued to-night?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir, I am not in a position to state that any fresh rationing proposals are to be made for domestic observance, but there is about to be issued shortly an Order relating to hotels, clubs, and restaurants in which certain rationing provisions will be included?
    Mr. FLAVIN: As this is a matter of most vital importance in connection with the food of the people, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of idle land in Ireland capable of growing wheat and plenty of people there to till the land and grow wheat?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that there are no more cereals available for the brewing industry?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, Sir; that is so. The amount of malt produced for this purpose can in no case exceed what is required for the now limited output of beer.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I point out—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This question has been frequently asked, and cannot be repeated over and over again.

    MALT.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister what amount of malt is being used weekly for the production of beer and other intoxicating liquors; and whether he will consider the advisability of such malt being used for the feeding of stock?
    Captain BATHURST: The weekly amount of malt now being used in the manufacture of beer is approximately 40,000 qrs. I have no precise information as to the amount used in manufacturing other intoxicating liquors. The use of malt as a food for stock would be a very costly expedient.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dearth of food for stock in this country is so great that it is seriously asserted we shall have to slaughter part of our stock for want of food?
    Captain BATHURST: It may in the long run prove in the national interest to do so. It is very undesirable that a large quantity of cereal food should be consumed by live stock when it is wanted for human beings.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the stock be kept alive by the use of this malt?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

    MEAT.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the retail prices of meat were considerably advanced last week in London, and it was stated by retailers that prices would still further advance owing to the Government stopping meat being released from told storage stores; and, if so, will he state why such stoppages have been made?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand that the retail prices of meat have been advanced recently, but I have no information as to the reason given for this advance. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon Member to the Board of Trade, by whom the importation of the refrigerated meat is controlled.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Major HUNTasked if a young German about twenty years of age, named Strauss, is acting as private secretary to Sir Harold Stuart at the Ministry of Food; if so, what experience and qualifications he has; and whether this work could be done better by a woman?
    Captain BATHURST: I presume that this question relates to Mr. H. G. Strauss, who is employed in the Ministry of Food, under Sir Harold Stuart, although not as his private secretary. He was previously employed at the Board of Trade. Mr. Strauss is a British-born subject, aged twenty-four, was educated at Rugby and Oxford, and on the outbeak of War joined the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps, but was invalided out. He has since re-attested, but is regarded as medically unfit. But for his breakdown in health

    1271
    Mr. Strauss would undoubtedly now be fighting. His experience and ability make him a particularly valuable officer.
    Mr. HOLT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Strauss father was a British subject at the time of his birth?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, Sir, he was.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has yet made investigation in the matter of a firm of potato growers offering to sell and selling potatoes at £12 per ton, thereby contravening the Potatoes (1916) Main Crop (Prices) Order; and whether he has taken or proposes to take proceedings against the firm?
    Captain BATHURST: Investigation has been made, but it has not been found possible so far to trace the offer referred to. It the hon. Member will kindly furnish the name of the intending purchaser and the date of the alleged offer, it will greatly facilitate the investigation.
    Mr. DAVIES: Can my hon. Friend deny that this firm has sold and offered for sale potatoes at £12 per ton recently?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir; but from the nature of the letter forwarded by the hon. Member it is quite apparent that this supposed transaction took place long before the Ministry of Food came into existence and long before any of the Potato Orders were issued.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, according to the existing regulations, German prisoners of war are receiving a potato ration while the people of London and other large towns are going without?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The scale of rations for prisoners of war has recently been specially considered by a Committee on which the Food Controller and the Director-General, Army Medical Service, were represented. It was then decided to limit the potato ration to 4 ozs. a day. With regard to further proposed action, however, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 2nd instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller.
    Sir C. WARNER: Considering the anxiety that is felt throughout the country as to the shortage of potatoes, will the hon. Gentleman take immediate action, in conjunction with the Food Controller, to remedy the present state of things?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will certainly communicate at once with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller and will see what can be done.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in response to the appeal made by the Food Controller a considerable number of the more well-to-do people are now voluntarily abstaining from using potatoes, and can he expect that to continue if the German prisoners are to be given potatoes?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the new Order prohibiting the use of potatoes in hotels will extend to those establishments occupied by Germans?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Those two points are exactly the two points which I hope to consider.

    FISH.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the value of fresh fish as food. the fact that the best fishing season is now opening, and the freedom of the West Coast of Ireland from difficulties that beset the industry elsewhere. whether he will take immediate steps to have permits issued to all the fishermen of Dingle Bay to fish over a wide range by day or night during the season now opening with their mackerel boats, which have been idle during the last six months for want of permits?
    Captain BATHURST: I am in communication with the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this matter. It is a question which concerns the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Ireland, and it does not concern the Department which I represent.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary has repeatedly refused to give any information, and referred me to the London Department?

    WHEAT.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can state the wheat shortage in France as recently announced in a Ministerial statement; and, in view of the

    1273
    shortage, will he explain how it is that bread is 25 per cent. cheaper in France than in England?
    Captain BATHURST: I have no figures available which will enable me to give any information relating to the shortage of wheat in France. One important reason why bread is cheaper in France than in the United Kingdom is that France normally grows about seven-eighths of her whole wheat requirements, while the United Kingdom only grows one-fifth.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that a Ministerial statement has been made in France showing a tremendous shortage in that country, which must bring about the same conditions in this country; and is not the high price of bread here due to the enormous price British farmers and dealers in wheat are extorting from the community, which is not permitted in France?
    Mr. PRINGLE: What proportion was actually grown in France this year, and what proportion was actually brought in British shipping at Blue Book rates to France?
    Captain BATHURST: I have no information of that kind.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the price is determined not by what is grown in normal years, but by what has been grown this year in France?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can make any statement as to the prospects of the winter and spring sowings of wheat in the United Kingdom as affected by climatic conditions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): Information on this subject, so far as England and Wales is concerned, is being collected and analysed in the Department. It will be published in the Monthly Agricultural Report of the Board of Agriculture, which will be issued next week. For information as to Scotland and Ireland, I must refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture at Dublin, respectively.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Chicago
    1274
    wheat pit, on 29th March, quotations for May delivery jumped to 1.98⅞ dollars a bushel, the highest price since 1864; that this was due to reports of damage to winter wheat fields in certain States owing to adverse weather conditions; and if he has any information he can convey regarding the prospects of wheat production in the United States and Canada for the current year?
    Captain BATHURST: It is a fact that the price of May wheat rose considerably in Chicago on the 29th March, and that the rise was caused by reports of unfavourable weather in the winter wheat region. As regards the prospects, the reports received are somewhat contradictory. The monthly Government Bureau Report of the condition of the crop will appear about the 8th instant, when more reliable information will be forthcoming.

    GRAIN AND FLOUR.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether the recent presidential decree prohibiting the export of grain and flour from the Argentine will affect any anticipations as to supplies that would be available from this source for the British market?
    Captain BATHURST: The answer to this question is obviously in the affirmative.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, if consistent with the public interest, he can state the tonnage of grain and flour lost at sea in transit to the United Kingdom during the last three months?
    Captain BATHURST: It is not in the public interest to furnish this information.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (ADMIRALTY INSTRUCTIONS).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in pursuance of the rule that secret instructions will only be given to masters of merchant ships whose parents were British subjects at the time of their birth, Captain John Stenhoff has been compelled to relinquish the command of the "Mitcham," belonging to the Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Company; whether he is aware that Captain Stenhoff's father was a Swede, who came to this country at the age of sixteen and sailed in a British

    1275
    steamer until his death, being master for the last thirty years of his life, that Captain Stenhoff's mother was a natural-born British subject born at South Shields, and that Captain Stenhoff was born at Jarrow; whether there is any complaint against Captain Stenhoff's conduct; and, if not, whether the Admiralty will reconsider their decision in this case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The case of Captain John Stenhoff, late of ss. "Mitcham," who is the holder of an United Kingdom home trade certificate only, appears to be in accord with the facts as stated. In view of his parentage he is not qualified under the ruling to receive confidential instructions. It is understood that he is now pursuing his calling of the sea in the capacity of chief officer.

    NEUTRAL RELIEF COMMISSION FOR BELGIUM
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what changes have been made in the administration of the Neutral Relief Commission for Belgium; and whether he will represent to the Commission the importance of preserving all records of purchases and distribution of food, etc., until after the end of the War?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No formal changes in administration have been made except that neutral delegates of Dutch and Spanish nationality are being substituted for the American delegates in the occupied territories. Some changes will no doubt have to be gradually introduced as the neutral protecting Powers find it necessary. The preservation and continuation of the present exhaustive records must, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, be a capital duty of the Commission, and this is being fully provided for.

    FOOD FOR SERBIA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to enable food to enter Serbia, he will give all necessary facilities to the Swiss Committee who are endeavouring to make arrangements for relief work in Belgrade?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 5th March. No scheme has been submitted to me.

  RUSSIA.

    POLAND.
    Mr. J. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official information showing that the new Russian Government has declared its intention of restoring the Polish nation and of giving it a free con stitution on the basis of a united Poland with the power to settle its own form of government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am happy to be able to answer the hon. Member's question in the affirmative. I hope to take an early opportunity of making a fuller statement on this important question.

    EX-CZAR.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was on his advice that instructions have been issued to the Press to deal tenderly with the ex-Czar of Russia; and, if so, whether he can state the grounds for this action?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The statement to which the hon. Member endeavours to give currency has not the slightest foundation in fact.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure of what he has just stated?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Well, I have no doubt about it.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to undo the unfortunate effect of Lord Milner's interview with Reuter?

    VISIT OF LABOUR MEMBERS TO PETROGRAD.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the prospective visit of two Labour Members of the British Parliament to Russia has been undertaken at the request of the Government; if the visit has official approval; if passports will be issued to these Members of Parliament; with what object the visit is being undertaken; if any steps have been taken to ascertain if the visit is desired or will be welcomed by the workmen's

    1277
    council at Petrograd; and if the Government will afford equal facilities to a delegation representing the British Socialist movement, which is affiliated with the Russian social democratic party, which is represented on the workmen's council, and with the revolutionary party led by M. Kerensky?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. This visit is being organised with the object of conveying on the part of British Labour a message of congratulation and sympathy to their comrades in Russia, and the Provisional Russian Government, of which M. Kerensky is a member, have informed us that the visit will be most welcome. I see no reason for arranging any second visit.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that this deputation had been initiated by the Government, will he say what credentials these men have to represent the English labour movement?
    Sir W. ESSEX: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether only one section of this House is to be represented on this deputation? Are only those who call themselves representatives of labour to have an opportunity of conveying congratulations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The deputation, as I understand, does not consist solely—and, I am not sure, in the majority—of Members of this House. Its purpose is definitely stated in my answer.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it a fact that the deputation will be accompanied by French Members of Parliament?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that a similar delegation is going from France. I do not know whether they are going together or not.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, yesterday, in answer to a question, said that it was inadvisable to send "leaders of thought" as a mission from this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: These gentlemen are going with the one object of encouraging, so far as they can, the present Russian Government in the prosecution of the War.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him, namely, what right these men have to represent the British labour movement, and if they are accredited to any recognised labour organisation in the country; and will he say if they are going there at the expense of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer the last part; I should like notice of it. As to whom they represent, the hon. Member is in as good a position to judge as I am. The Government are satisfied that they will serve the purpose.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the men who is going has far better credentials than my hon. Friend over the way?

    DEATH PENALTY (MILITARY OFFENCES).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Russian Government has abolished the death penalty in the case of military offences; and will he consider the question of taking similar action?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

    ENUTRAL COUNTRIES (TRADE WITH GERMANY).
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether potatoes are being exported in large numbers from Holland into Germany; and, if so, whether he could see his way to stopping the importation of fertilisers into Holland, in view of the fact that they are used to grow potatoes for Germany?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have not received any information showing that any potatoes have been exported from Holland to Germany this year up to the present time.
    Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him facts about the case?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Any information which my hon. and gallant Friend has to offer to the Minister of Blockade I am sure my Noble Friend will be very grateful for.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in the port of

    1279
    Liverpool to see whether American bacon shipped to Liverpool has not been re-shipped from there to Holland and from Holland sent into Germany?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I caught the subject of this question.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will he make inquiries in the port of Liverpool to see whether American rice and bacon have not been reshipped from there to Holland and then sent on to Germany?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is nothing in the question about rice and bacon.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement in the French Chamber that a strict surveillance of the illicit trade of neutral countries with the enemy was needed, and that in 1916 the exports of Holland and Denmark assured the meat rations of 1,200,000 German soldiers; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent neutrals from feeding the enemy, and so prolonging the War and sacrificing thousands of our best men?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have not yet received the official Report of the statements recently made in the French Chamber with regard to the blockade. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my Noble Friend the Minister of Blockade in the course of the Debate on the blockade on the 27th March.

    BLOCKADE.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the unanimous resolution passed in the French Chamber on the necessity for tightening the blockade and of real co-ordination in Allied action; and whether he proposes to take immediate action in agreement with that resolution?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the proceedings in the French Chamber of the 30th ultimo. I have not yet received the official Report of those proceedings, but I do not understand that any lack of coordination between the Allies was suggested. My Noble Friend the Minister of Blockade has already explained to the
    1280
    House the action which His Majesty's Government are taking to render the blockade as effective as possible, and I can only say that any fresh proposals which may be made by the French Government to this end will receive our most friendly and careful consideration. There is constant and cordial co-operation between the French Minister of Blockade and my Noble Friend.

    ENEMY COUNTRIES (PEACE TERMS).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the growing military and economic pressure exerted by the Allies upon Turkey and the evidence of the desire of her people for a separate peace, he will now announce, in conjunction with our Allies, that under no circumstances will terms of peace be discussed or concluded with Germany on her behalf, or on behalf of Bulgaria, Austria, or Hungary, but that each of these countries must make a separate appeal?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member on 85th October last.
    Major CHAPPLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the views of our Allies on this question?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not aware that the views of our Allies in any sense differ from our own.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Russian Minister for Justice to the effect that Russia will be content with the internationalisation of Constantinople; whether this indicates that the demand made upon Turkey in the terms of peace suggested to the United States will be modified; and. if so, whether, in conjunction with the Allies, he will state what these modifications are?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Nothing has been said to us by the Russian Government on the subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies seek the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as alleged by

    1281
    the Junker party in Germany, for the purpose of combating the peace agitation of the Socialists?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it desirable to add anything to the statement of the Allies' War aims already made in their joint reply to President Wilson's Note of 19th December.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement that various nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire are to be liberated necessarily means dismemberment, or whether a system of Home Rule would satisfy the Allies?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have already said that I do not propose to add anything to the answer already given, and now the hon. Gentleman asks me to add something. I think I must adhere to the first answer that I gave.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was asking for an explanation.

    WEST AFRICAN LANDS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say when the volume of evidence taken by the West African Lands Committee and the Report of the Sub-Committee, with appendices, will be laid before Parliament; and whether, if the full Report of the Committee, which was appointed in 1912, is incomplete and cannot yet be published, the evidence and Report of the Sub-Committee, which is understood to contain information and suggestions of great value, can be placed in the Library for, reference?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): Owing to the outbreak of war it was impossible for the Committee to continue their labours, and I do not consider that it would be desirable to publish a draft Report in which the majority of the Committee had not concurred. I will consider whether there is any reason why a copy of the evidence should not be placed in the Library.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the chairman of that Committee sent in a letter which amounted to a preliminary Report, and whether the recommendations made in that letter have not failed to be carried out in connection with the Gold Coast Colony?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will inquire into that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    WOMEN VOLUNTEERS FOR FRANCE (VACCINATION).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the women volunteering to go to France for National Service have been required to be vaccinated and inoculated; if so, why this is insisted on when it is not compulsory with soldiers; and whether women who have been accepted for service and have refused to undergo these operations will be allowed to proceed to France if in every other respect suitable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Women who volunteer for France are asked to express their willingness to be inoculated and vaccinated before enrolment. No woman has yet refused compliance.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that J. W. Cotton, No. 67455, 3rd Platoon, 7th Labour Company, Durham Light Infantry, British Expeditionary Force, France, who received a notification from the Board of Agriculture that he was exempt from military service, was called up on 26th February, and, although classified only as C 2, was taken to France in a labour battalion; and whether, seeing that his certificate of exemption from the Board of Agriculture had not been withdrawn, such action was in order?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No certificates of exemption from military service are issued to men employed in agriculture by the Board of Agriculture, as the grant of exemptions is the function of the tribunals. Inquiries will be made into the circumstances of this case, and the result will be communicated to my hon. Friend. These inquiries would be facilitated if Cotton's home address can be furnished. If a man not of Category A who was employed whole time in agriculture was posted on the date given, it would seem that some mistake has been made.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN LONDON.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the recent change of Government in Russia.

    1283
    has interfered with the negotiations that were on foot between the two countries relative to the compulsory enlistment for military service in one shape or another of the 20,000 Russian subjects of military age who are computed to be in the Metropolis alone?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, but negotiations are proceeding with the new Russian Government on the subject.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentlemen say what was the nature of the communication that came through the Russian Embassy yesterday upon this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is better informed than I am. I was not aware there was any communication.
    Mr. KING: Arising out of the answer I shall raise this matter on the Debate for the Adjournment.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the two Labour Members who are going to Russia how important it is that we should get these people to do something?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think probably they will realise its importance without my impressing it on them.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Home Office have taken to protect the men employed under the Home Office scheme at Princetown, where the men are being persistently attacked and seriously injured by bands of soldiers; if representations have been made to the military authorities about this conduct by soldiers; and what action the Home Office has taken about the conduct of the police who have been present when these attacks have been made, but have remained passive spectators?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): As soon as information was received at the Home Office that attacks had been made on conscientious objectors on their way from prison to Princetown, telegraphic instructions were given to the police to take steps for their protection. The police had, however, already done their utmost to protect the
    1284
    conscientious objectors. The disturbances occurred unexpectedly, and the number of police now available is, of course, very small. I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation in the last part of the question.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: How did the soldiers get to know that this man was a conscientious objector?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Because they saw him with a fishing-rod.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: How did the troops know before they attacked him that the man was a conscientious objector?
    Mr. BRACE: I am afraid that I have no direct information upon the matter. I was informed that when the conscientious objectors were passing through Yelverton some circulars were thrown out. I imagine that the conscientious objectors themselves must have made the fact known or the soldiers would not have known, but that is no excuse for not offering them all the protection that we can when they are passing from one work centre to another.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Has there been more than one case at Yelverton?
    Mr. BRACE: I think that there was one case at Princetown as well as at Yelverton.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend see that these men are not dressed in a costume which gives them away as conscientious objectors?
    Mr. BRACE: They do not wear uniform, but conscientious objectors are none too modest, and if they make themselves known to the public in any way, of course it is rather difficult, because there are not large numbers of police, so many of them having joined the Army.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men who were attacked are not really conscientious objectors, but people who have taken alternative service, and therefore people who ought to be supported by the Government?

    DUNDEE LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can do anything to secure the observance of the Military Service Act by the Dundee Local Tribunal in the case of John Drummond, of 48,

    1285
    Wellgate, Dundee, the only support of his aged parents and younger members of the family, seeing that this man has five brothers who joined the Army voluntarily, one of whom has been killed, one wounded, and another invalided, the last two being now back on active service, and in view of the further circumstance that these five brothers volunteered on the understanding that John Drummond was to remain at home to support his parents?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The provisions of the Acts give an opportunity for a hearing by the Appeal Tribunal as well as by the local tribunal, and if, as I understand the question, the local tribunal has given an adverse decision upon the application, I think the proper course is to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal to whom the facts can be submitted.

    WAR BONUS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the war bonus recently announced to employés in His Majesty's dockyards will be extended to His Majesty's Gun-wharf, Devonport?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE Mr. Forster): Yes, Sir, Instructions have been issued.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the German prisoners of war at Hard Hill Camp do hardly any work and spend most of their time in idling and smoking; and whether, as our soldiers have to work bard for the Germans, he can take any steps to see that a similar amount of work 18 done by Germans in this country?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the military authorities that a report on the conditions prevailing at Hard Hill Camp has been asked for. Pending its receipt, I am unable to furnish a reply.

    MEDALS AND DECORATIONS (PROPOSED RECORD).
    Major Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he
    1286
    will supply for the information of Members of this House a short and concise record each quarter of the names and deeds of those officers and men of the Imperial Army and Navy who, since the commencement of the War, have won the following medals and decorations: Victoria Cross, Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Military Medal, and Distinguished Conduct Medal; and whether he will cause such records to be placed in the Library?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Much as it is desired to give the fullest publicity to the acts of gallantry for which these decorations and medals are awarded, I fear that in view of the enormous clerical labour involved, it is impossible to supply the quarterly record asked for. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the notification of all awards of the Victoria Cross, and also of awards of the Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, and the Distinguished Conduct Medal conferred by Commanders-in-Chief in the field, accompanied by statements of the deeds for which they are granted, are published in the "London Gazette," copies of which are placed in the Library. As regards the Military Medal, lists of names are gazetted, but the awards are too numerous to admit of publication of services. As regards naval distinctions, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would address his question to the Admiralty.

    WOOL CLIP (SCHEDULE OF PRICES).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the price to be paid for this year's wool clip?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided that the schedule of prices will be based on an increase of 50 per cent. above the average prices paid in June and July, 1914. It should be noted that the schedule of prices will be based on average prices, and that the actual price received by each farmer will, of course, depend on the quality and condition of the wool.

    SOLDIERS IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if soldiers who are transferred to Class W for industrial work cease to receive Army pay from the date of transfer; and if their separation allowance is stopped from the same date,

    1287
    or if these payments are continued until the soldier has obtained industrial employment?
    Mr. FORSTER: The formal transfer takes place one week after the actual transfer. Under this arrangement they receive Army pay and separation allowance for the week after actual transfer.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is often an interval between the time of discharge from the Army and the obtaining of civil employment? Seeing that the separation allowance has been stopped, and that during that time the men are entirely without means, could not something be done or some arrangement made by which the men are not formally discharged until they have secured civil employment?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot carry the matter quite as far as that. This is a new arrangement which has just been made. In effect it gives the men transferred to Class W Army pay and separation allowance for the week during which they are seeking civil employment.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is to say they are given a week in which to get civil employment?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the result of recent Regulations of the Army authorities been to reduce this class of men by any large number?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot give any figures.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOMEN WORKERS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the women workers in the munition factories at Springburn, Glasgow, are paid as much as 3s. 6d. of a weekly bonus, while the men can only work up to 1s. 6d. a week of bonus; and, if so, will he say why this difference exists?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I have made inquiries into this matter, and find that it is not the case that in the factory referred to men can only work up to 1s. 6d. per week of bonus; operators receive bonuses of from 9s. to 22s. per week.

    PICTURE PALACE, AYR.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will explain why permission has been given to a Mr. George Green to build a picture palace costing £3,000 at Boswell Park, Ayr, while permission has been refused to equip a house for a Red Gross hospital in another part of Scotland because the cost exceeds £500?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no record in the Ministry of Munitions of an application for, or of the issue of a licence for, the erection of a picture palace at Ayr. The second case to which the hon. Member refers cannot be identified from the details given. If he will be good enough to send me further particulars, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he will be in a position to make a statement on the Irish question before the Easter Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement before the Adjournment, but I can assure the House that the subject is engaging the constant attention of the Government, and that there will be no avoidable delay.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in any settlement of the Government of Ireland controversy which the Government may be able to put before the House, the principle of election by the method of proportional representation embodied in the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, will be preserved and extended?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is a question of detail which I do not think could be usefully discussed now.

    ENEMY DESTRUCTION IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the barbarity of the enemy in spreading destruction on the line of their retreat, the Government is prepared, in conjunction with our Allies, to consider the suggestion made by many persons of high authority in France and Belgium of designating certain German towns as hostages

    1289
    for towns in France and Belgium, and that the ruin of any of the Belgian and French towns should involve the destruction of the German hostage town corresponding to it as a measure of expiation for this crime against civilisation and humanity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in this question.

    LICENSED TRADE (STATE PURCHASE).
    Captain BARNETTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the subject of State purchase of the liquor interests is receiving the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government, he is in a position to give an assurance that the interests of licensees will receive full and adequate compensation under any scheme which the Government may adopt; and whether, in order to allay the growing fears of retailers, he will undertake to consult the accredited representatives of the retail trade in England and Wales before finally coming to a decision on a matter which must vitally affect their livelihood?
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, in connection with the question of the State purchase of the liquor traffic, the desirability of the purchase by the State of the productive part only of such traffic— that is, the breweries and distilleries—so that the Government shall have complete control over the quality, the alcoholic strength, the quantity, and the destination of beer, etc., and spirits produced and distributed, and so that questions of retail distribution may be settled subsequently by such administrative regulations as may be desirable?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Every aspect of the question will receive careful consideration.
    Mr. G. FABER: Considering the immense cost involved in any purchase by the State, will the right hon. Gentleman defer the further consideration of this most important matter until after the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may be sure every aspect of the case will be carefully considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in discussing this matter, he will bear in mind that a great many other businesses and professions have been vitally affected by the War, and have received no compensation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may be sure that we are not likely to forget that fact.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has my right hon. Friend seen in Lord George Hamilton's "Recollections" the disastrous effect on Governments of handling two subjects, namely, women and wine?
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining expert opinion as to the value of alcohol for motive power and in connection with industries and the probable extension of its use for such purposes if produced under State control and sold at a low price while still providing a source of revenue?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion shall receive due consideration.

    PUBLIC SPEAKERS (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether it is on the initiative of the Cabinet that instructions are sent from Government Departments to public speakers advising them of the line to take; and, if so, whether these communications will in future be signed by the Minister at the head of the Department in question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: In that case, it may happen that unauthorised notices are sent out on Government paper.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no instructions have been given to Members of this House who have gone out to speak at National Service meetings?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think, so far as I know, that any Government instructions are given. Indications are given from the Department of the kind of speech that is likely to serve the purpose.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Count Czernin, the Austro-Hungarian foreign secretary, that the Central Empires' proposal for a peace conference still holds good and urging that, without the declaration of a truce, the belligerents should meet and see if an agreement is possible, adding that, as soon as our enemies are ready to negotiate for a peace honourable to them and to us, then nothing stands in the way of negotiations; and whether, to save further bloodshed and suffering, His Majesty's Government will entertain the proposal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any terms of peace being suggested by the Central Governments.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is it not now evident that you can have peace to-morrow? [An HON. MEMBER: "On German terms!"]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I think it is evident we can have peace to-morrow, if we surrender.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the Irish prisoners now in Lewes Gaol convicted at courts-martial of participating in the Easter rising will have their status changed from the present one, which is neither that of convicts or ordinary criminals, to that of definite prisoners of war under the well-recognised rules of military discipline?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. These men have been sentenced to penal servitude by court-martial, and the law requires them to be "dealt with in like manner as an ordinary civil prisoner under sentence of penal servitude." Certain privileges have been allowed them within the discretion left to the prison authorities under the statutory rules for convict prisons, but I have no power to alter their status or to treat them as prisoners of war.

    TURKEY IN EUROPE.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether the new Russian Government has given any indication that it is
    1292
    anxious for a modification of the expulsion of the Turk from Europe condition in. the terms of peace suggested by the Allies in response to the request of the United States; and, if so, will he in view of the condition of Turkey and the desire of her people for a separate peace, make a statement upon the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government has received no communication from the Russian Government on the subject.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    COMPULSION.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution in favour of compulsory National Service passed at a meeting of electors in East Herts, held at Hertford, 23rd March, 1917; and, if so whether he will take steps in accordance with the resolution?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the Prime Minister has received the resolution referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Down yesterday.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether it is a fact that of the speakers sent out to address these meetings none have had a resolution in favour of voluntary service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware.

    METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (COLLECTORS)
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he proposes to increase the available man-power of the country by recommending to the Metropolitan Water-Board to release for National Service of their collectors of water rates and transferring their duties to the various local authorities; and has he received representations from any local authorities urging him to adopt the course suggested?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question which he put on 21st March, 1916. No representations; have been received from local authorities on this subject.
    Major NEWMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from any ratepayers' associations or other public bodies?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I must have notice of that.

    MERCHANT SERVICE (CAPTAINS).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an early opportunity for discussing the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order that the House may express an opinion as to the treatment by the Admiralty of certain captains in the merchant service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question after the House reassembles.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume that if the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty is put down, there are other subjects besides the one mentioned by my hon. Friend open for discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That presumption is certainly correct.

    RAILWAY FARES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the extra charge of 50 per cent. on railway travelling which is made in Great Britain is not charged in Ireland, if so, how long this differentiation has continued; and whether, in view of the hardship, amounting almost to ruin, which this has inflicted on commercial travellers who pay their own expenses and the injury to firms who pay them, and whose working costs are thereby seriously enhanced; he will now reconsider the matter, with a view to removing this penalising form of special taxation by excepting from it commercial travellers, who can only live by using the railways?
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: As regards the first part of this question, it is the case that the general increase of 50 per cent. in railway fares which came into force in Great Britain on the 1st January last is not operative in Ireland where there is not the same reason for it. As regards the latter part I am afraid I can only say that, as explained in reply to previous questions, it is not possible in present circumstances to make an exception in favour of commercial travellers.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it the view of the Board of Trade that English travellers should be penalised and that Irish travellers should not?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think I can add anything to my answer.

    STEAMSHIP "CALIFORNIA" (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. WATTasked whether the de pendants of the passengers of the steamship "California" who were lost will receive compensation in the same manner as the dependants of the officers and seamen who perished; and, if not, why this differentiation is made?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Government compensation scheme does not apply in the case of passengers. It is not considered that there is sufficient reason to provide compensation at the public expense.

    PRE-WAR CONTRACTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. WATTasked why, in appointing a Committee to consider and report on pre-War contracts, he did not appoint any Member of the House of Commons to sit on that Committee in view of the fact that so many men of large commercial experience sit in that House?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The commercial members of this Committee were appointed in consultation with the Association of Chambers of Commerce.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that no Members of the House of Commons are left who are able to do that work?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should think that every Member of the House is already fully engaged.

    ENEMY SUBJECTS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether enemy subjects resident in neutral countries have the rights and privileges of subjects of neutral Powers in respect of ships and shipping; and, if so, whether such conditions are to be allowed to continue on their present footing?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the right to own

    1295
    British ships, and I would call his attention to the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Acts of 1915 and 1916, which prevent British ships being transferred or mortgaged to foreigners or foreign controlled companies, and prevent British ships becoming the property of foreign controlled companies.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    PAPER.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the shortage of paper, he is aware that during the past year the smallest political party in the House published from the printing works which belong to it 304,000 pamphlets and 3,852,000 leaflets; and is priority in the supply of paper granted for the dissemination of matters of current political controversy as against the printing and publishing of circulars and posters devoted to the current business requirements of the country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information as regards the first part of the question. Representations have been received from the trades concerned in regard to the operation of the restriction upon the making of posters and the delivery of traders' catalogues and circulars, and are now under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Major NEWMAN: May I have an answer to the last part of my question?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information that there is any preference given.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say which is the smallest political party in this House?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Ulster party.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it the intention of my hon. Friend to prohibit the circulation of political leaflets?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that arises.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has during the past week received two deputations representing the printing, billposting, and kindred industries; whether the deputations requested that they should
    1296
    have the same liberty to use in the manner that they think best the supply of paper allotted to them as is accorded to the newspaper industry; and what answer has he been able to make on this and other points submitted to him?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Deputations were received last week on this subject, and the views submitted are now receiving careful consideration.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it a fact that new Regulations are about to be issued dealing with restrictions on paper?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can only state that the matter is receiving very careful consideration.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he will take immediate steps to see that not only is adequate representation given on the proposed new Advisory Committee to all sections affected by the National Insurance Act, but the suggested preponderance of approved society members shall be considerably diminished?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I find that there is considerable divergence of view as to what is an adequate representation on the smaller Advisory Committee set up under Section 58 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that all considerations are being borne in mind.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a promise was given that further representation would be given on this Committee?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I am not aware of any promise given for further representation. I am considering representations made by the doctors, but the object in setting up this smaller Committee was to reduce the number from 168 to about 30, and my hon. Friend will quite understand the difficulties of a Minister who attempts that task.

    BRITISH SHIPPING COMPANIES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that while

    1297
    under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, only British subjects can own shares in British ships, under the Companies Act of 1862 foreigners may hold unlimited shares in shipping companies; and whether the law in this behalf will now be altered?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question of my hon. Friend, subject, however, to the provisions of the British Ships (Transfer Restrictions) Act, 1916, whereby British ships are prevented from being mortgaged or transferred to, or becoming the property of, foreign-controlled companies. The question as to what, if any, alteration in the permanent law is required, is at present engaging the attention of the Government in connection with the wider question of the participation of foreigners in British companies.

    LOCAL WAR MUSEUMS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE(by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the scheme for the establishment of local war museums in provincial centres to contain records of individual men belonging to each locality who have served in the War and objects of local interest connected with the War; whether he is aware that the scheme has been adopted by over twenty important municipalities in various parts of the country and that a representative committee is being formed to take over and work the scheme; whether his Department will officially support the movement by affiliating it to the National Museum scheme, giving its committee representation on the National Museum Committee and entrusting it with the distribution to the local museums of the various naval and military relics not required for the purposes of the National Museum?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I am aware of the facts as stated by the hon. Member. I recognise the importance of co-ordination and co-operation between the National War Museum and the local war museums, and I will bring the question of representation before the National War Committee at an early date.

    CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. LYNCH(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the entrance of the United States of America into the War on the side of the Allies, he will cause instructions to be issued that the severe censorship on dispatches sent by newspaper correspondents to America shall be forthwith abolished or relaxed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The dispatches of American correspondents are always treated with great consideration, and the Censors will, of course, have due regard to the new conditions which have arisen and may arise, subject to the obvious requirements of the situation.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far from the American correspondents having been treated with consideration, that the restrictions to which they were subjected—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow that question. I think I have taken a liberal view with regard to these private notice questions, but it is rather an abuse for hon. Members to try to follow them with arguments.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an Order has recently been issued, to come into effect on the 15th instant, that all officers attached to the Flying Corps, to whatever regiments they belong, should now wear the double-breasted flying tunic; whether this will put large numbers of officers and parents to considerable and unnecessary expense; and whether he will cause the Order to be cancelled, or at all events postponed for further consideration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: An Instruction has been issued, but it will not be brought into operation for six months. It will not be enforced until an officer has been attached for three months, by which time it will foe known whether he is suitable for service with the Royal Flying Corps. So far as officers who are posted direct to the Flying Corps are concerned, there is no question of extra expense, as they would purchase the Royal Flying Corps

    1299
    tunic in the first instance. It is not anticipated, therefore, that any considerable or unnecessary expense will be entailed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then if they are posted to the Flying Corps from another regiment, they will not get the tunic for nine months?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Six months.

    DRAFT LEAVE.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR(by Pricte Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether recruits are entitled to leave before being sent from home to any theatre of war; whether drafts are being sent to Mesopotamia or Salonika without such leave; and, if so, whether he will arrange that in future no married soldier shall be sent to any of the fronts without the opportunity of a final visit to his wife and family?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been and is the policy of the War Office to give draft leave. But circumstances arise which make it impossible to give it. The urgent and immediate need of men for a particular purpose and the availability of transport are governing considerations, and may render it impossible in every case to carry out our policy.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would it be possible to send the single men and leave the married men till later?
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that this unreadiness is largely due to inefficiency in the administration of the War Office—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    MR. A. GRIFFITH (LECTURES).
    Mr. GINNELL(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the English Government in Ireland has prevented Mr. Arthur Griffith from lecturing in the public hall in Limerick; on what grounds and under what law; what was the subject of the proposed lecture; is any person allowed to lecture in Ireland on that subject now; is Mr. Griffith allowed to lecture in any part of Ireland on any subject, and whether the
    1300
    Press of Ireland is under a general and special command not to publish or comment on the prohibition of Mr. Griffith, or any Parliamentary matter relating thereto?
    Mr. BRACE: The Chief Secretary, who has been called away to Ireland, has asked me to deal with any questions. I have had no notice of this question, but if the hon. Member will hand in his question I will communicate with the Irish Office so that he may have a written reply.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
    Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This question in the ordinary course would not have been allowed at all in the hour. It is clearly one of those of which notice should be given. The hon. Member has been promised an answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of this, I want to give notice that on the Adjournment for Easter I will raise the question of the misgovernment in Ireland at present and proposed in future.

    Small-pox (England and Wales).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board what was the vaccinal condition of the cases of small-pox occurring in England and Wales in the years 1914 and 1915?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The publication of these statistics amongst others has been deferred on grounds of economy. I am, however, sending the hon. Member the particulars for the years 1914 and 1915.

    Cinema Shows.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the moral and physical effect of cinema shows, as to which doubts are entertained by those interested in the welfare of the young and which are increasing at an alarming rate?
    Mr. BRACE: I do not think it is necessary at the present time to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter. A great deal of attention is being given to the subject by the local authorities, with whom the power of control under the Cinematograph Act rests, and it is also being carefully watched by the Home Office.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether the self-constituted Commission now acting has any legal right to the name or any authority to bear it?
    Mr. BRACE: No body has any right to call itself a Commission. That right ought to be reserved to bodies appointed by the Sovereign or by Statute.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend, therefore, at once look into the establishment of what is known as the "Tariff Reform Commission"?
    Mr. BRACE: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to inquire into it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    EASTER RECESS.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the Leader of the House say what are the intentions of the Government in regard to business? Will any business be taken to-day after the Motion for the Adjournment, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what matters will be brought before the House during the week after the House reassembles? Perhaps he will allow me to ask when the Bill embodying the agricultural policy which the Prime Minister proposed to the House will be introduced? I think a suggestion was made some time ago that it might be introduced before the Easter Recess. Is it still intended to do that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With respect to the Agricultural Bill, we have not found it possible to have it introduced before the Recess, but it is now practically complete and will be introduced immediately after the reassemblnig of the House. If it is possible to-day after the Motion for the Adjournment, we shall take two small Bills: The National Insurance (Part I Amendment) Bill. Committee stage and the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill. It is desirable to get these Bills, if it can be done, before, we adjourn, but we shall not sit late if there is any opposition. When the House reassembles, we shall take on Tuesday, 17th April, the Second Reading of the Parliamentary and Local Elections Bill, which is the Bill for continuing the life of the present Parliament, and if there is time, the Venereal Diseases Bill, Second Reading, the Munitions of War Bill, and the Billeting of Civilians Bill. On Wednesday we shall take the remaining stages of the Parliamentary and Local Elections Bill, and the Report stage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. On Thursday the Education Estimates.
    Mr. PETO: In view of the widespread interest in the Agricultural Bill, and seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has announced that it is practically complete, can he see his way to have it circulated to Members as soon as it is available, so that we may take the advice of the people in the country as to how its provisions are likely to work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That would be desirable, but I am afraid it cannot be done. The Bill has first to be introduced before it is circulated.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced dealing with friendly aliens in this country. Has he any hope that it will be introduced shortly?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I answered a question on that to-day, saying that we were in communication with the Russian Government about it, and that we have every hope it will be settled before we reassemble.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to-day to respond to the universal feeling of the country that some acknowlegment should be made in this House of the great speech just made by President Wilson?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The House will quite understand that the Government are as anxious as any Member of the House to take due notice of what they think is an epoch-making speech, but until it has been discussed in Congress we are satisfied that it would not be advisable for official notice to be taken of it. In these circumstances, any perfunctory discussion would seem to us quite out of place.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great desire for a statement on the Air Service, and will he consider the advisability of putting down the Air Vote at an early period?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We quite realise the anxiety of the House on this subject, and we propose to put it down at a very early date.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. HOGGE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he does not propose to take any other business after the Adjournment Motion if any objection is taken. There are two Bills on the Order Paper which still require to be dealt win. There is the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, which has only passed its Committee stage, and the National Insurance

    1327
    (Part I.) (Amendment) Bill, which has been read the second time without any Debate. If the Leader of the House would refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday he would find, in column 1217 a long new Clause of nearly one and a half columns, which has only been read a second time, and of which Members were unable to get any notice until the OFFICIAL REPORT was available to-day at twelve o' clock. It is perfectly obvious that only manuscript Amendments can be put down to that Clause, which deals with relief in respect of certain contractual obligations. I have no objection, and I do not think many other Members have, to the Government getting all necessary business through the House, and I respectfully submit to the Leader of the House that if he casts his mind back over the last few days he will agree that he has made a rather large draft on the time of Members. Those of us who are opposed to the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Bill—and I think he knows that a great many of us are opposed very violently to that Bill—did not unnecessarily interrupt the course of the Bill. I think that on Thursday, Friday, Monday, and Tuesday we did not give the Government such facilities as the Leader asked from the House, and we did keep our bargain and gave him the Bill last night at 8.15. In regard to the National Health (Part I.) (Amendment) Insurance Bill we allowed the Comptroller of the Household to get the Second Reading last night without debate, and it is asking too much of the House to-night, after the Adjournment Motion, to take the Committee stage of that Bill and the Report stage and Third Reading. I appeal to my right hon. Friend—and I am speaking for a number of hon. Members who are interested in both these measures—that he should say at once that the only business that will be taken to-day will be the Adjournment Motion, and that these two Bills will be put down after the Easter Recess, which, after all, is a short one. I think we are entitled to ask my right hon. Friend for that. By that means he will avoid rushing two or three Bills in the last day of the sitting. That is not the way to do business, even if it is necessary, unless urgency is established. Therefore, I hope he will agree to take nothing but the Adjournment Motion.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is any great difference between my hon. Friend and myself. I have already said that if we find that there is opposition to these measures we shall not sit late in order to pass them. But I would like to point out that it is very desirable we should get these small measures out of the way before we reassemble, if we can. As regards the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, I understand that the long Clause which has so confused my hon. Friend has been on the Paper for two or three days, so that there have been opportunities for studying it. We shall not ask the House to proceed if there is any serious opposition, but I think it would be better to wait and then we can judge whether it is desirable to proceed or not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The questions arising out of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill were not questions arising from it provisions, but rather as to matters which some hon. Members believed should have been included in it and have not been included. The hope which I think is entertained by many Members is that if the Bill goes through now, the Government will apply its mind to the questions which have not yet been dealt with and come to a decision, so that if possible there may be legislation upon them at an early date.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, that the proceedings on Government business be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although, opposed.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

    EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the clock, and, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday, the 17th April, and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to Bills agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put."—[Mr. Bonar law.]

    NAVAL RATINGS (PAY).
    Mr. HOGGE: On the Adjournment Moton it is usual to take a large variety of subjects, and I have one which has been waiting to be raised for some time, but I can assure the House that I do not propose to stand for more than a few minutes between hon. Members and the

    1329
    discussion of a large number of other subjects. The points I want to put are concerned with certain grievances in our first Service, the Navy, which have been uppermost in the minds of the men for some time, and to which the First Lord of the Admiralty has not had an opportunity of replying consecutively and in detail. The first of these points is the question of extra pay to the leading seamen and the ratings below that rank. As my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) knows, there has been an effort by those ranks to secure same increase in their pay, owing to the rise in the cost of living, which is an all-round rise, and which in civil employment has been met by a war bonus. I want to know from my right hon. Friend whether the Admiralty are prepared to meet sympathetically this request of the ratings below leading seamen in the Navy for an increase in their pay to which they are entitled. The second point is a question which is known as deferred pay, and the comparison between men and officers with regard to it. The House will know that the sailor requires to serve twenty-two years before he is entitled to pension. If he dies before the twenty-two years are up he loses the pension, and his widow and children lose the pension. If he has been drawing his pension his widow and children or next of kin get nothing when he dies. If you compare the rating of the officers in the Navy yon will find that, in similar circumstances, the widow and children of the commissioned officers do get a pension, and the point I want to put is, what is the reason for the distinction between the rank and the file and the officers in the Navy. The man's pension is deferred pay. And if a man dies prior to the time when be is entitled to a pension, his widow ought to get one of two things, either a gratuity of the amount of the deferred pay or an annunity in proportion to the pension that the man would have got.
    My third point is the question of the men serving in the Navy now who, if the War had not been in process, would have been in receipt of a pension. It takes twenty-two years to get a pension. Men who were recalled to the Navy on the outbreak of the War are in receipt of pension and pay. Men who were in the Navy and whoso twenty-two years have accrued since the outbreak of the War do not get any pension, but instead get a payment of 1s. 2d. a week. If you compare that, say, with the Metropolitan police in London
    1330
    whose time has expired and who are kept on detained pay because of the War, they are getting 10s. a week detained pay. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that by this payment of 1s. 2d. a week the nation is saving at least £150,000 annually, which is really the pension right of these sailors and concerns 4,000 of them, he is not prepared to make some concession in that respect?
    My fourth point deals with hospital stoppages. When a sailor goes into hospital at home, after the first thirty days, if he is earning less than 1s. 7d. a day, 10d. a day is stopped out of his pay unless he is in receipt of a health certificate. If he has been ninety-one days in hospital his pay stops altogether. The result is that his wife and dependents get no further separation allowance. Compare that with officers. No stoppage is made out of an officer's pay, and he gets a full year's leave with full pay in the same circumstances. My right hon. Friend wants to look into the question of hospital stoppages, and see whether he cannot make a concession on that point.
    My fifth point is the question of promotion. I will divide that into three subheads in order that my right hon. Friend may deal with it more quickly. First, there is the question of promotion for the men. I am told that since the War broke out not a single petty officer and only seventeen warrant officers have been given commissioned rank for war service. I hope my right hon. Friend will not confuse that with the usual promotion which would come to these ranks. Surely, in view of what the Navy has done, there ought to be some explanation of these figures. Secondly, there is the question of writers, which was to some extent dealt with by question and answer today. In the accountants branch of the Navy no fewer than 1,200 commissions have been given to outsiders, whereas there are 300 writers with from seventeen to thirty years' service who are on the recommended list at the Admiralty who have received no promotion during the War. That requires some explanation, and I hope my right hon. Friend can furnish it. Thirdly, there is the question of the eligibility of men on the lower deck for interpreterships. There are a good many men on the lower deck who can speak many languages, but they are not eligible for promotion, which they ought to be during the period of the War,

    1331
    to such a post as that. It means a difference of from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day in their pay, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could give some explanation with regard to that.
    Lastly, there is the question of the rights that extend to the medal which is given for conspicuous gallantry. That comes next to the Victoria Cross as a medal of distinction. It is open to petty officers and seamen and non-commissioned officers and privates of the Royal Marines, but all men of any inferior rank if they get the medal are not eligible for the annuity which is attached to it. Supposing a leading seaman or a stoker wins the medal, although he receives less pay than any other rating, he is not entitled to draw this annuity. These are the six points which I have crowded into ten minutes, which keeps my compact with the House admirably. My right hon. Friend has described himself as one of the little fathers of the Navy. I hope he is going to substantiate that assertion by making some concession with regard to these men. I do not think any of us can express in words what we are indebted to the Navy for in this War. We call it the silent Navy, but the men who man it have not very much opportunity of voicing their grievances, and they certainly have not very many opportunities in this House. I have put six of the grievances to-day in the hope that, by bringing them in that kind of consecutive order before my right hon. Friend, he can do something which will be of interest to these very brave men who man. our ships in every part of the world.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend could not be better employed than in showing solicitude for the well-being of the Fleet and the men of the lower deck, and securing that their conditions of service are fair. I would reply to his six points with this simple preface, that in one or two particulars I do not think he has got his facts quite correctly. The pay of the lower deck was increased in December, 1912, by £342,000 a year on the then numbers, and there was an addition of £8,500 a year on the then numbers in respect of grants for certain articles of kit. As regards the cost of food, while that affects the wives and children it does not affect the men serving, because their rations are
    1332
    issued free, and as regards the increased cost of clothing, replacement of kit, and so on, we have been very careful by no means to charge proportionately to the increased cost of purchase of clothing for replacement of kit outside. As a matter of fact, quite a number of the articles which the man has to replace out of his pay were furnished to him at considerably less than cost price. Certainly you could not get anything like the value outside. His boots, jersey, serge jumper, serge trousers socks, and flannel vest are all supplied by us at less than cost price throughout, and I think that is quite right. I do not know that I can undertake to meet my hon. Friend's request for additional pay. The men of the Fleet are able to send home to their wives, children, and other relatives, month by month, £750,000 out of their pay. The weekly allotment, on the average, comes to about 12s. 6d. a week all in all. I mention that as a tribute to their faithfulness to those for whom they are responsible—a tribute which I am always only too glad to pay—and not in any sense as suggesting that because they can do that they do not want any more pay.
    As regards widows of petty officers and men as compared with widows of officers, my hon. Friend made the suggestion that a pension is deferred pay. I really do not think that is accurate. Pension and pay are not fixed in relation to each other. I do not think it is at all accurate to speak of pensions as deferred pay; and it is the established rule in the Army and Navy that there is no pension to widows of non-commissioned officers and men. Under the new pension warrant disability pensions are granted, and a widow will get half the pension if it was at least 10s. a week. That principle is now introduced for the first time, but there is no pension for the widow of a service pensioner of non-commissioned rank. That is a common feature of both Army and the Navy, and my hon. Friend is not quite correct in saying there is a pension for the widow of a commissioned officer. Neither the widow nor the children of a junior commissioned officer, that is a sub-lieutenant or assistant paymaster with less than four year's service, gets a pension. I am glad to welcome my hon. Friend in the capacity of an advocate of the Navy, but it is very desirable that we should be quite accurate.
    As regards deferred pensions, no man has become entitled to a long service

    1333
    pension since August, 1914. If he became time-expired since the beginning of the War his services are retained under the Royal Proclamation of 3rd August, 1914, which was made in pursuance of the Naval Discipline Act, 1853. There are roughly in our service about 3,000 of them who, but for the War, would now be discharged and enjoying pensions. They have been retained during the period of the War, and for the time being they will not draw their pensions. They will at the close of hostilities, and even non-commissioned officers of Marines, having earned their maximum pension, will now get an addition to their pension in respect of length of service where they have reached the close of their service but it has been extended for the War. In addition to that they get 2d. a day detained pay, and at the end of their service they get a further addition. My hon. Friend said it was unfair to keep these men and hold up the pension they otherwise would have received. Just look at the two sides of it. Supposing a man has earned his pension and got his discharge before the War. He and his wife would receive a pension, which would be less than the pay, and that is all they would receive. Take the case of a man who is retained for service after his time is expired. He will not get his pension now. He will get it at the close of the War, if he lives, and will get an extension in respect of length of service. But what is he getting in the meantime] He is getting his pay, which is more than his pension; he is getting detained pay, an extra 2d. a day. He is allowed to count his additional service for increased pension. His wife is getting her separation allowance, and he is a great deal better off than if discharged to pension.
    Mr. HOGGE: The men who were pensioned get both pension and pay, and the men who are detained get no pension.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend desires that the men whose service is extended should be put in exactly the same position as the men who have been discharged. The answer is that the men who have been discharged on pension have started life in a new way and their arrangements are interfered with. The other man has not got this disturbance. He continues in the position in which he has been for twenty-one or twenty-two years. He gets his pay, with 2d. a day extra and a separation allowance for
    1334
    his wife and children, and that is a greater consideration, obviously for the moment, than pension alone. For what it is worth that is the answer.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is not worth much.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I put it forward as a sound, economic argument, and I am sorry that it does not appeal to the hon. Member. My hon. Friend referred to hospital stoppages, but he was not quite correct in what he said. In the case of a sailor who was wounded in action obviously there is no hospital stoppage. It would be most unjust if there wore. Where the disease is attributable to service which leads to invaliding and the award of disability pension, there is no hospital stoppage. Where a man is injured in an immediate act of duty, or there is insanity due to service, or where the disability is due to immersion, shock, and so on, there is no hospital stoppage. When we come to ordinary sickness, which is not attributable to service, then for thirty days there is no stoppage, and during a subsequent period up to ninety-one days, when pay ceases, he gets 4d. to 10d. a day, according to his rating, with treatment. As regards Marines serving afloat it is exactly the same as for sailors, only that the stoppage is 7d. a day instead of from 4d. to 10d. That is the case with regard to hospital stoppages. The hospital stoppages for 1915–16 amounted to £8,300. It is not a very big figure, but it does not stand by itself. The War Office would be concerned if the principle were extended, and I cannot undertake to wipe out this amount, small as it is, bearing in mind the application of the principle over the larger field of the Army.
    My hon. Friend referred to promotions from the lower deck. Naturally I was very glad to find that he is interested in that, as we all are. He talked about not a single petty officer and only seventeen warrant officers being promoted to commissioned rank for war service. I think that that statement originated in the earlier part of an answer which Lord Lytton made to Lord Beresford in the House of Lords on the 18th of October, 1916. Lord Beresford said:
    "My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how many warrant officers, petty officers and non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marine Forces have been promoted to commissions for meritorious service in the Jutland and other naval actions during the present War?"

    1335
    This is the answer of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty:
    "My Lords, the figures for which the Noble and gallant Lord asks in his question are as follows: seven-teen commissioned warrant officers of the Navy and two warrant officers of the Royal Murines have been promoted to commissioned rank for services in action and other meritorious war service."
    That is where the statement comes from, but we must not stop at that, because that is nothing like the full story. Indeed, Lord Lytton, in his answer, went on to state all the promotions which have been made—and I shall refer to these myself—but at the end Lord Beresford made this statement—and my hon. Friend must not have read the whole story.
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes, I did.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That makes it worse still. Lord Beresford said at the end:
    "I thank the Noble Earl for his reply, and it is very satisfactory to perceive from what he said that the lower deck had been recognised and are getting those commissions which have been so long their due."
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh will not pretend to be more solicitous for fair play for the lower deck than Lord Beresford. Here are the facts, and I think that the House will be interested to hear them. Since the War broke out the following promotions from commissioned warrant rank, warrant rank, and from petty officers have been made: From commissioned warrant rank, warrant rank, and petty officers to lieu tenants for long service, seventy-two; for specially good service, during the War, seven: for specific gallantry in action, five. That is eighty-four lieutenants. To engineer-lieutenants for long service, twenty-six; specially good service during the War, twenty-one; specific gallantry in action, one. That is fifty-four to be added to the eighty-four. To carpenter-lieutenants for long service, twenty-two; for specially good service during the War, one. That is twenty-three. And 175 mates have been promoted and eighty-four mates E. have been promoted from warrant rank and from petty officers since the War began. The relative rank is sub-lieutenant, their appointments "acting" for one year, when they are confirmed. There are at present fifty-one lieutenants promoted from mate and seventy acting engineer-lieutenants promoted from mate E., all of whom have reached the rank of lieutenant during the War, and of the 175 mates promoted,
    1336
    as I have already stated, forty-four were petty officers before promotion. All these men earned their promotion during the War. I think that Lord Beresford, genuine and solicitous friend of the lower deck as he is, was quite entitled to say what he did on the 18th of October last.
    I now come to the question of the writers, which has been the subject of a number of questions in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Holder), my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and others. I may shortly say what has been done recently. In the first place, the writer is sharing in the 1912 increase of wages to the extent of £4,630 per annum. We have already created additional warrant writers. Thirty-seven have been added. We have more recently created the rank of commissioned warrant writer and five commissioned writers have been made, three on 1st October, 1915, and two on 1st April, 1916. The pay of the warrant writer now commences at 7s. 6d. as against 7s. before, and the commissioned warrant writer commences at 11s, a day as against the former maximum of 10s. for warrant writers. My hon. Friend complains that we brought in for the purposes of the War civilians, and that we gave them commissioned rank as assistant paymasters, and selected bank clerks, accountants, and so on. But we could not get them from the writers, and we could not dislocate the work of the writers. They have been secured for the purposes of the War during the continuance of hostilities, and we have given temporary commissions to these young bank clerks and accountants. They have proved very useful. It is true that we have taken 1,002 of them, but all except seventy of those are temporary, and we have taken 100 into the R.N.V.R. assistant paymasters. They are all temporary. Putting aside the argument as to dislocating the work of the writers, it would not be possible to meet the needs, of the Fleet by way of assistant paymasterships from our writers. But even if it was, we should have been in this position: we should have had to give them acting commissioned rank, and then when the War had finished and things went back to the normal, those men would have to go back from

    1337
    commissioned rank to ordinary noncommissioned rank. That would be a most undesirable proceeding.
    But I was very glad indeed to be able to announce to-day, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin), that we propose to grant at once five commissions as assistant paymaster in the Royal Navy, with relative rank of lieutenant—two stripes—to the writer class, and then one each year until a total of ten is reached. That opens up the commissioned ranks to them. We also propose to grant three commissions at once, as assistant paymaster in the Royal Navy, to ships' stewards with the relative rank of lieutenant with two stripes, and one each year until the total of six is reached. That is a step which I am quite sure will be greatly appreciated by the writer class and the ship's stewards class. On the question of interpreters, my hon. Friend is wrong again. He says that in the case of men who know languages, why not use them as interpreters, and give them extra pay. We have made inquiries about that and I think that in the case of about fifty men who have not passed examinations, but who have a knowledge of some foreign languages, they are acting as interpreters and getting additional duty pay at the rate of a shilling a day. because they are able to act as interpreters. That is the same rate as is paid to an officer acting as an interpreter who has not passed an examination.
    Mr. HOGGE: They ought to get 1s. 6d.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They would not get less, whatever their rank, for the work they do. At any rate, it is not correct to say that there is not some little addition to the men's pay.
    Mr. HOGGE: I admit that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that these fifty men are being used as interpreters, but he is unfair to me in regard to what I said. I said that those men ought to be eligible for interpreterships, which would enable them to undergo certain training, and that they would get from £25. to £200, and in pay from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think they can get that until they have passed the examination. They cannot get the 2s. 6d. a day, the full pay, unless they have a certificate to satisfy the authorities that they
    1338
    have undergone the examination. There is really no desire to draw a distinction between them. I appreciate, of course, my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I have replied to the points he has raised. In regard to the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, this was awarded by Order in Council on the 7th July, 1874, to petty officers and seamen of the Royal Navy and non-commissioned officers and privates of the Royal Marines; and it was recommended that:
    "In the case of chief and first-class petty officers of Your Majesty's Navy, and sergeants of Tour Majesty's Corps of Royal Marines, an annuity (not exceeding £20 to each) may be awarded with such medal at our discretion, and provided that the amount authorised from time to time for such awards by the Lords Commissioners of Your Majesty's Treasury is not exceeded."
    The amount fixed at that time was £300 a year, and, in 1895, the Treasury agreed to £400 a year as the limit. In March, 1016, the Treasury agreed to £800, but with the proviso that on the cessation of awards in respect of the present War every alternate annuity, as it lapses, shall count as a reduction in the total amount, until the total amount payable in annuity is reduced to the former amount of £400 a year. The restriction of the award of the annuity to petty officers of the Royal Navy and to sergeants in the Royal Marines seems probably to have been based on the conditions for the Army Meritorious Service Medal, which "may be awarded to a soldier above the rank of corporal." This modal is given to a man who has been selected to receive an annuity for meritorious service, the amount of such annuity not to exceed £20 within a limit of £7,500 a year. The restriction of the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal annuity to the higher ranks appears at any rate to have followed Army precedent, but it is now looked upon as corresponding rather to the Distinguished Conduct Medal. To bring it into line with that distinction an Order in Council was obtained in 1903 for the payment of a gratuity of £20 to seamen and Marines holding the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, unaccompanied by an annuity, on discharge or promotion to a commission. The gratuity has been invariably awarded and would always be awarded, in spite of any limit set up before the War. But in the Army the possession of the Distinguished Conduct Medal does not carry with it an annuity. The holder receives a gratuity—£20—only if given a commission, or on discharge to Reserve, or discharge without pension. The holder

    1339
    of the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal is therefore in a better position, and if he is a petty officer, or a sergeant in the Marines, he enjoys the benefit of the old Older in Council. He can, if the amount authorised is not exceeded, immediately be awarded an annuity not exceeding £20, and, if of lower rating, he becomes eligible for a similar annuity on becoming petty officer or sergeant. As regards giving the annuity to all ranks, my hon. Friend will see that it is a matter that affects not only the Admiralty, but two other Departments—the War Office and the Treasury.
    Colonel YATE: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say the service pension is not deferred pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already explained that pensions are fixed without regard to pay. Neither pay nor pension is fixed one with regard to the other.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I desire most earnestly to enlist the sympathy of the Government and this House on behalf of prisoners, both civilian and military, who have now been in the hands of the Germans for two and a half years, and I would put in an earnest plea that if it should be proved, as it can be proved, that something can be done to mitigate the horrors of war without detriment to our cause, then it is the duty of the Government to take the necessary steps to do so. The fate of these civilian and military prisoners is a very hard one, and it is no exaggeration to say that their lot is most miserable. Take, for instance, the civilians. A large number of them were travelling in Germany for their health at the time the War broke out, and they are there now, simply because they had the bad luck to miss the last train or the last boat. They have spent two and a half years interned in a place which I believe was intended for a racecourse—a place no doubt suited to accommodate horses, but most unsuitable for human beings. From forty to sixty of these people, these most unfortunate people, have been sleeping in a horse box; and there are over ninety people sleeping in a long low loft—220 ft. long, only 3½ ft. high at the sides, and 10 ft. high in the centre. This miserable place is lighted by only three small panes on the floor level.
    1340
    It is not surprising that the health of these unfortunate people has been very gravely deteriorated. A great many of them, from the fact that the place was so badly lighted, are losing their eyesight as well as their health. Unfortunately, also, a large proportion of them are suffering from nervous breakdown, and a good number of them have gone out of their minds.
    What makes their lot all the more hard is the fact that, had it not been for the bungling of His Majesty's Government, they never would have been interned at all. In November, 1914, the German Government proposed a man for man exchange, but for some unknown reason the Government did not accept that offer. It took them a long time to consider it, and, when they did reply, it was too late. So that if it had not been for the indifference of the Government of this country, these unfortunate people would never have spent two and a half miserable years. I know that the objections are very strong from the military point of view in regard to this question, but I am told, also, that the objections are not so strong as they appear to be. It is stated that if the Government will take the trouble to make inquiry they will find that a very large portion of the German prisoners here would be very unwilling to return to their own country, and that if there were an exchange it would not be so bad for this, country as at first sight it appears. But all the military objections would fall to the ground if His Majesty's Government could arrange that both German and British civilian prisoners may be sent to some neutral country. Lord Newton stated in another place that the authorities in Switzerland are willing to take a further large number of prisoners, and I cannot help thinking that the objections of neutral governments to receiving prisoners might be removed. In private life one can arrange differences with the assistance of a neutral person, and similarly, if only the Government would take the trouble to arrange terms with not only the Swiss but the Dutch and the Danes, I think that this matter might very easily be settled.
    What I wish to urge is that the Government should take a more actively sympathetic attitude with regard to both civilians and military. The Members of this House, I know, have not any complaint to make in regard to the attitude

    1341
    of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), who is courtesy itself, and, if it had remained with him and Lord Newton, I am sure that much greater progress could have been made. I do not think that it is at all satisfactory that matters which deeply concern the humanity and honour of this country should be left in the hands of one or two officials at the War Office, to whom nobody can get access. I know that in time of war it is necessary to look at things from the military point of view, but I cannot help thinking that in this matter of the exchange of prisoners—civilian as well as military prisoners—we run great danger of losing our sense of humanity, because it is looked at so exclusively from the military point of view that people are led to think that an exchange of prisoners might benefit Germany. At least, that was so a week or two ago.
    5.0 p.m.
    There is one point I desire to make very strongly, and it is this: If it is quite impossible to carry out this general exchange, then it ought, I submit, to be within the competence of the Government to take much more effective steps to carry out the agreement they have already come to with the German Government—that is to say, with regard to the men over forty-five years of age. An arrangement was made with the German Government with regard to those men, but, notwithstanding that, only sixty-nine English prisoners have been recovered from Germany. I think that argues a certain amount of indifference and unwillingness on the part of the military and naval authorities. This is a matter which ought not to be left entirely to the good will of the naval authorities. There are difficulties, no doubt, but I do not believe that they are as great as they are made out to be. We send over week after week large consignments of parcels to Holland, without any loss, as far as I know, and I cannot see why we cannot arrange for the carrying of these extra prisoners. There they are waiting. They ought to be repatriated. Their lot is very hard. They are not liberated because the naval authorities do not show a little keenness in the matter. There is another thing I should like to ask my hon. Friend, and that is what steps are the Government taking to find out how many of the civilian prisoners are incapacitated by their long confinement and by sickness? I believe the number is very large indeed. I recently
    1342
    had a conversation with a member of the Society of Friends, who told me that in the Isle of Man Camp there are a large number of people almost out of their minds, and quite incapable of doing any-kind of service whatever. I would suggest that the Government should take steps to find out how many there are in that condition, on this side of the water, at all events, and then try to arrange for an exchange, or for their being sent to some neutral country.
    It is not to be thought, if I lay so much stress on the case of the civilian prisoners, that I do not consider that the case of the military prisoners is not equally deserving of our attention. There is no doubt about it that the condition of the unfortunate officers and men in confinement since the early days of the War has become a very pitiable one indeed. The men are not so badly off as the officers. They are allowed to work, but the officers are kept in absolute idleness, and have been so from the first day of their confinement. Reports speak seriously of the condition of their minds. May I be permitted to read a report from an officer:
    "Candidly, the strain is awful. How we keep sane I know not. No one who has not been through it can imagine the awful fits of depression one suffers from. You may he decently treated, but the barbed wire is always there and the sentries with loaded rifles too, and the same outlook and companions from day to day."
    Another officer writes:
    "The depression has been most marked during the last six months and is likely to be permanent. There were men, too, who were fine fellows and would never dream of such a thing in ordinary life. They lie on their beds and groan. Sometimes men in the same room never speak to each other all day. so great is their despair and so dull their interest."
    A report from another officer:
    "In spite of the efforts made by the prisoners to-keep themselves in good health and spirits, resulting in the various interests, amusements and games enumerated above…the general effect of prison life was undoubtedly bad, producing a towering of mental, moral and physical fibre extremely difficult to counteract. There was one case of suicide in the camp, and I know that others contemplated seriously this, method of escape from the appalling monotony of such an existence. Excessive drinking took place to an extent which would he unheard of amongst British officers under normal conditions. Speaking personally, I may say that at times one man was reduced to such a state of acute depression that it became impossible to-work, read or write, or take interest in any of the activities of the camp."
    I believe the prospect of an exchange of these officers and men is quite hopeful. The German Government are quite willing, and the Swiss Government also are willing to take them. All we need is a little push and go on the part of our Government, and I do hope that this will be forthcoming.
    Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Does my Noble Friend say he believes the Swiss Government is ready to take these men?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I said I believe the Swiss Government are perfectly ready to take these 1914 officers. I am sorry if I gave a different impression. I believe they are quite ready to take the officers, and I believe, too, that the German Government is willing that they should go. All that is necessary is a little more activity on the part of our own Government. We have asked many questions on the point, and we are always told that the War Cabinet is considering the matter. I do earnestly trust that the War Cabinet will find time to discuss the subject and push it on in the interest of humanity.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to associate myself in the strongest possible manner with what has fallen from the Noble Lord opposite. But I prefer to speak with regard to the civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. Their case differs somewhat from that of the officer prisoners. While I appreciate to the full the hardships endured by the officers and men, there is this distinction between them and the civilians, that when men join the Army, either as officers or men, they do so accepting the risk of life and death or of becoming prisoners of war. It is entirely different with these unfortunate civilians. Some were settled in Germany for purposes of health. Others were there as the outposts of English trade in Germany. They were really doing what we wanted our young men to do, at any rate before the War—they were carrying British trade and commerce throughout Europe, and when the War broke out they were caught and incarcerated. I rather regret that we are going into this question in this unsatisfactory manner. We had hoped that the Government would have given us a half day so that it might be discussed in a fuller House. There is a strong feeling in regard to it outside this House, and a very large committee has been formed of relations and friends of the men at Ruhleben. They made a request to the Prime Minister that he would receive a deputation, or that some other member of the Government would receive it, in order that they might put their views before the highest authority. I regret—and I say it frankly—that
    1344
    the Prime Minister was too busy to meet us. I regret also that he did not ask some other member of the Government to receive the deputation, in order that the parents and brothers of these men, whose hearts are really almost broken, might lay their case before him. They do feel most strongly the hardship of not being allowed to put their views before the Government. They are all English people doing their best for the War, and they thought they had a right to place the views on this very serious matter before the Government.
    I was put off—well, perhaps I should nor use that term—but I received an answer on this matter from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I pressed for a deputation to be received, and was told, in reply, that the Prime Minister thought it was of no use, because he had discussed the matter with General Nivelle. I think the right hon Gentleman should tell us what he did discuss with General Nivelle. It is not sufficient for him to say that he has discussed the matter and that nothing more can be done. We want to know what the facts are, because the statement made by Lord Newton in another place does not coincide with what we have been told. I hope, therefore, that some answer will be made by the Government as to the exact nature of the discussion between the Prime Minister and General Nivelle. I want to associate myself with my Noble Friend with regard to the suggestion that the Government might have avoided much of this trouble. Everybody in this House knows that there is no greater enemy of the German Government than I am, but I candidly confess—and I have read through the whole of the White Papers on this question—that the attitude taken up by the German Government in regard to the question of exchange compares very favourably with the attitude taken up by His Majesty's Government. I need not add to the horrors cited by my Noble Friend with regard to Ruhleben. but he did not mention one point. Various illnesses have broken out there. There have been epidemics, particularly of distressing diarrhœa, and the medical accommodation is exceedingly bad. There are only two doctors, both of whom are persona ingrala in the strongest possible sense to the English prisoners. When any English prisoner finds it necessary to go into hospital he actually has to pay twelve marks a day for hospital accommodation, and any money provided for these unfortunate

    1345
    prisoners, or paid on their behalf by the Government, is totalled up against them and they or their friends will have to repay the Government at the end of the War.
    My Noble Friend mentioned the long loft where ninety men are imprisoned. I will give one case in that connection which he did not mention. It is the case of an Edinburgh professor—a university man—who has been there two and a half years. The loft, I am told, has only three small openings in the roof through which light penetrates, and this professor got someone to put a small pane in the roof just above his bed so that he might get some light for reading purposes. For doing that he was sentenced to seventy-two hours imprisonment in the black cell. That shows how the Germans treat our prisoners when they try to make their imprisonment a little more bearable. My Noble Friend remarked that all this might have been obviated if the Government had accepted the proposal two years ago for a man-for-man exchange. At that time the Germans asked for an exchange, man for man, of civilians in Germany, and if our Government had only accepted that proposal, which was made twice in the autumn of 1914, none of this trouble would have arisen and 4,000 English civilians would have been sent back in exchange for 4,000 German civilians. One who has been over there writes in regard to the men's view of the attitude of their own Government:
    "The whole attitude of the Government seems to be one of opposition rather than of sympathy with the prisoners."
    The whole question seems to me merely to demand a little more sympathy and a little energy and determination. If hon. Members will look at the White Paper they will find that the German Government in November, 1914, made a proposal for a man-for-man exchange of prisoners, and in August and October 1916, it again made similar suggestions. In 1914 they wrote through the United States Embassy:
    "The German Government are still prepared to allow all British civilian prisoners in Germany, without any exception, to return home if they so desire, provided that the British Government release all German civilian prisoners in Great Britain and the British Colonies and possessions."
    I admit I am now going to ask for an all for all exchange. Surely it is time, seeing that these people have been prisoners for two and a half years, that we relaxed our position and secured their release, even if we have to send back 15,000 or 20,000 Germans. Then the letter continues:
    1346
    "If the British Government will not consent to an agreement on this basis, the German Government will be prepared on principle to agree to the British proposal for the release of all German civilian prisoners interned in the British Empire and the British Colonies and possessions, and of all British civilian prisoners interned in Germany above the age of forty-five."
    Ultimately in September, 1916, the Germans agreed to the exchange of all for all of those over forty-five years of age. Again exchange seems to have lagged, because the Germans wrote in October, 1910, in a dispatch which is a little Peck-sniffian, regretting "from motives of humanity the non-acceptance of German proposals for general exchange of all prisoners," despite the fact of renouncing the right of employment in the Army. Finally an agreement was arrived at for the exchange of all men over forty-five except twenty. From that day to this nothing really has been done, as far as I can gather from the White Paper, to carry that exchange into effect. I want to ask what is the attitude of the Government in regard to the exchange of all these men over forty-five, and why has no definite effort been made? I know, of course, there are difficulties of shipping. Germany suggested that boats taking these men should pursue a certain course across the North Sea, so as not to come into contact with submarines. I know that this is a matter perhaps of English pride, and that we will not accept any intimation from Germany as to the way in. which our ships are to cross the North Sea. But are we not using our pride a little too greatly in the interests of these unfortunate men? A hundred Englishmen at Ruhleben had their photographs taken and passports made out fifteen months ago, and they were told they were coming back, and for fifteen months those wretched men have been kept under the strain, expecting every week and month that their Government would take some steps to have them repatriated. They are there still. I take it that we must accept Lord Newton as the controlling factor in this matter. I do not know whether he controls the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope), or whether the hon. Member for Sheffield controls Lord Newton.
    Mr. HOPE: He is my chief.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was asking for information quite politely, and now I take it that Lord Newton controls the hon. Member, therefore he will agree that anything I say with regard to Lord Newton, or any strictures I pass upon him, have no

    1347
    reflection on the hon. Member. I am quite sure that if the hon. Member were the chief the thing would have been settled long ago. Lord Newton takes up an attitude on this question which I am bound to say I cannot understand. It is contrary to the view in regard to the alien question taken by this House and by the Government. In a speech in another place a fortnight ago, on 20th March, Lord Newton said:
    "There is a large section of people in this country who are only happy when they think that every 'Hon' as they are pleased to call him, is behind barbed wire."
    I do not know why the Noble Lord should make remarks of that character, because they reflect not merely on myself, and apparently they refer to myself. Speaking further, Lord Newton said:
    "I noticed that yesterday in the House of Commons a Gentleman asked with great indignation whether it was the case that a German was actually uninterned, and wan practising dentistry. It does not sound to me at all appalling that a German should be at large pursuing his avocation as a dentist… But I do not despair of common sense reaching those people at some time."
    It is all very well for the Noble Lord to make remarks of that kind, regarding Members of this House, but I venture to suggest his boomerang recoils on his own head. He is a member of the Government. That particular dentist was not interned by me, but by the new Home Secretary, who is one of the chiefs of Lord Newton, before I asked a question on the subject, and I had nothing whatever to do with it myself. Lord Newton seems to have taken an entirely wrong view of the feelings of the country with regard to the whole alien question. I submit that Lord Newton is not the right man in the right place in this connection. He takes a different view of the Huns and of the Huns' doings from that of the House of Commons. He is not the right man; he has not that sympathy with our prisoners, and those feelings with regard to the Huns or Germans, if he so prefers to call them, that we should wish the man to have who has to deal with this question of our prisoners. Lord Newton went on to say that this is an urgent question, and that it is a question of about 2,000 Englishmen coming back, probably of military age, in exchange for from 20,000 to 30,000—rather a large margin he allows himself—of Germans of military age who would be going back to Germany. I do not believe anything of the kind. I do not believe the figures are correct. According to Lord Newton's own statement in the House of Lords on the
    1348
    15th of November, 1916, the number of German civilians, and I am speaking in this matter entirely of civilians, of over forty-five years of age in this country interned was 4,200. Of that number 2,400 wished to return to Germany if, they got the chance, and 1,800 wished to remain in this country, or three-sevenths wished to remain and four-sevenths to go back to Germany. The Germans in Great Britain under forty-five in this connection are 21,800. If we presume that the proportions are about the same of the men who would wish to go back, that would give 12,400 who wished to return to Germany and 9,300 who wished to stay here. Lord Newton says that is not so at all, that these are young men under military age, and that all will want to go back I do not believe it for a moment. They have been in England now for a good long time. Many of them are the sons of Germans, and brought over quite young.
    I think the boot is rather on the other leg. I think if four-sevenths over military age are willing to go back, that nothing like that proportion of those under military age would want to do so. From the information which has reached me from the prisoners' camp in the Isle of Man, nothing like that proportion wants to go back, and we would have the greatest difficulty in getting them to go back. In our Colonies there are 10,000 Germans. Do you believe that the men who emigrated from Germany to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in order to get away from German militarism, and take up agriculture or some other calling in those Colonies, intending to stay there for ever, that four-sevenths of them would wish to go back to all the horrors in Germany and to be ground down under the heel of the military machine, and sent to fight against their friends made in Australia? I do not believe it. I believe he has seriously exaggerated those figures. But even assuming the same proportion for those under forty-five as those over forty-five, that gives 18,000 prisoners from Great Britain and her Colonies who would be prepared to go back, as against the 3,210 British who want to come back from Ruhleben. Are we going to assume that those 18,000 men are all fit for military service after having been two and a half years in prisoners' camps here? My Noble Friend has told you of the effect even in our prisoners' camps—not so bad, I am happy to say, nothing like so bad as in Ruhleben—but after that time, and having

    1349
    done nothing in the way of military exercises the great bulk of them would not be of any use to Germany.
    Has the War Office or the Army Council really considered this matter seriously, or is Lord Newton merely talking out of his head as to military necessities of the case. Even if half of them, and that is a very large allowance, would be fit for military service when they got to Germany, they would take from three to six months to train, and at the outside they would be half a division, that is, 10,000 men, when we are fighting in millions at the present time. I do not for a moment think that the Army Council really consider that this is a matter which is going in any degree to affect the War. The War is going to be decided not by half a division being hurled into the field on one side or the other. It is going to be decided by the difference of morale between the German soldier and the British soldier. We know well what is happening at the front to-day. Our morale is going up and the German morale is going down, and the decision of the War will be taken on those lines. These unfortunate 10,000 men will not have the slightest effect on the ultimate issue of the War. I am glad to see the acting Prime Minister present. I do appeal to him, speaking with knowledge of what a great many of the parents of the prisoners at Ruhleben are feeling, thinking, and saying, to ask some member of the Government to take this matter into more careful consideration and see whether something cannot be done to approach it with goodwill instead of the attitude Lord Newton showed in the House of Lords.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not desire to follow my hon. Friends in the minute scrutiny they have made of this subject. I only desire to make a few general observations on what fell from them. I desire to express every possible thanks for the courtesy and kindness with which all the the efforts I have made to inquire into this matter have been met in official quarters. Nothing could have been more gracious or more kindly than the answers I have received. But I cannot help saying that there is something which gives me keen apprehension. I gather that the real decision in this matter has been allowed to rest with naval and military opinion. I think that was a deplorable mistake. This is not a question which can be decided purely and entirely on military grounds.
    1350
    It is, of course, perfectly true that in this matter, as in all other matters connected with the conduct of the War, there must be a balance of considerations, a balance which is difficult to justify on strictly logical grounds. You cannot, certainly in any of those matters where considerations of humanity enter, allow the determination to be made on purely naval and military grounds. If it be said that we should lose a military advantage, and that is decisive against it, I venture to meet such an argument with the direct negative, and say it is not decisive against it. It is a question, no doubt, of degree—a certain degree of military disadvantage that you must not allow to be incurred. But a certain consideration is due to matters of humanity, and a certain consideration to matters of military advantage. There must be a balance. But merely to meet an appeal founded on considerations of humanity by the simple answer that military considerations do not allow it, is not a satisfactory reply.
    It is obvious that if you do not accept that proposition you land at once in the Prussian position—that is, Prussianism. It is Prussianism to say that military considerations must always take precedence of humanitarian considerations. We must, therefore, insist that the Government should be able to justify to us whatever policy they adopt as a fair and reasonable one, having regard to considerations both of humanity and of military advantage. We cannot allow in this House, and they ought not to allow in their control over their Departments, that the matter should be set aside merely on military grounds. That is an intolerable attitude. Therefore, I greatly regret that the matter has so far been left in the hands of military and naval men, because it is asking very much of them to ask them to go outside their purely professional point of view. I am sure it is not absent from the minds of my hon. and right hon. Friends on that bench, but it needs constant emphasis, that the fate of prisoners is one of the worst fates that can happen to anyone anywhere. Except the still more unhappy case of those who suffer prolonged and and continuing physical pain, I do not know of anything so tragical. It is tragical because of its prolonged character and because despair is always coming on, and then hope is always forming afresh, like an abscess in the heart, only to cause

    1351
    more and more suffering to the unhappy being, who feels first despair and then hope and then again despair—
    "As long as skies are blue and fields are green,
    Evening must usher night, night urge the morrow.
    Month follow month with woe. and year wake year to sorrow."
    When I think of the fate of the prisoners, I have no patience to listen to dry official answers which do not seem to indicate that any real effort has been made to solve the question. What we want is, for example, in the case of these men over forty-five and also in the case of invalids, that there should be real push and drive put into the matter, and that settlements admitted to be reasonable should be carried through without any unnecessary or avoidable delay. It is ridiculous to say that difficulties of transport or of opinion in the Colonies could not be overcome with a little good will. What we want is evidence that the Government really care. We want to be sure that they feel, as we feel, a passionate and intense longing to achieve the release of these unhappy people, and unless they can satisfy us of that I do not think they ought to satisfy the House as a body. I am obliged to say that I hope after the War there will be a strict inquiry into this as into many other matters. I hope that when that strict inquiry is held every official concerned will be required to justify—not by simple smooth answers, but with documents and proofs—himself against the charge of having been inhumanly indifferent in this matter. I hope they will be required by strict inquiry to prove that they have shown the utmost zeal to carry out whatever is reasonable, and if they cannot justify themselves, that they will receive the punishment which is due to those who are indifferent to considerations of humanity. People nowadays think that because we are at war the day will always be as it is to-day, when military considerations are alone thought of. It will not be so. There will come a time when every act of the Government and of the War Office will have to be justified. I bid all the officials concerned, whether they be in this House or out of this House, to bear that day of reckoning in mind, and not to give us an answer which, however justifiable on the doctrines of Prussian casuists, is not to be justified according to the inherent principles of humanity.
    Sir E. LAMB: I want to support the Noble Lord, especially in his plea that this decision should not be left to the military advisers of the Crown. During two years of intercession with the Foreign Office, I have reiteratedly found that the decision after all is come to by the War Office. When I have found that the Foreign Office were inclined sympathetically to consider and possibly to yield, a few days later I have found that the War Office have intervened, and they have not done as much as we hoped they were going to do. I want to acknowledge the courtesy and kindness that I have received at the Foreign Office during the last two years on this matter, but that does not exonerate the civil authority in allowing the military authorities to dictate to them in this matter, and unless the House of Commons is going to make itself felt, it seems to me it augurs badly for this country when the military authority is allowed to take the bit in its teeth, and even to flip his fingers at the civil authority, and that the influence of the House of Commons has really gone. Then, if we are met with the statement that this is a military question, I should like to enter my protest against the vacillation of the Government and the contradiction of the Government, even on the question of figures. I regret having to argue this from a nice arithmetical calculation, but since that is their reply, I want to ask if they will give us some further details beyond those they have already given in the figures put before the House by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)?
    Only last week in another place the late President of the Board of Education (Lord Gainford) asked Lord Newton whether he would have a census taken to ascertain how many interned German civilians under and over forty-five years of age respectively now in this country wished to be exchanged for British civilians interned in Germany. Lord Newton's reply, I venture to say, cannot satisfy the people who are interested in this question in this country. He says it is not considered advisable to take a census now, as it might inspire men with false hopes. I would like to ask the Government what has happened between the 15th November and last week, for on the 15th November, 1916, figures were given by Lord Newton in another place—and I would refer him to Volume 23, No. 82, on page 503—as to the number of German civilians in this

    1353
    country over forty-five years of age who are willing to return to Germany and those who wish to remain. If it is possible to give figures for those over forty-five years of age, why should it be impossible to give them for the whole total of civilians interned in this country? I cannot believe that this question has been fairly faced from the mora] and humanitarian standpoint. I do not believe the Government are alive to the feeling in the country. I have no relatives in Ruhleben, but I get letters from those whose hearts are breaking because they have their loved ones suffering this awful loneliness, a loneliness which one's imagination fails to apprehend. I had a letter last week from a man, an absolute stranger to myself, who says he would plead with every Member of the House to leave no stone unturned to accomplish the thing we have in view, and he says he is visiting the wife in this country of one of our poor civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. She is lying on her deathbed; she cannot hope, she says, to see her husband again, but for the sake of the children she pleads that the Government should consider the humanitarian aspect of this question.
    Every one of our fellow countrymen who are to-day interned in Ruhleben are in Germany with a British passport, and yet the very men who issued those passports are leaving them there, and, I do not hesitate to say, have not done all that they could to secure their release. I do not want, as I have already said, to be led into having to argue this as a nice arithmetical calculation, but I want to get the House of Commons to view it as a great moral issue. A certain number of our fellow countrymen were caught like rats in a trap in Germany when War was declared. It might have fallen to the lot of any Members of this House or of the other House who were over there, as has been said, as outposts of Empire, doing what they could to extend the trade of this country, or to other men who were over there for their health, and, by an accident of circumstances, such as missing a certain train or steamboat, perhaps, are left there for nearly three years to undergo all their sufferings as a consequence of what I feel to be the lack of seriousness on the part of the Government to deal with this crying evil, for I believe that if they realy did put their backs into this thing it could be accomplished. I have been through the White Papers with care, and there are
    1354
    numbers given here and in the other place and I refuse to believe it cannot be accomplished
    I do not want I should be one of the last to do it—to praise the action of the German Government in this matter. I feel that there is much to be desired in their action, but this I do say, that their action compares favourably with that of our Government in this matter. They have offered exchanges, but those offers have not been received as we would have had them received, I believe, if the House of Commons had had a say in the matter. There was, first of all, the individual exchange; that was cold-shouldered, but I for one stand for an all-for-all exchange. Why should not we get all exchanged that are here for all that are in Germany? It is said this is a military question, but I regret that that argument should be used. I fecl that it is a much greater question. It does not only concern this War, but it concerns all wars, as to whether civilians caught by chance in the respective countries should be kept there; and here we, who are fighting for great moral rights, are not only acquiescing in this thing, but we are initiating it, because Germany has shown a willingness to meet us and we have thrown over her offers, and now we find ourselves every day in a more acute and difficult position. Even from a military standpoint, what is the position? Does the Government want these 26,000 Germans in this country to remain here when the War is over and to enter again into competition with our people? I thought their anxiety was to get rid of them. Here is an opportunity of getting rid of them, and an opportunity that would benefit us as well as themselves. I am not going to overstep the limit of time that I agreed to, but I want to urge the Government to realise that the country would be at the back of them if only they would make their motto, "Return them all," instead of "Intern them all." I believe the country would back their action, and I plead with them to realise that we do feel strongly and that we have a right to ask them to move in this matter and to move promptly.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire in only half a dozen sentences to associate myself to the full with everything that has been said on this question by my Noble and hon. Friends this afternoon. It is impossible to exaggerate either the gravity

    1355
    of this question to the individual concerned or the growing state of anxiety in this country upon this point. Everyone in Ruhleben has relatives and friends in this country. The fate of people in Ruhleben is naturally enough a matter of constant inquiry, of constant conversation, of constant thought and talk and even controversy, and I assure the Government that by doing so little as they have done, and by continuing to do so little, the question does not become easier, but it becomes graver. As the War goes on and deepens, it is impossible for those in this country who have relatives and friends German prisoners not to find their anxiety increasing when they see what is happening in France when the Germans retire, and when they know that the net is slowly closing round that enraged tiger of Prussianism. Therefore in every place in this country where there is a relative or friend of those interned English prisoners there is a centre of growing and deepening anxiety and a centre of increasing dissatisfaction with what the Government are doing, or rather are failing to do. Again, as the War deepens it becomes of the highest consequence that everyone in the country should have nothing to distract them from getting on with the War, and doing all they can to help. These are distractions, and it is impossible for them not to affect the minds and sympathies of all who know about them. There can be no Member of this House who does not know several cases of the kind—most of us know many—and cannot forget not only what they are suffering over there, but of the injury it is doing the War at home in the sufferings it inspires amongst the relatives and friends. Their distraction means that they cannot help on the War as they would like, or take over some of the innumerable duties which now crowd upon every civilian as well as upon every soldier. Therefore, I earnestly desire with any force I can command to support the plea and argument made to the Government this afternoon. I assure them that the difference between 2,000 and 12,000 is a mere trifle compared with the increased satisfaction there would be in the country. There would, too, be increased diversion of energy, and the firmer feeling to help on the War, instead of this chronic and still more growing misery which we implore the Government to stop.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Before I come to the main question before the House, there are one or two small points which have been raised that I should wish to clear up. My Noble Friend has spoken of the condition of German prisoners in the Isle of Man. I understood him to say that some of these prisoners were in danger of losing their reason.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKwas understood to dissent.
    Mr. HOPE: That is what I understood. These camps are regularly open to neutral medical inspection, and, amongst other alleviations of the condition of the prisoners, wholesome open-air work is always open to them. If it be true what my Noble Friend says, I am quite certain it has nothing to do with the conditions prevailing in the camp.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I did not make any such accusation. I was referring to the fact of the long confinement.
    Mr. HOPE: Well, the observation might have been misinterpreted if I had not said a word about it, and that is why I referred to it. My Noble Friend asked what information we had about: the condition of our prisoners at Ruhleben? Certainly, so long as Mr. Gerard was at Berlin it was always possible to find out about the exact circumstances of every prisoner. I know quite lately the condition of one prisoner was brought to my notice, and I obtained an exact medical report upon it, which, happily, was reassuring. I believe that the representatives of the Netherlands Government are doing their best in that particular, and I believe information is not refused to them. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford raised the question of relatives' payments of hospital expenses. I have great sympathy with that point, and I rather hope that a favourable decision will be come to in the matter; certainly I will urge that point upon the attention of those who are able to settle it.
    On the main issue I would say that this is a question which is as difficult as it is painful. I fully agree with everything that has been said by my Noble Friend opposite, and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway as to the way in which we ought to approach this question. It is impossible to contemplate, not only without concern, but without horror,

    1357
    the state of many of our fellow-countrymen who have been in captivity now for two and a half years. I rather deprecate making any comparison or drawing any distinction upon this point alone between civilian and combatant prisoners. I think we ought to regard both alike with equal concern, and we ought to do all we can to help them. We ought, as my Noble Friend has said, to go out of our way, if it be possible, to see what means can be adopted either to rescue them from their captivity, or, though it is a lesser matter, to alleviate if we cannot end that captivity. I do not think it is necessary to go into details as to the treatment of prisoners from this point of view. As a matter of fact, the conditions at Ruhleben, according to the evidence of the American representative, Mr. Dressell, who last visited that camp, showed that they were undoubtedly greatly improved. The point, however, is that they have been in captivity behind barbed wires for two and a half years, and if we can get them out, subject always to the very supreme necessity of doing nothing that will hinder a successful ending of our great struggle, it ought to be done. There are, however, very serious difficulties. It is not easy to get away from them. The main difficulty is the attitude taken up by the German Government. For a long period now they have steadily refused to have anything to say as to a man-to-man exchange. The point was discussed in 1914. That was in the time of the last Government but one. It would be bootless to try to find out exactly what was in the minds of our authorities at that time, and particularly what was in the mind of the then Secretary of State for War, who is no longer with us. We must consider the position now, and the main obstacle to anything being done hitherto has been the fact that the German Government have steadily refused to exchange man for man, and have only consented to what I may call the idea of wholesale or block exchange.
    How would it work out—the idea of an exchange of all English prisoners in Germany and German prisoners in England? There are now in Germany British civilian prisoners to the number of 3,500. The number was rather greater, but it has been reduced to some extent by repatriation and to some extent by releases. Some prisoners have been released to work at various occupations.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are there any women?
    Mr. HOPE: None, I think. There are German civilian prisoners in England to the number of 2,500 and other German civilian prisoners interned in various parts of the Empire numbering 10,000.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the hon. Gentleman mean 25,000?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes, that is so—35,000 in all. We have exactly ten times as many civilian prisoners as Germany has of English civilian prisoners. Therefore any exchange of these men, subject to the consideration put forward by my hon. Friend, on the face of it would give a balance in favour of Germany of 31,500 men. Germany would get back 31,500 German prisoners excess on the balance of exchange. It is said that many would not wish to go back. This was tested, as my Noble Friend quite truly said, in the case of the endeavour to effect the exchange of all prisoners over the age of forty-five. That proposal affected 4,200 German prisoners. Of that 4,200, 2,400 wished to go and 1,800 wished to remain. I do not think you can dismiss quite so lightly the answer of my Noble Friend given on this point that men over forty-five naturally had got rooted to English soil, that their associations were to a large extent English, that many were married and married to English wives, and that they had business connections here. Undoubtedly the proportion of these men who would wish to remain in England would be greater than of the younger men I do not wish to labour the point. Suppose, speaking broadly, and say that one-third would be willing to remain, you must make a somewhat similar deduction for the English prisoners in Germany who would also wish to remain in Germany.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would not those who wished to remain in Germany be represented by those who already have been let out?
    Mr. HOPE: To some extent. There are in Ruhleben now a considerable number of prisoners who have regular occupations in Germany and who have not been released to work. Still that would be a factor, though not a great one. But if you take one-third away from both you would still have a balance of over 20,000 German citizens who would be returned to Germany.
    Sir E. LAMB: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lord Newton in another place, on 22nd February, gave figures of the British in Germany over forty-five years of age, and, so far from being a third, they are exactly one-sixth?
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. HOPE: That is not my point—I am taking the actual numbers of what you might have of those who might possibly wish to remain either in England or in Germany. I say, even if you make the most liberal allowance and allow one-third, still, on the block exchange, there would be a balance in favour of Germany of over 20,000 men. That is, after all, a very serious proposition. The number is more than a whole British Division in pure man-power, while there would be comparatively few who would not be able to do useful national service for the enemy. We know that General von Groner who organised national service in Germany last year considered it was of the greatest importance to have men who could perform national service at home and so release men for the front. I do not think, perhaps, that the fact is sufficiently in the minds of hon. Members who have very warmly taken up this question as to affecting a wholesale exchange of men that it would give to the Germans a reserve of man-power, whether directly for the field or at home, which would be, I should say, considerably greater than many of the items which we dwelt upon under the Bill lately discussed by the House. As far as this general exchange goes, it has been carefully considered, not only by the military authorities, but by the War Cabinet, and, I am bound to say, I can hold out no hope that any general block exchange of all civilian prisoners on both sides can be entertained. I think my hon. Friend referred to General Nivelle in this connection. All I can say about this—of course, I do not know about it directly or immediately—is that the discussion with General Nivelle turned on the effect of these various proposed exchanges, and it was after this conference with General Nivelle that the matter was fully considered by the War Cabinet, and they came deliberately to the conclusion which I am sorry to have to state to the House. But if this cannot be done, can nothing else be done? Well, of course, something has been done. There has been a scheme of repatriation of invalid civilians going on for some considerable time. Six
    1360
    hundred and fifty have been repatriated under the scheme. Then there is the scheme for those over forty-five. It is quite true we have only got under that scheme a small proportion, but if that scheme can be carried further I am informed we shall stand to get some 600 or 700 more.
    But, of course, here again the action of the German Government has. for the time being, made that difficult. I do not think we can simply brush aside the very great difficulties of transport in connection with this scheme. Obviously there are difficulties of transport in connection with this scheme, and the Admiralty are bound to take account of them. But I must say of my Noble Friend Lord Newton that he has urged, and is urging, in and out of season, that every possible opportunity shall be taken, even if only by small driblets, that this scheme shall be proceeded with and not allowed to be forgotten. I really think my hon. Friend is not quite fair to my Noble Friend in his strictures. He said the difficulties of any exchange would be greatly diminished if the Home Secretary could see his way with safety to allow the release of a certain number of interned aliens in this country—that if that were done it would, at any rate, diminish the difficulties arising from this huge adverse balance which we should have to surrender to Germany. That was the whole scope of his argument, and I do not think there is anything which can fairly be complained of in that.
    I do not know whether those who have spoken in the Debate have read what my Noble Friend Lord Derby said in the House of Lords last night. The question was there raised, purely, I think, on its military side, and it was urged that the present military system of internment in Switzerland for officers and men should be extended. At present it depends practically on medical decisions—that is to say, English and German officers are sent to Switzerland as the result of examination by a medical commission, and unless the medical commission certifies to a certain degree of incapacity, which in practice would mean incapacity for field service, internment does not take place. Now it has been suggested that that system should be extended to cover the case of officers not physically incapacitated, but who have been for a certain time—two years, I think—in captivity on both sides.

    1361
    Of course there are great advantages in this, because it gets rid of what I may call the man-power difficulty altogether. If so many officers and men are put out of action by being interned in a neutral country, the question of balance in favour of one country rather than another is not affected, and, therefore, it is not open to the very serious objections I have stated, and which obviously were in the minds of those in conference with General Nivelle. But, of course, there are very great practical difficulties. There is the difficulty of transport, which is a very serious one to contemplate in the case of great numbers at one time. And there is also the question of the neutrals themselves to be considered. I do not know that neutral Governments would welcome any very large influx of foreigners, whether officers, soldiers, or civilians. But I think probably the limit has not yet been reached. I cannot say we have heard, so far as I know, anything definite from the Swiss Government on this point.
    Anyhow, it was stated by my Noble Friend Lord Derby yesterday that an extension of this system would be put forward as far as was practicable in the case of those officers and men who had been over two years in captivity. I think I must say "officers and men." One speaker, I think, said "Oh, we know the Germans would be glad enough to send out of Germany into a neutral country a comparatively small number of officers—a few hundred." But I think we are bound, as indeed was said by my Noble Friend, in a matter like this, not to draw a distinction between officers and men, and, of course, if that view be accepted by the German Government, it must, I am afraid, necessarily make the process of what I may call neutral internments a good deal slower than we should like to see it. Anyhow, that proposal has been decided in the case of officers and men, and that proposal will be made. Can it be extended to civilians? In their case a rather different situation arises. In the case of officers and men there are two qualifications for internment. One is their physical condition as the result of wounds or accident, and the second is the length of time they have been in captivity. Of course, the question of physical incapacity, so far as wounds go, does not apply to civilians at all, and the question of time to a much less extent, because by far the greater number of civilians have been in captivity over two years, but by no means all. Some
    1362
    were not interned at first. Others have been, unfortunately, captured on merchant steamers by raiders to a considerable extent since. But what I may call the tests or qualifications for internment are different in the case of civilians from those in the case of soldiers, and, therefore, it would have to be approached from rather a different point of view.
    I cannot say what the qualifications, if this system were extended to civilians, would have to be. There might be a medical test, or possibly a distinction might be drawn between those of our prisoners in Germany who have what I may call German associations, and those who were, unhappily, caught while travelling on business or pleasure in Germany at the outbreak of war. That must be left over. But I am authorised to say that the Government see no objection in principle to extending the neutral internment system to civilian prisoners, and if any success comes of the new proposal as to military prisoners, they will endeavour to extend the arrangement to meet, at any rate, the most pressing cases amongst the civilians.
    Lord H. CECIL: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that, supposing the German Government reply, "We will let officers go, but we will not let men go," then we should refuse that offer? We might take half a loaf as better than no bread.
    Mr. HOPE: I should not like to prejudge that question. It would have to be considered when it arose. At any rate, we must go with a bond fide proposal to the German Government that officers and men who satisfy the conditions should be be accepted for internment in neutral countries. What our attitude might be if that were refused I think would have to be decided later, but my Noble Friend must not assume that we should refuse that simply on the ground he mentions.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Member's figures differ so much from those I put forward, will he not consent to an inquiry being made as to the prisoners who should be repatriated or not, and, with regard to the Colonials, cannot inquiry be made of the Colonial agents as to what proportion should go back?
    Mr. HOPE: I will bring the points before the proper quarter. I am afraid I

    1363
    have nothing more to say in substance, I have tried to cover the ground, and if I have not given satisfaction to my hon. Friends, I think they will admit what I have said is proof of the good will of the Government, and marks a definite step forward.

    PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL.
    Sir C. HENRY: I think I am voicing the opinion of the House when I say we agree with the concluding portion of my hon. Friend's speech that his statement has not given satisfaction. I have not risen to pursue this matter, but I think it only right to say that the matter cannot be allowed to rest any longer where it is. I believe the majority of the House are in favour of block exchange. The subject, however, which I venture to bring before the consideration of the House is one which I think is worthy of consideration. For some time it has been apparent that the control of Parliament is being undermined, that the Executive and the permanent officials have assumed the power which, if not checked, threatens to become a menace to our Parliamentary life. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the position of the rank and file of Members of Parliament of both Houses is an anomalous one, that the situation previous to the War was unsatisfactory, but that since August, 1914, the course pursued by different Governments has accentuated the position, and I state unhesitatingly that Members of Parliament are no longer able to exercise the function which the electorate rely upon them to do. I believe what I state would have received the sanction of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he sat on the other side of the House. I do not think I am stating anything that is not accurate when I say that he was at tunes most vehement in denunciation at the loss of Parliamentary control. But I have a more recent endorsement of my views from the Prime Minister, who, on 19th December, in the first speech he made after assuming his responsible position, said:
    "The control of Parliament as a whole must, and always must, be supreme because it represents the nation. There is not the slightest attempt here to derogate in any particular from the complete control of Parliament. I do not think the present methods of Parliamentary control are efficient, but that is not a change which has come about through the new Administration. I have always thought that the methods of Parliamentary control, and I speak here as
    1364
    a fairly old Parliamentarian, rather tended to give undue prominence to trivialities—my right hon. Friend and I have talked over this matter many a time—and, on the other hand, that ft rather tended to minimise and ignore realities. Whether you can improve upon that I personally have never had any doubt, but I have always thought—I do not know whether I carry any one with me on this except my hon. Friend who sits there—that the French system was a more effective one, the system whereby Ministers have to appear before Parliamentary Committees, where questions can be asked them, and where they can give an explanation which they would not care to give in public. I think in many respects that system has helped to save France from one or two very serious blunders. I am not committing the Government to that beyond this, that we are investigating that question. It is just possible we might refer the matter to Parliament to settle for itself, because it is not so much a question for the Government as a question For Parliament itself to decide, subject, of course, to any criticism or suggestion which the Government might wish to make, as to the best and most efficient methods during a period of war of exercising Parliamentary control over the Departments."
    I do not think it can be denied that the power of the permanent officials of the Civil Service is becoming too prominent a feature. I should be the last to depreciate the services of our Civil servants, because they work strenuously and devote themselves seriously to the task which falls to their lot. At the same time, I believe it would be a source of disaster if Civil servants were allowed to extend the control which they already possess. A great deal has been said recently about the danger of autocracies, but I believe that an autocratic dynasty is even more desirable than a bureaucratic executive. How can a greater degree of Parliamentary control be assured and relied upon? My suggestion is that this can be done by the French system, and I would like to give a brief outline of how the system of French Commissions is exercised. The first Commission created in France was one to deal with finance, and since then twenty Commissions have been sot up to deal with the affairs of State. The number of members of these Commissions consists of forty-four, selected from different groups in the French Parliament, in the same manner as we set up the Public Accounts Committee, which is selected from different parties in the House, in proportion to their numbers, and these Commissions are reappointed in each year. A similar course is adopted by the French Senate. Every legislative proposal, as soon as it is introduced by the Government or by a private member, is forthwith sent to one of these Commissions, and the Commissioners after examination report their decision to the Chamber as to whether they favour its adoption or otherwise. That, however, does not in any way take away the power from the Chamber to deal with it, nor does

    1365
    it involve Government responsibility. The Government can accept or refuse the findings of the Commission, and the final decision rests with the House as a whole.
    In order to arrive at a decision the Commissions have the power of summoning before them Ministers as well as officials, and they have every opportunity of obtaining all the necessary data on which they may base their report. Under our system Parliament has to rely entirely on the information that the Ministers are willing to give, and that information may be of an extended or a brief character, just as the Ministers think fit. It may be said that under our system opportunities are given to deal with legislation by our system of Grand Committees. I will not discuss the fact that I think the Government in recent years has made a great mistake in not sending more Bills to Grand Committees instead of to Committees of the Whole House because there they get a better supervision, and they are more or less free from the party Whip and the party machine, and decisions can be arrived at with a greater degree of impartiality and freedom. But even with Grand Committees we have to rely upon the Minister in charge of the Bill, and we have no opportunity of getting information from any other source. I am inclined to think that if the system of the French Commissions had been in operation in this country during recent years some of that legislation which has aroused a great deal of controversy and bitterness might have been passed under more favourable conditions. I believe that if the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, after being introduced, had been passed on to a Commission to report in order to see how far agreement could have been obtained, it would have been most desirable. If the Insurance Act had first been sent before a Commission which had opportunities for examining people directly, such as experts on insurance and actuaries, it would have been in the interests of that legislation. I do not think it can be denied that legislation can be consolidated and dealt with better upstairs than upon the floor of this House, where party feeling is the controlling power.
    So far I have referred only to the French system as regards legislation, but what is of equal if not greater importance is the opportunity given to representatives of the French Parliament to investigate the policy of the Government. Previous to
    1366
    the War, and since, we have had to rely entirely upon having the policies of the Government of the day placed before Parliament, and we have had to abide by the statements they have made. That applies to the War Office, the Admiralty, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the India Office. Only quite recently, in connection with the India Office, the Government came to a decision without the knowledge of Parliament, and when the matter was brought before this House for ratification we were told that the bargain had been concluded, and nothing more could be done. If that state of affairs continues, Parliament is absolutely losing all control. The French system does give an opportunity for Ministers and officials to explain and substantiate their proposals. The procedure of the French Chamber is not altogether foreign to our system. Before the present Government came into office last year the late Government set up the Dardanelles Commission and the Mesopotamia Commission, but what earthly use is a Commission to examine persons connected with those expeditions after the event, and after the mischief has been done? If you want a system of Commissions, the Commissioners should have the power to examine and investigate, not after the policy has been decided upon, but before it is embarked upon. In regard to the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Commissions, they were carried out on much the same principle as the French system. They called witnesses before them, and, what is of great importance, those Commissions were conducted in secret, and no one can say that any of the evidence brought before the Commission was divulged by its members. The French Commissions during the War have been of great service. Let me again bring as testimony to this the Prime Minister, who said;
    "I think that in many respects the system has helped to save France from one or two very serious blunders."
    This view is borne out, not only by the representatives of the French people, but by the French nation. There is no matter of more paramount importance than the necessity of Parliament again assuming control over finance. I do not think it will be denied that since the War Parliamentary control has been absolutely lost. Rightly or wrongly since the War began no Estimates in connection with the great spending Department of the War Office, or of the Ministry of Munitions, have been presented to Parliament. The prac-

    1367
    tice is that at the commencement of each Session a Token Vote has been taken, and each of these great spending Departments has been permitted to embark upon expenditure without any Treasury sanction or control, and there is no doubt that through that system, through the licence given to these spending Departments, millions and tens of millions of money have been spent which might have been saved. I consider that it is absolutely imperative, without delay, that a Parliamentary Commission or Committee should be set up to sit almost continuously to overlook and supervise the financial expenditure of the different Departments. The hon. Member for Greenock (Major Collins) has a Resolution on the Paper in connection with this matter, and I hope he will bring it forward at an early date, because I think Parliament, in spite of the War, cannot devote itself to a subject of more supreme or vital importance.
    France is not the only country which has this system grafted on to its Parliamentary constitution. The United States Parliament has it to a lesser degree, and even to those countries which carry on their Parliaments under autocratic rule the system is not altogether foreign. I cannot imagine that the present conditions will be allowed to continue. I cannot conceive that Parliament will agree to remain a machine to endorse and sanction the policy of the Government without making itself better acquainted and without investigating the circumstances which have dictated either the legislation or the policy. I consider that no one who is in favour of real democratic government can oppose proposals such as I have outlined. The representatives of the people must and should have every facility to make themselves as well informed as possible before giving their judgment. Let me refer to the attitude of the Prime Minister. We all recognise that he is a man of considerable ability, but it seems to me on this matter, judging from the answers to questions given by the Leader of the House, that he has performed a complete somersault. What is the reason of this acrobatic performance'? I do not think I am wrong if I state that Ministers—I suppose the Ministers of the late Government are of the same opinion—think that the present system would not tend to their convenience, and would be likely to make great demands upon their
    1368
    time. I admit that it would make great demands upon their time, and for overworked men that is a consideration, but at the same time I think that would be counteracted to a great extent by them not being called upon to attend so closely here in Parliament. Under the French system it is the rapporteur of these Commissions who have the conduct of a policy through Parliament, and I believe great time and trouble would be saved to Ministers by the fact that the system of daily questions would be relieved.
    The system of questions is a most unsatisfactory manner of obtaining information. Members ask questions. and Ministers, by the answers given by the different Departments, endeavour to make their replies as evasive as possible. It may be argued that the danger of these Commissions is that you cannot rely on complete secrecy. The Dardanelles and the Mesopotamia Commissions have proved the inaccuracy of such a belief. I go further and say that no responsible Minister is entitled to object to this procedure on the ground that secrecy cannot be relied upon. I hardly think either that Ministers can object on the ground that it would take away from their responsibility. They would be just as responsible for the conduct of the business and affairs of the House as they are at the present time. The only difference would be that the rank and file of Parliament would have greater control than they have at present. The objection might be urged that at this juncture, when the minds of Ministers are so occupied by the War, it is not opportune to bring this matter forward. Let me invoke the aid of the Prime Minister, who, on 19th December, said:
    "We might refer the matter to Parliament to settle, because it is not so much a question for the Government as a question for Parliament itself to decide, subject, of course, to any criticism or suggestion which the Government might wish to make as to the best and most effective methods during a period of war of exercising Parliamentary control over the Departments."
    The Government has set up Committees to deal with the suffrage question. I believe that they contemplate doing so in connection with the question of the Second Chamber. I would urge them also to take into consideration whether the time is not opportune to set up a conference of Members to deal with this important matter. I consider that it should be dealt with promptly. I consider that Members of neither House are adequately

    1369
    discharging their Parliamentary functions under existing conditions, or participating in the work of the State to the extent that those they represent have a right to demand. I am certain that it is the desire of all parties in the House to support the Government to carry on the War, but it must be recognised that support is entirely of a perfunctory character unless opportunity is given to Members, which at present is not available to them, of sharing some measure of responsibility by giving their judgment on matters after they have had opportunities of examination and investigation.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I fear that anyone rising from this bench to take part in a discussion on this matter may be regarded with some suspicion. Yet my general view quite tallies with that which the hon. Gentleman has just laid before the House. I believe that the House of Commons, as a matter of fact, does exercise far greater influence than the hon. Member has given it credit for, but I agree with him in considering that its influence over the conduct of affairs is probably less in these days than it has been in previous times, and is certainly less than it ought properly to be. I should be disposed to invert the Resolution which was once passed by this House, in the time of George III., in relation to the Crown, when the House resolved that the influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. I should be inclined to say that the influence of the House of Commons had diminished, was diminishing, and ought to be increased. I should like to lay a few considerations before hon. Members with respect to the particular proposal which the hon. Member has made for effecting this desirable object before in their own minds they come to a final conclusion. There may be a good deal to be said, so far as legislation is concerned, for the adoption of some of the methods which are practised in France. My hon. Friend who has just spoken suggested that the House ought to have fuller opportunities of investigating the problems that come before it in the form of Bills, and of taking evidence upon them. He would like to see the system which has long been in existence here, the system of Select Committees—that is what it comes to—extended in the treatment of Bills. Possibly there may be a good deal to be said for an increased use of Select Committees, but I should be dis-
    1370
    posed to doubt the validity and usefulness of the French system in relation to executive action, and, after all, it is that which is most in question at the present time. In France you have these twenty-one Committees in the Chamber, and I believe a corresponding number in the Senate, each of them covering a certain province in the domain of Government action, and before which each Minister has to present himself, defend his proposals, and answer interpellations if he has not acted as the Committee might desire. The French Parliament itself, in effect, exercises to a great extent not only legislative, but administrative functions, and by administrative functions I mean executive functions.
    The great danger always before a democracy is that it will not trust its executive sufficiently. The weakness of the Executive has in many cases been the cause of the downfall and of the inefficiency of democratic systems. When the American Constitution came to be framed this danger was so prominently before the founders of that Constitution, and especially before the mind of Alexander Hamilton, that great statesman to whom the present framework of the American Constitution is largely due, that they went to the opposite extreme and separated entirely the executive organs of the Constitution from the legislative organs. The experience of the time that has since elapsed has led most political students to the conclusion that they went too far, and that it is a weakness of the American Constitution to have separated so completely the Executive from the Legislature. That view, I believe, has been expressed by the very distinguished political thinker, who now presides over the destinies of the United States, President Wilson himself, in his political writings before he became President. If, on the other hand, you limit too much the power of your individual Minister, and if you require him to present all his proposals to Committees of Parliament, you may find that what you really intend to be a stimulus to executive action may become a clog. Those of us who have had the honour of holding office for a series of years know how strong are the forces that tend to inaction and how great is the vis inertice; in the Government machine. I think most of us who have exercised administrative functions will feel that if every executive act is to be submitted to a Committee of the House of Commons, and perhaps to a Committee of the House of Lords, the whole machine of

    1371
    government will be retarded, and the pace of administrative reforn will be even slower than it has been hitherto. There will be much more talk, and there will be even less action than there is at the present time.
    I do beg hon. Members to have some pity upon those of their colleagues who are charged with governmental functions. The burdens of a great office of State are already overwhelmingly heavy. The health of Ministers is continually breaking down. We all know that in time of peace, and it is even more so in time of war, there is hardly any time to think or to plan, and if Ministers have the additional burden of carrying each of their administrative acts as well as their legislative acts through Committees of the House of Commons, I fear that the burden will become too great to be borne. If this system is adopted by the House of Commons, the other House of Parliament will naturally expect, and probably claim, that similar Committees should be set up there. Therefore, the burden that will lie upon Ministers will be double. I remember reading some observations of M. Briand which he made in the French Senate last December:
    "How could he have time to prosecute the War with the energy demanded of him if on every day of the week he had to answer interpellations, either in the Senate or the Chamber, and when constant secret sittings demanded his prolonged attendance in Parliament? He pointed out that the Committees of Parliament had claimed of him no fewer than forty-one attendances—"
    unfortunately he did not say the period covered—
    "each attendance lasting the whole afternoon.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Was he not overthrown because he objected to Parliamentary control, exercised by the system of Commissions?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Precisely. I believe that some of his colleagues objected to it, but it does not follow that the Parliamentary system of Commissions was not truly described by him as imposing so great a task upon the energies of Ministers that it was impossible to perform efficiently and successfully the executive duties demanded of them. Let it be remembered also that in France, where the Ministry of M. Briand has lately been overthrown, no fewer, so I am told, than sixty-one Ministries have been overthrown in a period of forty-seven years since the present French Republic was established. I have not
    1372
    been able to check those figures, but they come to me from a source which is apparently reliable. We all know how great has been the instability of the Executive in France owing to the continual change of Governments due to Parliamentary action there.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is not that true of a good many years ago, but nothing like true to the same extent in recent years?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. Ministries are changed continually in France. The average life of a Ministry there still is to be measured in months, not in years. Great as is our admiration for the French nation and for many features of French life, an admiration never so great, of course, as it is at the present moment, when we have the honour to be their Allies in war, still, I think there are few impartial observers who would say that, taken as a whole French Parliamentary institutions are really superior to British Parliamentary institutions. Owing to the extreme instability of Governments, it is found that effective power in France—I make this observation with much diffidence, but I think many hon. Members will agree with me—is transferred not really to the legislature but to the bureaucracy. Ministers change so frequently that it is impossible for any individual to get a grasp of the affairs of his Department, with the result that the permanent officials have far greater authority in France than they have in this country, in spite of the fact, and partly, I believe, because of the fact of the existence of Parliamentary Commissions, which themselves tend to make the tenure of office of each Ministry insecure. French administration as a whole, compared with ours, I venture to think, is slow, cumbersome, and inelastic. That is largely due to the fact that the Minister has not time to get full knowledge of his Department, that the matters are left too much to the Civil Service, and that, in turn, is due to fact that the Minister continually has to present himself before Commissions, which Commissions frequently consist of his own opponents and are presided over not seldom by some member of the French Chamber or Senate who himself has ministerial ambitions and whose bias is to criticise and frequently to thwart and upset the administrative proposals of the member of Parliament who chances for the moment to hold ministerial office. These are the considerations which

    1373
    I would venture to lay before hon. Members, and ask them to bear in mind before they come to any final conclusion.
    Before sitting down, I should like to say that even if a negative view is taken in regard to this particular proposal, that is not to lead us to the conclusion that nothing should be done in order to increase the power of the House of Commons. The opinion which I have been led to form by my experience here, now covering a good many years, is that the real cause of the comparative ineffectiveness of the private Member of the House of Commons, viewed in relation to what it used to be in earlier times, is that every question nowadays is regarded as a question of confidence in the Government, that even in minor matters, such as the details of Bills or the details of Estimates, the question which an hon. Member has to ask himself and has to answer as he goes into the Lobby is not, "Is this proposal good or bad?" but, "Do I wish to see the Government resign or do I wish to see this Government continue?" The consequence is that the old control by the body of the House over the details of Ministerial action is no longer effectively exercised. If you read the records of Parliament of thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, you will find that in each Session, on two or three or more occasions, the Government suffered defeat in the House of Commons in matters where they displeased the House of Commons, but they went on just the same as before and nobody dreamt of suggesting that the Government ought to resign or that a General Election ought to be taken. I should like to see in this House the same practice prevailing which now prevails in its Standing Committees, that proposals of Ministers should be viewed impartially and with a free mind by hon. Members, and that where the vote went against the Minister—except on an important matter of policy, or on a Vote of Confidence or on some matter upon which the Government had announced that they would stand or fall—that on all other minor occasions the House should express its opinion freely, and that its decision should be accepted by the Government, without it being considered in any quarter as involving their resignation or a General Election. If that were done the life of this House would become much more
    1374
    real, and every individual Member would feel he was taking a living and effective part in the government of the country.
    It would be difficult, of course, in days of party controversy for any Government to take this step and say that they would proceed on these new lines. It would be taken, perhaps, as a confession of weakness and expose them to attack or derision. But in these days, when we have a Coalition Government, and when party controversies do not exist or are in suspense, it is an occasion upon which the Government of the day might declare that it would not consider itself obliged to resign if the voice of the House rejected minor proposals of a departmental or even of a wider character, but that the procedure adopted in Standing Committees might well be adopted in the House of Commons as a whole. Secondly, in matters of foreign policy the course proposed by the hon. Member is not the only one possible, but it should be regarded as a definite rule that no treaty which would involve important consequences, certainly no treaty involving peace or war, should ever be made by the Executive of the day behind the back of Parliament. Any such treaty should be definitely laid before Parliament and an opportunity given to it to express its views. It appears to me that those large and grave matters are too vast to allow them to be dealt with in any country that claimed to be self-governing without an opportunity being given to the representatives of the people as a whole to express their views. Lastly, with regard to finance-, the considerations which I have mentioned, which rather deter one from favouring the proposal for Parliamentary Commissions, do not apply in the same degree. I feel there ought to be far more effective control than now exists in the hands of the House of Commons over financial expenditure. The Treasury, in its effort to control expenditure, does need more support than it now gets. At present the control exercised by the Treasury depends a great deal upon the personality of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. I speak in the presence of no fewer than three Chancellors of the Exchequer or ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. I am sure they will all agree with me when I say that it does make a very great difference in the effectiveness of the control of the Treasury over Departments who is the individual who presides over the Exchequer and what is his general attitude of mind towards pro-

    1375
    posals for public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I believe, often be very glad if he could have had the support, frequently against his own colleagues, of a Committee of the House of Commons and could quote some Mr. Jorkins, so to speak, in the background, who had to be taken into consideration whenever any of his colleagues proposed a large expenditure on projects which, at first sight, might seem exceedingly desirable. The late Government some years ago did propose to the House the setting up of an Estimates Committee. That Committee was established, but it is now in abeyance because there are no Estimates. It cannot examine Estimates which do not exist.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): No Parliamentary inquiry ever resulted in a reduction of expenditure, except in trifles. Generally the result is the reverse.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I believe that the Estimates Committee in some matters did propose it. The very existence of a Committee of the House of Commons which might be likely to investigate and criticise expenditure would, apart from direct, have an indirect effect upon proposals put forward by the Ministry of the day. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise some scheme of Parliamentary control more effective than that which now exists over finance, with at least the hope and, perhaps, some slight expectation that the outcome might be some further restriction upon the vast expenditure which the country is called upon to make.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think that any argument against the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir C. Henry) could have been weaker than the argument that they should not be set up while we are in a state of war. As a matter of fact, if proof were required of the necessity for these Commissions, it has been supplied most amply by the events that have occurred since the War began. I will give two instances. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. H. Samuel)—he will forgive me for saying so—is not quite accurate in his statement as to the French facts. He spoke of the short lives of the Ministries there, whereas, in fact, they have had three Ministries in France and we have had three in this country since the War began. The right hon. Gentleman pushed his analogy too far, as I will show
    1376
    presently. I will take one of his own suggestions, namely, that treaty powers should more or less be reserved to the House of Commons. Was ever a fact of our political life brought home more tragically than the fact that the House of Commons has no control over the treaty-making powers of the Executive? I do not want to go into controversial matters, but I remember the speech that was made by the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—a very able and very respected Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Everybody who was present in the House will remember the speech he made which committed us to the War. The main fact in it was not that we had entered into treaties, but into understandings and communications. When I and every other Member of this House heard those things we could not help feeling that we were bound in honour, unless we were to be regarded as a nation untrue to our undertakings, to stand by France when she was attacked. Of course, I think we were also bound by our interests. I never had any doubt from the first moment that, so far as this country was concerned, apart altogether from understandings, communications, and the like, that when the existence of France, our neighbour, close to our shores, was threatened, it was in the interests of our own preservation that we were bound to stand beside her. The fact remains that behind our backs, behind the backs of both Houses of Parliament, and, if gossip is true, behind the backs of the colleagues of the late Foreign Secretary, we had entered into such relations with France as bound us to go to war.
    Mr. SAMUEL: May I remind the hon. Member that the French Government was specifically told in terms that we had an entirely free hand.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that my memory is so bad as not to remember that. I know these qualifications by which understandings can always be protected, but if you begin to discuss great questions of common defence and common interest, whatever qualifications you make you thereby bind yourselves to be the Ally of that nation. I do not say it is wrong. What is the use of talking of democratic control, or even Ministerial control, when a great nation like this can be practically bound for years to war and the representatives of the people have no knowledge of the facts?

    1377
    Some allusion has been made to the French analogy. I think that can be pushed too far. I do not see that we can accept the analogy as complete. I speak with some reserve, as one ought to do when discussing the affairs and institutions of another nation, but in the French Parliament there is one feature which I fervently hope we shall never have in this country, and that is the system of groups. I dare say that I shall surprise some Gentlemen when I say I do not know anything in the political life of this country which has a more healthy influence than the party spirit. I know it can be carried too far, but party spirit, by making men act with discipline and with organisation, together, is, in my opinion, the very greatest safeguard against personal appetite, personal vanity, and personal interest, and when you have a group of forty or fifty men, more or less under the control of one individual, you deal a deadly blow at the effectiveness and independence of Parliamentary government. I have some experience, perhaps more than my right hon. Friend has, of how the French system works. I am a member of the Franco-British Parliamentary Committee. Let me state my experience. We went over there and met our French colleagues. We had to lay some bill of fare before them. We puzzled our heads to find out what we should say. We could say nothing because we knew nothing, and in the end we managed—if the expression be not too familiar—to cocker up a number of papers, which we were enabled to do by some consultation with some of the Departments. How were we met by our French colleagues? I give the case of the head of the Commission of Munitions. That gentleman got up and told an astounded and shamefaced body of British Parliamentarians that every morning there was delivered to him a list of every rifle, every shell—I think I might even say of every cartridge—which had been produced the day before, or the second day before, in the French factories. He described the different suggestions which had been made by his Committee. He described the evils which they had been able to anticipate and to prevent. We listened shame-facedly to the knowledge of all the details of administration shown by this member of the French Parliament in the presence of the absolute, unrelieved ignorance of the British Members of Parliament with regard to our own adminis-
    1378
    tration. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) was not, during the first twelve months of the War, in a responsible position except as Leader of the Opposition. He heard, both in Opposition and as a Minister, discussion after discussion I night after night in this House and attacks made every night upon the Government—some of them mere personal attacks and some mere futile attacks. But I will tell you what he did not do. I heard nearly every one of those speeches, and I think everyone will bear out my recollection that in all these criticisms about the alien enemy, the hidden hand, and all the rest, I never heard one syllable with regard to munitions, and does not everyone know that in order to enable our troops to have any chance against the German troops opposed to them, when they were sending ten or twelve shells to our one and our men had to be withdrawn from positions because they had no munitions, when our men were told that only a certain number of shells could be exploded every day, if it had not been for the creation of the new Munitions Department and the energy and daring and courage of the present Prime Minister, our troops to-day would be in the same position, without munitions, and the splendid advance we are now making would have become impossible. All through these long Debates, with criticism of every kind, no one laid his finger upon the real cancer in our military system, namely, the insufficient supply of munitions. I put it to any Member that if there had been a Commission of twenty Members of this House, with even a quarter of them business men, they would have found out this difficulty in munitions in three weeks' time by examining officials, and, if necessary the Minister, and we should have saved many months, and perhaps many thousands of lives.
    I know it will be said this would lead to the weakening of the Executive. I do not want to weaken the Executive. I like our great party system. I like a strong Government. I detest seeing a Government in office which has a small majority. I have gone through that experience, and I never want to repeat it. I know very well that brings in the personal element, personal appetite and personal ambition, in a way which does not exist when you have a strong body of men well organised, well disciplined, and following a great cause. I do not think that need necessarily follow. It is absurd that a Government should go out of office because of a

    1379
    reduction in one item in the thousand items that make up the list, I remember the time when by a majority of seven a Government was turned out on a reduction of £100 with regard to cordite. If those Estimates had been put before a Committee of this House the question of the cordite would have been probed thoroughly by business men. They would have decided it, the cordite would have been produced and a Ministerial crisis would have been avoided and the business of the country would have gone on much better than ever. I know there is a certain difficulty raised with regard to Ministers. I think it was a most unfortunate thing that the right hon. Gentleman met M. Briand one afternoon. What happened was this, as I have heard. One of the results of having no Commission is that a Member of Parliament has to rely on gossip. There was an appointment between M. Briand and the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the present Prime Minister, at four or half-past four one afternoon. Four came and no M. Briand. Half-past four came and no M. Briand. Five came and no M. Briand, and at last a pale and rather draggled figure turned up—I believe about six o' clock—and he said, of course with tears in his voice, that he had been at the Commission all day, and ever since that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister are dead against Commissions. I put my personal experience against his. I have met these men who are the heads of Commissions, and I make this statement on their behalf, that the French Commissions have saved France on many an occasion from disaster by probing into the administrative affairs of the nation. They did certainly get rid of a Ministry. It is not for me to pronounce an opinion whether they were right or wrong, but if their statements to me were correct the Ministry ought to have gone down, and unless it did France would not be in the splendid military position she is in to-day.
    The next point I make is this: I believe that one of the tragedies of this House, not realised, perhaps even not known to all Members of the House, is the waste of the time of Members of the House. I remember that Mr. Gladstone once made the statement, which struck me with some astonishment at the time, that if he had to begin life again he would not choose a Parliamentary life. We all know what a
    1380
    miser he was with regard to time. He used to enter the House of Commons just after his walk was finished by a certain entry because he calculated that he would thereby save about thirty-five seconds. His criticism of Parliamentary life was that it wasted too much time. I said many years ago about life in this House that the life of the House of Commons was boredom tempered by Divisions. We have the boredom still. Some of the best brains in this House and some of the most eager and patriotic spirits are lying fallow and idle because they have no means of taking their responsibility and their share in helping the country in this great hour of its peril. I give one instance. I will not mention names. I was talking to a man in the Smoking Room. He is not of my opinions. He is regarded as the greatest authority on local government, on education, and on many other subjects in his county, and although he is a stout Conservative he has the respect and good will and confidence of every Liberal in his county. I regret to say that, like the Leader of the House, he was addicted to the odious vice of smoking, and he was smoking. I asked him, "Where do you spend most of your time in this House?" "Here," he said, pointing to the seat on which he was sitting, smoking and reading a paper. Here is a trained intellect, the head of a great county, and yet he is left here absolutely idle when he might, in the War Office or on a War Office or some other Committee, be bringing to the guidance of the bureaucrats and the soldiers of that great office many lessons of wisdom which might have prevented us from many of the follies and disasters which we have experienced. It will be urged that there should not be a Committee on the Foreign Office. I believe that in regard to the Foreign Office there must be a certain amount of secrecy, but I think there is great danger on the other side of allowing a certain number of high officials and one or two men to make great and tragic decisions. For my part, I would be willing to set up beside the Foreign Secretary a body of sane business. men, carefully selected by this House, who would bring to the discussion of proposals affecting foreign affairs the joint intelligence of the House. We have a heritage in this House of customs extending over generations and centuries, and in many respects that is a good feature, and I would be sorry to do away with it: but, on the other hand, we are still under a system of

    1381
    rides which were necessary in the days of the Stuarts as barricades against the usurpation of the Crown which are not necessary to-day. This House of Commons is losing its power, its authority, and its effectiveness, because in the twentieth century of express trains we are doing our work with the diligence of the eighteenth century.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend the Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry) is to be congratulated upon a powerful and deeply interesting speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has sustained and supported and almost vindicated the proposal which he brought before the House. But the test that we must apply to this and all questions at the present time is what practical step can be taken during the course of the present. War. That is what is in all our minds, and that is what underlies the speeches of the hon. Member for the Wellington Division and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division—a desire that the House of Commons should take a more real, active part in the War. No one can say, looking at the French experience and the French system of committees in force in the Chamber, prevents the effective waging of war, because France has shown herself almost unmatched in her power to realise the whole resources of the nation and to direct them with effect against the enemy. Still, I cannot help feeling that the objections which have been stated by my right hon. Friend on -this bench, and which have evidently carried conviction to the hearts of the Prime. Minister and the Leader of the House, rest on very serious tacts. The strain on Ministers in war is one of the most formidable factors we have to contemplate. Almost everything is capable of satisfactory solution at the top, but lower down in the hierarchy of Government and power the most immense difficulties stand in the way of concerted, clear-cut, powerful action. It is only the heads of Departments, the responsible, authoritative heads of Departments who can really produce and evolve and carry into effect a coherent and vigorous war policy.
    The concentration of power in a few hands and the integrity of executive action are two lessons which have been steady borne in upon everyone who has been concerned with the course of government during the progress of the present
    1382
    War, and I view with the deepest apprehension any serious exhaustion of vital power, mental energy, and precious time of those whose every hour is of the utmost consequence to the solution of the difficulties in which we stand at the present time. One of the greatest dangers is that men should consume their strength and energy in arguing and convincing others and then when they have convinced them they have neither the strength, the time, nor the energy left to take the action upon which all are agreed. Between the ! French Chamber's scrupulous, detailed, meticulous control, not only of legislation ! but of administration and of executive ! action, and the almost total abdication and neglect which has grown up in the House of Commons in regard to war matters, there is, it seems to me, a wide interval in which there is room for many forms of wise and useful solutions, and of practical and immediate solutions. Certain I am that the present failure of the House of Commons to watch with the severe attention the course and the management of the War has been responsible, as my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has pointed out, for serious military and administrative failures, and is very detrimental to the interests of the House itself. The House ought to follow war questions, particular administrative war questions, with the same attention and energy and with the same constructive knowledge and dash which they are wont to show in the details of controversial domestic legislation in times of peace.
    I think also that in addition to the close attention which the House should pay to all these matters it will be necessary if discussions in the House are to have a real value, that there should be sometimes discussions which are held in private. I have on many occasions advocated the holding of what I call Secret Sessions, but I notice there some misunderstanding in some quarters as to the purpose for which a so-called Secret Session is needed. It is usually thought sufficient to use as an argument against the Secret Session that you cannot trust all the Members of the (House of Commons. I may point out to those who are the opponents of a Secret Session that that argument is not tolerated in France, and that the mere use of it by a Minister produced immediately a ministerial crisis. I do not advocate Secret Sessions for the purpose of telling secrets or of being told secrets. By secrets I mean real secrets. The House

    1383
    knows very well that there are secrets and secrets. I do not advocate a Secret Session for that purpose. I feel that we need to consult together in private and in secret, not for the sake of receiving the most secret information at the disposal of the State, and not because we want the Government to tell us anything which the German headquarter staff do not know, and which the Government do not know that the German headquarter staff know. There would be no need for anything to be told us that is not well known to the intelligence departments of the great belligerent Powers. Nearly all great matters of war can be fully discussed on the basis of the facts which are known to the enemy. Of course, there are some things which cannot be told, in fact; but, broadly speaking, an intelligent, instructive, real, vivid discussion might be maintained on nearly all the great questions now pending before the country if that discussion were confined solely to facts which are known to the enemy. But hardly any question can be discussed properly and completely if every word is to be made public and to be read forty-eight hours afterwards by the enemy, by our Allies, and by our own soldiers in the trenches. Why cannot I or other hon. Members have the opportunity of speaking to our fellow Members in the House of Commons on some of the great, vital, urgent questions of the hour, without having it all printed in the "Berliner Tageszeitung" and the "Hamburger Nachrichten" two days later.
    I cannot see why we cannot rid ourselves of this irritating incubus, and why we cannot have the opportunity and the freedom which are vitally necessary for a frank and honest exchange of views in regard to the great matters upon which our fortunes depend. It is not the facts alone which matter, but the point of view which a Member holds, the mode in which he approaches the question, and the emphasis which he lays on this or that set of facts. These are matters on which it is intolerable that we should be forced to take the enemy into our confidence. There ought to be room even in time of war both for the Press and Parliament together. They both have their duties to perform; but one of the greatest evils we have suffered during the War has been that the practical elimination of the platform and the abdication of Parliament have given an altogether disproportionate
    1384
    power to the Press, which, working in its proper balance in the Constitution, would discharge only beneficial functions. If Parliament is to discharge its duties in war-time it must occasionally debate war matters without having reporters present. Time was when this was the invariable rule. It was so for generations, and I submit to the Government and to the House that it should now be not an infrequent practice that the Motion that strangers should withdraw should be put, and that it should be a fairly commonplace institution of our war-time Parliamentary procedure. The Government must be very careful that they do not put Members of the House in the position of having to choose between saying things which might excite despondency or alarm among our own people or our Allies, or might give information to the enemy on one hand, and, on the other hand, absolutely losing all means of controlling or influencing or warning the Government in regard to matters of public policy.
    I think that the House should sometimes discuss in public and sometimes in private in war-time. It should discuss in public when it has made up its mind and wishes to guide, reassure, arouse, or instruct the country, and it should take counsel in private, or in secret if you like the word better, when it wants to inform itself upon any great matter of policy or when it wants to put itself into true and intimate relationship with the executive Government. Let us look at this fact quite clearly. The House can take no part in the vital business of this War unless it is either willing to create a scandal or else is willing to debate sometimes in private. There are a great many people who say that we do not want the House to take any part in the War. That is a very popular and widespread opinion among people not particularly burdened with intellectual apparatus Let us be quite clear. Influence and power are going to be exercised somewhere by someone, and if the House abrogates its position, do not suppose that the gap will be allowed to remain unfilled. Why, it has not remained unfilled. Already newspaper editors are given information which is withheld from Members of the House of Commons. They observe strict confidence in regard to the information which has been given. But is it not an extraordinary thing that one party after another holds relations with the Press

    1385
    which are more intimate than Ministers hold with the representatives of the people on whose support they depend?
    Naturally the newspapers do not very much admire the idea of a Secret Session; they are naturally very content with the policies and developments which are taking place. But I venture to express, even in these latter days, a firm belief in Parliamentary institutions and in Ministries responsible to representative assemblies. Not only do I plead this question in view of the better conduct of the War—I think that is a most important aspect—but I plead it also for the position of the House of Commons after the War. That is a most serious position. Depend upon it, that if the House of Commons is not immediately and helpfully associated with the work which is now being done, if it has not played a useful and valuable part for the British people in the greatest crisis of their existence, there will be inflicted a wound on the repute and authority of this House from which recovery will be very slow, and from which, possibly, it may never recover in our time. The main difference—let us never forget it when we are discussing these Parliamentary and Constitutional forms and remedies—between the British and Prussian Constitutions consists in the House of Commons. There are plenty of people in this country, quite worthy people, whose views would unconsciously lead them, stage by stage and step by step, to just that kind of autocratic, militaristic, Imperialistic government the extravagances of which have wrought the sorrows of Russia and the crimes of Germany. We must be very careful that in the processes of war we do not contract the contagion of the disease of those against whom we are striving. We have certainly not gone to war with Prussia in order to capture its Constitution. It would indeed be the irony of fate if we liberated Germany and enslaved ourselves, and if at the same time that we were Anglicising Prussia we found that we had Prussianised England.
    It all depends on the House of Commons exercising a real, vital, earnest, active, vigilant influence upon the conduct of public affairs. I shall be asked, What good came from the last Secret Session? I have heard that question put several times. I am of opinion that great good came of the last Secret Session. Let us just remember what happened. The Government of the day had made up its mind
    1386
    that further conscription was necessary, but it was not sure whether the House of Commons would agree, and so it held a Secret Session to appeal to the House of Commons and convince the House of the seriousness of the position. What was the result? The result was that after the Secret Session the House of Commons was so convinced and so aroused as to the seriousness of the situation that it would not have the modest proposals that the Government wished to put forward, but threw them out and insisted on much more drastic proposals being carried, and even these drastic proposals have been proved by the logic of events and the unfolding sequence of facts to be far less than was actually needed at the time. It is not only in war matters that the House is abrogating its power and its functions. It has not been considered a great factor even in the questions connected with the change of Government. Let me take the two Coalitions which have been formed. The House took no part in the elaborate processes which led to those two important changes, tout submitted to the decision which had already been taken. I hold that it will be proved historically that the first Coalition was one of the greatest disasters which happened in the whole course of the War, and that it was accompanied by a lamentable interruption in the conduct of war measures which led directly to a serious military disaster. I deeply regret—I am not expressing new views, but views which I hare held for a long time, when I say it—that my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister did not at that time appeal boldly to the House of Commons on his own record and his own position. I am confident if he had done so he would have found ample support to enable him to continue to carry out his policy in its integrity.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He could not rely on his colleagues.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope that the new Prime Minister will look to the House of Commons as the foundation of his power.
    Mr. HOGGE: No fear.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Let him take every opportunity of bringing the House into friendly confident association with him during this terrible time through which we are passing.
    Mr. HOGGE: He does not even sit in it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that very rightly he is devoting his attention to the conduct of the War. I would certainly never support the demand for his attendance frequently upon this House, sitting listening to our discussions. I am putting forward a proposal of a very different order. I am saying that I hope that at intervals, not too frequent, but when convenient, there will be occasions when the House will be taken as fully as possible into the confidence of the Government when free discussion can take place, and I hope that on those occasions there will be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to come down and to offer to the House the explanations which after all come best from the head of the Government. I have never seen an occasion on which a Government on a national matter has laid its case before the House of Commons and dealt fairly with the House, when the House has not dealt fairly with the Government in return. Therefore there are these three points, which I submit respectfully to hon. Members: First, the constant attention of Members to war problems; second, the occasional free discussion of important questions of policy without reporters; and third, the close and loyal relationship between the House and the Government. All these are matters of extreme consequence and importance to us during the months which lie immediately before us.
    I am going very briefly to give one or two instances of some things which I think have suffered, suffered terribly, and to the immense detriment of a large part of the people, through lack of sustained Parliamentary attention. The first is the question of man-power. If the House had pursued this question, which, after all, was a matter well within its competence, not a matter for generals, but a matter for the representatives of the people, vehemently, carefully, and efficaciously for the last two years since it became an important question, I am confident that we should be in a far better position today in regard to the supply of men, that many cruel injustices and anomalies would have been avoided, that we should have large numbers of Indian and African soldiers and labourers assisting our own Nationals, and that from every point of view our position would have been better. Why, do you think that a Bill like this Bill which you are discussing during the last few days would have been ever intro-
    1388
    duced into a House that had been continuously studying the problem of manpower? It would have been evident from the very beginning that only a much wider scheme, on a far more scientific scheme, much more carefully considered, much more accurately proportioned to our real needs, and much fairer between man and man and place and place, would have any chance whatever of passing through a House of Commons that had been frequently discussing measures and matters of this kind.
    Here I may give illustration of the kind of topics which you ought to discuss in private session. My right hon. Friend told us the other day that 100,000 men were wanted for the Army, and that 100,000 men might make the difference between victory and defeat. Does anybody suppose that that is a statement which would stand an afternoon's investigation in the House of Commons if we were free to say what we know? No. A 100,000 men bears no relation to the needs of the Army at the present time, and I say that even if we had no question of 100,000 men making the difference between victory and defeat in the course of the present year, the House is bound to discuss these matters which are coming in the future. It is far better to discuss it first of all, at any rate, in private. Then there is the question of Salonika. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire raised this question the other day. He offered arguments with which I do not wholly agree, but which most certainly are being put forward daily all over the country, and which unquestionably require an answer. I have no doubt that the Government could make, I will not say a very convincing or reassuring answer, but a very solid answer. But they cannot possibly make it and talk freely about neutrals and other interests if it is all going to be written down, and extracts are going to be passed from one enemy hand to another, so that opinion may be prejudiced against us. It is quite impossible.
    Then I take questions connected with transport and food supply. Members of the House of Commons cannot evade their responsibilities on that. What answer can we make to our Constituents as their responsible representatives, if not merely dearth but an actual starvation came to the people of this country? I have watched with minute care the approach of this disaster, and sat up night and day to try

    1389
    and ward it off Would not the Constituents say, "We are looking to you, what are you doing"? I say it is for the Government to decide what the country shall be told, and the House is bound to insist on knowing exactly where we are and being told, at any rate, all that the Germans know.
    The last illustration I am going to take of the need of Parliamentary attention being concentrated on these topics is the Air Service. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT in his speech, to the effect that in March, 1916, there was a Parliamentary agitation on the subject of the better organisation of the Air Service. A strong Committee was formed in the House of Commons of Members of both sides; the First Lord of the Admiralty was interviewed; a debate was demanded, and at last the late Government decided to act, and they quieted this awkward agitation, by setting up an Air Board, at the head of which was placed Lord Curzon, a member of the War Cabinet to-day. I know the public Departments, and especially the greater Departments of this country well, and I know what their attitude is towards the body which has opportunity to severely criticise, to offer advice, and to make complaints, and which have not to bear allegiance and obedience to orders. I said, "Perhaps it will not lead to anything effective, and I say quite frankly that it seems to me that it is likely to lead to a first-class row." I am not going to quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he may put his mind to rest at once.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Will you give me the volume?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That was a wholly ineffective and valueless proposal for our protection which created high expectations, and Lord Curzon in the House of Lords made a speech on the subject of the Air Board, treating it as if it was a constitutional, new and International Republic. The House was delighted and entirely satisfied, and that put off the whole question. My right hon. Friend made the usual appeal about giving new men a fair chance, and so on, and the topic dropped for four or five months, then it became apparent that what had been expected too long did happen- The Admiralty had stifled the Air Board, which had been confined to petty and trivial details. There
    1390
    had been no real grip or control of the Air Service, and as I ventured to predict there had broken out a first-class row between the First Lord of the Admiralty and Lord Curzon. Then, as this became an open scandal when it had become an absolutely open scandal, and feeling that there was to be a first-class row, the Government fell and there was a complete reconstruction. New arrangements were made, but still half-hearted, still imperfect, still vitiated by most serious flaws of administrative principle, and a new Minister was appointed to have a new and fair trial, and I am sorry to say he has been ill nearly ever since. What I may call the "Curzon" period covered some months of vital consequence to the Air Service, and the results of that period are now manifesting themselves.
    We are told that our advantage in machines has passed very largely to the Germans. I cannot say whether that is so, but we are told it is. I do not know how that may be, but I have heard from many quarters complaints to that effect. Certain I am of this, that the inferiority is not due to any defect in our pilots. There is no more daring class, no more enterprising, no more gifted class of flyers in the whole world than the heroic young men who represent us at the front. But it is freely stated that they are at a disadvantage at the present time in respect of some of their machines, and certainly the casualties have been terribly severe, and out of all proportions to their numbers, and I cannot feel satisfied that they are in proper proportion to the losses suffered by the enemy. But it is not only the question of casualties at the front, but the very large number of casualties that have taken place during training at the present time. Then there is the Royal Naval Air Service, which at present and for a long time past has given no adequate fighting return for the enormous number of pilots and the great proportion of material and skilled labour which it has gathered together, and which has been fettering enterprise. Practically no serious effective measures have been taken against the torpedo bases at Zee-brugge, Ostend, and Bruges. I do not hold Lord Curzon to blame for all these results, because he had not the power. If he had possessed the power I have no doubt the results would have been avoided. But I do blame him for taking the responsibility without proper power and authority. It is a very serious thing for a man in the

    1391
    great situation he was and is in this country to take up a position like that when, after all, he had not got satisfactory control and authority, which alone could justify him in assuming this very formidable responsibility. I also blame the House of Commons for relaxing its vigilance, for being so easily put off, for being so easily content to let the question drop without pursuing it and insisting on a periodical discussion of these subjects, many of which no doubt would be much better discussed in private without being reported all over the world. I thank the House very much for having listened to me. I would not have brought these subjects before them if I had not felt that the situation is very serious indeed. Never at any moment since the victory of the Marne has the situation been more serious than at present. But for the entry of the United States in this War no prudent man could have said that the issue of this War was finally settled, and that the questions which remain were only questions of duration. Even as it is, there must be a most formidable and oppressive situation before us, and there must be the most vehement effort, the closest co-operation between the Government and the House, and between the House and the nation in the terrible months of war which are coming, more terrible than we have experienced, and it is only by the highest wisdom and the utmost daring and the utmost comradeship, that we can come through those struggles safely, and for that great work I am sure the House of Commons would be failing in its trust to the people of England unless it played a constant and active part.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have listened to most of the discussion this afternoon, including the speech of my right hon. Friend, with a good deal of agreement and still more of sympathy. My right hon. Friend dealt in the main with the subject we have been debating the last few hours, and it is to that I wish to devote the few remarks which I intend to address to the House, but before doing so, I wish to refer to the three subjects which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward, and into which he imported all that activity of thought and expression to which we are accustomed in a more controversial atmosphere than that which we have had so far this afternoon. The first question which he raised was that in relation to the first Coalition Government, which he described
    1392
    as one of the most disastrous events of the War. I think it is rather difficult to be sure of that. I think that every Member of the House in his own mind should try to make the forecast of what would have happened without it, that I had to make before I decided to agree to that arrangement. I wonder if my right hon. Friend has made that forecast. I will tell the House exactly what I think would have happened. I feel perfectly certain, in spite of the appeal which my right hon. Friend suggested the late Prime Minister ought to have made, that within a few months the Government of another party, and that the party to which I belong, would have been responsible for the conduct of the War. I do not suggest for a moment that because I happen to be. the Leader of that party in this House, that I would shirk any responsibility which might have fallen upon me, but I took the view that I take now, that if that had happened we should at once have been faced with the question of compulsion. We as a party would have tried to carry it immediately, but we could only have done it by dividing the country from top to bottom at that time [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"], and we should have found, possibly that with greater vigour of action we should have had against us far more disunion in the nation, and the result would have been worse for this country in the struggle in which we are engaged. The right hon. Gentleman suggested I had said we needed 100,000 men. I did not say that. I said that the recruits had fallen 100,000, and that that was the excuse and justification for the Bill being introduced. The right hon. Gentleman went on to prophesy again, and he said that no man could possibly say that 100,000 men would make all the difference between a decisive and an indecisive result. How in the world could one make a statement like that? Who can foresee? It may be true. The probability is that it is true, but this at least is certain, that in this struggle it is the last man that tells, and the absence of this 100,000 men might just have made the difference between success and failure. The last point raised by my right hon. Friend was as to the Air Board. I do not enjoy reading my speeches any more than other hon. Members, but I have looked through this one, and I cannot find any of that optimism in it to which he referred. What I pointed out, and it is as true to-day, was that you had to choose

    1393
    between leaving things as they were, between setting up a compromise and trying to get two Departments to work together, and between establishing a fully-fledged Air Board. Of the three I believed then, and I believe now, any attempt to do the last would have caused dislocation of the Service, and was not the best plan. My right hon. Friend says the Board has been a complete failure. I say it has not.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the intermediate stages.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not even in the intermediate stages.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said the present Air Board was a failure.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If my right hon. Friend could see the difference in numbers and the efficiency of the machines and men we have now, as compared with what they were at the end of the last campaign, he would realise that a great deal has been done. It is much too soon to say that the arrangements have been a failure. I may say for myself there is no branch of the Service in which, from the beginning, I have taken so great an interest, and I say this further, we had plenty of warning of the need for more airships, and we should have been much to blame if we had not done all we could to secure them. It is quite true that we have not now the ascendancy which we had at the end of the last campaign, and it is true also the same thing was the case at the beginning of the campaign last year. I think the House of Commons would be wise to wait a little before coming to the conclusion that we may not again completely regain the ascendancy which we had at the end of the last campaign.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman look forward to that with confidence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman puts to me a question which I will answer at once. I do not say that we can. That depends not only on what we have done but on what the enemy have done. I say we have made great improvements, and whether or not they are adequate events only can show. If I may, I will leave these subjects and come to what was the most important discussion of the last few hours. I listened with great interest to the somewhat gossipy speech, if I may be allowed to so term it, of the hon. Member for the Scot-
    1394
    land Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I do not complain of it. It so happens I was not long a Member of this House before I got on to the Government Bench. In spite of that, if I have any small merit for the position I now occupy as Leader of the House, the reason is that privately I have a much more vivid recollection of, and much more sympathy with the two years or thereabouts when I was a private Member, than I have for the period I have occupied a seat on one or other of these Front Benches. My hon. Friend spoke of men of talent who come here and find there is no use for them. I remember very well looking at the crowded benches in this House when I first came here, and saying to myself, "I wish Edison or somebody would invent a machine which would measure the intellectual capacity of the different individuals," for I felt sure that such a machine would produce one of the biggest revolutions that has ever been experienced. I am not at all sure I desire that machine now. I remember also, in those late sittings which we had then, I used to look up to the Press Gallery with absolute envy of the men who had something to do, as compared with the men on the floor of this House who, or at any rate the bulk of whom, had nothing whatever to do. The House will therefore understand that I do really desire to see the House of Commons take a more active and effective part in the Government, if it can be done.
    A definite proposal has been made that we should imitate the Commission system which exists in France. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was a great believer in that system, and the words which were quoted earlier in the afternoon show he thought it was one we might adopt here. But two things have changed his mind, and influenced mine also. The first is we had on the part of the Government a very careful and impartial examination made into the working of the French system during the early period of the War, and it did not suggest itself to us after examining it that it was a system we would find useful. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I cannot recall all the reasons, but I will give one. What influenced me personally more than anything was my intercourse with the French Ministers. The hon. Gentleman told us of some experiences of mine with M. Briand. It was something which I do not remember

    1395
    having repeated, but I suppose I must have done so. It was an experience of having had to wait for an hour or two for M. Briand, because he was late on account of having had a rather vigorous time before one of the Commissions. But that was one half the story. M. Briand told me on that occasion that, for the last thirty days I think it was, he had had to make at least one speech and oftener more than one speech on every one of those days before one or other of these Parliamentary Commissions. I say this, the power of work of any man is limited. No man can really work all his waking time for any length of time without breaking down. I remember a saying of Burke, something to this effect—and I profoundly believe it—that a man who is always working can never have a sound judgment, as he never gives himself time to come to one. I say that if a Minister. charged with a great Executive Department, is to spend a large part of his time in defending himself from criticism his power of doing his work is diminished, and it must be bad for the work.
    I would like to say—it is a very wide subject, and it is really impossible to deal adequately with it, for the whole question of our Constitution is involved—that I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Herbert Samuel) that the danger of a democratic form of government is the jealousy which prevents the Executive from having sufficient power to carry on. I remember at the very time Lincoln was engaged in what I believe under different conditions in a struggle not unlike that in which we are now engaged, at that time President Lincoln said something like this, that he was suffering from the disadvantage of free government. This War is going to decide whether or not a democratic Government will allow the executive to have sufficient powers to enable it to exist. In a time of war the executive Government must be given more rather than less power than in ordinary times, or it cannot carry out the work in which it is engaged. A great deal has been said about the loss of authority by the House of Commons, and my hon. Friend behind me told me he had heard me mention that from the Front Bench opposite. Indeed it has been said by almost everyone in opposition in my time about the Govenment of the day. There is a great deal of truth in it. The loss of power of the House of Commons was de-
    1396
    claimed against very largely before the War, and it was due to two things. One was that, possibly because parties were cast in large numbers, the House concentrated itself as often as not on trivial things, and not on things of great moment. But the real reason for it was the growth of the party system which compelled Members to sink their individual feelings in the fortunes of the party to which they belonged, and that was a growing feeling which was reflected in the House of Commons. In my own experience, and I am sure it is true of every Member of the House, the party machine all over the country has been growing in power, and there was a reflection of that on these benches. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division said that this system should not interfere with a strong Government. I do not agree with him. Either these Commissions would not be free to exercise their judgment or they would always have in view the effect it would have on the party to which they belong.
    Instead of believing the House of Commons has lost control during the War, I take and I have good reason to take an exactly opposite view. What happened before the War I The Government on this Bench immediately before the War—it would have been the same if it had been a different kind of Government—had not a very strong majority. They had not a majority belonging to its own party. What was the result? It was absolutely sure of itself on any occasion, because it knew that every Member would support it, right or wrong. Since I have been Leader of this House and it was true of the last Coalition Government—what we suffer from—I am looking at it from a purely selfish point of view- is that there is no party on which we can rely to support us when we are wrong. I do not mean there is no party which will support us if it is a question of turning out the Government, but what occurs is that in regard to every subject which comes up Members look upon it on its merits, and if an Amendment is suggested it is not merely the men of one party who vote for it. The result is that the pressure of individual Members of the House of Commons is greater now than it was when the party system existed at its full strength.
    But that is only the fringe of the subject. It really would be an advantage for the House of Commons, and, in the long run, for the Government of the day, if

    1397
    some means could be found by which the House of Commons could take a more direct and more intelligent interest in the business being carried on. I entirely agree with that. I agree also with what my right hon, Friend said about the basis of the difference between us and our enemies being the House of Commons. That really is true. It is the free institutions that make all the difference. But I do not agree with him that the minds of people are gradually moving towards a system when they do not wish any House of Commons at all and that in time of war those who say so are not overburdened in intellectual apparatus. That is not my experience. The test is not intellectual apparatus. It is a question of temperament more than intellect, and so far as I am concerned, and I think the great bulk of us are at one on this, while I recognise that despotic Governments in a time of war have an immense advantage over free institution, I recognise also that if free institutions can survive, and they will, I would rather have their success than success under any other form of government.
    I do believe that something can be done on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend I have never, as far as I know, been opposed to the idea of occasional discussions in private. I do not at all think that it is a drawback to the Government. On the contrary, while it is perfectly true there are some things no member of the Government could say, you could, in private, if it was not reported, and that is the essence of it, give in a general way reasons for your course of action which I found in practice it was impossible for me to do when every word was being reported next day. I do believe that occasionally a frank discussion of that kind, when the Members of the House of Commons at all events saw the reasons which made it difficult for us to take a course which seemed easy—I do believe that in the long run that would be quite as much advantage to the Government as it would be to the country. My right hon. Friend said that the Government ought to rely upon the House of Commons. He would be a very foolish man who did not know that this Government and every Government, and this Government perhaps more than most because of the novelty of its constitution, depended absolutely on the support of the House of Commons. It is the machine with which we have got to work, and one of our first duties is to work that machine in a way that makes
    1398
    things go smoothly. But it means something more than that, I think. It ought to mean something on the part of the House of Commons also, and that is this, that if on the whole they do make up their minds that they do not wish a change of Government, that this is the Government they wish to carry on the War, then whatever criticism they indulge in or whatever efforts they make to improve their aim should be to stimulate and not to hamper the Executive Government of the day.

    EXPORT TRADE (USE OF SHIPPING).
    Mr. HOLT: We have had a very interesting discussion, and I am sure we would have been glad if it had gone on longer. I have risen to draw attention to a matter which I believe to be one of considerable importance. If I were to adopt the practice which has been used on other occasions and to commence my remarks by a text I find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 2nd of April, column 916, in the following question and answer:
    "Sir William Byles asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the export of cotton piece-goods from the United Kingdom to India and Burmah can be accelerated; is he aware that there are 20,000 packages now awaiting shipment for Bombay alone representing a sterling value of £800,000; and whether, in view of the importance to national interests of this trade, the inadequate shipping facilities will be extended?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend, and I am glad to be able to inform him that steps have already been taken to deal with the congestion referred to. I am sorry to have to add, however, with regard to the last part of his question, that in view of the serious character of the tonnage position, it is impossible to make any promise that other difficulties of the same sort will not arise in the near future."
    I do not think that that question and answer have received anything like the amount of public attention which their importance demands. I would also like to tell the House what I think many of them must know, that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) only raised a small part of the question for this congestion and difficulty in the export trade applies not only to India and Burmah but to the Far East, China and Australasia. What has happened is this, that the ships which are engaged in these trades have been, by the orders of the Government, very largely taken out of those trades and placed in the North Atlantic trade. As far as shipowners are concerned, the present arrangements really makes no financial difference whatever. Certainly the ships have been used in a way which is not very satisfactory, because they are being

    1399
    put to unsuitable work, but that is not really a matter as to which I complain at all.
    The seriousness of the position revealed by the answer I have read and by the facts as we know them, lies in the effect upon the export trade of the country, particularly the export trade of Manchester piece goods. It must be common knowledge that the best markets now open for Manchester, if they are not at all times the best markets for Manchester goods, lie in the more distant countries. I think I would be right in saying that India is probably the best market, with China probably second, and, of course, at present Manchester has lost the Levant. The markets are to be found in all the more distant voyages. If, therefore, the more distant voyages are to be prohibited by the Government or very largely reduced, it must necessarily follow that you have struck a very great blow at the export trade of the country. In all the discussions we have had with regard to the position of this country during the War, it has always been stated, and stated quite truly, that it was a matter of grave national importance to maintain our export trade. In the discussions about manpower, those engaged in this trade have been constantly classed as people who are doing work of national importance. I do not think anybody would be found to deny the very serious character from the purely financial point of view of any interference with the export trade. We want this trade in order to finance the purchases abroad which we are obliged to make to provide ourselves with the munitions of war. Indeed, those who manufacture goods for the export trade are really just as much making munitions as are the people who are actually engaged in doing so in this country, because the merchandise which is exported is used as a means of payment for the munitions which we bring from abroad.
    The whole question of foreign exchanges must also be very seriously affected by a diminution in the export trade. I do not think, indeed, that anyone would be found to question the importance of the export business. If this export trade is going to be stopped, I would ask the House to consider what the result is going to be in our industry at home. I understand from a paragraph which I saw in the "Manchester Guardian" the other day that bankers in Lancashire are themselves
    1400
    seriously concerned as to the effect on their position which follows from the stoppage of the flow of exports. It must not be forgotten that all these goods that are going out of the country have had advances made upon them at almost every stage of their existence, from the moment that the raw cotton was shipped from America up till the moment when the finished goods are going to be sold to the ultimate consumer in foreign parts, and if you put a stop to the flow of those goods at any stage between the original fountain and the final destination then you put those whose business it is to finance the operation in a position in which they have advanced money which they have no reasonable expectation of ever being able to recover. The position of the bankers becomes an exceedingly serious one. As to the position of manufacturers, merchants, and brokers engaged in this trade, and of course the workmen who are employed in the factories, I think that speaks for itself. A general stoppage of the cotton trade of Lancashire would mean the most serious national disaster from the financial point of view. Other trades have had their exports prohibited or stopped, but that has been because the articles they made were required for domestic consumption. That is not true of the cotton trade, which is essentially a trade which manufactures for export, and only to a very moderate extent can the markets which may be lost, if what we understand is the policy of the Government is persisted in, be replaced by home consumption.
    In regard to the trade both to India and China, I would like to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the business of the Lancashire manufacturers will almost certainly be taken by Japanese and native Indian manufacturers, who are always hot competitors, and we must by no means disregard the possibility that trade which will be taken during the period of the War by Indian or Japanese competitors may not be recovered after the War. It is a very dangerous thing to introduce a competitor to your customers. I think the position revealed by my hon. Friend's answer to the question is most alarming, because it is quite plain that no Government would ever have taken the step of seriously curtailing their export trade unless they had found themselves, for other reasons, in a very difficult position. We know exactly, of course, what these ships will be used for. It is to bring

    1401
    food and munitions, and I do not complain of that being done because it is absolutely necessary that we should have food and munitions, but if we have got to such a stage that we can only get food and munitions by stopping our export trade, then I think we have a very sinister indication of the position into which the country has got. I do not know that one wants to emphasise the exact reasons why this state of affairs has arisen. It is a difficulty largely arising from the very great figure to which our Army has been raised—a difficulty which many of us prophesied would be the inevitable result of making the Army so large a portion of our effort in this War. It is a difficulty which has been further accentuated by the employment of the Army on distant expeditions. Those, indeed, are very largely the causes of this difficulty.
    But what I want to ask from the Government on this subject is a frank and open statement of the position. I want them to put their cards, so to speak, before the public. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether it is part of the policy of the Government and whether they are contemplating a total prohibition of the export trade in cotton goods, because if they are contemplating anything of that sort it is quite plain that, first of all, the people ought to know it, and, secondly, that steps should be taken at once to prevent the importation of the raw materials necessary for the manufacture, for nothing can be worse for us than to have the export of this class of merchandise prohibited—-not prohibited in terms, but nevertheless in fact, by Government action—while all the time there is a steady stream of the raw material for these goods coming into the country. That can only lead to congestion and financial embarrassment. Whatever is going to be done in regard to this trade, the loss to the nation and the difficulty will be very much minimised if the Government will openly state their policy, and let it be a clear and consistent policy which people can work to. And, of course, as I pointed out just now, the financial position will be very much eased if we are not allowed or induced to import into this country raw materials which can never, during the period of the War, be worked up into finished articles and sold.
    There is one point with regard to the departmental action of the Shipping Controller to which I wish to draw attention,
    1402
    and that is that in whatever stream the export trade is allowed to go one, however attenuated that stream may be, he should take steps to make it a regular stream. We do not want to have a large accumulation of goods, such as the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) alluded to, kept waiting in our ports or -warehouses possibly for weeks and then let go as a flood. What we want is some arrangement by which there shall be a fairly even flow of the volume of exports, because if you do not have a fairly even flow you get congestion in every port, you get a dislocation of labour, you get a dislocation of every arrangement, and nobody is in a position to use any intelligence or to make any sort of systematic plan. It seems to me very necessary that the Government should put everybody connected with these trades in a position to work whatever business is left to them in a reasonable, intelligent, and economical manner. I would also point this out, that all these voyages, which are normally undertaken to distant places, bring back to this country commodities of very great value. If we do not know in advance what is the volume of shipping that is going to be allowed to leave this country for distant places week by week or month by month, no one can make any reasonable plan as to which of the valuable commodities—I do not mean valuable in the mere sense of money value, but valuable for national purposes- can be brought home and which can not. I do not wish to enter into any discussion of the situation in regard to tonnage, as to whether or no the decision of the Government is necessary or whether it could be avoided. What I particularly desire to do is to emphasise the seriousness of the position, because I do not think the importance of the step taken in, if not prohibiting, at any rate seriously curtailing, the export trade can very well be exaggerated. I invite my hon. Friend who represents the Shipping Controller to make a frank statement to the House and to let us know exactly where we are.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I do not know to what Department the questions that I have to raise belong, but to a large extent I represent the commercial community in this House. We have complained very seriously of the action taken by the Government in several directions. I know perfectly well that the nominal heads are not responsible because, as a rule, they do not follow details at all; but there is a strain to throw off and to hamper the trade of

    1403
    the merchants of this country. The last speaker, the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), has pointed out that the congestion in the exports of the cotton trade and the lack of tonnage is a serious matter. We know that there has been a great shortage of tonnage. It is generally agreed that the shortage is to be accounted for, in the first instance, by the gross mismanagement of the position some time ago. There are, however, other things of which the merchants are complaining. One is that preference in a great many cases is being given to our foreign competitors, and that British merchants are being left entirely to themselves without the protection from the British Government to which they are entitled. The last speaker mentioned the fact that in consequence of the prohibition of, or rather the inability of the Government to, allow the export of cotton goods from Manchester to India and China, that that trade will be taken up very considerably by the Japanese. That I know is what is taking place. The British Government are going to help the Japanese to capture the China trade and the Indian trade. Further, they are doing their best to help the Japanese to enter into a new trade—that is, the Persian trade.
    The Government, to show hon. Members how the Government favour foreigners to the detriment of British merchants, made a prohibition of the import of certain articles in the month of December. The British Minister in Japan made representations to the Home Government that the British merchants were complaining that it would be a serious matter for them if they were not allowed to ship the goods for which they had contracted, because they had had to pay for them—and remember that many of them are comparatively poor men—and that they would be in the position of having these goods thrown on their hands and to have them waiting until after the War, when the markets may appreciate very considerably. They could get no satisfaction. They therefore went to the Board of Trade, and begged the Board of Trade to reconsider their decision and to help them out of their difficulties. It was of no avail. What was the consequence? British merchants in Japan had to go to their manufacturers, with whom they had made contracts, and had in some cases to pay a penalty, to get the contracts cancelled. The Japanese merchants approached the British Govern-
    1404
    ment through their Minister in London, and knowing that they were in a better position vis-a-vis with the British Government than the British merchants were, they, whilst negotiations were going on, took advantage of the position of the British merchants. Whereas the British merchants were having to cancel contracts, the Japanese were taking up the goods of the contracts that were being cancelled. The result of the negotiations was that the Board of Trade issued an Order. They had refused permission to the British merchants to ship beyond the date of their original prohibition. When approached, however, by the Japanese they extended the time till the end of April. The Japanese merchants were thus able to take advantage of this extension of time, which was not communicated at all to the British merchants. The first we heard of it was in telegram from Japan to say that the Japanese merchants were shipping whilst the British merchants had to look on. Again, the consequence was that the buyers in this country were asking for goods because the prohibition had been taken off. The British merchants went to their manufacturers and re-entered into contracts, sometimes at higher prices, to get the goods delivered. The merchants then took the opportunity to book their freights forward so as to be able to get the goods into this country, and the next thing that happened was that the Board of Trade undertook again to prohibit imports of goods into this country after 15th March, notwithstanding that they had given permission to import goods into this country up till the end of April.
    I can only attribute the action of the authorities to the utter lack of commercial knowledge. Unfortunately in the public Departments we have nobody who understands the methods of carrying on the trade of this country or of the world. The consequence is that we get into the most fearful muddle imaginable whenever commercial matters are concerned. They never take the trouble to ask the advice of people who have commercial knowledge and experience. They very often go to their experts and to their theorists when they should go to practical business men. They have told the merchants now, in relation to the Regulation for the shipment of goods which had to be made before 15th March, that the prohibition means that the firms that have paid for their goods will be allowed to ship them, and those firms who have not paid for their goods

    1405
    must keep them out in Japan. Anybody—even the office-boy—knows that it is the custom of merchants in Japan to take advances from the banks and to make advances to the manufacturers to whom they give their orders, and the goods come in by agreement. They are constantly paying for goods, from day to day, and they keep them in their godowns until the shipping opportunity occurs. Sometimes, especially at the present time, when there is a scarcity of tonnage, you have to keep the goods probably for a month or six weeks. The hon. Member opposite mentioned cotton. I would ask the Board of Trade to remember that most of these goods will come by Japanese steamer.
    The Japanese, although they are our Allies, are not going to give up their business for the benefit even of this country. The Japanese owners will keep their factories going in Japan, and if the goods are prohibited in this country because the Board of Trade, or the Shipping Controller, imagine that those ships will be devoted to bringing foodstuffs to this country, I can assure them that I know the Japanese, from an experience of forty-seven years in business, very much better. Those boats, if they are not allowed to bring Japanese goods to these ports, will take Japanese goods to the markets which have previously been supplied from Great Britain, and do a tremendous injury to the future business of this country. It is far better to let them bring a small proportion of Japanese goods here, so as to keep the. neutral markets for ourselves in the future, than to let them introduce their goods into those neutral markets to our detriment after the War. The Board of Trade have told the merchants in Japan that they can ship the goods to this country, and secure a licence, provided the goods have been paid for prior to the 15th March. So far as we are concerned, if an English house has paid for those goods in Japan before 15th March, that English house will not be allowed to have a licence to import them into Great Britain; but if a Japanese house has paid for them in Japan, the Japanese house is to be allowed to import them into Great Britain. If the British houses in Japan have to cancel their freight engagements, those boats are coming here just the same, but the engagements and the space vacated by the British merchants will be filled by their Japanese competitors, who will be able to take the profit, and the British houses will have to
    1406
    maintain their position of debtors to the banks who have advanced the money for them.
    I have another and a serious complaint to make against some Department of the Government in consequence of their action in supporting foreign traders against British traders in different parts of the world. The British Government were requiring to buy coal, and they wanted to buy it in Japan, where, as everybody knows, there is very good steam coal. Nothing was said to any of the British merchants in Japan. There are houses in the coal trade who shipped coal long before the Japanese themselves thought of shipping coal and making a market abroad. The British Government—I have tried to find out which Department, but every Department denies having done anything in this business—bought considerable quantities of coal. I do not know what price they paid for it, but the first indication we had that they were buying coal was a tremendous rise in the price of coal in Japan. The first intimation we had as to the buyers of the coal was from our competitors when they asked us to let them have some coal for the British Government, as they had two boats in and had not sufficient coal to supply the requirements of the cargo. We naturally let them have the coal. We saw several steamers coming in, and, on inquiry, we found they were British boats sent by the Admiralty, but for which Department, of course, we could never find out. They were some of the boats chartered by the Admiralty, which at that time had control of the shipping. The British merchants were found again in the same position. The Japanese had the orders for this coal. They went into the market and bought up all the coal, and the price rose from about 12s. 6d. to 20s. in a week. I contend that it is the duty of any country to support the merchants of that country in whatever part of the world they may be. There is no Government in existence, I believe, except the British Government, that would ignore their own countrymen and place with foreigners the orders and the advantages of the trade with the Government. It really confirms what the present First Lord of the Admiralty said in this House in the Nigerian Debate. He said that you only have to be a British merchant not to be trusted by the officials. I do not blame Ministers, for they are never consulted, and know nothing about it. It

    1407
    is the permanent officials who have the entire control and management of these things, and there never was a truer word said in this House than that remark by the present First Lord of the Admiralty in the Nigerian Debate.
    I will take another instance where the British Government are doing a serious injury. They are buying large quantities of stores in Japan for the Persian Gulf Expeditionary Force. Again they ignore the British merchants in Japan; probably they are not aware that there are such things as British merchants in different parts of the world. At any rate, they ignore them, and actually the Japanese knew nothing about the Persian Gulf trade until the British Government introduced them there. They have started a line of steamers. The Persian Gulf was one of the best markets for British goods before the outbreak of this War. We had certainly competition with the Germans. What did the German Government do? They started their own line of steamers to the Persian Gulf. They induced Germans to go there and establish themselves, and supported them in every way they possibly could. Yet we have the British Government deliberately introducing some of our most severe competitors into the Persian Gulf trade, because they will not trust the British merchants to represent them and to do their business. I should like to know which Department is responsible. Last year, when the discussion arose, the then President of the Board of Trade made some statements which were absolutely incorrect, and I told him then that the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade was about the worst informed Department there was in any of the Government offices. I can only attribute this to the fact that the Commercial Department is ignorant of the fact that there are British merchants in every part of the world whose integrity and honesty is proved by the fact that any foreigner will go to them in preference. The British Government have done nothing to assist British merchants in the Far East, and they have done rather less than the French, because when the French Government desired to buy things in Japan they went to British merchants, because they knew they could trust them implicitly with any orders placed in their hands.
    Then there is the question of establishing a trade bank. I believe this is also a
    1408
    matter connected with the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade. We have heard that they want to establish a trade bank because it is considered that the facilities granted to merchants engaged in the commerce of this country are inadequate. I can only say that I attribute this to their utter ignorance of the commercial facilities, and the methods by which the business of the country and the world is carried on. Probably they have never heard of the numerous banks which exist for the purpose of carrying on the commerce of the world. Probably they have entirely forgotten that prior to the War the imports and exports of this country amounted to over £800,000,000 sterling, and they certainly must have omitted to inquire how that trade was financed. My experience has taught me that nearly the whole of that financing was done by British banks. There is the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the Chartered Bank of India and Australia, the National Bank of India, the National Bank of South America, in fact, there are so many that it would be utterly impossible for me to go through all the banks engaged in financing the trade of this country to the extent of £800,000,000 a year, and who also finance the trade between India and the United States, Japan and the United States, and between Japan and India, and this trade would probably amount to £1,000,000,000. And yet to-day we are told that we have not the banking facilities, and that it is necessary to establish a new trade bank and a British trading organisation, although British merchants throughout the world have carried on the trade of this country with the world for generations. I think I can claim that British merchants have carried on that trade to the satisfaction of this country, and a large amount of what used to be called the invisible revenue of this country was attributable to the energies of British merchants in all parts of the world.
    9.0 p.m.
    When we are told that we want a new institution for the purpose of developing the industries of this country, I ask myself what sort of people can possibly have made such a suggestion. There is not one of the great industries of this country that could possibly establish a branch or an agency of their own in any country in the world because the business that is being done would not be sufficient to pay an agency.

    1409
    How the business is done is that the different industrial engineering firms and others interested in these trades go to the merchants, and some of those merchants represent perhaps twenty or thirty different industrials, and by that means they are enabled to get the orders for those industrials. I have seen in some papers that this new trade bank is for the purpose of imitating what is called the British and Chinese Corporation. That corporation has done fairly good business in China, but it has also caused this country to lose some very considerable orders and contracts. The reason why the British and Chinese Corporation have done so much in China is that they have a monoply of the patronage of the British Government to the detriment of all the British merchants who are entitled to the same assistance from the Government. The complaint has been made over and over again that the merchants in China could not get the assistance of the British Government.
    I go back a few years to the time when the Germans were able to get considerable contracts simply because the British Government tried to force down the throats of the Chinese Government this British and Chinese Corporation, and my opinion is that the establishment of this trade bank is merely the result of a combination of manufacturers, the same as the British and Chinese Corporation, who represent a certain clique of manufacturers, and when that corporation gets an order from a railway the order goes to the one clique of firms, and nobody else is able to derive any benefit from that particular order. It is natural that, as you have no business men in our Government Department, they know absolutely nothing about it. They are entirely in the palm of the hands of these gentlemen who want to get into the position of having a monopoly of the Government support, and I am not attributing to them any other motive. The people in this Department know absolutely nothing about the matter, and a man goes to them and says, "We have not the facilities for this and that." They know nothing of what actually exists and probably care less, for they do not want the trouble, and all this is most injurious to the well-being of the commercial community. In China, where the British and Chinese Corporation is established, the Chinese Government would not have any-thnig to do with it for a time, and a firm of British merchants went to the British
    1410
    Minister, because the Chinese Foreign Minister told him, "If you bring a letter from your Minister that you are capable of carrying out orders given by the Chinese Government, we will give you the order for this railway." The British Minister absolutely refused any assistance, because he said they were bound to the British and Chinese Corporation. The British and Chinese Corporation was nominally supported by the financial group known as the Five-Power Group. A German merchant went to the German Ambassador, and said, "Will you give us a letter for the Chinese Minister, saying that we are capable of carrying out any orders entrusted to us?" The German Minister immediately gave the letter, as he would to any German subject, and when he was accused by the other members of the syndicate for having supported a German, he said, "I did what I always do for any German: he asked me for a letter, saying that they were capable. If they get an order for one thing or another it is not my business. They are quite capable to fulfil any contracts which they may take, and I felt justified in saying so, whatever the object of that letter might be."
    I can tell you of dozens of cases, most outrageous cases, where the Departments have actually refused to give any assistance. I know of the case of a considerable concession where the foreign Government could not treat with a certain party who was being supported by the British Government. The British Government absolutely tried to force down their throats a syndicate with which the foreign Government would have nothing to do, and the concession was never granted to anybody, because the British Government would not support the people who were in a position to take the contract. I should like to know from the Board of Trade what the function of this new institution is to be. I want to urge, and I hope the House will support me, that this institution should not have the sole support of the British Government. Every British merchant in any part of the world should be able to claim and receive the support of the British Government, whatever this institution is to be. I think it is the greatest mistake for the Government to interfere in commercial matters of this kind. They are bound to make a mess of it, as they always do when they interfere with commercial matters. I should like to know what is to be the position of this new organisation, and I want an assurance

    1411
    that it is not to be a monopoly in all parts of the world and to have the sole support of the British Government. I hope the House will support me on behalf of the British merchants throughout the world, who have done such valuable service in the past for our country and for the Empire, and who are entitled to the support of the Government. The home trade of this country, amounting to over £800,000,000 a year, and the international trade, amounting to over £1,000,000,000 a year, has been financed in the past without a British Government institution or bank, and if the Government would ask any man who has practical knowledge of business matters they would learn that there is no need of any sort or kind for an institution of this description supported by a Government Grant.
    Sir J. D. REES: Eminent City men have recommended it.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to cross-examine them for five minutes. I would prove that they either know nothing about it or are interested in the monopoly. That is my opinion, and I am prepared to support it, and even to go better. We have had this Italian Bank in regard to which there appears on the Estimates a sum of £60,000 guaranteed by the Government, and I should like to know what sort of business it is doing, because certainly there is no very great need for it. We made representations to the Shipping Controller, to the Food Controller, and to the Board of Trade with reference to the trade in dates in the Persian Gulf, of which about 30,000 or 40,000 tons are shipped in September. I pointed out that the merchants in the Persian Gulf had to make advances in March, April, and May so as to secure the product for shipment. I asked the Department whether they were going to allow dates to be imported this year and whether one could get a licence for a steamer. The complaint is that the licensing of steamers last year was not very fairly done. The present Controller had not been appointed at that time.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): Would my hon. Friend mind explaining what he means when he says that the matter was unfairly dealt with?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will come to that presently. I want to put on record that
    1412
    whereas the price of dates in normal times is 16s. per cwt., it is now 47s. 6d. In normal times they are sold at from 2id. to 3d. per lb. on the barrows of the hawkers; this year they are being sold at 8d. and 9d. per lb. by the grocers. Last year my firm applied for a licence for certain steamers to load with dates in the Persian Gulf for London. The steamers went out on Government time charters, and the owner told us that they had been released on condition that they loaded with wheat at Bombay or Karachi. They gave one steamer, because I threatened to make a row. I want to know what is going to happen this year. Are the Government going to prohibit the importation of dates? They ought to do so, because dates are not necessary. Dates now are 47s. 6d. per cwt., and are sold retail at 9d. per lb. You can import sugar and retail it at 6d. per lb. A third of the weight of dates is stone, and I ask the hon. Member who says that they are good food—which a poor man would wish to have: I lb. of dates at 9d., or I lb. of sugar at 6d. That is the question which has to be decided. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) last year asked why a British boat was licensed to load a cargo of dates from the Persian Gulf to the United States. He was told there was too big a stock in the United Kingdom. When you have the price put up from 16s. to 47s. 6d. a hundredweight I do not think there is any plethora of dates in the United Kingdom. I want to find-out from the Board of Trade or the Shipping controller or the Food Controller what action they are going to take. Are they going to devote 30,000 or 40,000 tons of shipping to bring dates to this country at 47s. 6d. a hundredweight to be sold at 9d, a lb., or are they going to devote that tonnage to the transport of sugar to be sold at 6d. a lb. or of flour? My firm has put in an application for a licence for a steamer to load in the Persian Gulf, and I want to know, if any licences are granted, whether we shall have the first preference to a licence and that it will not be given to the ring. It is very difficult to get anything out of any public Department. We are told we must not speak in the House of Commons of any business in which we are interested, but I have ventured to break that rule, because it is very evident that if people do not talk of what they know it is difficult to get a question ventilated. I am not alone in these things, mere are thou-

    1413
    sands of other merchants, consequently I raised these questions to-day so that we may know exactly where we are.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has touched upon a large variety of subjects into which I do not propose to follow him. With regard to the last matter to which he referred, at one and the same time he is urging the Government to prohibit the importation of dates into this country as an unnecessary luxury, while requesting me to tell him whether he can have a licence for a ship in the coming months to import those dales into this country.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: What I said was that you ought to prohibit the import, but that if you are going to grant a licence, I claim to be first entitled, because I asked for it first.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I will leave my hon. Friend to reconcile those two statements.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I do not think I ought to allow that to pass without any comment. It is a very remarkable exception to the general rule that an hon. Member should rise in his place and discuss the action of a Minister of the Crown in a matter relating to his own private business.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: After what you have said, Sir, I will pass from that particular subject, and address myself with very great pleasure to the exceedingly moderate speech with which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) brought before the House a subject upon which he is not only well qualified to speak, but which is of the very greatest importance at the present time. I welcome the opportunity he has given me of dealing with that particular matter. During the period of three years in which we have been engaged in this great contest the conditions of war have radically changed the normal character of our external trade. They have profoundly modified its direction, and the present Government, like its predecessors, has been compelled to proceed from step to step in an endeavour to make the shipping of this country of the greatest possible value to the country, in view of those rapidly changing conditions. That is a task the seriousness of which it is impossible to exaggerate. As the House well knows, for a considerable period
    1414
    those in charge of this matter found it sufficient to requisition a number—a gradually increasing number—of those roaming vessels which are familiarly known as tramps. They obviously offered the most convenient field of operations in the attempts that were made to readjust tonnage to the conditions of which I have spoken. But lately, as the tonnage position has grown more and more in seriousness—I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will acquit the Government of any desire to conceal the seriousness of the situation—it has become necessary to extend the area of requisition. I indicated, in a brief speech I made in the House a few weeks ago, that we have had to take into consideration and to attempt to readjust the established lines of communication which have been set up by the enterprise and skill of British shipowners during a period of many years. As I said three weeks ago, the area of requisition has been greatly extended. Since my right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller took up his great task, I suppose that well over 1,000 more vessels have either been brought under actual requisition or are now under notice of that requisition.
    When I state that fact the House will realise how drastic are the steps which have been taken since the Ministry of Shipping was formed. Included in this great number of vessels are over 800 cargo liners trading on well-known and well-established lines of communication throughout the world., As the House will readily understand, in dealing with this subject imports have to be our first consideration—imports for the purposes of the War and imports for the purposes of the civilian population. When it comes to that consideration, it most unfortunately, as I shall show presently, has to be taken into account that a vessel which trades to far markets occupies upon its voyage a much longer period of time, and therefore in a given time can bring into this country only a much smaller proportion of imports than if it is trading to a near market. That is an obvious consideration which hardly needs to be stated, but it is necessary for the purposes of my argument to remind the House of it. What are we doing? In brief, this: We are to a certain extent, combing out—to use an expression with which we have become unhappily too familiar—of some trades a proportion of vessels in order to bring them into near trades.

    1415
    If we represent by the figure I a vessel trading to Australasia or the Far East, it counts as two or rather more than two, for the purpose of imports if it is trading to South America, while if it trades across the North Atlantic, either to the Dominion of Canada or the United States, it counts for four or more than four. I give these figures as very near approximations to the case, but of course in practice they may be less or more than that in particular cases. Taking the whole of our ships, and supposing for a moment that we divert them from far trades to near in order to get the largest quantity of imports into the United Kingdom, then theoretically every three of our ships become four. That is a theoretic statement which obviously may not be realised in practice, because handling the tonnage of a ship on paper is a different operation from handling the good ship "Mary Ann" proceeding from one port to another. But still that is a theoretical statement which broadly represents the truth, that 3 tons becomes 4 tons if taken in the way we are endeavouring to do it. Therefore, in a position in which our tonnage has diminished and is diminishing, in a position in which every week finds us with fewer ships than in the week before, it is our obvious duty to follow the course which I have outlined and to have regard first to our imports. So far good. But note the consequences. First note the effect on the lines themselves. Putting aside the particular arrangement which has been made, we in effect go to the old-established line running to Australasia and we take out of it a proportion of its ships and bring them nearer home to perform shorter voyages, and therefore give us more imports. The effect of that, of course, upon the line itself is mischievous. We do not disguise from ourselves the consequences of these things, but we are compelled to do them by the exigencies of the times, and we do not hide from ourselves that we are inflicting injury upon old-established businesses. It is the unfortunate necessity of our case.
    Mr. HOLT: I did not complain of that.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I quite understand that my hon. Friend did not complain of the fact. Then there is another consequence which we regret fully as much, and it is that if we take a
    1416
    ship out of the service of, say, the Dominion of New Zealand or the Commonwealth of Australia, we to a certain extent injure the export trade of that Dominion or Colony. That is another unfortunate consequence that has to be faced, that we are compelled to limit the shipping facilities of our own Dominions when they happen to be far markets. At the Ministry of Shipping the other morning we had the great pleasure and advantage of a conference with the representatives of the Dominions now in this country, and all these things were clearly put before them, and I need hardly say were accepted by them in that spirit of patriotism and self-sacrifice which has all along marked the relations of the Dominions with the Mother Country in this War. Still there is the unfortunate fact that has to be faced again of loss to a British Dominion which we do not desire to inflict, and which it hurts us to inflict. The instance was mentioned at Question Time of our Indian possessions, where we get an unfortunate limitation of their exporting power, because of this necessity of limiting their shipping facilities in order, in time of war, to add to the total shipping facilities of the Empire.
    Then I come to the third loss—our own loss. If we restrict the importations from far markets it follows, not necessarily, but usually, that we restrict our exports to those markets.
    Mr. HOLT: I understand that at the moment our best markets for exporting are the far distant markets.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, and that, of course, is a most important part of this aspect of the subject. We limit our exports to these far markets, and in many cases those far markets are most valuable, as in the case of the cotton trade, and if we get our imports from a near market it does not build up or cause to arise more exports to those near markets, and therefore we are losing the export trade of the far market without any corresponding gain in the near market from which we are compelled by circumstances to draw our imports. That is the case, crudely stated, but fortunately there are mitigations. First, our imports, of course, are still, as they were in the past, very much greater in volume than our exports, and that of course is a mitigating fact. It may well be that, even although you have to cut off a certain amount of imports from a

    1417
    market, you do not in the same proportion cut off your exports to that market, and it must be remembered that we are not taking all the ships out of any trade but only a proportion of the ships. Then there has been an actual fall during the War of the quantity of our exports to certain of these markets, and really they have been over-served by ships in many cases up to this time. There has been more outward space offering to lift cargoes than there have been cargoes to lift. That is another mitigation of this particular point. But still, when that is said, it is impossible to deny that there is something in the case made by my hon. Friend that you get dislocations, you get loss, and you get loss falling upon trades which it is your desire and your interest to cherish as far as they can be cherished. The particular case of cotton is one which it would ill become any Government Department to neglect. I think I may say of the conduct of the Ministry of Shipping that we have not been unmindful of the needs of that great trade and we have not acted blindly in this matter or without due and proper consideration. So far as the immediate congestion was concerned we have been able to relieve it. Naturally Lancashire will be interested in the answer to this question what of the future? It is not, fortunately or unfortunately, possible to give a decisive reply to that question. I wish it were. It is not possible in a war like this to measure the future or even the near future precisely. I can only say that we are endeavouring to do that. There is certainly no contemplation of the prohibition of cotton exportation. We are endeavouring to arrange a regular service of steamers, the capacity of which will be made known quite frankly to those interested in the trade so that they can enter into commitments accordingly. With respect to my hon. Friend's further question whether, however attenuated the stream of this trade may have to be, we shall see to it that even if it is attenuated it is made regular, the answer is most positively in the affirmative.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does that apply to Nyasaland?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The same remarks apply mutatis mutandis. It is impossible to say what the near future will bring in these matters. I can only say this, that the endeavour is being made to map out the trade of this country in the world and to
    1418
    provide that both as to exports and imports the best is done with the tonnage. Of course, the trade can help us, as it has helped us already, by making known to us and keeping us constantly in touch with its particular needs and its particular difficulties. We have already had the advantage of receiving a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on this particular subject, and I have every hope that by keeping in touch with that body and with the trade we shall, at any rate, be able to do the best for them with the available tonnage. I will say a word on the whole question of the relations of imports and exports at the present time. As the House knows, it has been necessary very seriously to restrict imports in the national interests, and the Prime Minister recently announced a long series of restrictions designed, as I explained the other day, not to limit imports, because they are limited in any case, but to give the country the imports it wants instead of the imports it does not want. Last year we brought in 43,000,000 tons of cargo. Merely to give that figure is to make one wish one could put back the hands of the clock and bring in 43,000,000 tons only of goods that are essential. If that could have been done, our difficulties at the present moment would have been very different from what they are. We have imposed drastic restrictions, and for the rest I may tell the House that we are endeavouring to survey the whole field of imports in relation to the tonnage which is estimated to be available during the remaining months of this year and to form, as it were, a balance-sheet month by month of the available tonnage and the cargo that can be carried, and, on the other hand, to set against it the demands for imports, ascertained by a co-ordination of the requirements of the different Departments of the State, supplemented by the civilian requirements of the nation. In that way we hope effectively to arrange an order of priority of imports so that whatever cargoes can be brought into the country will be cargoes most useful to the country. Whatever attempt is made to forecast the future and to provide for eventualities we are not able to prevent the possibility of dislocation from time to time, and I can only beg the House to believe that, so far as the Minister of Shipping is concerned, every endeavour will be made to make this dislocation as light as possible, and to give notice, so far

    1419
    as may be, of any changes that have to be made. I cannot pretend that a statement of this kind in these circumstances can be regarded by the House as satisfactory. Nothing is satisfactory in war, I suppose, except the winning of it. Certainly the means have to be taken and the exigencies and contingencies that have to be met cause us to resort to all kinds of expedients—sometimes unheard-of expedients. I cannot, therefore, expect the House to regard this statement as altogether satisfactory. I can only ask the House to believe that we are doing our best to meet circumstances of an unexampled character.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. S. Samuel) in his rather extensive survey, but when he said that the members of the Committee who recommended the establishment of the trade bank were unacquainted with business and desired, as I understood him to say, to some extent to make arrangements that that business should be confined to their own interest, I think that was a statement which carried with it its own refutation, and I think my hon. Friend, on consideration, will wish to withdraw what he said.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: I did not impute anything to the Committee. I said the promoters.
    Sir J. D. REES: I accept what the hon. Member says, but he must remember that they were very able City men who composed that Committee, and that the chairman was, by common consent, regarded as one of the most eminent men in the City and one of the most popular and efficient Members of this House. I do not intend to follow that subject, nor the speech of the representative of the Shipping Department, who dealt with a very difficult subject, but I beg the representative of the Shipping Department, when he is making these arrangements for the con-duet of trade, not to forget the growing cotton trade of Nyasaland, which is an extremely important factor in the supply of cotton, because it supplies a kind of cotton which is not produced anywhere else in the British Empire. The restriction of imports falls heavily no doubt upon any trade affected. There is one trade which it threatens with something like extinction, or at anyrate with disas-
    1420
    trous loss, and that is the coffee trade of Southern India. The total output of coffee for a year is something like 5,000 tons. The coffee that comes into the country from Southern India is the coffee we all drink, and is the coffee most popular in this country. The Santos and Rio coffee from Brazil which is used to mix with the coffee of Southern India and with the better kinds of coffee is of a very inferior kind, as the hon. Gentleman opposite, to whom this is A B C, will confirm me. Though there is a very large stock of these inferior coffees in the country, and though the crop of Brazilian coffee was something like 1,000,000 tons last year, there is a complete deficiency of Indian coffee, which is the coffee the people of this country are accustomed to drink and what they require. There are only about 300 tons in the country and there are about 4,000 tons which we want to get into the country.
    These planters consist of some of the most loyal citizens of Imperial Britain that exist. They live in Mysore State, the Maharajah of which is one of the most loyal friends of this country, and has done much to serve this country in this War in his degree. They have had two bad seasons and they look to recoup themselves in the present season when they have a good crop. Though this scorns a small thing from an all-British point of view, it is everything to them. When their crop comes down to the coast, though coffee is a substance which absolutely improves by keeping in this temperate climate it undergoes rapid deterioration and becomes almost useless if it is kept after the end of next May on the damp coast of Malabar to which it is sent. It is not saleable elsewhere, because it is the most expensive kind of coffee in the world. Only this country has been accustomed to use it and pay for it, and if the planters do not sell their coffee—it is a mere trifle of some 4,000 tons—before the end of May, something like ruin will stare them in the face. I beg the House to consider that this is a subject to which I refer on behalf of people who are hardly ever mentioned here. Probably the last time the British planter was mentioned was when I mentioned him some years ago before the War. He is now threatened with something like ruin. I would urge that coffee is something like a food, and I would recommend that to my hon. Friend who represents the Food Department.

    1421
    I do not wish to condemn Government Departments. I believe that they are doing well in extremely difficult circumstances. I do not agree with the line taken by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. S. Samuel). I admit that they have endeavoured to meet the case of the planters by allowing free export of anything which is exported before a certain date, 24th February. But I doubt perhaps if they are so conscious as I am—who have had my bones broken in country carts without springs over roads without metal in this country—of how long it takes to bring this coffee down from places where there are no roads and no railways to this Malabar coast. I hope that my hon. Friend will extend the time. The Government are going to prohibit the import of this coffee into England. What is to become of the steamers which have already been chartered under contract by the planters? I think that there is a very great danger of this happening, which the Departments would deeply regret, that a message may go out to recall the steamers which are on their way to the Eastern ports and that they may actually come back with empty spaces which would otherwise have been filled in at the very last port which they visit by an easily distributed cargo of bags of coffee containing a small amount per bag. All I ask is that the special circumstances should be so far considered that these steamers which are in the habit of calling at the Malabar coast up to and including the middle of May should be allowed to go there and load this coffee and take it home, so that these loyal planters may not lose their living and that the people of this country may not lose their coffee.
    My right hon. Friend, seeing that I have finished with coffee, thinks that I have done with all the substances that I am going to bring before the House. But I will only venture to trespass for one moment on the special question of tea. Some 15,000,000 lbs. per month are allowed to come into this country. Of that, 6,000,000 are allocated to the Army, leaving 9,000,000 to feed the civil population. Of this 9,000,000 some 40 per cent. is to be allocated by a Control Committee to different retail agencies throughout the country. I understand that the producers are to be allowed to make up their parcels of tea as best they may, so as to produce a tea at 1s. a pound for the purpose of being allocated by this Control Committee. Thereby they will be at a loss of some 3d.
    1422
    or 3½d. per pound, of which they do not complain, provided that it is understood in respect of this matter that they are perfectly free to deliver this tea together in such a manner as is most convenient to them, and are not compelled to deliver the highest class of tea which would realise a very much higher price. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend on the Irish Bench (Mr. Flavin) that the tea industry has been engaged in cornering tea to the great disadvantage of the public. If that were so I should sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend. But I think that it will be found, and that the hon. Member in charge of the Food Department will admit, that no such thing has happened. There has only been one operation to corner tea, and that", curiously enough, was carried out by one of these huge co-operative societies who pay no Income Tax, and are able by their power and influence to carry on operations of this sort; and, even though they were successful in buying one-fifth of the whole amount, and in bidding for one-half, so well did the tea distributers and retailers behave that they did not add to the prices charged to the public except to a very small fractional extent, so that the price to the public was raised in a very small degree by those operations. I expect to hear my hon. Friend admit, as the Committee which he appointed did, that there has been no cornering of tea to such an extent as to raise the price on the public.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Member aware that the Mincing Lane market has raised the price of tea, and tea in bond has been increased since last October by 8d. a lb?
    Sir J. D. REES: Quite naturally, the price of tea has gone up. It would have been extraordinary if it had not. But that has not been the result of operations such as those referred to by my hon. Friend in his accusations against the tea trade. I am not responsible for the retail tea trade. I know something about it, as I know something about the production, but I merely point out that this is an unjust aspersion upon the distributers and retailers of tea, and I ask my hon. Friend to look into it as a fair-minded man, and he will admit that that is the case As regards imports, the hon. Gentleman who spoke here gave very good reasons for limiting the imports. I am the last man to object to that. Still, there are some superfluous imports coming into this

    1423
    country. For instance, I think that some of the indiarubber tyres that come in without any let or hindrance might be reduced and a little room made for more bags of coffee. An arrangement was made, I understand, with Americans to supply us with rubber tyres, but I should like less rubber and more Indian coffee coming into this country. Another subject to which I wish to call attention is the issue of licences to trade in enemy dyestuffs. This has given rise to a great deal of difficulty among our indigo growers, whose indigo crops remain unsold. If the hon. Gentleman will look into that he will find that this state of things is keenly resented by the producers of indigo, who have suffered severely and who are reduced to ruin by the invention of aniline dyes. I ask him to redress that grievance, and to look into the matter. I have suggested to the Department concerned that coffee is food; and nobody can deny that beer is also food, but there is a very great restriction on beer, and the resulting high prices of beer account as much as anything else for the labour unrest which we always deprecate at a time like this. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the case of dye-stuffs and the case of coffee, which I have dealt with at greater length. I do beg the House to consider the fact that the coffee trade is absolutely threatened with extinction. The growers cannot borrow money on their crops, which are lying idle. They cannot, as has been suggested, send their crops from the Malabar coast right across India to the Coromandel coast, and nobody who understands the distance, the expense, and the difficulty would ever suggest it.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. LOUGH: I desire to call the attention of the House to matters connected with the Food Control Department. There is no doubt that the task of the Departments which are concerned in this question is a very heavy one and very onerous. In one or two respects there has been negligence, and in one or two instances they have been over fussy, interfering where it was not necessary to interfere, so that the result has been rather disappointing to the country. I propose to mention one or two of the larger matters, and ask questions upon them, and then come to a subject with which I am more particularly acquainted. There have been many questions asked why the Food Controller should not interfere with the price of
    1424
    wheat in this country, and the consequent great rise in the price of bread. A very useful Committee was appointed by the late Government to consider food prices, and that Committee produced no less than three Reports. The second Report was almost entirely devoted to wheat, and it gave a very specific recommendation on the 15th November, and it has received no attention from the hon. Gentleman or his Department ever since. The Report of the Committee referred to the rise in the price of home-grown supplies of wheat, and expressed opinion that there should be some controlling action, and they said:
    "We recommend the Goverment to immediately fix such maximum price for homo-grown wheat as will protect the public while securing the farmer a reasonable profit."
    I do not want to elaborate the point, which has been the subject of numerous questions, though I do not think the answers by the Government have been quite satisfactory. These matters cannot be dealt with by question and answer. Maximum prices are fixed in regard to other products—such as tea, for example—yet nothing has been done with regard to the price of wheat. At the time the Report was presented the price was 60s. a quarter, and it is now 90s. a quarter. Surely, it is time that definite action was taken with regard to that matter! I ask my hon. Friend why this definite recommendation of the Committee was not taken up? Then as regards the thinning stream of potatoes, the general feeling in the country is that the action of the Government with regard to potatoes has not been successful. I would like to say that, looking back on all that has been done in the past three months, in no unfriendly spirit, I think it would have been much better if potatoes had been left alone. My belief is that if you had not touched then, at all the stock of potatoes would not have gone out so soon, and there would not have been the complaint and friction, and perhaps almost panic, that existed in some quarters with regard to this matter.
    The third commodity I want to mention is very familiar to the House, namely, sugar. I do not think that the Government are getting on too good with regard to sugar, and I think they ought to restore as soon as possible liberty of importation with regard to that product. What has been the course of action of the Government with regard to sugar? Ever since the War broke out they have monopolised the control of distribution, with the result

    1425
    that sugar has increased in price more than anything else. Sugar has gone up 170 per cent. simply because the Government has interfered with the people of this country in regard to it. I do not suggest that the Government can give no assistance. If in the early stages of the War they could have put the sugar on the market, no one would have found fault with them, but for them, to have monopolised the sugar trade in the way they did was a great mistake. I should like to give some figures with regard to this matter. In the eleven months, January to November, 1913, that was before the War, the import of sugar was 1,750,000 tons, and in the same period last year it was 1,440,000 tons. This shows that there was only a reduction of one-sixth in the import of sugar during that War period, and these figures do not justify reducing the public supply by 25 per cent., and threatening still further to reduce it by 40 per cent. I believe if liberty were restored for handling this article to the consumer the effect would be that the shortage would be put an end to in many parts of the country, and a great many public complaints would disappear. There is one other remark I want to make about sugar. The Government have professed constantly their great sympathy with the people in the matter of high prices, and yet they have put an extra tax upon the commodity which is directly responsible for 25 per cent. of the increased price. It could do something to reduce the price of sugar by reducing the tax upon it. It may be said we want the money; no doubt we do, but there are many other ways of getting money without imposing this great pressure upon the people. I hope I have satisfied the House that there is room for consideration of the action of the Government in this matter, especially as the date of the Budget is approaching.
    Now I come to another great commodity in which I am not very largely interested, although I know a great deal about it. I consider that the Government have been particularly unhappy in their dealings with tea. I hope my hon. Friend will not take offence at my saying that, in my opinion, the Government have been stampeded in taking action by interrogatories addressed to them at Question Time in this House when suggestions were made which were without foundation. Their action has not tended to reduce prices; it has rather tended to increase the difficulty and to create scarcity. There has been a
    1426
    substantial increase in the price, yet tea continues to be very cheap in this country at this moment. It is a notorious fact that it is being sold everywhere in the country at, roughly, 2s. 4d. per lb. It carries a shilling duty for the Government, and the increase freightage amounts to 4d. Take 1s. 4d. off the selling price, and you get the tea distributed at a 1s. per lb. everywhere in this country in the midst of the greatest war we have ever faced. If this House desires, as I am sure it does, to know the truth about this question, and if it desires, too, that there should be reasonable prices—
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in the matter, the actual increase in the price of tea in the last twelve months?
    Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Flavin) has been one of the culprits. He has asked some of these startling questions. My hon. Friend cannot be expected to know everything, although he very nearly does, but he certainly cannot be familiar with the details of this question. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked if he knew that the price of tea had greatly advanced, and my hon. Friend gave a very bad reply. He said the Food Controller was of opinion that there was no ground for a certain increase in prices which had taken place. Now the hon. Member for Kerry asks what the increase has been. My reply is that it has been 2½d. per lb.
    Mr. FLAVIN: More than that.
    Mr. LOUGH: Oh, no!
    Mr. FLAVIN: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the official figures.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am giving the correct figures. I repeat, the hon. Member stated that tea had gone in price, and the Food Controller in consequence made a mistake. If my Noble Friend, with whom I have the greatest sympathy, had taken the opportunity of consulting the great business organisation with which he was long connected, he would not have given the incorrect answer he did. But what did he do? He said he would reduce the price to 2s. per lb. He now finds he cannot do it, and it is 2s. 4d. per lb. In reality no reduction can be made whatever, because of the way in which the business is conducted. It is conducted so well. I want to go into another point. My hon. Friend

    1427
    the Member for North Kerry has asked, "What about the paper?" I want to tell the House all about the paper. Tea is distributed in ¼ lb. packets at present in every part of the country, from Newcastle-on-Tyne down to the South, and it is distributed as cheaply in these packets as it is sold at the public sales in Mincing Lane, except in one detail, that the paper is weighed with it.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Ah!
    Mr. LOUGH: Yes, "ah !" The competition in this article is exercised with such splendid effect for the public that the carriage, the cost of blending, and the cost of the private distributor is paid out of the weight of the paper.
    Mr. FLAVIN: And what does that cost come to?
    Mr. LOUGH: It comes to 1¼d. or 1½d. per lb. When the hon. Member for West Ham complained of the weighing in of the paper the other day, my hon. Friend said he would put a stop to it, but if he did it would raise the price of tea. The hon. Member for West Ham, when told that, wrung his hand. Yes, but the price of tea is to be raised 2d. in order to get rid of the paper which represents 1¼d. or 1½d., and this is done in order to yield to the clamour raised by ill-informed Members of this House.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Disinterested Members.
    Mr. LOUGH: I was always against this acute form of competition in tea. When the House inquired into it four years ago, the Committee reported in favour of giving full weight regardless of the paper, and I favoured that action being taken. But the Board of Trade looked into the question, and saw that it was in the best interests of the public that the practice should not be interfered with. The Food Controller said he would not interfere with it, but now he has yielded to the clamour of the hon. Member for North Kerry, and the paper is no longer to be weighed in with the tea. This will inflict a very great blow upon the public. Had the change been made three years ago, it would have been quite reasonable, perhaps, but to make it in the middle of a great war, at a time when paper is not to be wasted, justifies me in saying, I think, that the Food Controller has been stampeded into
    1428
    making a mistake by questions in this House based upon statements which had no true foundation. I have gone into so much detail because the matter is of some importance. The Food Controller was rushed into what I hope I have satisfied the House to be quite unnecessary interference with tea.
    I think I can show that in another way. The average consumption of the working man's family is half a pound per week. If the price had gone up 2d. per lb. that would only be 4s. 4d. per year in the working man's family, and if 4d. it would amount to 8s. 8d. in the year. Having regard to the increase in wages, freight, and duty, I say that the Government should not have allowed itself to be disturbed with regard to the matter, which has been excellently conducted throughout the country. I tell the House with regard to tea, as one not interested in the distribution of tea, and I have never been interested in it, that there is no business carried on as creditably to this country at the present time or for many years past as the distribution of tea. There does not exist in Germany or America or any other country such a good distributing organisation as exists here, and there was not the slightest reason for the Government interfering with it. I believe if they do they will only put a heavy load on the back of the people. The Food Controller called the representatives of the tea trade—brokers, importers, dealers—and said, "You must cut the price down." As the hon. Member told us, they met him in a very patriotic spirit. They said, "Do whatever you like in this great War and we will help you to carry it out." That is the spirit in which everybody in the tea trade has acted with regard to the Government since the War broke out. Whatever the Government wish to do they will agree to it and they will try to make it a success, and if it is not quite a success it will not be their fault, because they gave the Government good advice, as I am doing here to-night. The Government said you must have 40 per cent. at a 1s. per lb. The Government also said it does not matter what common tea it is. There is no bargain in common tea at a 1s. per lb. The people do not want common tea; it must be good. This sudden interference of the Government to give an indifferent quality of tea will not be acceptable to any person. They have established a Control Committee and

    1429
    their duty is to sell the tea first to the wholesale dealers and they are to guarantee it is to reach the public. In all this dealing with wholesale prices you are not able to make certain that the people will get any advantage. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House how this advantage will reach the public, because I am sure he does not intend to benefit the dealer, the merchant, or the importer, but wants the public to receive some benefit. I doubt if they will get any.
    Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that this advantage is given in the weight that the consumer may not get the advantage but that it may go to the wholesaler.
    Mr. LOUGH: I did not go into that.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I would point out that these suggestions prolong the speeches.
    Mr. LOUGH: I will take the hint and leave the hon. Member to speak for himself. An hon. Member opposite referred to a statement in the Report of the Committee on tea prices, as follows:
    "It has been strongly represented in evidence that the rise in price is largely due to heavy operations during certain months by particular tea brokers."
    Now, I do not believe in putting the blame on a broker in this way, because it is notorious that if there was a culprit in this matter it was the Wholesale Co-operative Society. I would ask whether there was not a member of that society, which is the greatest trading concern in England, and which deals with more tea than any other business, on the Committee, and should not the Committee have obtained from the society an account of that transaction? Because they report here that the price was raised a penny a pound and more by this broker. I do not believe in setting up dummies. Let us get at the root of matters. I do think, as there was a representative of the Wholesale Cooperative Society, which is the great organisation of the working men of the country, that if the Report finds that their agent put up the price of tea, the Report ought to state it plainly and not put the blame on to a poor broker, but on to this great and wealthy society which was responsible for the action taken.
    There is one other matter I would like to deal with, and that is in regard to hoarding; and here I want to give a
    1430
    warning to the Food Controller. About three or four weeks ago there was another attempt made to stampede him, and a reply was given that nobody should have more than a fortnight's stock of any commodity. I noticed an article in the "Times" next morning—and perhaps more attention was paid to that than to a protest by a poor Member here—but a more foolish statement than that made by a Gentleman in the position of the Food Controller could not be made to a reasonable assembly. Take the case of tea. A fortnight's stock of tea is a quarter of a, pound. Is nobody to buy more than a quarter of a pound of tea? A fortnight's stock of cocoa is an ounce, and of coffee half an ounce. How can you say it is hoarding to buy a little more than those quantities? The truth is that this idea seems to be borrowed from slum shops in large cities, because in country places farmers cannot go in so frequently for their commodities, and all this about hoarding is, I will not say perfect nonsense, but at least a very dangerous proposition to advance. If these stocks do exist, they will be a very useful reserve for this country to have. They prevent people coming for supplies, and if there should arise a period of great scarcity that would be the time to look into it, but to begin early and threaten people that they must not have more than a fortnight's stock is a most foolish proceeding. I will only say in conclusion that the distributive organisation of food throughout this country is an extraordinarily good organisation. There are the Wholesale. Co-operative Society, the other co-operative societies, and the great businesses well known to everybody. So far as I know, there has been no profiteering during the War. The profits in these businesses have not increased materially; indeed, I do not think they have increased at all, and many of them have been reduced very much, while they have all served the country well and recognise that they have a patriotic duty to perform as well as that of carrying on their business. I earnestly appeal to my hon. Friend not to interfere without sufficient thought and without being quite sure that he will be able to substitute a better system than that which exists at the present time.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): The hon. Gentleman who represents the Food Controller will no doubt in due course reply to my right hon.

    1431
    Friend opposite. I only intervene for a few minutes to make a brief reply to one or two questions introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). He was good enough to give me notice of his intention, and I promised to reply. One point he submitted to our notice was respecting licences to trade with the enemy in dye-stuffs. I have to give him an assurance that all licences to import German dye-stuffs were revoked in March, 1915, and no licences of this description have since been issued. All importation of goods ordered under revoked licences were to be completed within a reasonable period. It is safe to say that no such importations have been made under the authority of the Board of Trade for well over a year. In respect to the importation of coffee from India everybody is aware of the interest of the hon. Member in the question. He also knows that the importation of coffee from all sources was prohibited by the Proclamation of 23rd February last. He informed us that the greater part of the Indian crop is brought to the coast of India before the middle of May, and that unless it is taken away round about that time it is liable to suffer materially from the monsoon. Of this year's crop 1,100 tons were in transit to Calcutta at the time the prohibition was imposed. It will consequently be admitted, in accordance with the general regulations governing the administration of that import prohibition. There are 3,000 tons more to come. That figure, I think, the hon. Member himself mentioned. The Board of Trade has been in communication with the India Office concerning this matter, and it is now recommended, with the concurrence of the India Office, that the importation be permitted of not more than 50 per cent. of the total crop, that is, 2,050 tons out of the 4,100 tons which constituted the crop. This, of course, includes the 1,100 tons already mentioned. This, therefore, will allow a further 950 tons to come in. The hon. Member will, I think, at least appreciate the fact that we understand he has a case, and that we have made an honest endeavour to meet him in the matter.
    A speech was delivered by the hon. Member for Wandsworth which, I presume, one also may describe as of a disinterested kind. He may be regarded as not without authority in the matter. I only propose to deal with one portion of
    1432
    the speech, that of his criticisms upon the proposed establishment of trade banks. He said that probably the Board of Trade and the other Government Departments had never heard of these banks. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham reminded the hon. Member for Wandsworth that the proposal for trade banks is a result of the recommendations of a strong Committee, presided over by Lord Faringdon, which was appointed to consider requirements in the way of financial facilities for British trade. Everybody, I think, will acknowledge that Lord Faringdon and his Committee can at least be regarded as not Licking in authority on this subject. A bank with a capital of £10,000,000 is not likely to have a monoply of financial operations, nor is it intended that it should have such a monoply. Respecting the other matter raised by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, it has been the subject of some correspondence between himself and the Board of Trade, and I had concluded that the misunderstanding that exists in his mind had been removed before now, but it appears from the speech he has delivered to-night that such has not been the case, and I fear-that, even if I occupied the House for a long time to-night, I would not effect any progress with him. I can only say that I feel he is labouring under a misapprehension. There has certainly been no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to discriminate as between Japanese and British traders, and I feel that when he reconsiders the matter he will acknowledge that no such discrimination has actuated the Board of Trade.
    Mr. ANDERSON: We have been discussing for some time the food question, but not, I think, from an entirely satisfactory point of view. One hon. Member actually rose in his place and used his influence as a Member of Parliament to suggest that Government ships should be specially placed at his disposal for the purpose of bringing his dates to this country. I do suggest that it is degrading the function and work of the House of Commons if private interests are to intervene in that way for the purpose of furthering their own ends. The hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham is exceedingly interested in the tea trade, and exceedingly anxious to preserve the honour of the tea trade, and we recognise he is likely to be so when we find he is a director of fourteen different companies,

    1433
    including three or four tea companies. We can quite understand the standpoint from which he regards these things. But I do wish to suggest that Members in this House, at any rate, should, in all these matters, disregard personal interests, and regard these questions purely from the standpoint of the national interest.
    I want to raise the question of the food supply and the food distribution, and I want, if I may, to speak a word of restraint, warning, and counsel to the Government in regard to the matter of industrial unrest in certain areas, and especially munition areas, at the present time. The food problem is becoming a serious problem for many of our working people. Since the outbreak of war the price of the 4-lb. loaf has gone up in London from 5½d. to 1s., and the bread is of a coarser quality. It may be a matter of argument as to whether it is less nutritious, but it is certainly of a coarser quality. Wheat prices are soaring mountains high. Wheat actually changed hands the other day at Sheffield at 90s. a quarter, the highest for more than a hundred years. Oats were sold at Berwick the other day at 66s., which is absolutely the highest price on record. And when we come to other foods of working-class consumption, you find in regard to things like potatoes, for example, that there are long queues in London and in other towns, sometimes a quarter to half a mile long, and women and children standing in those queues the whole forenoon on the off-chance of getting a pound or half a pound of potatoes, and at the end finding that there are no potatoes available. I believe that in Manchester the average supply in the working-class districts is I lb. of potatoes, and very often even that is entirely unobtainable. In Tyneside, Sunderland, and other districts we are told of long queues waiting for hours, and of disappointment following the long hours of waiting. Quite recently a deputation of women, many of them the wives of soldiers now in the trenches, went to the Lord Provost of Glasgow in order to tell him their difficulties with regard to food supplies and the shortage. I am sorry to say the Lord Provost of Glasgow, for reasons best known to himself, refused to discuss that question with these women, and he made the remark that food supplies depended upon the elements and upon Almighty God, and that the best thing they could do was to go home and mind their children.
    1434
    Remarks of that kind at times like the present will not go far to promote good relationship or the right spirit. Vegetables have gone up in price, there is an increasing shortage of margarine, and butter is entirely out of the question in working-class households, and during the last week the price of margarine has increased 4d. per pound.
    I do not think the Food Controlling Department is shaping well. We were quite right at the start to wait, because the Food Controller was given an exceedingly difficult job and a new one and there was no precedent as to how to proceed. Consequently he was rather in the position of the blind man tapping in the street with his stick to take soundings as to the path on which he treads. What we complain of is that in this case whilst these tappings are going on the blind man makes no progress. There is a tendency to establish increasing bureaucracy in war-time, but what I am convinced about is that the people will not accept an inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy. and I am afraid if the present state of things goes on we are going to have a superabundance of food controllers and an increasing scarcity of food, as far as the working classes are concerned. I suggest that there is far too much friction and too little close working and co-operation between the different Government Departments, and very often one Department seems to be entirely out of touch with the work of other Departments and that remark applies to the Food Controller's Department as much as any other, and they all appear to be waiting for each other to see what each Department is going to do, and consequently their action is paralysed. They remind me of the story of the Earl of Chatham—who was so often late in keeping appointments that he came to be known as "the late Earl of Chatham" and Sir Richard Strachan about whom the epigram was written;
    "Lord Chatham with his sword undrawn,
    Keeps waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
    Sir Richard longing to be at them,
    Keeps waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
    That represents the policy of some of the Government Departments at the present time. Whenever the Government is beset with a certain difficulty they appoint a new controller, and if the difficulty does not yield to this they commandeer an hotel, and if that fails then committees are set up. We actually had the spectacle the other day of one Committee in regard to sugar being set up to

    1435
    consider what had been done by a previous Committee on sugar to see if another policy might not be adopted. In regard to fish two Committees were appointed on one day—one to consider the supply of fish from fresh water and another the supply from salt water. The position is becoming increasingly serious. Since the outbreak of war the price of foodstuffs has gone up practically 100 per cent., and without going into matters too minutely we know that submarines and raiders are making the position more critical still. I would like to ask the Government whether they are really preparing people for what may be the hard facts ahead of us. We were told the last Government was condemned because it was a "hide the truth" Government and because it always told the pleasant things and kept back the dark side of things. I am convinced that the very worst thing that could happen in this country would be that the people should be involved in a kind of false optimism, and should not be told of any extra hardship they may have to face, or any extra sacrifice they may have to make. Some of us have been hammering away at this question for the past two and a half years. We have urged that the food resources of the nation should be organised and conserved. Sometimes we have been told to wait until June when something might happen, and again we have been told that there could be no revolution in the middle of a great War, although in point of fact in Russia and elsewhere revolutions are taking place during the War, and will probably not be the last revolution that will take place during the War. We have suggested, and I suggest to-night, that men like the farmers and the shipowners ought from the very start of the War to have been regarded as great public servants, and to have been generously treated and paid for their work, but, on the other hand, the element of exploitation ought to have been eliminated altogether. In my opinion there has been too much money made out of the War. There is great public feeling on the matter. In spite of the fact that people find it increasingly difficult to get food, they open their newspapers and read that instead of getting the £86,000,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to get he has actually got £140,000,000 out of the excess
    1436
    profits that have been realised, and we know that many more millions have gone into private pockets.
    I am convinced that a blind chaotic system is incompatible with the conditions of war, and if the only alternative is a stupid or unimaginative bureaucracy then this country is, indeed, between the Devil and the deep sea. We have got to this point with regard to the food problem. We have some kind of voluntary system of rationing in regard to certain articles of food. I made a speech some time ago at Leicester, and I tried, with a good deal of restraint and without causing panic or alarm, to bring the people face to face with the difficulties. I said that in my opinion—I only gave it as my own opinion; I never pretended to be giving away Government secrets; if I knew them, I should not proclaim them from the public platform—the food problem was such that the Government would be brought to some system of rationing. That was denied, and stated to be unauthorised, but within a few days a voluntary system of rationing was brought about, and it has been tried ever since. The system does not seem to work fairly between the good and the bad citizen. The food problem is changing every day. If to-day you establish rationing in regard to bread and then suddenly potatoes disappear from working class households, are they still expected to go on with their bread rationing, and, if not, how are they going to be advised? There is far more organisation needed. The problem is becoming very difficult throughout the whole of Europe, and famine is beginning to stalk through many countries, not entirely on one side. The Prime Minister would appear to be fully alive to the position with regard to food supplies. In a letter the other day he referred to
    "the grave perils which threaten our food supply at the present time."
    What I want to do more particularly tonight is to ask the representative of the Ministry of Food Control what the Government's policy in this matter really is? Can he tell us before we adjourn for the Easter Recess what that policy is exactly and how far it has been carried? I believe a great campaign is to be begun by the Ministry of Food. We are told there are going to be meetings of mayors convened, exhibitions of cookery, a house-to-house canvass, information bureaux, classes, conferences, lectures, armies of helpers for canvassing, speaking and distributing literature. All that means an

    1437
    enormous amount of energy and expenditure. I am personally convinced that a great deal of it will run to waste. If any attempt is made to deal with the food supplies, there should be some attempt to establish the matter upon a fair basis as between the various sections of the community. The length of a family purse ought not to determine how much food is going into a house. That should not be the test of the amount of food, but rather the actual family needs and requirements. I suggest that the manual workers, who are doing hard physical work, ought to have the first claim on the food supplies of the country. It ought to be seen to that they are well looked after and cared for. Many of them are working long hours of overtime, and giving a large slice of their health, constitution, and strength at the present time. They should have the first claim to whatever food supplies are available. Questions have been raised from time to time about compulsory rationing, food tickets, and so on. I have never committed myself to any particular system in regard to food distribution.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: And never will!
    Mr. ANDERSON: If the hon. Member who is sitting below the Bar will come inside the House and speak, I will deal with that matter. I am as much opposed as anyone to the idea of setting up in this country some 30,000 new officials to deal with indexing, tickets, and that sort of thing. I do not believe it is necessary. The matter can be carried through without that being done. Let me take as a concrete case the question of sugar distribution. The present system is bad. It is unfair as between the rich and the poor, unfair as between one family and another, and unfair between one district and another. It will lead to a good deal of extravagance because people have to buy other things in order to obtain sugar. It can be carried out through existing agencies, with a check so as to see that each family gets its share of the sugar, and no more than its share. I am convinced that if the traders and the great co-operative societies were called in they would be able to give the Government far more assistance than the Government has yet asked them to give in this matter. It can be reduced practically to a question of arithmetic—how much sugar is available, how many families need it, and how it can be distributed through existing agencies
    1438
    without calling in the hierarchy of officials, which everybody dreads. The position in regard to sugar appears to rest on the basis of personal honour plus police visits. We are liable to have our houses raided if we have more than a fortnight's supply in our houses. What is to happen in the case of people who, out of their proper allowance, put by a little sugar in order to make jam when the proper season comes? These are the practical difficulties in regard to the matter. One would like the Report of the Food Controller to say, if some family obtaining no more than its fair share of sugar puts by a certain portion of it to make jam when the jam season comes, what would happen to those people in the case of a police raid? I understand that there is a liability to a police raid.
    There is one proposal which has come from the Ministry of Food which I want to support very strongly—that is the idea of communal kitchens. If that policy is carried out, it will lead to economy in regard to labour, fuel and food itself. The one thing you must not do is to put about the idea that it is merely a matter for the poor people and that these are to be a kind of soup kitchens for poor people. I see that one was opened to-day in Stepney by Mrs. Lloyd George, and the heading is
    "Stepney's Soup Kitchens.
    Food for the Poor."
    If a communal kitchen will save great labour of cooking in each home, and if it is a good thing for a poor district, it is a good thing for a rich district as well, and there ought to be no question of charity attached to the matter at all in regard to getting food under the very best conditions. My opinion of public control is that although it is a good thing it must have efficient public control, and I should like to have a much fuller statement than we have had as to the future policy of the Ministry of Food.
    The one remaining thing that I want to say is addressed to another Department. I wish to speak a word in regard to the labour unrest in certain districts, and I wish to refer to the fact that upon munition workers, as upon others, there has been this increasing cost of living and scarcity of food supplies. During the last two and a half years there has been a great strain upon munition workers. There have been all sorts of wild, foolish, and exaggerated stories about their having pianos in every house and fine dresses for their wives, and that sort of thing. It is humbug. Some of these men have been

    1439
    earning very high wages in a purely monetary sense, but they have given a great deal in exchange for it and in many cases their health has been sapped and the sanatoria of this country will be filled with many of these men and women after the War is over. They have given a large slice of their health and strength, and after two and a half years many of them are run down in health, their nerves in certain cases are a bit on edge, and if we require anything at present in regard to dealing with these people, whether it is at Barrow or Sheffield or elsewhere, it requires to be done, so far as the Government is concerned, with insight and human sympathy and imagination; otherwise you will have some trouble. Very often the workpeople are blamed very sternly for going on strike, and I do not believe anyone wants to see strikes added to all the other difficulties which are upon the country at present, but we have a long list of cases where workpeople have tried, not by a strike but by perfectly constitutional means, to get a wrong put right, and sometimes it runs to a matter of six months before their case is heard by arbitration. I could put case after case where four, five, and six months have elapsed after the case has been submitted to arbitration before any kind of conclusion can be reached. That shakes all kind of faith in constitutional action and effort if that sort of thing is going to happen. I see to-day in the "Times" that the employers' assessor raises this very point in dealing with the points at Barrow-in-Furness. Again, you are not going to get on very well if the Government is always standing on its dignity, and you speak about Barrow-in-Furness as though it were Washington, in America, and you know no more about what is happening at Barrow than if it were Washington.
    In regard to the Munitions Act there is no doubt at all that certain aspects of that Act are causing considerable trouble in some districts. In Sheffield in the month of March there were 965 cases brought before the Munitions Tribunal. I believe half those cases were not over any question of loss of time, but over some breach of this or that rule; and 254 cases were so trivial that they were dismissed. A further 256 were adjourned on probation. These men lost their work in attending the Court, and no doubt many of them brought witnesses. These
    1440
    men suffered loss of time and irritation, and go back as centres of discontent in the various shops. I am sure you have lost 1,000 days of work in one month as a result of this. Another question which is causing a good deal of trouble in Sheffield is that of the leaving certificate. When a man has gone idle for six weeks—which is a particularly foolish form of punishment, because you lose the man's work for six weeks—the man cannot get a certificate which will allow him to get work elsewhere. I shall be told by the Minister of Munitions that technically and theoretically the man is able to get work elsewhere, but though he may be theoretically able, he cannot get any job without a certificate. I know of one man in Sheffield who has gone round to twenty-three shops, and has been refused entry there. Even after he had been idle six weeks he was not allowed to get employment. If anything is going to cause trouble and unrest it is that sort of thing. I saw a very remarkable article to-day in the "Manchester Guardian," which I would commend particularly to the Minister of Munitions. It points out that so far as these workpeople are concerned in Barrow the Minister of Labour has no more power over them than Lord Curzon or Lord Milner. It urges a policy of more sympathy on the part of the Government, and says that this question of leaving certificates ought to be gone into from the standpoint of the Government. Is it not possible for the Minister of Munitions to have some kind of inquiry into this matter. I have always said that compulsion is no remedy for these industrial troubles. You have to increase the dose all the time, and so you begin to talk more and more about industrial compulsion in different grounds. We ought to appreciate the toil of these men and to realise that they will give their very best as free men. Labour in chains will not give its best, but labour free will render the best service to the country. I should like to impress upon the representative of the Ministry of Munitions that we ought to have a searching examination into the grievances of these men under the Munitions of War Act with a view to avoiding these grievances in so far as is compatible with efficient work.
    11.0 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Hodge): I should like to say a few words respecting Barrow, in view of the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson).

    1441
    He evidently does not know the facts of the case. The executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were handling at the very moment the strike occurred the dispute which the men had with respect to a firm there. When I received information that the men were on strike I immediately communicated the information to the executive of that union, and they were astonished when they heard the men were on strike. The executive immediately proceeded to Barrow for the purpose of getting the men to resume work. A day later the whole executive met me, when we considered the problem, and a deputation representing all these societies went to Barrow for the purpose of reasoning with the men on the ground that the subject under discussion between the employers and their executive did not warrant a strike. Later, the employers and the workmen came jointly to me for the purpose of asking that the Government should stay their hand and give them an opportunity of settling their differences, if there were any, by joint action. The arrangement between the various unions and the federation of the shipbuilding and engineering employers was that no negotiations should take place so long as the men were idle. They went to Barrow and promised that the very morning the men resumed work direct negotiations as between the men and the employers should take place and that they should sit from day to day until they had exhausted the whole of the alleged grievances. All those efforts having failed there was nothing else left to the Government than to put in execution the powers that they had. I think that it is a matter for congratulation that the men even at the eleventh hour realised the foolishness of their action and went back to work. Direct negotiations are taking place now and I may say that the Government have no desire to be vindictive towards those men, realising something of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said that during the two and a half years of the War the whole of the men have worked very strenuously, working overtime, and working Sundays. They have not had the same recreation that they would have had in ordinary circumstances. They take all those things into consideration, and as a result of arrangement between the employers and the unions there will be no vindictiveness so far as any of the men at Barrow are concerned, but I think that it is only right
    1442
    to know that it was a revolt of the local men against the executives of their own unions, and not because of any delay in settling any grievance that had been placed before any Government Department.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I did not express any view—I am not competent—as to the actual happenings of that particular dispute. I said nothing about it.
    Mr. HODGE: I think that the fair deduction from what the hon. Gentleman has said was that the strike was due to undue-delays.
    Mr. ANDERSON: No.
    Mr. HODGE: As a matter of fact, the matter was being considered by the executive of the men's union. There was a revolt against the executive authority, and I do not think that my hon. Friend with his great trade union experience would say that that was a thing that could be supported or that it was in the general interests of trade unionism. Probably there have been some delays in hearing cases, but it must be realised that Sir George Askwith's Department has been very hard worked, and one of the very first things that I did, knowing from my own experience that there had been a number of cases of undue delay, was to make an endeavour to speed up the machinery, and I am satisfied that in the course of the next week or two there will not be any room for complaint with respect to the speed with which decisions are given. My desire, at any rate, is that the machinery should be speeded up, because no one knows better than I do the irritation caused by undue delay in reaching a decision.
    Mr. TICKLER: I desire to call the attention of the Government and the House to the serious state of affairs existing in the fish trade at Grimsby owing to the War. It is well known that the majority of the fishermen at Grimsby are being requisitioned by the Government, and they have volunteered to man vessels engaged in mine-sweeping and patrol work. The consequence is that the fish trade of Grimsby is practically at a standstill, and seeing what is the state of trade in the town, it is a matter of grave concern to those who are responsible for the trade which does exist. The Food Controller will agree with me that fish is a very important article of food, and it is of

    1443
    the greatest importance that this source of food supply should be preserved for the use of the people. At present there are about fifty vessels arriving at Grimsby with fish per week—not as many as arrived in one day previous to the War. It is a very considerable quantity, however, which these fifty vessels bring, representing one thousand to fifteen hundred tons per week. The conditions at Grimsby are such, by reason of men being called up for military service, that it is next to impossible to deal with this limited quantity of fish and pack it and get it away to market. This business can only be done by men who are accustomed to the work. It is not work which can be done by strangers or imported labour. Only this week there was a large arrival of Dutch fish, and a great quantity of this had to go for manure owing to the limited number of hands to pack it and send it to market. We have heard a great deal about the depletion of labour on the land, but I think the attention of the Government ought to be directed to the depletion of labour for the purpose of dealing with this very valuable food supply. The harvest of the land is liable to the seasons. Seed has to be sown, the land has to be cultivated, and the harvest has to be gathered, a thing which is very much dependent on the weather. But the harvest of the sea is available at all times and at all seasons; it only needs to be gathered in. The fish at present being brought into Grimsby would be sufficient to supply at least 2,000,000 families with a good meal of valuable food. I think the Food Controller will admit, therefore, that this is an industry which calls for some consideration. I appeal to the Government to make full inquiry into the state of affairs which exist at Grimsby. When I visit Grimsby I am asked, "Is it the intention of the Government to close Grimsby, or what do they mean, because the way they are taking men and depriving the trade of labour can lead to no other result than to close the fishing trade altogether." I do not think there is another town in that part of the country or in the country altogether which has sent so many men to the War as Grimsby has done. There are at the present time 6,000 men manning mine-sweepers—all Grimsby fishermen—and I believe, too, that Grimsby has done as well as any other town in the matter of sending men into the Army. Seeing the
    1444
    great importance of this article of food, the unfailing supplies of it, and the fact that it only wants to be gathered in—it is there at all seasons—I suggest that the Government should give their attention to this matter, and, after making full inquiry, should take such steps as will leave sufficient men to carry on the trade and not so deplete the workers as to put a stop to the trade altogether. I appeal to the Government. I am sure if the Food Controller will put the matter before the military authorities steps will be taken to prevent any more men being drawn from this industry.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I am sure the House will not expect me, at this time of night, to deal at any great length with the somewhat serious problem of food supply and distribution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) has a wonderful command of powerful language when he wishes to stigmatise the offences and backslidings of Ministers, but he will forgive me if I suggest to him that he distinguishes in a somewhat marked way between certain branches of the food trade in the crticisms which he makes. For instance, he emphasises the fact that the price of wheat and the price of bread ought to have been fixed by the Food Controller some time ago, before they reached their present high point, while, on the other hand, as regards other trades—particularly sugar, tea and potatoes—he expresses very strong objection to the fact that the market has not been allowed to slide at its own sweet will, to the detriment, as I suggest, of the consumers of these commodities throughout the country. He draws attention to the recommendation of the Food Prices Committee appointed last year by the Board of Trade, which undoubtedly did suggest the desirability of fixing maximum prices for wheat and, if requisite, for bread, but they went on in the succeeding paragraph to suggest that the maximum price should be fixed for the wheat to be raised this year upon British soil. To show to what extent it is dangerous to prophesy with regard to maximum prices, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, who was one of the signatories to the recommendations of the Committee, has decided that it is not in the best interests of the country and is not likely to stimulate the increased production of

    1445
    wheat that maximum contract prices should be fixed this year, and the War Cabinet has approved his decision to make a fixed minimum guarantee and not a fixed contract maximum price. As regards the price of wheat, the Government have, to a large extent, kept down the prices by their own imports and the sales of imported wheats. It must be borne in mind that the market price of wheat depends to a very small extent on the amount which is raised in this country. Unfortunately, that represents something less than one-fifth of the whole breadstuffs consumed at home, and the very fact that five-sixths of our supply comes from abroad will, in itself, indicate how difficult it is to control the market and to estimate what the price of wheat should be by consideration of the price of English or British wheat, taken by itself, as sold in the British markets.
    There is a very small amount of British wheat remaining in the hands of farmers at present. It is perfectly true that during the last few days, in certain markets, the price of wheat has risen considerably, but it is an error to suppose that the price has in most parts risen to anything like 90s. or 91s. per quarter. The Gazette price for British wheat on the last day of last month was 81s. per quarter, but, in consequence of the recent more rapid rise, the Food Controller has decided—and the matter is under the consideration of the War Cabinet—that the price for British wheat shall be immediately fixed at a substantially lower figure than that which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), and a corresponding price, after taking into account the cost of conversion and reasonable profit, to the miller and also the baker. There is every reason to suppose that that policy will be adopted in the course of the next few days.
    Mr. LOUGH: That is to apply to the miller and the baker?
    Captain BATHURST: I said the price as regards the miller and also the baker, assuming that the War Cabinet approve of the proposal.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does that mean the price of bread?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes. The proposal is that the price of bread should be fixed on the basis of the price fixed for wheat—that is to say, the proposal is that the Government should take entire control
    1446
    of all the breadstuffs in the country, in whatever' form those breadstuffs may be. As regards grain, it does not necessarily apply to wheat only, because there are other cereal grains which now enter into the composition of bread, and it will almost necessarily apply to those other cereals. It is also proposed to make the price of bread a uniform price as delivered over the counter of the baker's shop. As matters stand at present, as possibly the House realises, the person who receives his bread from over the counter, in fact pays for the cost of delivery.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Not always.
    Captain BATHURST: In the course of trade it necessarily follows that part of the breadstuffs are delivered to purchasers and part over the counter, and those who buy over the counter are, in fact, paying for the cost of delivery to others. It is proposed to bring that process to an end. I may mention, in passing, that one reason for the recently increased cost of bread is the fact that an Order has been issued insisting on bakers giving full weight for the bread they sell. I am not quite sure of the figures now, but there is a difference as between eighty-one and ninety-six loaves as the result of compliance with this Order insisting on full weight on the part of the baker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington suggested that the Food Controller and myself were being stampeded into action as regards tea. I do not know any man less likely to be stampeded against his own good judgment than the Food Controller, and certainly that expression does not apply to any action that he has taken in regard to tea. What actually happened was that, after the pronouncement of the Prime Minister in this House in reference to the restriction of imports, the price of tea began suddenly to leap up, and it went up by something like 4d. a pound in the course of a couple of days. A Food Controller certainly cannot justify either his name or his existence if he is going to stand by and take no action under such circumstances as that.
    Mr. LOUGH: It did not happen: it did not rise a penny afterwards.
    Captain BATHURST: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have every reason to know that in many parts of the country it rose by at least that amount, and after a conference with representatives

    1447
    of different branches of the tea trade-who took the most patriotic action at my Noble Friend's suggestion—the upward rise in the price of tea was checked; but in order to safeguard the supplies of tea at a reasonable price to the poor sections of the community, it has been decided through the medium of the Advisory Committee on the Tea Trade, consisting of importers, buyers and brokers, that 40 per cent. out of the total imports of tea shall be handed over to a Special Control Committee for distribution to retailers at a price not exceeding from 2s. 2d. to 2s. 4d. a pound. I do not specify exactly the price of the tea, because the recent decision with regard to selling tea by net weight, apart from the package, has to be taken into account in estimating what the exact price of this low-priced tea shall be; but, at any rate, I can assure the House that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it does not necessarily follow that it is going to be tea of very poor quality, because a certain number of importers import no teas except of the highest possible quality, and the rule is to apply to them as to others, and 40 per cent. of their tea, or tea they can provide by way of substitution, after purchasing other tea in the market, has got to be brought into account in providing the poorer classes with this tea at a reasonable price. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) also referred to the Hoarding Order. That Order is not yet issued, and his remarks were largely anticipatory. I have reason to believe that when the Order does appear there will be no mention of the police whatever, so that he can put the police comfortably out of his mind. There will be no danger of a police raid upon his domestic premises.
    Mr. LOUGH: I did not mention the police.
    Captain BATHURST: I beg pardon; it was another hon. Gentleman. I have also good reason to know that the suggestion of the supplies being limited to what is required for a fortnight only will not appear in this Order about to be issued. In consequence of an announcement in the Press I was myself pressed in this House to reveal the contents of an Order which I had not seen, and I declined to do it, and that was the last occasion when this was mentioned in this House. So far as that Order is concerned, I have
    1448
    reason to know that the onus will be upon the vendor of excessive quantities of essential foodstuffs to show good reason why such large quantities of goods are being sold to one purchaser, apparently with the intent of supplies being hoarded' to the detriment of others less fortunate.
    Major HUNT: How is the hon. Gentleman going to prevent a purchaser buying a certain amount from one shop and then going to another shop and buying there a. reasonable quantity?
    Captain BATHURST: That is one of the unfortunate effects of trying to discuss an Order which no one has yet seen and which has not yet been issued. I shall be able to deal with the criticisms of my hon. Friend when I myself have seen the Order to which he refers.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Has the hon. Gentleman really not seen the Order, in spite of the protest of the House the other night?
    Captain BATHURST: I have seen a draft of the Order. I have not had the opportunity of seeing what its final form will be. The matter is now before the War Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman referred to potatoes. He suggested that it would have been better if potatoes had been left entirely alone by the Food Controller. My only comment on that is that if potatoes had been left alone the price per ton would now have been nearer £35 than £25. The real trouble about potatoes is the almost unprecedented scarcity of the crop of 1916. The Department I represent could not, I venture to say, have taken a wiser course than it did. The suggestion still holds good that all those who can afford to go without potatoes and obtain substitutes should do so, and leave potatoes-alone for the rest of the season till the new crop comes upon the market. There is best of all reasons for this. Potatoes are, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe suggested, in their constitution and in the nature of their consumption, one of the cheapest substitutes for bread. Bread, like potatoes, is most largely consumed by the poorest classes. If the supply of potatoes runs out at an early date it is not going to be too easy to find suitable substitutes. Up till now it has been possible to find substitutes, like turnips, parsnips, swedes and similar vegetables. Supplies of these commodities are coming to an end. That is. the strongest reason for abstention from potatoes on the part of persons like ourselves, so as to extend the

    1449
    period over which they will be available for the poorer classes. Exactly the same applies to sugar. The right hon. Gentleman would like the so-called laws of supply and demand to have their scope in the matter of sugar.
    Mr. LOUGH: The price has gone up!
    Captain BATHURST: It is perfectly true that sugar has gone up considerably above the pre-war price—170 per cent. the right hon. Gentleman said, and I think it is correct. There is a greater shortage of sugar than of any other imported food commodity. I think the country has reason to be very thankful for the foresighted attitude of the last Government, which decided, at an early stage of the War, to set up the Sugar Commission. This enabled us to get the fairly substantial supplies of sugar that we. have been able to ensure during the War. After all, more than fifty per cent. of our total sugar supplies before the War came from enemy belligerent countries. If the Government had not taken the far-sighted course they did, the price of sugar by now would probably have been beyond the reach of our poorer classes. As regards the suggestion of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), he seemed to think that the Food Economy Campaign might result in a considerable waste of effort and of money. The strongest reason for having a campaign of this sort is that, obviously, the country is by no means well informed to-day as to the directions in which it should practice economy, and, as to the best method of making the most of commodities that are within the reach of the poorer classes of this country, I have no reason to believe that that campaign is going to involve any substantial expense, either to the Government or to anyone else. The hon. Member referred to the difficulty, which we all admit, in the distribution of sugar. A Departmental Committee has, as the hon. Member knows, recently sat to consider the improved distribution of sugar. They have been sitting de die in diem, and have taken an enormous amount of pains. The Report is just about to be issued, and I have reason to believe that, as a result of that Report, improved methods of distribution may be decided upon and adopted at an early date.
    The hon. Member referred to communal kitchens. The municipalities are being approached with a view to instituting communal kitchens, and I hope they will be
    1450
    of a character to satisfy the hon. Member. There is also a central kitchen being instituted by the Food Controller, under the control of a Committee, and over which the lady directors of the Department will preside, to instruct the public how food may be made to yield the maximum of nutrition with the minimum of waste. I think the hon. Member will agree that that is a great consideration in view of the unsatisfactory results of indifferent cooking and also buying without knowledge. But I do not think time permits me to elaborate more on this subject. I should like, in conclusion, to say this: the hon. Member suggested that nothing should be kept back from the House on so important a subject as that of food in critical times like these. When the times comes—if it does come-that I have to keep back from the House of Commons anything with regard to the food supply which the House ought to know at that time, I shall resign the position I now occupy.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I am loath at this late hour to raise a new subject, but I do not want this House to go into recess for a fortnight without bringing forward at the very earliest opportunity questions which seem to me to be at the present moment of vital importance. I think everybody in this House must realise that the revolution in Russia and the entry of America into this War have changed fundamentally the whole character of the War. Instead of being a war carried on between rival States, it is now become a war between the democracies of the world and one single autocracy. It seems to me that this change in the character of the War must have a repercussion not only on our own politics, but the attitude this Government ought to adopt towards the question of peace terms. In the first place, I cannot believe that any one of us who has been inspired, as we have been, by the spectacle of the Russian autocracy ending in the freest and youngest Republic, can fail to be impressed by the urgent necessity binding on us to set our own house in order in so far as we possibly can. Everyone in this House has realised that that revolution alone, without even the addition of America as an Ally, has fundamentally changed the Irish problem to begin with. We all know there is a very strong movement in the Irish party in order to secure a settlement now of the Irish problem, the natural result, I believe, of the breath of fresh air coming

    1451
    from the East and the West. Then I do not think we can go on indefinitely satisfied as Englishmen to reconcile with our conscience the present Government of India. We have got to see how far we can, with the new ideas put in our possession by these new Republics, rectify our position in India relatively to the Indian population. I pass over both these questions as matters of internal politics which will come up later on. But I do want the House to consider now whether the adherence to our cause of three Republics—because China is now against Germany—does not give us an opportunity of not only suggesting possible terms of peace by negotiation, but also of doing that which the President the day before yesterday so ably began—the driving in of the wedge of cleavage between the autocracy in Germany and the people in Germany, I would say that we realise just as much as the American people do, that there is a profound difference between the Kaiser and the Hohenzollerns and the people of Germany, and that so long as they are there we have no security that the people of Germany will revert to the position of good friends and neighbours that they were before this outburst of insanity came upon the nation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What about the time when the Tariff Reform League sent delegates to Germany?
    Commander WEDGWOOD:I do not want to say anything contentious in this matter. Goodness knows, I do not like the Germans, neither their names, their accent, nor their appearance, but I believe everybody realises that there is a profound difference between the rulers of Germany, the last race of autocracy in the world, and the people of Germany themselves, and anything that we can do, without injuring the great causes for which we fight, to hasten the end of this struggle by inducing the German people to believe that they would be better treated, that they would be decently treated if they were no longer the mere puppets of an autocracy, the better for our cause and the cause of our Allies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do it by victory!"] Yes, do it by victory, but the question is how long are we going to wait for victory, and how long will our sons, our brothers, and our families survive? I am perfectly content to get a satisfactory peace, if possible, by negotiation instead of waiting for an indefinite victory, if I can get
    1452
    what I want in these terms of peace. In, common with every Member of the House, I read through the President's speech yesterday with admiration. I believe that in that speech we find exactly what we want. Let me read to the House the final peroration:
    "Right is more precious than pence, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the righis and liberties of small nations, for the universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as will bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free."
    That is something that is worth fighting for, and that is something which, if we can get it now, will satisfy the people of this country in the long run and will satisfy the whole world. What risk do we rum by opening this question now? We have seen in the papers to-day and yesterday that the Kaiser is contemplating a fresh offer of peace. If there is any risk of that offer being made, for goodness sake let us forestall him, because by doing so we shall strengthen our position in Germany, we shall strengthen our position with our Allies, and we shall strengthen our position with the whole world. See what happens! Suppose we start, instead of leaving it to the Kaiser to start, the immediate result will be that the people in Germany will say, "It cannot be out of weakness, because it is made now on the immediate eve of the American declaration of war." The danger in the past has always been that if you made any sort of step towards a pacific solution you would be charged with weakness. The Germans sought to get out of the difficulty by a piece of conceit and bumptiousness, but we are able to open the question without undue conceit or offensive language simply because at this moment we are being joined by the greatest nation on the earth. It seems to me that is one result. We have here now a unique opportunity for making an offer without being charged with weakness. What is the next result? Directly we make this offer there will be an outburst of indignation, not only from Conservatives, but also from a large body of Liberals in the country. To be perfectly frank, as we have seen from the results of elections in South Edinburgh and elsewhere, the people of this country are afraid of peace from a horribly narrow but perfectly explicable standpoint. They do not know where they will be when peace comes. They do not know where they wilt

    1453
    get jobs. They do not know that they will not go back to the frightful struggle for existence which we dimly remember as going on before the War. The people of this country will be very indignant at the very suggestion of peace. Do you not think that it will strengthen our hands to be able to show that the Government is more pacific than the people when we know perfectly well that in every other country in the world the people are more pacific than the Government? That will show Great Britain at its very strongest. Next, do you not think that there will be also a certain amount of protest from the people in the trenches. We know perfectly well When the German peace offer was made that the German Army were acclaiming the offer and begging for peace. I do not believe that our people will be. Perhaps of all the nations they are the most warlike and the most inclined to carry on the War. I do not say that the War is as popular in the trenches as it is at home, but at any rate it is not so unpopular in our trenches as it is in the others. Therefore you will have the spectacle of your Army, unlike any other Army, protesting against the Government approaching Germany for peace. They will do so largely because they have not yet smashed the Germans—a very good reason—and they will also do so because they do not object to fighting as much as other races do. I think that, too, would have a tonic effect upon the German frame of mind. They would be more ready to agree to our Government's terms if they felt that the people of England and the Army of England were inclined for stronger action instead, as elsewhere, of weaker action.
    Now comes the question whether we can reasonably put forward terms which will meet those admirable words of the President which will meet the epoch-making letter or message sent by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Balfour) to America in reply to their message, and which will meet what we want in this War—whether we can put forward terms of that sort which will tend to separate the German people from the German autocracy. I believe that we can lay down terms, based upon all the fundamental ideas of liberty, which it would be impossible to gainsay by any liberal-minded man and which yet would be all that we want and most of what our Allies want. Surely we who have watched this struggle all these years know that the real kernel of the
    1454
    situation is the unity, the independence, and the reconstitution of a Polish Republic. There has been a great deal of talk about the Czecho-Slovaks. I do not attach any importance to the question of Austro-Hungary because in all these cases Austro-Hungary will be quite ready to give the widest measure of autonomy to all these races; therefore the question of the breakup of Austro-Hungary falls to the ground, because on this question autonomy will satisfy America and us. When you come to questions like that of Alsace-Lorraine or Poland you come to the kernel of this War. When we put forward, in support of President Wilson's speech to the Senate two months ago the re-establishment of an independent Poland, we put forward something which every Englishman, to whatever party he belongs, whether he be pacifist or militarist, would support, because it is based on those fundamental doctrines for which we stand and we are also putting forward something which even the liberal-minded in Germany cannot oppose, because what can be more unjust than that the people of one race should be governed by what to them is an alien nation? We are putting forward something which, so long as the Kaiser sits in Berlin, he will not accept. That seems to me to be not only a sound proposal, sound from the point of view of those principles for which we stand in this War—the liberty of the smaller nations and the right of the people to govern themselves—but also politic, because being in accordance with all the principles of justice it is yet such that the territorial claims of the house of Hohenzollern make it impossible for that house to accept it. I do not think that Alsace and Lorraine raise as much difficulty as Poland. The question is, Is it worth while putting forward any terms of peace now? I do not pretend—nobody in this House pretends—that by making an offer of this sort you are likely to get a rapid peace. The War is bound to go on. But I maintain that by taking a more or less reasonable line you strengthen that public opinion upon which the success of this War ultimately depends, and by doing that you place yourselves and the whole of the Allies in a position immeasurably superior to the position of the autocracy in Germany. That is one of the main good things that have come to us from the Russian revolution. After all, we need no longer consider certain shamefaced agreements with the agents of Russian autocracy. We know where

    1455
    we are now. There is no doubt but that after the War there will be no question of will not Russia dare to strike in fifty or sixty years here or there. We need only consider the one thing President Wilson has put before us—the crushing of autocracy and the establishment of a live, democratic union. That is what has come from Russia to America.
    I want to urge upon the House one other great lesson we may learn from the Russian revolution, which, if we learn it to-day and take the hint, will do more than anything else to cement our friendship with the new Allies and with America itself. I allude to the question of an amnesty for political and military offences. We know that there has been such an amnesty in Russia. We know that a great number of our prisoners at the present time are either conscientious objectors or Irish prisoners. With both those classes of prisoners there is an enormous amount of sympathy in the United States. It is no good ignoring the fact that there is a very strong Quaker element in the United States which has heard stories of the woes of conscientious objectors, and there is also, of course, a very strong Irish element thoroughly imbued with the woes of the Sinn Fein prisoners. I have not much sympathy with either class, but I have sympathy with the spirit that says when you are in the throes of a terrific struggle, when you find yourselves with all the democracies against the autocracy of Germany—for the first time a union of democratic countries—that is a magnificent opportunity to give an amnesty, not only to conscientious objectors in prison and to Irish prisoners, but also to all military offenders. Anyone who has had any acquaintance with military law knows the extraordinary way in which courts-martial differ one from another. Mild and? severe sentences are given for almost exactly the same offences. I have known sentences of two months and six years for shooting off a finger. The variation is so terrific that people imprisoned for military offences might reasonably be given an amnesty after serving, say, six months. I do not think you can let the conscientious objector out directly he goes in. He must do his bit. But six months is enough, and it would be a good deal more useful to the State if that particular person were outside working instead of inside being worked for.
    An HON. MEMBER: He went in because he would not work!
    Commander WEDGWOOD: No; he went in because he would not do what he was told—a feeling with which I have a great deal of sympathy. When he comes out he will work for himself or will starve, and that is the best pressure I know to put on anyone. There are not very many of them. Most of them have accepted the Home Office scheme.
    An HON. MEMBER: There are 4,000 of them.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: No; 800. The people who have accepted work under the Home Office scheme are as happy as they can be. They go away every weekend and smoke cigarettes all day. I am thinking of the absolutists who are in gaol. There are 800 of them. There are many friends of my own—people for whom I have not lost respect because they happen to have come down on one side of the fence while I have come down on the other. These are people known to every Member of the House. I have put this particular point of view before hon. Members because for every one who is in there are any number who have been exempted who have not been put in because the Director knew they were not wanted—they were conscientious objectors, and were ruled out. The hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) I suppose is of military age. and has never been summoned. There are any number of people outside as well as those inside, and it creates a sense of injustice when some are put in and some are not. Would it not be possible to copy Russia in this matter and let all these people have an amnesty after six months' imprisonment, so that they might then serve their country voluntarily and therefore actively and be of use, because any sort of work done now is of military importance. The Government might well take in hand these questions of the opening up of peace negotiations and a general amnesty for political and military offenders. They would redound to the credit of the Government and the advantage of the country.
    Major CHAPPLE: My hon. and gallant Friend wants to shorten the War by driving a wedge between the German people and the German ruling classes. I suggest that that is premature. I wish a wedge to be driven in, not there but between Turkey and Germany, or between Bulgaria and Germany or between Austria

    1457
    and Germany. I made a suggestion this afternoon to the effect that if the Foreign Office, in conjunction with our Allies, made an announcement that no terms of peace would be discussed or concluded with Germany on behalf of Turkey, Bulgaria or Austria, it would do a great deal to induce Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria, when they are ready, to appeal for a separate peace. I think the moment is ripe for that announcement. No possible harm that I see could come from making that announcement jointly with our Allies. Turkey is not firmly attached to the Central Powers, and in my opinion she could be easily detached. She is not prepared to fight to the same extremity as Germany is prepared to fight. She is being pressed on all hands now—defeated in Mesopotamia, defeated in Egypt, hard pressed in Persia and the Caucasus; and she has internal troubles which make the moment ripe for separating her from her Allies. She sees that Germany cannot assist her further, and that she might have to apply direct to the Allies. Therefore, I think such an announcement would encourage her to seek a separate peace. This would be a step towards a final peace with Germany. I am not anxious to discuss peace with Germany until we can. dictate terms to her. We must dictate terms to Germany, because for our future safety we must bind her firmly. Turkey will not fight to the last extremity, neither will (Bulgaria, nor Austria; but Germany must fight to the last extremity, and it is no use trying to discuss terms of peace with her while she thinks there is any possible chance of success. The advent of the United States into the War, and the epoch-making pronouncement of President Wilson must have a profound moral effect on the whole world, and it must have a profound effect upon the Allies of Germany. It will be brought home to Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria before it is brought home to Germany that they have no possible chance of winning. If Germany can be of no more military assistance to Turkey, and there is evidence of that; if she can give no more financial assistance to Turkey, and there is evidence of that, the moment must come, if it has not already come, when Turkey must detach herself and look to the Allies for terms of peace. The detachment of Turkey would have an immense effect in increasing the pressure upon Germany.
    1458
    12.0 p.m.
    It would release our Army in Mesopatamia and Egypt, it would release the Russians in Persia and the Caucasus, and it would release an enormous amount of tonnage which is now being used in these far-flung fields of battle. There is no necessity for our crushing Turkey. She will be no danger to us in the future as the Germans would be, and it seems to me that any terms of peace that would be acceptable to Turkey now offer such an opportunity of detaching her from the Central Powers that the pronouncement I suggest should be made. Germany cannot save Turkey now. There are appeals from Turkey to Germany which Germany is forced to resist. Turkey wants money, munitions, and men, and she wants her army back from the Roumanian front, but Germany cannot satisfy her demands. There is abundant evidence also of internal disorders in Turkey. If the announcement I suggest was made by this country and our Allies it would so encourage an appeal from the collateral powers of Germany that we should finally have to deal with Germany only, and it would be a very much simpler matter then for us to deal with Germany than if we were to discuss peace terms with her now. Germany is not ripe for that. She would not agree to any terms that we would require at present. But, on the other hand, there is evidence that Turkey, Bulgaria, and Austria and Hungary are ripe, and by a proper announcement I think that we can do a great deal to bring about a position which could not otherwise be secured without a great expense of life and of money. The suggestion is that an announcement be made jointly with our Allies, that in no circumstances will terms of peace be discussed or concluded with Germany on behalf of Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria or Hungary, but that each of these countries should make a separate appeal.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I feel it my absolute duty to make a protest against a line of conduct on the part of the Government which seems to me to be endangering the country. We all know that we have now arrived at a point when there is a dearth of food in this country. Potatoes certainly cannot last until the next crop comes in. Bread, we are warned, may not last. Cattle we were told this afternoon may have to be slaughtered because there is no fodder to keep them going, and yet

    1459
    the Government is countenancing and rendering itself responsible for a great destruction of food that is going on in this country from day to day and from week to week. The Government takes great credit to itself for having reduced the output of beer, and particularly for having stopped the conversion of barley into malt, but, as I elicited by question this afternoon, the destruction of malt itself in the production of beer is going on at the rate of 40,000 quarters of malt per week. That is all good for human food. In the condition in which the country now is, can we afford to go on destroying food at that rate? I am not in the least raising this as a temperance question. I have not the slightest objection to a moderate consumption of beer in peace times by those who think that they can afford it and that it is desirable; but I raise it as a food question, and I say that at the present time it is dangerous to the country and that we cannot afford it. I am told, of course, that there is a bargain with the brewers that brewing is to be allowed to go on at this rate. If a bargain of that sort has been made it is an improvident bargain, which is dangerous to the country, and some means must be found of cancelling it, and, if necessary, of paying compensation to anybody who loses on account of it. I am told that the working men of this country would not if the brewing of beer were stopped. I do not believe it. I am perfectly certain that the men in the North of England, at any rate, whom I know pretty well, if it were put to them clearly that it has now become a question whether their children were to go short of bread or whether the brewing of beer was to be stopped, would not have the slightest hesitation as to which course they would follow. If the brewing of beer were stopped it does not follow that there will be no more beer available. There are large supplies of beer in this country which would last for some weeks. I am not in a position, to say for how many weeks, but I have heard it suggested that it might be perhaps for a couple of months.
    Much stronger is the case against the destruction of malt and grain in the production of potable spirits. Yet that is going on at a great rate still. Some figures were given in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North-East Lanark on Monday which seemed to indicate that it was going on at the rate of about 8,000 quarters per week. I cannot tell the exact amount, but, at any rate, it is a very large
    1460
    amount. This is a question of food and of the wastage of food that is going on at present. But it is a great deal more than that. It is a question of winning or losing this War. We are engaged in a race with Germany. We cannot smash Germany in a day or a month, or probably several months. The question is—can they starve us out before we can smash them? That is the question, and I say that the Government, by allowing this great destruction of food is endangering our success in that race against Germany. It is a very serious responsibility for the Government to undertake. I asked, the other day, if this country falls short of food, what Minister is going to be hanged for it, and I ask, in all seriousness, that if this conduct goes on and endangers the food supplies of this country, and if the food supplies give out and we, in consequence, lose this War, what Minister will bear the awful responsibility of allowing such a calamity to occur? As a humble independent Member of this House, I venture to say that the Government should take some strong action in this matter, and if some strong action is not taken I shall take an early opportunity of raising the matter again in this House.
    Major HUNT: I would like to ask the Food Controller, because I have heard it asked in several country houses, what are the people to do where they can afford to eat other things than potatoes if they have got potatoes which they grow themselves, which in ordinary times they would eat themselves? Are they to sell those potatoes or are they to eat them? It is paratively small guarantee as it was then, given to the people who are well off not to use potatoes at all. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) made a great point of the hardships of working people at the present time owing to the shortage of potatoes and bread and agricultural produce. He and his party were, to a large extent, responsible for preventing the Government at the beginning of the War giving the farmer a guarantee, a comparatively small guarantee as it was then. I remember asking for a guarantee of 35s. a quarter, which Radical farmers and Conservative farmers were anxious to get. That is all they were asking for then, and when it was asked for a chorus of dissent came from the Radical and Labour parties. It is to a great extent the fault of the hon. Member and his party that we have not got a very fair amount of food in the country at present. If the Govern-

    1461
    ment at the beginning of the War had taken the matter seriously and done as it is doing now, and urged the people to grow as much food as they can, there would have been no serious shortage of food to-day. Therefore, I really think that for him to complain now about the shortage of food is rather a strong order, seeing it is the fault of his party and himself that the position is so bad as it is.
    I want to say a few words about our very serious losses in the air since last October. It is a matter I happen to know something about. Notice was given that this subject would be raised, and I should have been glad if some member of the Government had been here to tell us that things are really being put right at the present time. Up to the middle of October last year the fighting scouts of our Army were about as good as those of the Germans, but about that date Germany brought on the front in France a new fighting scout which has proved very superior to our own. They climb from three or four thousand feet, or higher; they rise up high over the German lines and then dive down on to our scouts, thereby gaining an enormous advantage. They are much better and faster climbers and as they carry two machine-guns, and so can send a double stream of bullets out against our machines which admittedly had become obsolete. That accounts to a very great extent for the enormous losses we have sustained among our airmen since that time. The reason for the existence of this state of things is that the late Government refused to give the people who are responsible for the construction of aircraft a free hand. They were so afraid of letting anybody have any power except themselves, and so they did not give as much assistance as they might have done. They were in consequence unable to compete successfully with the Germans, with the result that the German machines are infinitely better than our own, and we have lost so many of our gallant airmen. I understand that the present Government since it came in has done all that it can to help the Air Board. The late Government allowed the difference between the Army and the Navy on this question to go on. and, as a matter of fact, while at that time the Army machine was inferior to that of the Germans, the Navy had some machines quite as good as, if not better than, the German machines.
    It must be remembered that this could not have been a good arrangement because
    1462
    the Army was doing very much the most of the fighting. The present Government have been and are doing all they can for the Air Service, and I believe there is now no useless competition between the Army and the Navy. I should like to know if the system has been stopped of ordering a certain number of machines—500 or something of that sort—which through the Government's own fault were very much delayed. When made they were found to be obsolete, but the Government would not scrap them when delivered and made our men fight on them although better machines were then invented. The War Office made General Henderson head of the Air Service. He admittedly did not know anything about the. Air Service at all when he was made head of it. Whether that is a good plan or not may be a matter of argument, but for all I have learned at all events, General Henderson has done his very best. If he is hampered by want of knowledge in having to rely on other people that is not his fault but the fault of the late Government for appointing a man as head of a highly-skilled technical arm of which he had no previous knowledge whatever. I do not differ very much from my hon. Friend opposite, but I do hope we shall have a statement from the Government that those things are being taken into consideration, and that every effort will be made in future that shall prevent sacrifices of the most gallant men we have got. Let me give an instance that happened last November or December, to show how faulty some of our aeroplanes were. Four machines went out to protect a bombing party of aeroplanes against the German lines. Three of the engines of the four went wrong and stopped, and those had to go back home. In the case of the one man who was leading, the engine did not go wrong and he had to go on to protect the whole of the bombing aeroplanes. When he was fighting with one of the superior German aeroplanes another German aeroplane came behind him and shot him in his back. He was thus wounded and had to come down in the German lines. That is only a small example of what has happened through not having good aeroplanes. I hope we shall have a statement that things are better than they were in 1916.
    Mr. LYNCH: The Leader of the House said this evening that there was a kind of criticism which was stimulating and

    1463
    helpful to the Government, that he appreciated this, and that no one had a right to apply any other kind of criticism unless he desired to bring the Government down. His objections have no reference to myself, because I have arrived at a point of profound disappointment with the present Government, and I think that no harm would result to the country if they were brought down and forced to give way to another Government. The entrance of the United States into this War has certainly modified the conditions, for whereas previously I was extremely anxious as to the ultimate issue, now I have no longer any doubt. Nevertheless, that argument applies in this way also—that whereas it was always held out, to frighten us from any attack on the Government, that it would be a case of extreme danger to the country, now, with the protection of the United States, it seems to me to matter little whether the present Government remains in power or not.
    In whatever great field of exercise—in the air, in the sea, or on land—I contemplate their actions and weigh their value by results. I find them signally deficient If I should sum up the deficiencies of the Government in a word, phrase or principle, it would be this: That there is never manifested in face of any great problem the courage to look that problem in the face, nor intellect applied to a rational solution of the problem. Instead of tackling these great problems in a truly scientific manner the Government, and each individual member, and the leader of any great Department, always fall back on the old stereotyped plans and tricks, and evading responsibility by putting up a sham and hiding himself behind it; or, in the last resort, appointing a commission or Committee, always doing something that off shoulders responsibility; never anything that supplies a radical solution to the great problems which interest the nation at large. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will pass very rapidly over several points to which I shall refer later. The criticisms on the Air Service to-day have none of them touched the real essential problem, which is that never since the War started has any man responsible for the Air Service taken a large enough conception of the whole possibility of his functions and of the whole character of the work which the Air Service is competent to perform. Again in face of difficulties the old stereo-
    1464
    typed plan has been adopted of putting up the Board or a Commission, and of hiding responsibility behind it. The position reminds me of the story of the Duke of Wellington, who, on being asked what he said in the face of a grave situation, when an officer was manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, replied: "Gad, I said nothing; it was too serious!"
    Some time ago there was an agitation against the present Minister for Foreign Affairs on account of audacious raids by the Germans in the Channel. Under the regime of the present First Lord of the Admiralty such raids have been repeated. The acts of the German Navy have become more and more audacious and more and more successful. If some time ago it was necessary to raise the cry on account of the raids in the Channel that the First Lord of the Admiralty must go, now, by an equity of reasoning, there ought to be a much greater agitation against the present First Lord, who has been proved by trial, by results, to be unequal to the situation.
    I will come to the question of the land service and deal with one point—that is, in respect to the Expedition to Salonika. For a long time it has been. difficult to treat this problem candidly because the interests of Russia were so vast that the whole authority of the Russian Government was massed against a proper solution of the question. Now, however, that the bad old Russian Government has disappeared and we have the good fortune to find established in Russia a Republican Government, a Government which is not bound by the old traditions which have hindered operations in Salonika, we are entitled to ask what is the meaning of the inactivity of the Expeditionary Force at Salonika? What is it intended to do? What is to be the ultimate result of the sending of that expedition? It seem to me that Salonika may be the weak link in the whole chain of the combination against Germany, because whereas we are now stating and believing that the lines are being drawn closer and closer round the Central Empires, that they are being strangled, so to speak, in all the cordons by which they are bound, it is certainly not the opinion of the Germans themselves. Only the other day I saw in a Spanish paper, what we are not permitted to read in England, an account of the boldly conceived plans which the Germans have formed, and of which Salonika is the very keystone. If the Expedition to Salonika were

    1465
    abandoned the Germans would at once use that port as a base for building such a large number of submarines that they would then dominate the Mediterranean. In their own imagination they have described Salonika as the Hamburg of the Mediterranean. Having dominated the Mediterranean, they would become masters of the Suez Canal. Masters of the Suez Canal, they would block the communications of England with the entire East. Having diverted the whole traffic of England and her forces in this way, they would have a free hand in carrying out the famous plan of expansion which has been referred to again and again in this House.
    There are many points on which I will not touch to-night with regard to the policy which has been pursued in Salonika which are of extreme interest, and indicating a character of dealing with that problem which, if brought to light, would probably cause the fall of the Government, or, at any rate, the fall of the Government in a coresponding case in any other country but this.
    I will pass rapidly on and say only a few words now to point out broad, general lines with regard to the settlement of Ireland, and I will indicate a plan for the responsibility of which I desire to involve no one but myself, because the House, in spite of repeated failures, seems to be reverting again and again to those futile negotiations which, from their very inception, were bound to lead to nothing, and which in two notable instances already have ended in failure and in disgrace. That was to have been expected, because, on the one hand, the representatives of Ireland are never likely on that basis to come to an agreement at all; and secondly, because if in this House an agreement were reached, that agreement would have no chance whatever of being ratified by either of the two sections which the leaders represent in Ireland itself. Therefore, if two series of negotiations have ended in futility, is it not reasonable, in face of the persistent and perhaps increasing danger of the problem itself, to say: Those plans having been a failure, is it not to the last degree foolish to revert to them again, and simply try to tinker and patch up the details of that plan? Does it not stare us in the face that we much adopt some new cast of thought, some entirely new situation, and form some new plans on entirely different
    1466
    lines? Now conies a proposal which will seem almost beyond the range of practical politics in its boldness, but I am encouraged in putting it forward by this reason: that when Campbell-Bannerman was working out the plan that finally settled the question of South Africa, until that plan had been formulated you would hardly have found one man in this House who would not have declared it to be beyond the reach of practical politics. The plan that I have in mind is this: That as leading up to the settlement of Ireland, it will be necessary to consider the relation of the great Dominions to this country, and I hope that, as the outcome of the deliberations of this so-called Imperial Conference, the representatives of those Dominions will determine that in their new condition each of them will be in itself totally and absolutely independent—adopting the Republican form for each one of those Dominions—and not that they should be bound together simply for purposes of mutual defence; that once having introduced this principle—which, remember, is inevitable, which is bound to come because it corresponds with the march of time—Ireland should be allowed, in the terms of the express promise of that Government, repeated again and again, and in accordance with the ideal which this country holds up on its banner of war—Ireland should choose the government which Irishmen themselves desire, and that the question of Home Rule should be entirely lifted out of the rut of mere little cheeseparings of financial conditions, of mere little adjustments of this or that, of greater latitude in the extremely restricted area of local control. It should be recognised that Ireland has the same right to work out her own destiny as Poland or Serbia or Belgium. Once having formed that great conception, the matter should be so lifted up and made so great and attractive, and we should seize the possibility of a brilliant destiny, that that solution would appeal to the men of Ulster themselves. And if there be still any lingering objection—as-to any possibility of disadvantage—not to speak of persecution—on the score of finance or religion, I say it would be easy when once that conception had been reached, to safeguard their interests, so that it would be impossible that any man in Ireland should suffer any detriment on account of his religion.
    Although I believe that this plan would prove the salvation of Ireland, and

    1467
    although all my political life has been immersed in this struggle for Ireland's nationhood, yet I would say that if I thought there was a possibility under any scheme of Home Rule that a man would be subject to any kind of persecution, or in the least degree of detriment whatever on. account of religion, even now I would turn my back on Home Rule and fight as tenaciously for its destruction as I have ever fought for its adoption. In that spirit I appeal to the men of Ulster to expand their imaginations, to lift their minds above the petty strife of politics, to realise the pride of Ireland, and to do their best in this way to work out this plan for Ireland and send her free to a new splendid destiny.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to say a few words because of the speech which we have heard to-night from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood), a speech which, I may say, it gave me very great personal gratification to hear. Nobody had a greater right than he to make such a speech, because he, at any rate, has borne the heat and burden of the day, and there are few in this House who have lost so many of those who are near and dear to them. Some while ago his cousin fell in battle, and a few days ago a brother, and so on; yet with the feelings which must necessarily afflict a man in that position, he was able to-night, in the new circumstances, to suggest a possible means of entering into negotiations for peace. The reason which has enabled my hon. Friend to take a somewhat different point of view has also very much affected my own point of view. From the very beginning my views on this War have been tinctured by hatred of the Russian autocracy. I and many other Members probably, have studied for years past the association of the British Government with the Russian Government, and it has been a matter of shame, and I think of humiliation, to this country that through the power which that association gave we have seen the suppression of the rights of Finland and the abolition of its autonomy; we have seen during that association the destruction of the constitutional effort of Persia; we have seen the promotion of a policy of aggression by Russia in the Balkans; and we have seen a long venture in Galicia for the purpose of its ultimate conquest and of adding it to the Russian Empire. I believe that for the origin of the War and the responsibility
    1468
    for it we have not to overlook these facts; at any rate, I do not; they largely coloured my view when the crisis came in July, 1914. Look at such a date as 22nd July. At that time the revolutionary movement in Russia was gathering full force; in Petrograd alone there were 100,000 men on strike, not for industrial reasons, but for political reasons. In all the great cities of Russia the same circumstances existed. The Dynasty was in danger again. When the crisis was at its most difficult and delicate point, and just at the point at which Austria had given way to our demands, the Russian Czar and his brutal camarilla gave the order for a general moblisation, which enabled the military party in Berlin to declare that the country was in danger and to secure full power over the parties that were endeavouring to maintain peace.
    I believe that Russian mobilisation was ordered by the Czar and those around him for the purpose of destroying the revolutionary movement. It had that effect. They raised the cry of Constantinople, and of Slavdom; they said that they were going to raise the cross at Constantinople once again. The revolutionaries were all swept into the army. A popular cry was raised, the revolution was at an end. It would have been the end of the uprising of the people if the objects of the autocracy had been achieved and if war had been successful. But there came a point when the prolongation of the War and its lack of success provided again the opportunity for the development of the revolutionary movement. That movement for eighteen months or more past had been gathering force in Russia, and when the Government saw that the Dynasty was in danger they set themselves to work in order to save it. They then tried to make a separate peace with Germany. At that time, when Steurmer was in office and I knew that this was being attempted, I asked different questions on the subject. It was then suggested that I was unpatriotic, and it was now said that all was well. That is what we have been told all through. We have been absolutely deceived as regards the relationship of the late Czar and his Government, as to the objects of the Allies. That has been my view of the Russian Czar and his camarilla as to the responsibility attaching to his action in relation to the War. Consequently no one rejoices more than I do at the end of that bloodthirsty regime.

    1469
    In Russia a new condition altogether has arisen, and I would supplement by this argument what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said as regards new peace possibilities arising through the revolution in Russia—that with the fall of autocracy in Russia falls despotism in Russia, and inevitably Prussian militarism. The Prussian militarists have lost their one means of successful appeal to the people. The present Prime Minister pointed out in 1908 what was the reason for militarism in Germany—that it was the fear of Russia on one side and of France on the other. He ended the powerful speech which he made in the Queen's Hall in 1908 by saying, after referring to the fears of the German people of an aggressive despotic Russia, "Would not we plot, would not we arm? Of course we would." As late as January, 1914 (New Year's Day), he gave a message to the "Daily Chronicle" in which he again pointed to the same circumstances—the German fear of Russia at one side and of France at the other—their enemies in case of Continental war. To the Prussian people their Army was what our Navy was to us. Now that menace is removed, and I say that the removal of it will cause the militarist party in Germany to lose their grounds for a popular appeal.
    But we can still enable the German militarists and the German autocracy to maintain their hold upon the German people if we state, as we have stated in the past, that it is our determination to crush Germany, to dismember Germany, and to destroy the German people. If the Prussian militarists and the Prussian autocracy can say, "We stand for the salvation of the Fatherland; we stand against the destruction and dismemberment of Germany," then they will retain their power. That is why I think such statesmanship is shown in the speech made by my hon. Friend (Commander Wedgwood). In that speech he was undoubtedly following the lines of the statement made by the President of the United States. It is essential that you should show to the German people that this is not the object of the Allies. Show them that the object of the Allies is, in the main, and broadly speaking, to ensure their institutions, and to ensure that there shall be no aggressive policy for the acquisition of territory. Once that is recognised by the German people, I am confident that the power of the militarist party will wane.
    1470
    For my own part I feel certain that you need have no fear whatever that peace, if it were granted to-day, could bring a restoration of pre-war conditions. We are past the possibility of that. I believe there will undoubtedly be, with the despotic Russia removed, a democratic upheaval in Germany, sweeping away all autocratic conditions in that country by the only influence that can sweep them away—that is, the influence of the German people. We have reached a point of the piling up of debt, with a subsequent increase in taxation, where bankruptcy and famine are certain to ensue after the declaration of peace, even if it came to-morrow You have in every belligerent country all the conditions that engender revolution I feel certain myself that every belligerent country will be swept by revolutionary movement; by these economic and social forces autocracies throughout Europe will fall, and it is because I am so confident that these economic forces will achieve the objects which we are stated to have in view that it seems to me futile and useless to go on one day longer than is necessary fighting and sacrificing the lives of the young and the brave of this country. It is because my hon. Friend has opened up this new vista of possibility and pointed a new way as a result of this great movement of revolution in Russia and because of the coming of another Republic into the fold of the Allies, that I have been glad of the opportunity of saying these few words of appreciation.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I apologise for rising at this late hour, but I would make an appeal to Members of the House to consider the great inconvenience some of us living at a distance will be put to if we miss our trains. The last train on the District Railway is one o'clock, and I appeal to the hon. Member for East Herts, who is a chivalrous sportsman in a certain sense of the term, and to the Member for North Somerset, not to let us miss our trains.
    Mr. KING: I never rose!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I appeal to the? hon. Member for East Herts to have some consideration for those Members who remain. Many of us have supported him in many of his splendid advocacies of the Flying Corps. I ask him to allow us to catch our last train, and to save us the great inconvenience of having to walk several miles to our respective homes.
    Mr. BILLING: I have a very great and deep appreciation of the domestic advantages of the Members of this House, but I would sooner every Member of this House and every member of the Government should miss the last train home than that one of the best men in this country should be killed by being sent up in a deficient machine. I have sat in this House since half-past three o'clock this afternoon with the object of raising a question which, to me at least, is one of most vital importance. It was suggested to me while I was on the Back Benches that I should lend an atmosphere of occupation to the Treasury Bench, but I must say I consider I should not have been doing my duty to this House if I had allowed any stranger in the Gallery, if only for a moment, to believe that some member of the present Government considered it a compliment, if not a duty which he owed to this House, to occupy that bench until the Motion for the Adjournment was carried. Evidently there are certain obligations in this House which have ceased to be respected, and therefore I must address myself, not for the first time, to an empty Treasury Bench. Although that bench is completely empty I do not think that the impression I shall make on it is any less than the impression I have succeeded in making on the bench when it has been full. There are many points that I wish to raise before this House adjourns. First of all, I wish to say that I must withdraw, or rather I must ask this House to excuse me, if at any moment I have claimed the right and the privilege of having stated that some of the best men in this country have been murdered by maladministration. I was looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT since the last time that I addressed the House, and this is what I find—I have no weakness as a right hon. Member said, standing at this box yesterday, for reading my own speeches. I am referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th June, 1913. This is what I find:
    "Captain Faber (Hampshire. W.) asked the Secretary of State for War if he would state whether the responsibility for allowing the aeroplane, that lately led to the deaths of lieutenants Harrison and Arthur being allowed to fly in their deteriorated condition rested upon the officer commanding the flying wing?
    "Colonel Seely: I cannot admit that these aeroplanes were in a deteriorated condition as stated in the question. As regards the first accident, the Cody aeroplane had recently been thoroughly overhauled and returned as being in a safe condition for flying. As regards the second accident, the investigation of the question as to who was responsible for the condition of the wing tip which broke has not yet been completed,"
    1472
    Replying to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton),
    "Colonel Seely said that most careful reports were furnished when an accident took place and lie deprecated any suggestion that the officers did not do their work-well From all the information he had it appeared that they were doing their work admirably and the aeroplanes were in excellent condition.
    Captain Faber asked whether officers of the Flying Corps did not hold a very different view, and did not some of them hold the opinion that the two officers mentioned were murdered by carelessness."
    And that is the historical occasion when the word "murder" was first used in the House of Commons in connection with the maladministration of our Air Service. Therefore, whatever reputation I may-have gained in this country or in this House for having used the word "murder" in connection with the Air Service, I am afraid I am doomed to lose it. What was the result of that speech? The result was that a Special Committee was appointed to inquire into and report upon this very accident, whereby one of the best airmen we had, Desmond Arthur, had been murdered by carelessness at Montreux. What was the result of the Committee's Report? I should like to read an extract from it. The Investigation Committee of the Royal Aero Club, upon whom Colonel Seely placed reliance, issued a Report on 19th May, in which they state:
    "The Committee is of opinion that the aircraft had structurally deteriorated from one cause or another since it was originally built in 1911, and that its condition at the time of the flight was precarious."
    The Committee's recommendation was as follows:
    "In view of the fact that aircraft are built of perishable materials, the Committee strongly recommends that those which have been in existence for some time, whether they have been in use or not, should undergo a critical examination both as regards their framework, and the fabric, with a view to ascertaining to what extent deterioration has taken place, and the conditions of the aircraft generally recorded at the time."
    "The Committee is of opinion that the primary cause of the accident was the failure of the fruity joint in the repair to the rear main spar. The Committee is further of opinion that the repair referred to above was so badly done that it could net possibly be regarded as the work of a conscientious and competent workman."
    1.0 A.M
    That Report has a very peculiar significance. When I had the honour, if not the pleasure, of appearing before the Committee specially appointed by the late Prime Minister—as I had occasion to say before, I did not have the opportunity of appointing my own judges in this case—when for eleven days, from eleven o'clock in the morning to four o'clock in the afternoon, I handed them out facts, which, if ever there is a history of aviation, I trust will be read; when I told them the exact

    1473
    and absolute position of the administration of our Air Service, that I never can have the opportunity of telling this House, as I do not wish to exhaust its patience; when I tell you that I brought up that very case as an instance of maladministration and criminal negligence, tantamount to murder, what was the result? The Committee came forward with an Interim Report, which I hold was a political manoeuvre—a political manoeuvre by a discredited Government to discredit a critic—and said: "We have no reason to believe that there was a patch or repair on this aeroplane, and we do not believe a word of what Mr. Pemberton Billing has said." Yet I read them this actual Report, and they would not believe it because I was unable to obtain a copy. I am very glad to see a Member of the Government (Sir F. E. Smith) on the Front Bench at last. There we have an instance of the Committee to inquire into the administration and command of an Air Service which has been the toy of the military and naval forces of this country, and is yet likely to prove the tragedy of the Government of this country.
    I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) to-day, I listened to the queries he put forward, and to the statements he made as to the condition of our Air Service to-day. I was interested, but I cannot say that I was surprised. That the right hon. Member, with all his faults, and I am quite sure that this House is not blind to them, possesses more originality of mind and more imagination than most Members of this House, and if I ever presume to give this Government advice on any point of its administration, I would suggest that if they are seeking—and I hold no brief for the right hon. Member—for a man whose wealth of imagination could be turned to a useful purpose to-day, whose vision, at least so far as aeronautics are concerned, is not prevented by polities and carries him beyond the Front Bench, they might do worse than to ask the right hon. Gentleman to handle the question of our Air Service with a firm hand to-day. To-day the Air Service is in a state of flux. We were told that an Air Board would be appointed; that it would prove the salvation and solution of this great problem which has been dismissed as an incident in this War instead of being recognised as what it may ultimately become, if this War lasts long enough—and it will have to
    1474
    last some time longer if we are going to dictate terms to and not listen to terms of peace from our enemies—the deciding factor in the terms of peace. When I rose in May, 1916, after I had been a Member of this House for only a few weeks, I told the House what would happen. I told the Government—not that I wish to read my speeches—"You appointed a Committee, and the Committee failed." I told them: "You have now appointed a Board; the Board will fail." I said: "When that Board fails you will call it by another name. You will take the name of another man who has won the confidence of the country in some other sphere; a man of no aeronautical experience, a man of no mechanical experience, but a purely political expedient. You will take that man, and you will throw him as a married woman will throw a bone to an angry dog; and the public will swallow him for a time." The public will put up with a very great deal, but I do not know whether this Government has yet put the measure on the credulity of the public, as to what they will put up with before they act in such a way as will make it absolutely necessary for the Government to take this matter seriously.
    The other Board was appointed, and I think I am right in saying that Lord Curzon presented such a Report to the late Government that they had at his hands, I am suggesting, an ultimatum that either he would have supreme control—and just exactly what he was going to do when he got supreme control I do not know, because he had not the foggiest idea of what was wanted. He was harassed, as all these political nominees are harassed, by a multitude of counsellors. On the one hand they were saying, "Do this," and on the other hand they were saying, "Do that," and he did not know which advice to take. Eventually he redeemed a character and reputation which he was rapidly losing in the eyes of an awakening public by resigning his position. He was the second to throw in his hand, and then the new Government arrived.
    The first time I entered this House after the new Government came in I asked the same questions, and, God bless my soul, I was answered by the same people. I found that the same Government, the same men, were doing it. There was a political shuffle—a shuffle of the political cards. One or two fell out and one or two came in, but that was all. We were watching

    1475
    carefully to see that there was no likelihood of a repetition of the mistakes of the last Government, that there was no recurrence of the policy of procrastination, of live and let live Any Government which has adopted such a policy has never been successful in a great war. The mistakes of yesterday of our Friends in Opposition were not to be repeated. I should have been considerably elated if the honour which is supposed to exist in all classes, even in the classes which politicians sometimes so strikingly remind me of, had been forgotten for one moment, and if the honour, safety and welfare of the country had been given the first and the paramount consideration. I should have been more pleased if the new Government, arising Phoenix-like out of the ashes of the late Government, had admitted the mistakes and blunders which have been made, had admitted that one or two of their members who had been with the late Government were also responsible, and had said that they were going to turn over a new leaf. I should have been more satisfied if they had told this House, without any dissension, that they had a legacy of muddle, inefficiency, and procrastination, and that the failure of the late Government to handle many tasks which we regretted they had not handled had much to answer for. If they had made a perfectly straight statement, I am confident that the position which has gradually become more dangerous to the present Government would not have arisen.
    To an independent Member of this House this political reshuffle created a situation which it was very difficult to know how to confront. I came to this House not with the assistance of but in spite of every political organisation in this country. If I had to use the most unclean machine that I have ever met with in the course of my experience in many parts of the world in order to enter this House, I should refuse to use it, preferring to remain outside.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This is rather an abuse of the privilege of speaking on the Adjournment Motion. We are supposed to deal with some administrative action of the Government. The hon. Member will, perhaps, if he has some point of that sort, deal with it.
    Mr. BILLING: I will see that I do not fall out of order again, but it is difficult
    1476
    to dissociate the administrative actions of the Government in relation to our land and sea warfare from their political manoeuvres, and I would, therefore, crave the indulgence of Members of the House, or, at least, those who are here. As regards all the actions of the present Government I have supported them in the Lobby, and I shall continue to do that. I am afraid that one vote is not a matter of any great assistance, but so long as their policy is for the successful prosecution of the War and makes for the efficiency of both our Air and our Sea and Land Services I shall give them my whole-hearted support. I regard my peculiar duty in this House to give effect as far as possible to the mandate upon which I was sent here. The mandate I received was to endeavour to put our Air Service into that state of efficiency which would make it capable not only of maintaining its position, but of improving it, and of ensuring to this country the supremacy of the air. I desired not only that we should be able to believe and rest upon the assurance of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Balfour) that we might sleep comfortably, safely and restfully in our beds when Zeppelin bombs were dropping all around, but that we should be able to regain the supremacy of the air on the Western Front which we have lost. In March, 1916, our losses at the front seemed to those of us who were studying the problem closely one of the most serious incidents in this War. It appeared to us all the more serious because it was not a question of numbers. The proportionate number of pilots who were being killed was not so serious in relation to the terrible losses we were sustaining in other branches of our naval and military forces. I know that when I have put forward in this House the argument that thirty or forty of our pilots had been killed it has been remarked to me, "After all, what is that to the five or six thousand who are being drained away daily in our military operations on the Western front, to say nothing of our operations in other parts of the world." But what we have to remember is that the training of a pilot for the purposes of observation and air fighting—and without first-class air fighting pilots we cannot retain the observation pilots—is not only a very difficult but a very long task. Before we can train a man who is fit to do observation or air fighting in France, we first have to get the type of man who is suitable, and to get that type of man

    1477
    we may have to take him from fifty. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that not 25 per cent. of the pilots who go into training are proved to be suitable for either air fighters or observers. Perhaps another 50 per cent. prove suitable for bomb-dropping raids, and the remaining 25 per cent. prove absolutely useless for any active service conditions. What does that mean? It amounts to this, that when we are throwing away a hundred lives, as we have been throwing them away in the case of our first-class observers and air fighters, the efficiency of 400 of our pilots is taken away. The matter is much more serious than hon. Members of this House appreciate. The matter is so serious, Sir, that if this Debate degenerated into a heart to heart talk between yourself and myself I should continue. The position is this, that if we go on losing pilots, first-class pilots, at the rate we are losing them to-day, the day is not far distant when we shall have no first-class pilots and no first-class observing pilots. What does that mean? It means that our Army on the Western front will be blind, and if our Army is blind we are beaten. If our Army is blind we are at the mercy of the manoeuvres of our enemies, we, are at the mercy of their guns, and our own guns, which, for the last two years at least, have not only depended, but absolutely relied on the information supplied to them by the gun-spotting machines, would have to fire blind into the enemy's lines, and would be throwing away all those wonderful munitions which we are making a gigantic sacrifice in this country to produce. I cannot understand how any Member of this House who possesses enough? intelligence to come in out of the rain to save himself from getting wet can fail to see the possibility and the necessity of our Air Service to-day.
    My whole life since 1903 has been not only closely associated but absolutely identified with the Air Service. In 1903—I do not wish to make anything of a personal statement, but I consider it necessary to justify the act of a Service pilot throwing up his commission in the middle of this War to come to this vacant House and talk to empty benches. I want to justify my action. If I had been a pilot of a couple of years' experience of flying I should have felt that my action was wrong.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This appears to have no relevance whatever.
    Mr. BILLING: I raised a question of my own identification with the Air Service for the pure and simple purpose of satisfying such Members of this House as are listening to me that any criticism I may offer is not offered from any desire to aggravate or to irritate the Government, but is criticism based on experience; and I submit most humbly that any Member of this House who is speaking hereon a matter which is essential, and a technical subject, should at least have the privilege of submitting to this House the very briefest of statements, such as I propose to make, as to my qualifications and my justification for keeping the House so late.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not here to hear personal statements.
    Mr. BILLING: I refrain from making any further personal statements concerning myself. It was not my intention. I would appeal to Members of the Government if they were present. I sincerely trust that in their moments of rest they occasionally refer to the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is the only justification I have for continuing my remarks as to the position of the Air Service today. It is more serious and more critical—I am now referring to the Royal Flying Corps—than it was twelve months ago, because the position of the whole of our fighting forces is more critical. We have a bigger Air Service, we have more pilots in the air, we have more aeroplanes at our disposal. But you must remember that twelve months have passed since then, twelve priceless months; millions of bullets have been fired, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and still we are pondering, still we are intriguing, still we are hesitating, and when I think that since I first stood up in this House to raise this question dozens of men, dozens of the most priceless men this War has produced, personal friends of mine, have been killed, have needlessly thrown away their lives through this intrigue and inefficiency, it is difficult to speak without passion.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been speaking over half an hour now with considerable repetition. I have twice warned him, and I must now request him to resume his seal.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order, Sir. I would like to say that the remarks I was

    1479
    making then were that the inefficiency of this Air Service—I was distinctly on the question of the inefficiency of the Air Service—has caused the needless sacrifice of lives of our pilots, and if you do not consider that this is a point to be raised in this House I am not in order. But I ask you before you give your ruling in this matter to consider very seriously the question whether it is not in order for me to say that it is to my knowledge that men whom I have known have been killed. I submit that if I said they were men of whom I knew nothing it would be hearsay; but it is necessary to support my point to say that these men who have been killed were known to me, and I want to satisfy the House that I am talking from first-hand information and not from hearsay, as I have been accused of doing. I ask you to say that I was in order in referring to the fact that these men who were killed were men personally known to me, and they were killed through inefficient machines.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have given the hon. Member every opportunity, and I must ask him now to resume his seat.
    Mr. KING: Though I have never agreed with the hon. Member for East Herts, I feel now that it is a great loss to the House that he had not a full House to listen to him. I also greatly regret that there is no Minister here to reply, but I am perfectly sure that what the hon. Member has said will be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT and will receive due consideration. As the hour is so late and as no Ministers
    1480
    are present, I propose to call attention to the matter of which I have given notice on the adjournment on the 17th of this month.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I beg to say that I consider—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled on a point of Order I to make a statement.
    Mr. BILLING: On the point of Order, ! Sir, I beg to protest against the ruling of the Chair. I do not consider that the ruling is in order.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House do meet Tomorrow at Twelve of the clock, and, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday, the 17th April, and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to Bills agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put. pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes before Two a.m., Thursday. 5th April.

FOOD SUPPLIES.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
  LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
  GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS (IRELAND).
  GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS (IRELAND).
  DOGS.
  DOGS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  IRISH REBELLION (CLAIMS).
  IRISH REBELLION (CLAIMS).
  BEER OUTPUT (RESTRICTIONS).
  BEER OUTPUT (RESTRICTIONS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (IRELAND).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (IRELAND).
  FISHING PERMITS (DINGLE BAY).
  FISHING PERMITS (DINGLE BAY).
  DUBLIN (REBUILDING).
  DUBLIN (REBUILDING).
  ROYAL NAVY (CHIEF WRITERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (CHIEF WRITERS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  PORT OF LONDON TRIBUNAL (EXEMPTIONS).
  PORT OF LONDON TRIBUNAL (EXEMPTIONS).
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  LABOUR COMPANY (PRIVATE ILLNGWORTH).
  LABOUR COMPANY (PRIVATE ILLNGWORTH).
  TRANSFERS.
  TRANSFERS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  BEBR (ARMY CONSUMPTION).
  BEBR (ARMY CONSUMPTION).
  PARK HALL CAMP, OSWESTRY (DEATHS).
  PARK HALL CAMP, OSWESTRY (DEATHS).
MUNITIONS.
  MOTOR CARS ("JOY RIDES").
  MOTOR CARS ("JOY RIDES").
  INDIAN FACTORIES (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  INDIAN FACTORIES (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  COUNTESS MARCKIEVICZ.
  COUNTESS MARCKIEVICZ.
  IRISH PRISONERS.
  IRISH PRISONERS.
  LICENSED TRADE (IRELAND).
  LICENSED TRADE (IRELAND).
  WAR EFFICIENCY.
  WAR EFFICIENCY.
  PRISONS CLOSED DURING WAR.
  PRISONS CLOSED DURING WAR.
  ADVERTISING CIRCULARS.
  ADVERTISING CIRCULARS.
NATIONAL SERVICE.
  WOMEN VOLUNTEERS.
  WOMEN VOLUNTEERS.
  COMMISSIONERS (METHOD OF APPOINTMENT).
  COMMISSIONERS (METHOD OF APPOINTMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS).
  RENT INCREASES.
  RENT INCREASES.
  Stratford Employment Exchange.
  Stratford Employment Exchange.
  Boys' Country Work Society.
  Boys' Country Work Society.