Sitting of 17 April 1917

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 5th April—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
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.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
London Corn Exchange Company Bill,
To be read the third time To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 1915-16 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of England, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March, 1917, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon- the Table, and to be printed. {No. 63.]
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Tea (Net Weight) Order, 1917, Food Hoarding Order, 1917, Manufacture of Flour and Bread Order (No. 3), 1917, and Public Meals Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MUNITIONS (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Minister of Munitions under Section 5 (4)
1492
of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, entitled the Munitions (Limitation of Profits) Rules, 1915 (Amendment) Rules, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, No. 9,842, dated 29th March, 1917, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st July, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1917, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1917, approving a Memorial of the Minister of Pensions [by Act]; to he upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 14th April, 1917, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act].: to lie upon the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1917, amending the Scheme for the Establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENSIONS.
Copy presented of Royal Warrant for Pensions of Soldiers disabled and of the families and dependants of Soldiers deceased in consequence of the present War, together with Order in Council and Regulations for Pensions of British Seamen and Marines, their widows, relatives, and dependants [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BULBS.
Copy presented of Additional Rule for Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 5th April, 1917, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (NEW DUTIES) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd March, 1917, made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for securing the payment of Cider Duty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 11th April, 1917, made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the Act, with respect to service by post [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

THAMES CONSERVANCY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1916 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 65.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ARREST OF RUSSIAN JEWS AT KIRKWALL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been received, on or about 2nd or 3rd April, from the Russian Government a communication suggesting that the sum-
    1494
    mary proceedings at Bow-street in regard to four Russian Jews arrested on a Danish ship at Kirkwall should be discontinued?
    The MINISTER OF BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer is in the negative.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    FRIENDLY ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of Russia, Japan, Portugal, and the United States, respectively, have asked that their citizens resident here who are of military age should be sent back to their respective countries to render military service?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.

    HOME DEFENCE FORCE (MEN UNDER 35).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the need of men to maintain the ranks fighting abroad, any estimate has been made of the trained men, under thirty-five years, now retained for Home defence in Great Britain and in Ireland who might be sent abroad if men of a higher age were available to take their places in Home defence units?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am afraid that I cannot publicly answer this question without disclosing to the enemy useful information. Men who are fit for general service are taken from Home service units as they can be replaced by men of lower categories.
    Mr. KING: Has the hon. Member observed that I have not asked for the figures of any estimate, but whether any estimate has been made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Oh, yes, of course it has, certainly.
    Mr. KING: That is all I asked.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the number of Russian subjects in this land anxious to return to Russia forthwith and that many of these men, being of military age, want to fight for their native soil, which is invaded, rather than fight for this country, which has been throughout this

    1495
    War secure from invasion; and whether he will make a statement as to the facilities open or shortly to be opened whereby the return of these Russians to Russia may both delight and strengthen our Russian Allies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given him on the 21st March and the 29th March. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the alleged immunity of this country from invasion is in any degree due to the efforts of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and his Friends?
    Mr. KING: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is that a question that arises?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ALLIED COUNTRIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British subjects of military age are resident in Russia, Italy, Japan, Portugal, France, and the United States; and whether steps have been, or will be, taken to have such men recalled or returned here to do their military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There has been a steady flow of recruits from the countries mentioned, and British subjects resident in those countries are continuing to return to undertake military service.
    Mr. KING: Have the Governments of those countries been definitely asked to send any subjects still remaining in them?

    MAN-POWER.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister when the measure for increasing the manpower of our Army will be introduced; and what are the main lines of the Government proposals?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A statement will be made on this subject in the near future.

    GERMAN ARMY CASUALTIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any esti-
    1496
    mate has been made of the total losses of the German army since the outbreak of war; if so, whether any figures can be given without detriment to our military interests; whether he can give the summary of the losses in the German army of dead, wounded, and missing, also of wounded returned to the colours, according to the lists as published officially in Germany; and whether such published losses give a fair view of the wastage of the German fighting force?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State on 23rd February, 1916, to my hon. Friend the Member for South Bedfordshire. As my hon. Friend knows, we publish the totals of the official German casualty lists about the middle-of each month, and the current list appears in to-day's Press.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    IRISH BACON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the actual amount paid to Messrs. Denny as commission for buying bacon for the Army in the financial years 1914–15, 1915–16, and 1916–17 respectively; whether their goods, as bacon curers, were on any occasion purchased at a higher price than the then current prices of their Irish competitors; and what percentage of all the Irish bacon purchased was manufactured by the Denny firm?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster):The commission paid to Messrs. Denny amounted to £24,000 in the year 1914–15 and £25,000 in each of the two years 19L5–16 and 1916–17. These sums include the firm's working expenses. The goods of Henry Denny and Sons, Limited, were on occasion accepted at higher prices than those of some other Irish curers, the prices paid being governed by the relative market prices of the day. The proportion of the bacon manufactured by Messrs. Henry Denny to all the Irish bacon purchased for the Army was 60.96 per cent, between August, 1914, and March, 1915, 38.54 per cent. between April, 1915, and March, 1916, and 14.4 per cent, between April, 1916, and March, 1917. During the first period it was only with the utmost difficulty that the demands of the Army could be met, and it was

    1497
    therefore necessary to accept the larger offerings by the trade of the Denny brands.
    Mr. GINNELL: The hon. Gentleman has not explained how it was that Messrs. Denny were actually paid a higher price for their own bacon than their Irish competitors were being paid at the same time?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member knows perfectly well that there are different brands of bacon, each of which commands different market prices in ordinary times.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether those prices for the Denny and other Irish-cured bacon, respectively, were the current prices at that time?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that all these prices were the current market prices.

    MALT.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what stocks of malt at present exist in the country; whether they are capable of being used for human food; and, if so, what arrangements the Controller of Food proposes to take to prevent their beng consumed in the making of beer and vinegar?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): There are about one million quarters of brewers' malt in this country to-day, an amount sufficient to satisfy the reduced requirements of brewers for a period of six months from the present time. There is no available record of the stocks of malt used in the manufacture of other commercial products. It is considered that the diversion of these stocks from the purpose for which they were intended would be extravagant and undesirable. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2nd April.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question: whether they are capable of being used for human food?
    Captain BATHURST: Oh yes, Sir, they are capable of being used for human food, but it would be a most uneconomic use to put them to, especially in the case of
    1498
    brewers' malt which is different from the dietetic malt which at the present time is used for bread-making.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand then that there is no shortage of food in this country?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir; you are to understand that there is nothing of the sort. There is a prospective shortage of food, and it is for us to recognise it, and act accordingly.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Recognising that fact, will the Government allow this food to be wasted?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!

    SUGAR BEET.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what is the estimated average value per acre of the auxiliary uses of the sugar-beet crop in addition to the main purpose of producing sugar; what is the estimated average value per acre of suitable land in Ireland of the yield of sugar at the present price; in which of the Irish counties is there most land suitable for the growth of this crop; what area in each of those counties is being prepared for this crop this year; whether the Department is providing for those willing to grow the crop the best seeds, artificial manures, and expert advice; what progress it has made towards obtaining from the Treasury adequate money for the erection of sugar factories; and what places have been provisionally selected for their erection?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The estimated average value per acre for cattle-feeding purposes of the leaves and tops of sugar beet and of the fresh wet slices delivered on the farm is about one-fifth that of a turnip crop. The estimated cost to the consumer at current retail prices of the sugar producible from 1 acre of sugar beet is about £100. The medium or heavy loam soils of Ireland, where sufficiently deep, are suitable for the growth of sugar beet. So far as the Department of Agriculture are aware, no land is being prepared for beet crop in Ireland this year. The question of the provision of seed, manures and expert advice does not at present arise, as farmers are unwilling to grow the crop unless assured of a market at a factory for the roots grown. No application has been made for a Grant for the erection of beet-sugar factories, nor have

    1499
    any sites been provisionally selected. As to the conditions under which a beet sugar factory could be established on economical lines, I would refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Sligo on the 19th March.
    Mr. GINNELL: Are we to understand from that answer that the Department has done nothing whatever towards introducing sugar - beet culture into England?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Gentleman will read the answer when it appears he will see that it does not state anything of the kind.
    Mr. GINNELL: It amounts to that.

    MILK (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made towards providing the people of Irish towns and villages with land for the upkeep of cows for the supply of milk, especially for children, a provision of which he admits the necessity; if legislation for this purpose is necessary, whether it will be introduced without further delay; whether the land will be available by the end of this month; whether sufficient will be provided for the winter feeding as well as for the summer feeding of the cows; and if he will state generally how and by whom the land is to be held?
    Mr. DUKE: I am told that legislation would be required in order to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion, and I see no present prospect of such legislation.
    Mr. GINNELL: Then has it not been done this season?

    ARAN ISLAND FISHERIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £3,000 paid out of the Treasury in recent years towards the promotion of motor-boat fishing in Ireland has been spent on the fisheries off the Aran Isles, county Galway; and, if none, whether, in the interest of equal treatment and increased food supply, any public money is allocated to be. spent on the development of the Aran fisheries this season?
    Mr. DUKE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to this question. Since July, 1913, sums amounting to £3,818 have been expended by the Congested Districts Board in respect of four
    1500
    motor boats at Kilronan, Aran Island, and the funds of the Board are available for fishing development this season.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister when the new Royal Warrants for officers and nurses will be ready?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): Good progress is being made with the drafting of these Warrants, and I am in consultation with my statutory advisers in regard to them.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing the new Warrants for officers and nurses?
    Mr. BARNES: Certainly.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Pensions Minister whether he now proposes to make public the scale on which gratuities are to be paid?
    Mr. BARNES: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 30th ultimo.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the public and the House of Commons cannot have made known to them the scale upon which their money is being spent for this purpose?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that these gratuities must be paid, not according to a scale, but according to the circumstances in each individual case?
    Mr. BARNES: Partly that, and partly not. It is untrue to talk about a scale, though there is a scale set up to a part of the maximum amount, and then there is an amount of money left wherewith to give portions according to the merits of each particular case. There is no reason that I know of why it should not be made public, except that it is in an experimental stage.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the establishment of an Appeal Court to which discharged men could appeal before their disabilities are met by the payment of a gratuity; and whether he can say what the Government propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BARNES: The Government have considered the matter, and propose to establish such a Court as is referred to in my hon. Friend's question. But in consequence of the pressure of other work it has not been possible to complete the arrangements for establishing the Court, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend would repeat his question a fortnight hence.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up a small office in London where discharged soldiers can call and ascertain their position in regard to benefits under the Pension Act?
    Mr. BARNES: The Court is being set up for that purpose.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service what are the respective duties of the paid Commissioners, Deputy-Commissioners, and Sub-Commissioners of National Service; whether all or any of them have local or county offices to carry on their duties from;*are they allowed any office or personal staff; if so, to what extent; and have any of them any travelling allowances?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Walsh): The District and Deputy - Commissioners are responsible for the efficient working of the plans of the Department within their district, the control of the work of Sub-Commissioners, and, where necessary, deciding matters of dispute. The duties of the paid Sub-Commissioners are to ascertain the demands for agricultural labour and control the supply of labour available, to receive and decide, in conjunction with the Appeal Committees, appeals from unemployed or employed; to arrange for accommodation of the volunteers; to settle questions of wages, the assessment and payment of subsistence allowances, right to and payment of employment benefit, issue of railway warrants, organisation of additional labour, such as clergy, Civil servants, teachers, and schoolboys, and generally to carry out the working of the scheme for the supply of agricultural labour. The District Commissioners, Deputy-Commissioners, and
    1502
    Sub-Commissioners have local offices from which to carry on their duties, and they are permitted to engage such staff as is proved to the satisfaction of the Director-General to be necessary for the carrying out of their duties. All the expenses which they necessarily incur in. travelling on the business of the Department are refunded to them.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: What are the average number of people controlled by these-Commissioners, Deputy-Commissioners, and Sub-Commissioners?
    Mr. WALSH: That does not arise either out of the answer or the question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What is the position of a controller who has no men to-control, seeing that only 3,000 have been found jobs?

    WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service the number of applications to 14th April for work under the national scheme from applicants not already employed in work of national importance, and the number for whom work has been found?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Out of 163,161 Volunteers dealt with by the Employment Exchanges up to 6th April (the latest date for which complete figures are available),. 93,622 were definitely known to be in trades of primary importance or otherwise not available for various reasons. Twenty-six thousand eight hundred and seventy-three out of the balance of 69,539 were, from experience or physique primâ facie suitable for work in trades of primary importance in which there is a considerable demand for male labour; it cannot at present be stated how many of this total of 26,873 are engaged on work of national importance and are free for transfer. Over 16,000 Volunteers have been offered to employers, of whom 2,804 have started work and 11,826 were awaiting replies from employers. In addition 5,765 were awaiting decision by National Service Sub-Commissioners of protests against transfer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that after all this time that there are only some 2,000 persons who have actually got work through this enormous and expensive organisation?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have said that 2,800 have been enabled to be started.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: What number of persons are employed by the Department?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many of the men who have been placed in employment have since being placed thrown up their job?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: How many of the 2,000 are employed at St. Ermin's Hotel?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question that had perhaps better be addressed to the hon. Member who answers for the National Service Department.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What is the number of the staff engaged in finding employment for these 2,000 men?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question to be answered by whoever replies for the National Service Ministry.
    Mr. HOGGE: About the same number!

  MUNITIONS.

    EAST LONDON EXPLOSION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Minister of Munitions when the Report of the Expert Committee appointed to investigate the recent explosion in the East of London will be published?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): The Committee appointed by the Home Secretary to inquire into the cause of the explosion in EastLondon have presented their Report, but as this deals with many matters connected with the manufacture of explosives which would furnish information to the enemy, it has been decided not to publish it. A summary of the conclusions of the Committee has already been published.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Are we to understand that the Government are now satisfied that this is not the work of German agents?
    Sir W. EVANS: The hon. Member must not ask me for information beyond that which is published: I would refer him to that.
    Mr. BIRD: Will the hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity to the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose question this is to see the Report in private?
    Sir W. EVANS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must first see what has been published; then, if he will communicate with me, I will see what can be done.

    NAVAL PATROLS (AGES OF OFFICERS;).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the average and the maximum ages of the officers in charge of the patrol areas and bases around the United Kingdom on the date the present Board of Admiralty was formed and the average and maximum ages at the present moment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend would take a considerable time to prepare and would add to the labours of an already overworked staff. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May we take it that a reduction has been effected, and is being effected, in the ages of those officers who have to deal with the submarine menace?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say off-hand

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the policy of establishing the best possible relations between this country and Ireland, he will take steps for the proclamation of a general amnesty in regard to all Irish prisoners detained on account of political offences?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no reason to suppose that the releases suggested in the question would improve the relations between Great Britain and Ireland.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that the continued detention of these men is running counter to all the objects hoped for by the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: That is a matter of opinion.

    ROGER CASEMENT (SALE OF PORTRAITS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what grounds and under what Statute the Censor in Ireland has stopped the advertisement in Irish newspapers of a portrait of Roger Casement, published by O'Healy, of Dublin, and prohibited shopkeepers from selling the portrait, seeing that other portraits of Casement are being freely sold; whether this prohibition extends to England also; whether portraits of any other Irish patriot martyrs are under a similar prohibition; and, if so, will he name them?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Press Censor in Ireland has given warning as to the publication of advertisements which appeared to him to be contrary to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but that he has not prohibited the sale of portraits as suggested in the question.

    IRISH NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS (LOST RIFLES).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what are the valuing qualifications of Mr. Ingoldsby, who certified that the loss alleged to have been sustained by the Irish National Volunteers, of Enniscorthy, last Easter amounted to £144 10s.; whether that amount of public money has been paid to them; whether the alleged loss included twenty-nine unusable Italian rifles of an obsolete pattern at £2 10s. each; whether he is aware that those rifles had been offered for sale in 1913–14 at the retail price of 4s. 6d., that some were sold at 4s. each, and that those given to the Enniscorthy volunteers had been purchased by the hon. Member for Waterford at the gross price of 2s. 6d. each; why Mr. Ingoldsby did not require the production of the receipt for that money as evidence of value; whether this will be required now; and who will be made responsible for the public money wasted in this manner?
    Mr. DUKE: Mr. Ingoldsby is an insurance official of twenty-five years' standing, and has long experience of claims arising under policies of insurance. The rifles and bayonets, the property of the Irish National Volunteers, which were looted by the rebels at Enniscorthy, in-
    1506
    cluded a number of the Lee-Enfield pattern, as well as the Italian rifles referred to which were quite serviceable. The several articles looted were fully described in the claim, and Mr. Ingoldsby obtained information of the character of the weapons lost from reliable independent sources. His assessment of £144 10s., representing the total loss sustained, was based on the information obtained, and on his personal knowledge of prices. As the Italian rifles were a present from the the hon. Member for Waterford, the claimants were not in a position to furnish receipts for the cost. Mr. Ingoldsby was aware of their value. The claim was paid on the 7th November last.
    Mr. GINNELL: Then is it not a fact that £2 10s. of public money was paid for each of those rifles, which cost the hon. Member for Waterford 2s. 6d. each?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no reason to suppose the fact is so Even if the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had had them given to him, the value would have been just the same in the hands of the people from whom they were stolen.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the Government or some Department of Government did not purchase these rifles when offered for sale at 4s 6d. in Dublin?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member knows more than I do about the history of these rifles.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the possibility of the War being prolonged over some years, he will enter into communication with the French Government with the suggestion of submitting to the study of a small Committee of Experts, representing this country and France, the question of undertaking the construction of the Channel Tunnel?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): This question has been carefully considered, but it has not been found practicable to proceed further with the matter during the continuance of the War.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that America is evidently making plans for a long war?

    SIR JOHN JAOKSON, LIMITED.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has received the Report of the Commission which inquired into the payments on contracts for hutting work undertaken by the firm of J. Jackson, Limited; and whether the Report will be published shortly?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Report referred to has been presented to Parliament.

    WAR CABINET (SECRETARIAT).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the amount of accommodation provided for the War Cabinet and the number of secretaries and staff now attached to the offices in Whitehall Gardens?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The accommodation provided in Whitehall Gardens comprises the offices of the Committee of Imperial Defence and parts of the two adjacent houses. There is one secretary and a staff of seventy-three, including the personal staff of the two Ministers who have their offices in the same building.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interpretation placed by the Russian Government on the phrase "rights of nationalities" as applied to Poland, he will announce to the House that a similar interpretation will be adopted in regard to Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the statements already made.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of two series of negotiations conducted in Parliament with a view to the settlement of the Irish question, he will devise some means, whether by referendum or otherwise, of ascertaining what form of government will be most acceptable to the Irish people themselves; and whether in such a reference the utmost freedom of determination will be allowed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the suggestion contained in the question is practicable.
    Mr. LYNCH: What other mode is there of ascertaining what is the will of the nation than that of consulting its citizens?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know of any other. There are different methods of consulting the people.
    Mr. DEVLIN: There is only one constitutional method of determining the public will.

    MERCHANT SERVICE (TREATMENT OF 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: I shall try to arrange for as early a day as possible.

    LICENSED TRADE (IRELAND).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the serious position of the licensed trade in Ireland caused by the recent ruinous restrictions, he will state what steps the Government are prepared to take, by compensation or otherwise, to prevent the ruin of thousands of people in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The hardships referred to in the question, as the hon. Member knows, are not confined to Ireland, and I can only say that the whole subject is being considered by the Government.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Are there not hardships occurring in other businesses and trades as well?
    Mr. DUKE: It does not alter the fact that there are hardships in this trade.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Will they be compensated also?
    Mr. DEVLIN: As this is a matter that affects Ireland in a way different from other countries, will the right hon. Gentleman soon be in a position to state what relief will be offered to these people, who are on the verge of ruin?
    Mr. DUKE: I am afraid I cannot add anything useful to what I have said.

  "NATION" NEWSPAPER.

    FOREIGN CIRCULATION (SUPPRESSION).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether the foreign circulation of the "Nation" has been stopped; if so, on what grounds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This course was taken because articles in this journal were of a nature to help the enemy, by whom they have been widely used for propagandist purposes.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that articles on the same subject, of the same character, and to the same effect, have appeared in other newspapers, and have been used in identically the same way; and is it the case that the "Nation" has been selected for this treatment because it is the main organ of Liberal opinion in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. If any articles to the same effect are introduced in any other newspapers the same course will be adopted.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the responsibility for this action rests entirely with the War Office and whether the Home Office was consulted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The same course has been adopted in this case as has been followed for more than a year by the late Government as well as under this Government. The action was taken by the War Office, but representations as to its necessity have been made to the War Office by the Home Office. The whole matter has been considered by the Government, who think that the action taken was necessary.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Was the matter considered by the Government before or after the action was taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already explained, it was taken after consultation with the Government, and in that respect precisely the same course has been adopted as has been followed for over a year.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the prohibition to be permanent or is it to apply only to one issue?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told I said action was taken after consultation with the Government. My answer is the reverse of that.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Then it was taken before consultation with the Government?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether the prohibition is to be permanent or is only to apply to one issue?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: At present it applies to all issues, and obviously no other course is possible, because we cannot examine each issue. It does not, however, follow that the prohibition of any paper will continue indefinitely if the dangerous articles cease.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Can my right hon. Friend furnish the House with some of the articles to which exception is taken in order, if for no other purpose, that every newspaper may be able to avoid such errors in the future?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Hon. Members might satisfy themselves by looking at the files, but, as a matter of fact, the whole world was informed of the nature of them by the circulation given to them by the German Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand, then, that the head of an Allied State can only get the "Nation" newspaper through the Ambassador's bag?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly, if he wants it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: How many Irish newspapers were suppressed by the late Government?
    Mr. PRINGLE: And how often did you protest?
    Mr. HEALY: I protested every time in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" and "Never once!"]—and I got no help from the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I repeat my question, because this is a matter of great importance, raising great questions of principle? Could the right hon. Gentleman furnish the House with the passages in the "Nation" articles to which objection was taken by the military authorities? That is a perfectly simple request.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is a perfectly simple request, but in my opinion it is quite unnecessary. Some of the articles referred to have appeared in other newspapers, and it is not an exceptional act. What my right hon. Friend suggests is that we should make an exception because of the character of this paper.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we have a right to know what is the ground of objection taken.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given the ground—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]— and my right hon. Friend can judge of its validity by examining the files of this journal.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If this prohibition was so absolutely essential in the national interest, why was the suppression 80 promptly repudiated by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Its suppression was never repudiated by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the repudiation which appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" was indicated to the public as a repudiation by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know about that at all, but I do know that the Prime Minister did not repudiate it. As far as I can remember, the article said it had been done without the special knowledge of the Prime Minister, which is true [An HON. MEMBER: "Move the Adjournment!"]
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the right hon. Gentleman will not publish those articles, will he at least state what are the specific articles to which exception was taken, in order that hon. Members interested may look them up?
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the same information with regard to the Irish newspapers, especially those suppressed in the middle of the West Cork election last November by the late Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I see no reason why we should take any different course in this case to that taken in other cases. If hon. Members want particulars, I would refer them to the particular numbers of the "Nation" on the 3rd and the 10th of March.
    Mr. ALDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that an unfair discrimination has been made in this case compared with other newspapers'? Does he not know that statements much worse have been circulated in German newspapers over and over again from the "Times" and the "Daily Mail?"
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I am not aware of it, and I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would give me any instance since this Government was formed where that has happened.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the articles of the 3rd and 10th of March were expressly carrying out the secret instructions of the Press Bureau to preach pessimism in regard to the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of it, but I am aware that that is not a fact.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper."
    Mr. HEALY: Would it be in order to add at the end of the words "and of the Irish newspapers?"
    The pleasure of the House having been signified the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

    UNITED STATES AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appeal to the Government of the United States of America to concentrate-immediately on the construction and commission of a great Air Service, and also whether this Government is prepared to supply the American Government with sample machines, engines, drawings, and specifications of our latest and most successful types, and to render them every other possible assistance to this end?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled now to ask any further questions. Had I been aware of the fact that he desired to ask a Private

    1513
    Notice question, I should have called upon him before the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) had asked leave of the House to move the Adjournment.
    Mr. BILLING: On the point of Order. I sent this question by registered post both to the Chair and to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister has received it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It certainly has not reached me, or I should have taken notice of it before allowing the last Motion.
    Mr. BILLING: Will you advise the House whether, when in the Chair, you receive letters addressed to Mr. Speaker or not?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As a rule I do, but possibly the hon. Member's letter has been posted on to Mr. Speaker. I am not aware whether that is so or not, but it certainly has not reached me.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether it is not quite within the competence of an hon. Member, without notification to Mr. Speaker at all, to ask a question of which he has given Private Notice? Generally, as a matter of courtesy, notice is given to Mr. Speaker, but dozens of times I have sent Private Notice questions to Ministers without intimation to the Chair, and these questions have always been allowed.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct, but a Motion for the Adjournment has to be taken at the end of questions, and I cannot revert to questions after that has been dealt with. Had I observed the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing), I should have taken his question before the question of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that the Leader of the House rose to reply, and evidently has the information necessary, is it not possible for the Chair to permit the Leader of the House to do as he wishes?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question to-morrow.

    Magistrates (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his atten-
    1514
    tion has been called to the facts that in the Dungiven district of county Derry, where the population is in the proportion of five Catholics to one non-Catholic and the elected representatives on local bodies in about the same proportion, the magistrates are in the proportion of eight non-Catholics to one Catholic; that the attention of His Majesty's lieutenant of the county has been expressly called to this, without result; that the attention of the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor has been called to it, but without result; and that loss and inconvenience have recently been occasioned to people and solicitors by the failure of magistrates to attend and adjudicate at the Dungiven Petty Sessions; and, if he does not consider the present state of things satisfactory on any of these grounds, whether he will take immediate steps to have it remedied?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the number of magistrates entitled to attend at Dungiven Petty Sessions is sixteen, of whom five are Catholics and eleven are non-Catholics. From the last annual return, ending 31st August, 1916, it appears that there were held thirteen Petty Sessions Courts in the year, at none of which less than two magistrates attended. There does not appear to be any reason to suppose that the number of magistrates is insufficient.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit or deny the statement in the question about the disparity between the two creeds on the benches?
    Mr. DUKE: I gave the numbers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As the House knows, if this Bill, which I now ask the House to read a second time, is not carried, this House comes to a termination at the end of the present month. This is the third time a Bill of this kind has been moved by each successive Government. The Bill is identical with that which was carried last for the same purpose.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it has escaped your notice that this Bill is more obviously and crudely out of order than any Bill which has been presented to this House in modern times. Mr. Speaker has frequently ruled, in accordance with precedent, that a Bill to be in order must aim at doing what it expressly proposes and cannot be used to accomplish anything essentially beyond the ambit of its own proposal. Mr. Speaker has frequently ruled Amendments out of order on this ground alone. A case of this kind that attracted much attention was his ruling out of order on the Franchise Bill an Amendment proposing to give votes to women. Subsequently, when a Bill was introduced by the Government proposing to amend a specified Section of an Act, Mr. Speaker ruled out of order Amendments proposing to extend its operation to other Sections of the same Act. Here we have a Bill proposing to amend and extend the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916. That is a distinctly limited proposition. Yet the very first Clause of this Bill concerns itself with an entirely different Act, namely, the Parliament and Registration Act of 1916. In view of these facts, I submit that this Bill, as presented, is out of order, that it must be withdrawn, and that the purpose at which it seems to aim cannot be accomplished except by a new Bill properly drafted.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that there is anything in the hon. Member's point. It seems to me to follow the usual course.
  Mr. GINNELL: It specifically proposes to amend an Act and proceeds to amend a different Act.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was on the point of saying that probably there is no subject on which every Member of this House understands the arguments for and against more completely than this one, and I am sure that the House would neither desire nor expect that I should occupy many minutes in asking for the Second Reading of the Bill. The objections to this course have been indicated on previous occasions, and they are obvious. It must be highly objectionable for a House of Commons by its own act to prolong its life beyond the time fixed for it by Statute. These considerations, of course, increase in force as time goes on and the period becomes more extended over which the statutory time has been exceeded. On the other hand, the considerations which have induced each successive Government to introduce such a Bill to the House of Commons and the House of Commons to adopt it are, I venture to say, as strong as they have been at any time during the War. We are now in as critical a phase of the War as at any time since it began. Our troops are engaged in the greatest operations which they have undertaken since the commencement of the War. They are engaged in them, we are all thankful to say, with a success, which so far has exceeded, at all events, my expectations and a success which shows that not only in the character and quality of the men but in their equipment and their training as soldiers they are now more than a match for those who are opposed to them. In these circumstances, I cannot help thinking, just as previous Governments, and just as this House on previous occasions believed, that it would be highly disadvantageous, not to put it more strongly, that we should be plunged into the turmoil of an election with all the disadvantages of division which such an election inevitably brings, and, in addition, the certainty that the energy of the nation for a time would be diverted from the one object on which it ought to be concentrated. For these reasons I am of opinion that it would be a misfortune if an election were forced at this time, and the Government therefore have introduced this Bill. They hope that the House of Commons will pass it; and, as I have already indicated, the time is so limited that it is proposed to ask the House to take all the subsequent stages

  1525
  to-morrow, and for this purpose I intend to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Before this Bill is read a second time I desire to call attention to the position which is now occupied by the Welsh Church Disestablishment Act and to the changes which have been brought about in the situation by the relentless march of time. We have had this Act before us on several occasions, and we have had the Suspensory Act, brought into this House in September, 1914. Perhaps the House will allow me in as few words as I can to recall the position of this subject to-day. After the Disestablishment Bill had been before us in three successive Sessions it left this House in 1914 on its way to another place, and in the ordinary course, if nothing had intervened, it might have found its way on to the Statute Book under the operation of what is known as the Parliament Act.
  Leaving questions which are controversial aside, may I remind the House that after it had left this House and gone to another place, at the end of June, 1914, the measure was considered. At that time there had been a considerable movement and some disquiet as to whether or not the Bill as it left this House still held the position it was supposed to hold and which had caused its original introduction. When the matter was discussed in the House of Lords, they took into account the very remarkable fact that there had been presented then a protest on behalf of a large body of Nonconformists in Wales, whose numbers reached over 100,000, including between 700 and 800 office-bearers in Nonconformist churches, against the Disendowment Clauses of the Bill. Upon that a Committee was set up by the House of Lords, a Committee which was accepted by the Government, to inquire whether or not these were new factors which justified the reconsideration of the measure as it then stood. The Committee was set up with the support of both sides of the House of Lords. Upon it there sat men who are entitled to respect, such as Lord Courtney of Penwith and Lord Sheffield. The Motion was accepted by the House, and this Committee set to work, it being presided over by Lord St. Aldwyn. Before it had concluded its labours and had reported, the War broke out.
  The question then arose what should be done, and whether or not the Bill as it then stood should be placed upon the
  1526
  Statute Book. There was another measure in the same position—the Home Rule Bill. On 18th September, 1914, both the Welsh Church Bill and the Home Rule Bill received the Royal Assent. At the same time a Suspensory Act was passed, which dealt with both those Bills, and provided for an interval of time before they should come into complete operation. I say "complete operation" for this reason: Whereas there was a postponement of the operation of the Home Rule Act, there was no such suspension of the operation of the Welsh Church Act, and in that case all that was done was that the date of Disestablishment was postponed for a period which was not to exceed a period of twelve months or the end of the War. The effect of that has brought about the very serious difficulties under which the Church in Wales is suffering to-day. The differentiation between the treatment of these two Bills was not allowed to pass unmarked by those who were considering the fate of the Welsh Church in the House of Lords, and an Amendment was proposed by Lord St. Aldwyn which would have had the effect of postponing the date of Disestablishment until six months after the end of the War. With that Amendment attached to it, the Suspensory Bill was sent down to this House. For reasons to which I shall refer in a moment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) begged the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. For the reasons which he gave, the House assented to disagreeing with it, and the Lords Amendment was not pressed or insisted upon. The Welsh Church Act then came into operation. The Commissioners were appointed and various steps had to be taken for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Act. It is quite true that the date of Disestablishment did not, at that time, immediately come into force, but the operation of the Act as a whole did take place. The Commissioners were appointed. I have nothing to say against them as to the work they have done during that time, because I am content to pass that part of the subject by simply saying that they did their duty. Hon. Members will be able to find from a Return recently presented to the House that there has been a certain expenditure of money—not a large sum in two years; it is something like £10,000. I only make that observation as indicative of the fact,

  1527
  if proof were needed, that the Welsh Church Commissioners were alive, active and fulfilling their duties. When 1915 came, it was quite obvious that by reason of the Act being in operation, difficulties were increasing day by day which made the necessity for a real suspension of the operation of the Act more urgent. A Bill was introduced when would have had the effect of suspending the date of Disestablishment. That Bill was passed in the House of Lords, came down to this House, and was pressed very eloquently upon this House by the present Prime Minister in a few words, which are of importance. He seized, as he so often does, the true meaning of the position, and he pressed the House on these grounds:
  "Disestablishment is a great change for the Church; it is a great change for the nation; it is a gigantic change for the people. They have to make preparation for it. They have to consider the constitution of the Church. It is a matter in which, not merely Churchmen, but the nation as a whole take a deep interest."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1915, col. 1816, Vol. LXX.]
  For reasons upon which I will not dwell, that Bill did not commend itself to a certain section in this House, and hostility was promised to it on its various stages. The result was that instead of passing as what I might call an agreed measure, it was postponed and postponed until almost the end of the Session. On 26th July, 1915, the fate of that measure was in suspense, and the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) said in regard to it:
  "I fully recognise, without reserve or qualification the admirable spirit exhibited by those who represent the interests of the Welsh Church in this matter, who were entitled to insist upon the prosecution of this Bill, whilst we were bound to give it all the support in our power to enable it to pass into law…The proposal now made—"
  that was to drop the Bill—
  "and accepted, in the best spirit, both by hon. Members who have fought so long and so hard for Disestablishment and by the representatives of the Church, was dictated, not by any sacrifice or surrender of principle, but solely by a common desire to subordinate domestic controversy in the face of great emergencies with which the country is faced, and in the facing of which we are all absolutely united."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1915, cols. 1998–9, Vol. LXXIII.]
  With these words the Suspensory Bill was allowed, in spite of that bargain, to drop, although, as the Prime Minister pointed out, there was very good ground for expecting that it would pass into law. That was the end of the legislative efforts to procure further time for the further consideration of the situation of the Welsh Church.
  I come now to the question of what has happened under the Welsh Church Act
  1528
  in consequence of its having been placed in partial operation in September, 1914. Here I need only quite fairly state the facts, I feel sure, to command the attention, and possibly sympathy, of all almost all Members in this House. First let it be remembered that you are dealing with matters of very great change. No man who has not taken the trouble to look into it can appreciate the serious difficulties which arise in severing an integral portion of a Church and making it a completely separate body. Under that Act you are not only Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church, but you are also dismembering it. I have never been able to understand why the Welsh Church should thereafter have no part or lot with the common body of Church life in England—that body which is represented by Convocation. You are thus putting upon the new body which will have to be created not merely the difficulty of conserving their energies and looking to the future with regard to their funds, but you are putting upon them the duty of creating a complete organisation for the purpose of the maintenance of their religious work. In consequence of the Bill having passed certain things had to be done at once, and the Commissioners arranged that an immediate plebiscite should be taken in the border parishes as to whether or not they should remain under the English Establishment or pass over to the new body of the Disestablished Church. I make no comment upon it, but it is fair to observe that so far as enthusiasm for the new Act goes it does not appear from the result of that ballot that any great desire for it was shown among persons who had an opportunity of electing under which body they would remain. Out of nineteen parishes, eighteen decided to remain within the Establishment of the Church of England.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have listened to the recital of the hon. and learned Member, endeavouring to see how what he had to say could be connected with the present Bill. It appears to me to be entirely a question of criticising the Welsh Church Act and the Suspensory Act. I intimated to him that in my view the Motion he had on the Paper was hardly relevant to the present Bill, and what he has hitherto been able to say has confirmed me in that view. Clearly it is not permissible under cover of this Bill to discuss a series of previous

  1529
  Acts. The hon. and learned Member has referred to these two only, but there are half a dozen others which might be discussed in the same way. We must confine ourselves strictly to the question whether or not this Parliament is to have its life extended for the period proposed in this Bill, and the reasons why that should or should not be done.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am sorry you thought I had wandered too far. I intended to keep to a very narrow path. I am perfectly ready to obey your ruling in the closest possible manner, but it is almost impossible, even in a summary of matters which have taken place over a period of more than two years, to do it all within the compass of a few minutes. If you think I have digressed at all, I should be prepared to indicate the grounds on which I put forward my observations as germane to this Bill, I hope you will trust me to keep within the limits of your ruling. In speaking now I am associated with others who will be able to say that the consequence of the lapse of time would be to allow this Parliament to come to an end on April 30th, in order that further reconsideration might be given to what has been the accumulation of the last few years. At present the Church suffers from statutory disabilities which were never intended to last for any long time, and which were intended really to cover an intervening space of short time during which the new constitution could be put forward. I do not wish for any better grounds for what I am saying to-day than to recite the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman then in charge of the Bill asked this House to refuse the Amendments which had been introduced into the Suspensory Act. When the matter was discussed in another place Lord Haldane, who was then Lord Chancellor, doubted whether the Amendment could be accepted, appreciating the fact that circumstances might arise in the lapse of time which could not be foreseen, and said the Government would reserve their judgment as to whether further consideration of the matters which had been raised in Debate might be desirable. The grounds on which we decided to prevent our reconsideration of this subject, which could and would be reconsidered if we did not pass the Motion you have just put from the Chair, and which we could secure by rejecting the present Bill, were put in
  1530
  this simple manner by the right hon. Gentleman then in charge of the Bill. It was said that the Church might have a difficulty in raising funds, and that it might have a difficulty in securing meetings in order to constitute the proper bodies to deal with the Church funds. That is true to-day, because it is not only the men who are fighting who are affected, but it is also those who are engaged in the ancillary duties of the War. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna) put it in this way:
  "It is said that there might, owing to the continuance, of the War, be a financial cataclysm. But let us take this hypothesis, that the War, through the valour of the Allied forces, comes to a close at the end of three months."
  We were then asked not to give more time, not to allow any further opportunity, but we were to leave the cold phrases of the Act of Parliament as they stood because we were to assume, upon the hypothesis that the War would come to an end at the close of three months, that there would be no financial cataclysm.
  Mr. McKENNA: I said no such thing. If the hon. and learned Member reads the passage further, he will see that the construction which he has placed upon it is quite unreal.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am going to read a great deal more.
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This only shows the more that what the hon. and learned Member is opening up involves a discussion, in the first place, of the Suspensory Act, and, in the second place, of the original Act, the Welsh Church Act. If he opens up these questions, clearly the other hon. Members who a few years ago took the other side of the question, will wish to put their view of the question now, and I, from the Chair, am bound to look upon the question in that sense. It would be unfair for me to allow one side of a case to be laid before the House if I was not prepared to permit an answer. Therefore, I must state clearly to the House that I think these matters are not relevant, and cannot be made relevant to the consideration of the present Bill.
  Mr. POLLOCK: There is one thing I hope you will allow me to do, whatever your views may be. I should be sorry to think that the right hon. Member (Mr. McKenna) holds the view that I have mis-

  1531
  construed any passage of his speech. When I said I was going to read more I had no intention of saying that provocatively, because I wished to put the whole matter as he put it before the House. I should be very sorry if I am not allowed to read the passage which the right hon. Gentleman thought was germane to the matter.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to consider not one individual, but Members as a whole. We might spend not only this day but many days in criticising previous Acts of Parliament.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Every hon. Member is most anxious not to transgress your ruling, and it is, therefore, desirable that we should clearly understand it. I understand you to rule that any discussion of the merits of the Welsh Disestablishment Act or of the Suspensory Act will be quite out of order. I apprehend it is not out of order to point out that churchmen might be disposed to oppose this present Bill on its Second Reading for such reasons as are relevant to their principle and action, and if my hon. and learned Friend or any other hon. Member thinks that this Bill injures the Church of England by depriving it of an opportunity of submitting its case to the constituencies at the end of this month, it is relevant to point out that that is a ground for criticising this Bill, and, unless the Government can meet us in some way, perhaps of opposing it. That would be, I apprehend, in order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That seems to be purely hypothetical. If the Noble Lord is prepared to argue that this Bill must not be passed, and there must be an election after 30th April, he is entitled to do so, but he is not entitled under cover of that, to raise general discussions on previous Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am placed in a difficulty, but I feel sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will appreciate that I am not going to dispute your ruling. I am, however, most anxious, and I think I am fairly anxious, to disabuse the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that I have misquoted or misused any phrase of his. I should apologise to the right hon. Gentleman at once if I had done so. If it is not right that I should read more of what he said, I can only say this to him. that I had intended to read what he said per-
  1532
  fectly fairly and perfectly justifiably, and I am sure he will not suggest that in using one sentence I endeavoured to misconstrue the general point of the passage. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is fair to say this: that it was suggested that the War might be a short one, and that therefore no measure was necessary such as was indicated at that time. If I am not to raise the general question I am at least entitled to say that there are a large body of questions, the Welsh Church question among them, which apparently were presumed to require, and would require, consideration at the end of a lapse of time. In the right hon. Gentleman's speech he said the fact that we have granted this Suspensory Act makes it plain that it is a case for reconsideration. If there is to be reconsideration, when? Surely I am not antedating it too much if I say that now, after a lapse of two years, we have arrived at a time when this question ought to be reconsidered, like so many questions. May I remind the House that at the present time many subjects have come up for review? We have been endeavouring to deal, without party bias and without party feelings, with a number of old questions which have vexed and troubled this House, and some of which have, I hope, found a solution. The question of Electoral Reform is one on which party feelings have run to an extreme height in the past, and that is one of the questions we are endeavouring to settle from a wholly different point of view now. We are endeavouring to deal with the Home Rule controversy similarly, and is it to be said that this question of the Welsh Church alone is one that we cannot endeavour to solve in the present state of unanimity which we are enjoying in this House?
  Am I not right in saying that this question, which concerns not only a large body of persons in Wales but a large body of people in England, ought to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with the Second Reading of this Bill for the prolongation of the life of the present Parliament? I sometimes wonder whether, in the conservation of the energies of this nation and the unity we have got on a great number of subjects— a unity which we do not desire to break— we are leaving in cold storage this particular subject which we are afraid to touch. I maintain that it is a subject on which we might ask for the assistance

  1533
  of all parties in bringing about a solution. If the question is to be left aside and is not to be considered, am I not right in saying that we are losing, and we are going to lose, an opportunity which has been found useful in regard to other subjects of great controversy, and that if this Bill were not passed the people, as a whole, who are most eminently practical and eminently just, might prevent something being done which was never contemplated, and that we might at the same time preserve in the unity of religious bodies something which, if allowed to have its full energies got into play, might elevate the lives of the people and lead them to higher ideals. Under your rulings which have embarassed me very much but which I obey, I am not going to dwell more upon the subject, but I think it is fair to say that I and a number of others do feel that a very serious position has been created, and one that has not been intended, and which, if properly looked into, deserves reconsideration, not only on the part of this House, but on the part of the people generally.
  Mr. ASQUITH: It was once said that there was no sight more worthy of the admiration of the gods than a good man struggling with adversity. It is a still more pathetic spectacle in our modern times to see a Member of Parliament struggling with the Rules of Order, and endeavouring, as my hon. and learned Friend has done with great skill, not to contravene, but yet to circumvent them. I know, and no one knows better than I do, the amount of feeling which was excited both on the one side and on the other by this much vexed question of Welsh Disestablishment. I am not, as my hon. and learned Friend well knows, speaking with any want of sympathy, still less with any disrespect, when I say that I regret that he should have raised the question at this particular time, and in this particular form. Either my hon. and learned Friend is in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill or he is opposed to it. I do not know from his speech whether he is one or the other. If he is opposed to the Second Beading of this Bill, then it must be because he thinks it right and proper that the question of Welsh Disestablishment in the form to which it has been developed at the present time should be submitted to the electorate at the end of the present month. To what electorate? Would anyone, be he a friend
  1534
  or be he a foe of Welsh Disestablishment, regard an election taking place under the conditions which now prevail in the course of the next three or four weeks, as giving any trustworthy or even any respectable indication of the opinion of the country one way or the other? I cannot imagine an issue being presented under more unfavourable or more misleading conditions, nor can I imagine any verdict given by the country that could be less trustworthy than a verdict given at such a time and under such circumstances, be it for one side or the other—I do not care which.
  The practical question which the House has got to consider is: Is an election at the present time, whatever may be the issues submitted to the electorate, to anyone who regards the best interests of the country, and above all, the successful prosecution of the War, a thing which it is tolerable to contemplate? Let us see what are the conditions. The register on which that election would have to take place was made up upon facts and qualifications as they existed in the month of July, 1913—that is to say, nearly four years ago. No one who has, who would have been, under the normal operation of the law, qualified for a vote since that time is entitled to take any part in the election. Even of those who are qualified at that date, and whose names appear on the register, a large number, as we know, are fighting in the various theatres of war abroad. They are not able to return home, and are not able to give their votes. Then of those who are at home a very considerable number, having changed their occupations and residence from patriotic motives to engage in munition works and other work of National Service, could not record their votes without the greatest inconvenience, and, indeed, in many cases would not record them at all. I am told that the two or three by-elections which have been held recently show that not more than between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent.—I believe that the latter figure is the highest—of the electors whose names appear on the register are available for voting purposes. Can anyone say that an election in which only half the registered electors could really vote is an election which by any stretch of imagination could be said to represent the considered feeling of the country?
  But that does not by any means exhaust the difficulties of the case. Look at it for a moment from the point of view of the

  1535
  candidates. A large number of the Members of this House, many of whom, at any rate, would desire to continue to represent their existing constituencies, are at the front in the various theatres of war, and they would be prevented from taking an active part in the prosecution of their candidature. The same is equally true of a considerable number of candidates who are not at present Members of the House, and who desire or aspire to become so. It is true also, I am glad to say, not perhaps as regards fighting at the front, but as regards absorption in various forms of National Service, of the agents of the various political parties. They are organising recruiting, and they are engaged in other forms of National Service, and they could not be working at an election without a great dislocation of the public interest. Then I come to a very small, but not unimportant point. In our system of electioneering paper plays a very large part. I am speaking of the actual material of the paper posters. I believe that they are now prohibited by law, and I do not believe that, in our present dearth of paper, a more uneconomical use of paper, from the public point of view, could possibly be conceived than to devote it to the circulation of election addresses, whether as placards on the wall or sent round as circulars.
  Then in regard to another mechanical side of elections—the postal arrangements. I have been told by those who know that in a recent by-election—the very last which took place—the local postal authorities said that they could not deliver the candidates' addresses except they had six days' notice. One may imagine what the result of that [would be. The electors would be obliged to vote without the illumination, without the solicitations, to which they have been accustomed from the circulation of all this election literature in the past. The matter does not admit of serious argument. An election conducted in those conditions is not an election at all. It is a farce and a sham. No one would regard a House of Commons so chosen as possessing in any real sense the moral authority of the country, either for legislation or for the criticism of administration. To take a course which would necessitate the holding of such an election would be flying in the face of common law, common fairness, and common sense. I trust that the House will agree with the proposal of the (Government,
  1536
  which is manifestly founded on the broadest and plainest considerations of public interest and public duty. Disagreeable as it is for us to prolong our career, yet in the special circumstances and exigencies in which the country is now placed we have no alternative. We must look forward—and I hope we shall be content to do so—to the time—it may be in some months or it may be later —when, with a register which will really represent the electorate of the country, a new Parliament can be brought into existence to deal with the great problems of reconstruction which await us in the future, and which can claim to speak in the name and with the authority of the British public.
  Mr. DILLON: I rise for the purpose of moving to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Recent events in Ireland have created unquestionably a situation in which it has been stated widely that the Nationalist Members, who for thirty-five years have occupied these benches, can no longer speak for the Nationalists of Ireland. That statement has been widely made and widely believed, and it has been made by men of considerable authority. I shall quote only one or two to prove the seriousness of the situation. Lord Dunraven, in an article the other day, stated that if an election were to take place to-morrow more than half of the present Nationalist Members would disappear and their places would be taken by the leaders of Sinn Fein. Lord Middleton, who is an Irishman and has property in Ireland, stated about three months ago that, if an election were to take place at that time, all the Nationalist Members in the provinces of Munster and Connaught would disappear, and very few would be left in the province of Leinster, and that the whole South of Ireland would be represented by Sinn Feiners. Nothing is to be gained by adding to that list of authorities. These are responsible public men, and that statement has been made also by newspapers. That point has been pressed more than once, and it is constantly made by the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland. The Sinn Fein movement in Ireland, which has now become formidable, is in plain words the old Irish Republican Brotherhood, the old revolutionary party which at the opening of this War was so much reduced in

  1537
  numbers as to be almost negligible. It did not certainly include one in thirty of the entire population of Ireland—and on that point I could quote a number of hostile authorities, but it is absolutely beyond all controversy.
  But that remnant which remained, after forty years of work by our party, irreconcilable to all connection with this country, and demanding an independent, separate Republic in Ireland, while it had been reduced to such extremely limited numbers, was active, irreconcilable, earnest, and ready for sacrifice, as is the case in every country in the world with the remnants of revolutionary movements. The present Sinn Fein movement in Ireland is the creation of the British War Office and of the Coalition Government, and they have undoubtedly done the work of Germany in Ireland just as effectually and just as disastrously as Stuermer and company have done it in Petrograd, until the country rose up and swept them away. Unhappily we were not in the position to sweep away the British War Office and the Coalition Government in Ireland, and to neutralise their power of mischief, as the people of Russia have done in the case of Stuermer and company, and so that has gone on until this formidable increase in the power of the irreconcilable republican movement has come to pass in Ireland. So long as this power obtained no electoral success we were in a position to treat with contempt, or at all events to ignore, the threats of men like Lord Dunraven and Lord Middleton, and all the others who took the opportunity, apparently rejoicing, of being able to proclaim to the world that the constitutional party, who had laboured for forty years to bring these two countries together, and to undo the fell work of all the hundreds of years during which you have mismanaged and misgoverned Ireland, that that party and the work of that party had been destroyed by the Coalition Government, and that now the Republican party had the upper band. But recent events in Ireland have made it impossible for us to ignore these statements any longer.
  It is now in the mouth of any man or any Minister in this House to say that we cannot speak for Ireland or bind the Nationalist party in Ireland, and what is the use of the British Government appealing to us in this House, or outside this House, to meet and negotiate and make terms when these charges are made, and
  1538
  when recent events in Ireland have lent a certain amount of plausibility to these charges? We are then in this difficult position, that we are open to this taunt and we can make no reply. We may have our own opinion as. to what would be the result of a general appeal to the people of Ireland by the Nationalist party on behalf of the policy for which we have fought through all these years, but the answer that comes back to us by those who desire to taunt us is "North Roscommon!" It is said, "If you cannot carry an ordinary rural constituency in the province of Connaught, where can the Nationalist party be sure of its position?" It is difficult for us to reply to that. The only-effective reply we can make is a General Election. It would be base and cowardly on our part if, in view of these taunts, and if, in view of the events which have occurred in Ireland, we shrank from that step. Therefore it is that I have been commissioned by the party to which I belong to move the rejection of this Bill, and to declare that we shall vote against it in all its stages.
  There can be no doubt whatever that our position in Ireland is one of difficulty, and that the difficulty has been steadily increasing from month to month, ever since the Coalition Government was formed. Recent events in this House have greatly aggravated the gravity of that position. I may remind hon. Members of what took place last Christmas. There was a change of Government, and we had reason to believe that in the change of Government, and on the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister to his present position, a serious attempt would be made to settle the Irish question on lines which, although not entirely acceptable to the Irish people, would be tolerable, and might be the cause of appeasement of the passions which were rising in that country. We had some grounds for that belief. I could hardly undertake to state all the grounds, but we had serious grounds for that belief. Then came the Debate on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and in the course of that Debate it will be remembered that the Prime Minister, in a somewhat heated and angry fashion, interrupting the hon. Member for Water-ford, said that he had been ill at Christmas, that his mind was occupied to an intolerable extent by problems of the most

  1539
  terrible gravity, and that it was impossible, in the few hours at his disposal, to address himself to the Irish question. But undoubtedly the impression upon us then left—though certainly he gave no encouragement in his speech, quite the reverse—was that it was a question of time. But, then, what happened? After that, the Leader of the House made a remarkable declaration in the Debate which took place on the 23rd March, a Debate inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). That Debate was the most remarkable that ever took place on the Irish question, because it was a Debate introduced by the Member for a Scottish constituency, and, in the whole course of it, not a single Nationalist Member intervened—certainly a thing that has never taken place in the history of Parliament, in a Debate so very remarkable, and initiated by an hon. Member opposite. It was a kind of revolt of the Back Benches, and of the independent Members on both sides, who took this question into their own hands, and out of the hands of Nationalist party, and out of the hands of the two Front Benches. I must say that it was one of the most hopeful Debates on the Irish question for many a long day.
  In the course of that Debate the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) made a very momentous statement He said that although, in his judgment, the difficulties were great, and that although, in his judgment, if the Government undertook to make a fresh attempt to settle the Irish question and failed in carrying it to a successful issue, the situation in Ireland would be worse than if the Government had not intervened at all, yet still the Government, regarding this as a war measure, setting free the best energies for carrying on the War, were prepared to run all the risks. That attempt has been going on for some considerable time, and we had some reason to hope that an announcement would be made before Easter. We put no pressure on the Government. We do not intend now to put pressure on the Government, but the Government after that solemn declaration, have now faced Parliament after the Recess, and we have not been given a single hint from the Leader of the House or from any quarter, as to the course the Government are prepared to take, or whether they have made any progress in the direction of making a statement. All this delay is producing
  1540
  precisely the result that the Leader of the House anticipated, and which I took occasion, a night or two afterwards, to emphasise as my opinion also, that if this resulted in no serious attempt to settle the question, in no proposal which the Irish people could accept, the last state of things would be worse than if the Government had made no attempt at all.
  What is the root of the terrible situation in Ireland? The root of it is this: For thirty-five years we have carried on this movement, and the principle on which we have worked and endeavoured to instil into the minds of our people was that, that while undoubtedly the British people and successive British Governments have all treated Ireland in a most cruel way, and made the name of England hated by that country, yet there was amongst the masses of the British people a sense of justice and fair play, if only we could reach them. After thirty-five years of hard effort, during which we ourselves were subjected both in Ireland and in America to the bitterest reproaches, to the greatest abuse and vilification by our own people, for daring ever to talk of trusting the British people in any respect, we carried our policy to a successful issue, and we had succeeded, before the War broke out, in converting, I should say, at least twenty-nine out of every thirty persons in Ireland to our view. You are now converting them back by the tens of thousands, and the repeated disappointments, the breaches of faith over and over again in this House, the contempt with which our advice has been treated as regards the conduct of this War and the conduct of recruiting in Ireland, and the whole campaign in favour of the War—all have had the result of undoing to a very large extent the work and labour of our lives, and have greatly increased the power of the Republican party in Ireland. I say the action of the Government now—and it is the reason I am opposing this Bill—is continuing that evil work, and that we were beaten in North Roscommon—and if we are beaten in South Longford—is your work; and I really do think, therefore, that hon. Members sitting above the Gangway may well come to see that, in carrying on this effort to destroy our party and destroy our work, they are not doing the best either for the Empire or this nation or for Ireland. That is the situation in which we are placed, and we are faced with this fact, that the Government have again come before

  1541
  Parliament without a word as regards dealing with the Irish question. I pass away from that aspect of the subject.
  I do not know what the Government will do; I do not know what steps they have taken, or whether they have taken any steps, in pursuance of the undertaking given by the Leader of the House. I do not complain of that; we did not press them too closely; on the contrary, we said we would not, and the Government, I presume, are pursuing their own course according to their own judgment. I know nothing about that. All I say is, and I say it in all seriousness to the Government, do not again approach the Irish people with a mutilated measure. If you really have made up your minds—a very slow process—if you do intend to deal with this grave question, take it from me that, after all that has happened, you must produce some solution that will strike the imagination of the Irish people, and it will be more difficult and you will have to go further than you would have had to go a year ago, or even last July. Every time these efforts break down, one of the great evils that result from the delay and disappointment is the increased bitterness of Ireland, and there will have to be a more radical proposal than might have been possible, or at least temporarily necessary, on a previous occasion.
  Mr. GINNELL: So much the better.
  Mr. DILLON: I thought I heard somebody say, "So much the better." [An HON. MEMBER: "It was Ginnell!"] No matter, he is entitled to his opinion as well as anybody else; he speaks for the Republican party in Ireland, and of course they regard it as so much the better. Every hour, every month of delay in the settlement of this question is increasing their power, because their argument is that you can never settle this question with any British Government, that no British Government really intends to settle the question, and that the only chance for Ireland is an Independent Republic. We do not believe that policy is a possible policy. We have denied it in all our work and in all our political life, and I challenge contradiction of the statement that, in the whole of the thirty-five years, or nearly forty years, since I have been in politics, we have worked as a party for the purpose of getting the two nations together and to understand each other on the only possible ground, namely,
  1542
  the frank recognition that we are a free people, a free nation entitled to all our liberties.
  There is one other point connected with this question. On 19th March the Leader of the House, who is generally very kindly in his capacity of Leader, departed from his habitual manner and warned us that if we, in the exercise of our rights, went into opposition to the Government, the probable result would be a General Election, and not only a General Election, but one with an anti-Irish point in it, and in which an appeal would be made that the Government were practically driven to a General Election by the obstruction of the Irish, who made it impossible for them to carry on the War. I took occasion on that night to tell him that that threat had no effect upon us; that we were not afraid of any General Election; that, so far from being afraid of it, most of the members of our party—I may say, the whole of our party—unanimously welcomed it, because it would relieve us from an awkward position. What I want to draw attention to now is the extraordinary inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman. He threatened, on that occasion, or he warned us, that our action would probably lead to a General Election, fought as I understood him to say, on the issue that the Irish were obstructing the War—which is wholly false, of course—and that the result of that would be an anti-Irish Parliament. Now he comes to that policy, and not a single reason is given except the declaration that the War was critical. The War is always critical. I think and I hope it is perhaps less critical at the moment than at any time within the last two and a half years, but it has always been terribly critical. I listened with great interest to hear what arguments the Leader of the House was going to use, and without one single argument he declared that this Bill was necessary and that it was unthinkable that we should be plunged into the horrors of a General Election. Unthinkable, and yet only a fortnight or three weeks ago he lightly threatened the Irish party not only with a General Election, but with a General Election which would have aroused the most furious passions in Ireland, in this country, and in America—for I can tell you that at the present moment, and more especially then, when America was trembling on the verge, to have a General Election in this country or threaten to have a General Election for

  1543
  the purpose of crushing Ireland was one of the most insane, reckless, and most absurd propositions any English Minister ever indulged in. Now he comes and tells us, without any reason, that a General Election, even without bringing in the element of it being an anti-Irish election, is absolutely unthinkable.
  My record in this whole business is a clean one. I opposed and argued against the first Bill. I believe that this Parliament has done a very great injury to itself from which it will never be able, at least, not for generations, to free itself absolutely, by embarking on this policy of prolonging its own life When I opposed and argued against the first Bill I pointed out that since the days of the Long Parliament and the Rump the House of Commons had never prolonged its life ad hoc in this way. I pointed out that during the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, when this country was in greater danger, Pitt, who was supposed to be the most tyrannical and certainly an autocratic Minister, never dreamt of such a proposal, and he fought for twenty years those great wars without ever interfering with the Constitution of this country. As sure as tomorrow's sun will rise, an occasion will occur after this War is over when some great question is distracting the nation, not the War, but some of the questions that will arise after the War, when some Government, and particularly a Tory Government or a Capitalistic Government, whatever shape the new parties take, sitting on that bench and thinking they see, or professing to see, dangers from some terrible convulsion of Socialism or some desperate movement which they dread, coming if a General Election is to be allowed, will prolong the life of this Parliament again and again. What they will say is that the particular question is a greater danger than the War ever was, such as the disruption of society or the plunder of the Church. We have already had talk about Welsh Disestablishment. Are there not men sitting in this House to-day who in their eon-sciences would stand up and say that the destruction of the Church of England was a far greater issue than even this War?
  What will happen is this: You are setting up a precedent, a number of precedents. You are passing these Bills quite lightly, and they have come to be treated on the same basis as the suspension of
  1544
  the Eleven o'Clock Rule. You come down to prolong the life of Parliament by six months or a year as if it was quite a customary thing, and the Bill is introduced and presented at the Table like an insignificant Bill that is not worth ten minutes' discussion, and is treated as a matter of course, as we saw the other day. We old Members of this House have seen many innovations and precedents set up. I would ask hon. Members who are Radicals to remember this, whatever form of Second Chamber may survive after this War, it will be in some respects sure to be a Capitalistic and a Conservative body in some shape or form. The party who control that Second Chamber are safe because no Bill can pass to prolong the life of Parliament if a Radical Government is in power, and the party who do not control the Second Chamber are at the mercy of the party who do control the Second Chamber. The result is that if in consequence of some great crisis—and we will live in very hot times after this War—the Conservative party get into power and control the Second Chamber, they can prolong the life of Parliament as long as they like by passing Bills of this kind. I would ask the House to recall what happened when this system was introduced. The late Prime Minister saw, I assume, the risk which I have just pointed out, and what he proposed to do was this, a thing which I think was very much preferable: He proposed to introduce a Bill in the autumn of 1915 providing that for the purposes of the Parliament Act the period of the War should not count, and that Parliament should therefore last under the Parliament Act as if the period while the War was raging was nonexistent. That was, in my opinion, a much less dangerous procedure than that which has been adopted, because that could not pass into a precedent. Please God it will be fifty or a hundred years before we enter on another war of this kind, although I am not so sanguine as some people of Leagues of Peace and all those glorious Utopias—but, at any rate, it will be many a long year before Europe, unless sanity departs from its statesmen, plunges into another great war. Therefore, by that procedure, you would not be setting up a precedent and breaking the Constitution, but you would only be setting up a precedent confined to a terrible crisis and to wars. That is where we draw the distinction, because,

  1545
  as sure as we sit here to-day, after what you have done, this procedure will be applied to domestic crises, and there is no earthly reason why it should not— none whatever.
  The Prime Minister at that time yielded to pressure and criticism, departed from that scheme, and introduced a Bill to extend the life of Parliament for six months. He did that because at that time there were a party of men here who were determined to break him and his Government. That was the real secret; they did not conceal it. They were determined to keep this Bill a short Bill in order that they might go for a General Election if they did not succeed in breaking up the Government. They kept that pressure up when the next Bill was introduced in the month of November last. I have just been reading the speech of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and, dear me, what a change takes place in a man when he gets into office! We had the First Lord of the Admiralty then, leaning across this box, with his striking countenance glowing with zeal and fury for fear the Government should escape from the power of the people. He was determined to cut down the months and was horrified because the Prime Minister then proposed that Parliament should be extended for eight months. He would not hear of it, to prevent the power of the people to deal with the abominable Government which he had helped to create and then came out and helped to destroy—the late Coalition Government. He was afraid they might escape from the power of the people. Dear me, what a change has come over the scene since he joined the Government. He is not here, and it does not matter whether this Bill extends Parliament for six months or eight months or a year, because now there is a safe Government in office; there is a Government the people can trust, and I think that, so far as the First Lord of the Admiralty is concerned, you might extend this Government's power for the next two or three years, and he would not seriously be upset.
  Finally, I do desire most solemnly to draw the attention of Members of this House to the effect of these proceedings, largely the effect, by the continuous extension of the life of Parliament and the withdrawal of the power of the people from the proceedings of this House. What
  1546
  has been the effect of it? In the first place, it has undoubtedly lowered this House, and made it a subject of continuous taunt that the House is of no consequence at all in the government of the country. In the next place, it has encouraged and led to a condition of things entirely without parallel in the constitutional history of England—that is to say, to the shuffling and recreation of Governments in the formation of which the House of Commons has no voice whatever. We have seen Governments created in the dark behind the scenes and recreated and composed without any vote from this House, and without any opportunity of this House being called upon to say whether they had confidence in the Government or not. That is entirely unknown to constitutional history, it is a new departure, and it has now, quite naturally culminated in this extraordinary state of things that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet practically are divorced from the House of Commons altogether. We have one member of the Cabinet here who acts as Leader, but he does not possess full authority. A condition of things has arisen which is dangerous and the result of which no man can foretell. It is unquestionably calculated to still further lower the prestige and power of this House as regards the whole conduct of the Government of this country, because it strikes at the very root of the doctrine on which the whole liberties of England rest, namely, the direct and continual responsibility of the Executive to the House of Commons. That is, undoubtedly, in the gravest possible danger.
  Some men may hold it is essential and inevitable and in some senses that may be so, but it is to me a very melancholy fact that, while we see as a consequence of this War liberty for the first time in Russia and great waves of liberty passing over mankind, the liberties of England undoubtedly have been lowered and lessened and are being lessened every day under the pressure of this War. That may be said to be a necessity. I do not agree that it is a necessity. France has shown us a different example. I have had the opportunity of studying and becoming intimately acquainted with the system that has prevailed in France, and so far from the liberties of France having been lowered and lessened by this War, they have been broadened, intensified and extended. In the cruellest

  1547
  crisis of the War, what did the French people do? They practically took hold through the Committees of their House of the conduct of the War, and those remarkable men, the Chairman of the Committees of the French Assembly, have told me that in their judgment but for the action of the Committees, the War would have been lost, and I dare say that that is quite right. So that when this War has taken now within the last few months a far wider and nobler position than it occupied in its earlier days and while its character as a struggle for human liberty and and a fight against the most hateful form of military bureaucracy has been splendidly vindicated by the Russian Revolution, and by the conduct of the French Assembly, and, above all, by the coining in of that great Republic which represents liberty more completely than any other organisation in the world, in face of all those things I think it is lamentable that the liberties of this Nation should be lessened, and that we should be told by this Government that this is all necessary in order to lead to the efficient conduct of the War.
  5.0 P.M.
  I disbelieve, I refuse to believe, and it is hard to ask us to believe that in face of the fact that the Prime Minister himself, forgetful apparently of the fact that he was a leading member of the late Coalition Government and the Government that went before it, is never tired of asserting in the face of the world that our conduct of the War has been one succession of blunders from month to month. True, he leads us to suppose that under the present system all that will be reversed. I have seen no sign of it, although many months have elapsed; and really I think it would be better for him not to be continually talking about the blunders of his predecessors. He was his own predecessor. But be that as it may, I assert that the onus of proof lies upon that Ministry, and if they go on minimising, and encroaching upon, and cutting down the liberties of England in order to increase efficiency in the conduct of the War, they should at least be bound to prove that we are obtaining that for which we are asked to sacrifice our liberty. On those grounds, as well as on the ground of Ireland, I oppose the passing of this Bill. Let the people speak and vote. No doubt, it is quite true, as the late Prime Minister has
  1548
  just said, that the position of the register is such that an election would be little better than a farce; and there is one consideration which would go a long way to defeat my hostility to this Bill if the Government would really give it to us. If they would stand up and give us, I will not say a pledge—that is no use at ail-but some form of new security which would carry with it some satisfaction that they really mean to pass the great reform based upon Mr. Speaker's Conference, then I should be somewhat inclined to hesitate. I do not believe they mean to pass it at all. I am told it has seventy Clauses, and there is a party of sixty Members led by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). In a contest between those seventy Clauses and sixty Members led by the hon. Baronet, I would put my money on the hon. Baronet. Therefore, on all these grounds, because of the situation in Ireland, because of the encroachment on the liberties of this House, and on the liberties of England, which I believe to be absolutely unnecessary and vicious, and because I do not believe the Government seriously intend to carry the great reform based on Mr. Speaker's Conference, I beg to move the rejection of the measure.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I protest against this legislation because it is illegal. I am going to protest against an illegal law, and what I say in reference to this Bill is what I can say in reference to a dozen Government measures passed by this Parliament: that they are law-making passed in the spirit of law-breaking. The Government are gradually destroying every fragment of constitutional liberty. My right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith). who said that this Act was an Act of necessity, declared that a General Election could not at the present moment receive the sanction of or be endorsed by the will of the people. That may be, but on what sanction or on what authority do two successive Governments rely? On what authority, first of all, did the first Coalition Government rely; and on what authority does the present Coalition Government rely? On the authority of the House of Commons-, which the late Prime Minister says no longer possesses the authority of the people. My hon. Friend who moved that this Bill be read a second time upon this day three months (Mr. Dillon) said that the crisis that has

  1549
  arisen has been unheard of in constitutional history except on one occasion. It has been unheard of in constitutional history on every occasion, because there is no precedent for any Parliament prolonging its life twice, and even three times. This Parliament has committed all the sins of all its unconstitutional predecessors, and has likewise committed the almost unpardonable sin of self-stultification. Before 1911 we were Septennial Parliaments. Since 1913 we have become quinquennial, and the same Parliament which in 1911 passed the Bill shortening its existence to five years is the Parliament which has twice prolonged its existence, and is now going to prolong its existence a third time. Such an instance of self-stultification has never arisen since the time of the Long Parliament. At that time a Bill was passed with a flourish of trumpets for shortening the life of the Long Parliament to three years, and not permitting the King to dissolve it. That Bill was passed in January. In the very May, three or four months after that Bill was passed, the same Parliament passed a law prolonging its own existence for exactly as long as it liked. This Parliament is doing the same thing, in possibly a gentler way. All these proceedings may tend to make a Colossus of the Prime Minister, but certainly they most surely tend to make pigmies of the House of Commons and of popular rights and liberties. The Prime Minister and his associates in the War Cabinet do not attend the meetings of this House, with one exception, the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) who, I suppose, as their whipping boy, comes down to speak for the Prime Minister.
  A few days ago the late Prime Minister drew a rather far-fetched comparison with reference to his change of opinion on the subject of women's suffrage, between himself and some Greek poet whose name I forget. But there is a very clear and well-known episode in history about a statesman of the Prime Minister type. He was a gentleman who got in possession of the liberties and control of a Greek colony. He kept himself in a tower. He did not allow himself to appear. No one knew anything about him. News used to go forth now and then about the great man, and at length the Greek people, who were an ignorant people, threw down the tower. He had not the resources of civilisation we have now, or the power of prolonging Parliament by a party of eighty-nine Gentlemen who are sitting in this House,
  1550
  despite the Place Act—a larger party than the Labour party, or the Irish party, or the party of voluntary service men who keep in this Government, and prolong its life indefinitely for another seven months. A seven months child, even a Parliamentary child, is a very rickety, unpleasant, crawling, and sprawling baby. Let me come to the proprieties of it. Of all things, certainly since the Reform Bill, that nave been carefully guarded against, the chief is any imputation that the House of Commons is sitting without authority or power. The Prime Minister, in a speech which might have been more appropriately delivered by the late Prime Minister of Russia, M. Stuermer, in the Russian Parliament, said that this should be done as a mere matter of convenience. M. Stuermer has gone, and despite the war in Russia there has been a magnificent outburst of liberal principles and a chorus of liberal sentiments. Here in this country the War has been made use of, first of all, to pack Parliament with place-men, to put in Ministers who have never been elected by the people, to establish Cabinets which have never been heard of since Cabinets began, and then to ask the House of Commons to degrade itself by prolonging its own existence in order to keep this kind of thing in power. Such a thing has never been heard of since the beginning of Parliaments. I cannot express my sorrow at seeing every constitutional landmark deliberately swept away. All these things have been regarded as so precious. The prolongation of this Parliament twice by this Bill will produce the curious result which Sir William Harcourt once prophesied. He said, in objecting to the abolition of the Place Bill, that the time would come when a coterie of gentlemen would arrange among themselves to have a Cabinet and to sit in that Cabinet in defiance of popular opinion, and possibly trading on the weakness of the House of Commons in fear of a General Election. I see the Noble Lord sitting opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), and I think that if he will take "Hansard" and look at it he will find that in the Parliamentary Reports of February, 1869. If that speech were repeated to the House of Commons to-day, every word of it would be as true and accurate if applied to the present situation.
  I must refer for a moment to what my hon. Friend, who moved this Motion, dealt with so ably, and that is the effect

  1551
  of the prolongation of this Parliament on the Irish situation. The Leader of the House entirely discounted the situation when on the 19th March he threatened us with a Dissolution of Parliament. If we do not represent our Constituents, we have no right to be here; no right whatever. He threatened us then with a Dissolution of Parliament, but now he does not care to adopt that course. Why? Owing to the conduct of this Government and their constant procrastination in reference to the Home Rule Bill, the feeling grew in the minds of the Irish people that they were gradually being deceived by statesmen who were, from their past history, proficients in deceit. That kind of thing arose before. It arose before in order to carry the Union. The party who wanted popular rights in Ireland were an absolutely constitutional party. The English Government immediately treated with them and promised them the popular rights which they wished. Having promised them these rights, the promise was broken, and the United Irishmen became a non-constitutional and revolutionary party. That suited the English Government perfectly well, because it produced a rebellion that could be extinguished, and they destroyed Irish liberties. The public at large do not know the Government as I know them, or as they know themselves, but a mere outsider might imagine this, that, a great popular movement being on the eve of success, several Gentlemen came into power and thwarted it, and by so doing raised a revolutionary spirit, having crushed which they could produce and keep still an Irish difficulty by setting Irishmen against Englishmen and Englishmen against Irishmen, and by keeping up the foul system of corruption which is known as Dublin Castle. The parallel between 1798 and 1916 is remarkable. One produced the Union; the other, if it is not checked, as please God it will be, will produce bad feeling between Englishmen and Irishmen, which we have expended the best years of our lives in trying to appease. That is how I feel, and I feel seriously upon it. I feel the enormous pity of it.
  The War was used from the Treasury Bench to-day in a three-and-a-half minutes' speech in support of the Bill before the House. The War does good for all kinds of things. Owing to the
  1552
  War you are not to disestablish German princes; because of the War you are not able to go to your constituents; because of the War you are able to stuff the House of Commons with place men who have never gone back to their constituents. You now refer to the War and say that because of it you must prolong the life of this Parliament, and your supporters are Gentlemen who do not care to go back to their constituents, like the good men after the harvest with their sheaves of office in their hands. That is the position. It is intolerable, and the worst of it is its inevitable truth. Many of the Members of this House—I should say all of them if it were not an intolerable presumption— are acquainted with the ordinary facts of history, and they know that War did not prevent what has happened in Russia, nor did even Lord Milner, who possibly went there for that purpose, prevent the Russians from getting their popular rights and liberties; and War did not prevent the English Government in 1800, when England was at the lowest pitch, from destroying an Irish Parliament; but War is to be used for the purpose of denying to Ireland her rights, and fomenting a preventable revolution in the midst of War by exasperating the people into arms. In reference to the further prolongation of the life of Parliament, I would ask to whom is it an advantage? The next Parliament, even if it were elected to-morrow, could only last two years. It may be that the electorate is all that the Prime Minister said, but is it not better to go and seek their suffrages, such as they are, than to be here with the consciousness that we represent nobody at all, and that we are here simply as pawns for the Government—Members of Parliament in such a position that in this Mother of Parliaments we have not the power to introduce the smallest and pettiest Bill without asking their Lordships' permission? It must be with the Government's sanction that any Bill is introduced. Is that much of an ambition even to a private Member? But what about the country?
  That the War, with all its horrors, should be utilised by such gentlemen, no doubt for public interests, which in some way redound possibly to their personal interests, that every principle and every ordinary practice of constitutional liberty should be broken, and that then we should have a Gentleman whose whole

  1553
  originality consists in, at a crisis, as he calls it, tossing everything upside down, producing the most curious, amorphous parody of anything that is like executive or constitutional power in the world— that is what the House of Common has come to. It is absolutely without the respect of the people. It has allowed itself to be stultified. It has placed Gentlemen in power through party combinations. I saw a very strong article to-day showing that even in the present Government of eighty-nine—though a Cabinet of twenty-three was objected to a little while ago— that even in that happy household there are dissensions. I saw in the "Express," which I believe is the organ of one of the great men of that Government a very curious story of conspiracy of the tad-polo Under-Secretaries against the great men in power. They are like a house divided against itself. They have destroyed Parliament, and now they are quarrelling amongst themselves; but the worst of all is this, that all these things are done through the War. Never in England has the question of war been considered as an absolute barrier to popular rights or to the advocacy of popular rights. The Union in 1800 was carried in the midst of war, the Emancipation Bill of 1829, and the Reform Bill of 1832, were not carried during a war, but they were carried when England was on the eve of civil war. As to the doctrine that peace is essential to carry great measures, the thing is intolerable. You have seen how it has been done in Russia during the War. The Russians have progressed, but with us the War has been used as a reactionary engine. I wish to have the honour of seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: On two previous occasions I have supported Bills for the extension of the life of Parliament on the understanding that it was necessary in order that the prosecution of the War should be carried on with all vigour. On this occasion I shall unhesitatingly vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, but for different reasons from those which he put before us. It must be recognised in all quarters of the House that durng the extension of the life of this Parliament, Parliament will not devote itself entirely to the prosecution of the War. The Prime Minister has announced that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Franchise Bill,
  1554
  and in that Bill one of the provisions would be the extension of the franchise to women. I venture the opinion that there is no subject which has created greater political controversy and on which there have been more acute differences than the extension of the franchise to women, and let it be remembered that this very Parliament whose life it is proposed to extend has given an adverse vote to women's suffrage. Is Parliament justified under these conditions in extending its life on the plea that it is necessary for the prosecution of the War when it is going to deal with questions primarily of political importance? I maintain under these conditions that the Government is taking advantage of its position to commit a political outrage, and I have no hesitation in opposing a measure which has this object. I should consider it preferable that there should be a General Election. I recognise the arguments brought forward by the late Prime Minister, but I must confess that they did not appeal to me to any extent. If it is a question of a General Election not being practicable on account of shortage of paper, the Government might take steps to remedy the great waste of paper that is now taking place in the issue of innumerable circulars. I am certain that a General Election could be fought under existing conditions and on the existing register which would reflect the minds of the people of this country in a far better way than they are at present reflected in Parliament.
  The Leader of the House dwelt on the critical state of the War. We all admit that it is critical, but it is not likely to be any the less critical during the time which it is proposed to extend the life of this Parliament, and during that critical period the Government propose to bring in a Franchise Bill with the question of women's suffrage as one of its component parts. Recognising that the mentality of the occupants of both Front Benches cannot be predicted, and that we do not know what political somersault they may commit—the late Prime Minister announced to the House a few weeks back that he was intending to support women's suffrage, as he believes that during this War women have found their salvation, and for that reason he thought he could no longer oppose the giving of the vote to women—who is to say that the

  1555
  present Prime Minister might not consider that on account of the magnificent courage of the Ulstermen, far in excess of what he had ever anticipated, during the extension of the life of Parliament the Home Rule Bill should be scrapped and torn up? Who is to say that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognising the splendid courage of the Welsh Churchmen, will not consider that they will not be justified in taking money from the Welsh Church and that therefore the Welsh Church Act should be torn up?
  Under present conditions I maintain we are not justified in extending the life of a Parliament when political issues of the greatest importance and magnitude are likely to be thrust upon it. The position of the rank and file of the Members of this Parliament is anomalous. On the adjournment of the Debate before Easter I brought forward the question of Parliamentary Commissions on the French model. I then stated the views of the present Prime Minister in the first speech he made as Prime Minister to this House. On that occasion he expressed himself strongly in favour of these Commissions. The great dangers from which France had been saved and perilous positions had been largely due, said the right hon. Gentleman, to the work of the Commissions. He has changed his mind now, and will have nothing to do with them. Parliament is to remain as impotent as this Government can possibly make it. Under these circumstances, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, recognising as we must recognise, that the extension of this Parliament means an introduction to subjects of great political controversy, recognising that it is the intention of the Government to make Members as impotent as possible, I shall unhesitatingly vote against this proposal.
  Mr. T. M.HEALY: I confess that the speech of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down has aroused the greatest apprehension in my mind. I am reminded of the words of Mr. Gladstone in this connection as to politicians being too suspicious, and it occurs to me that there may be being laid a trap for simple Members of the House like myself, and that in reality it is intended that the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo should be carried. It is a very easy thing. There are in the Tory party those who are anxious for a Dissolution, and we know
  1556
  that the strongest pressure every day and every hour is being put on the Prime Minister to "get on top," and that now he has a chance to do so! Here we find one of his strongest supporters telling the House that for the first time in his life he is going to vote against this Government proposal; I suppose also that for the first time in his life he is in favour of a Motion by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I confess it all capsizes my intellect. I should like to make a few inquiries before I make up my mind as to what course I should take. Because, of course, if I thought the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo was going to be carried I should not be likely to vote for it. It may be that the hon. Member is quite satisfied that he is going to be beaten and he is therefore showing great cheerfulness. I confess if I had the assurance he seems to feel that his Motion will be defeated I would gladly vote with him in the Lobby.
  The Tory party know that if there is a Dissolution at the present moment they can have an absolute revenge on the Liberal party. They know that they can reverse the decision about the House of Lords. They know they can reverse the decision about the Welsh Church, and about the Home Rule Bill— or Act, I beg pardon—I had forgotten it was on the Statute Book. Therefore, to-night, there is a chance for the Tory party. If at the Carlton Club or the Constitutional Club they are told to remain and Members do not come down, what will be the position of the hon. Member for East Mayo? He will not be asked as a victor to form a Government. I am afraid that is not likely. What will happen will be this: The country will be told that the Irish have defeated the Government in the midst of the War. The women will be told that it is the Irish who have defeated their chance of getting the suffrage. The labourers will be told that it is the Irish who have prevented the extension of the franchise. The publicans will be told that it is the Irish who have prevented them from getting compensation. The brewers will be told that they have been prevented from getting a monopoly, and the teetotalers will be told that it is the Irish who have prevented them from abolishing that accursed thing, the drink traffic! Here, then, you will have the whole political situation absolutely in the melting pot. Therefore it occurs to me we are now in a very perilous situation, and I should like,

  1557
  before I give my decision, to have a little private cross-examination of the Government Whips. I should like to see their lists. I should like to see the number of men they have scourged to come down— the number of men who have got what is called stiff pairs. If I found, and was quite sure, that the Government were going to make a vigorous effort to carry this Bill, then I should cheerfully go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for East Mayo. One must not forget the temptations in the way of Governments, but, for myself, I must say that I have the very strongest doubts as to how this Division will go. Anybody who follows the Press and the circulation of opinion knows very well that the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House has only to hold up his finger to be beaten in the Lobby.
  There is great precedent for it, the precedent of '85. Mr. Gladstone wanted to be beaten in the Lobby. He did not want to renew the Irish Coercion Act of 85. The Crimes Act of '82 was out, having only been passed for three years. The new franchise was coming in. I suppose there is no harm now in saying now that that night both Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles Dilke were wishful to be defeated. Sir Charles Dilke told me in his own room that they were going to ride for a fall. There was a letter the next day in the "Daily News," I think for 30th June, 1885, written by Mr. Maclaren as he then was, now a peer in the Upper House. Anyone can turn up the file of the paper and see the letter, in which Mr. Maclaren showed that he and a dozen other Liberal members were told that they were not wanted on that occasion. I very strongly suspect that we are now in a similar situation. For the first time in his life the hon. Member for East Mayo will be the leader of a victorious party. In regard to the reasons given for the desire for a Dissolution, I should like to allay some of the fears entertained by the hon. Member. He says they are told they will not get back again to this House. We have the authority of Holy Writ for it that the number of fools is infinite. I strongly suspect that there is just as large a proportion of them to the acre or the square mile in Ireland as in any other part of the world, and. accordingly I do not at all take the pessimistic view of the hon. Member for East Mayo. I think they will probably lose a dozen or twenty seats. That is my estimate, but the notion that they will not come back in substantial
  1558
  strength is, to my mind, a greatly mistaken view, if that is any encouragement to the hon. Member for East Mayo to withdraw his Amendment.
  There is another remark I should like to make. The hon. Member seems to be greatly afraid of the Sinn Feiners. I do not know any particular reason for the expression of this terror of the Sir. Fein party except this: that it is a remarkable fact—of course, I would never suspect my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland of being in collusion with the party that is sitting near me— but it is a remarkable fact that the party sitting near me had no sooner lost the Roscommon election than every member of the Sinn Fein party who took part in it was deported to Oxford. If a General Election is to be held in the absence of important men who are abroad and fighting, then the authorities should either bring these deported men to trial or allow them to go home and attend to their elections at home. The hon. Member really gave them a great lift in this House to-night. He has spoken of their extraordinary power and so forth. If that be true, I wonder he does not make the strongest effort to get them back to their homes. There has not been a word of protest against these deportations either from the hon. Member or his friends. I myself have gone to see men of influence in the Government to protest against the harshness with which those concerned have been treated. I believe they have had no more to do with anything incendiary or revolutionary than the hon. Member for East Mayo. Because however, they were inconvenient elector-ally they are spending their time at the present moment in very poor circumstances in various villages and towns all over this country. I hope they are not as formidable, and I think they are not, as the hon. Member for East Mayo considers them. If they are—well, take my own seat! Any Sinn Feiner that wants it is welcome to it. If there is any man more extreme who wants my seat he can have it without a fight. I have fought these gentlemen here because I regard them as humbugs. If there is any man who wants my seat, if he is such an extreme man, if he will do better. in the House of Commons than I have done, or if he will support any new policy, so far as I am concerned he can have my seat without fighting. I say that here and now. I am getting old. The young men are coming up. It is time they had a chance. I

  1559
  strongly feel that a little infusion of this element will do this House, and perhaps this party, a great deal of good.
  Lastly, I should like to say that the hon. Member for East Mayo spoke, and spoke with a great deal of truth, of the folly of the War Office in bringing about an un-pleaant state of feeling in Ireland. That is quite true. I have already protested against this matter, and I have said that in my opinion, if the hon. Member for Waterford had had his way, this country would have been under a deeper sense of obligation to him than it is at the present time. I have said that candidly. I think it only right to say it, and to bear my testimony to the fact that the blunders of the War Office have been an important factor. One of the reasons, one of the ingredients of the disesteem into which in many quarters the Irish Parliamentary party appears to have fallen has been brought about by its acceptance of a salary from this House. Irish Members are all in the same boat—though I did not protest and urge the passing of Resolutions, and say I was not going to take it, and then run into the Lobby and vote for it! I am free of that; but amongst the Irish people the fact that the Irish party has accepted a salary in this House has undoubtedly led to a loss of esteem. It is well known that the Labour party wanted provision made for the Sheriffs' fees at elections, and that the hon. Member for Waterford prevented candidates' electoral expenses from being defrayed out of the public purse, and preferred payment of Members. Therefore you have this fact, that in Ireland at the present moment this disesteem exists because the Irish Members engineered with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer a salary for themselves, having declared they were not going to take it, and they prevented the same Government from paying the expenses of the candidate. I will say this for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I much prefer him as Prime Minister to Chancellor of the Exchequer. As long as he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was laying burdens upon Ireland, and he was cordially supported by the Irish party. Now that he is Prime Minister ho cannot do us at all the barm that he did as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not mind my
  1560
  saying that I have much more confidence in his fiscal principles than I have in those of the Prime Minister.
  What were the other causes that led to this unfortunate rebellion'! Undoubtedly the attempt to break up the volunteer movement, and of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to boss and tyrannise over that movement. But, on the whole, I think it is better for Irish Members to suffer this disesteem for a few months more in the hope of this franchise measure, which, as I understand, will contain a provision throwing the expenses of Members on the rates, or on the Imperial Exchequer, will largely bring about a democratic suffrage, will also largely abolish that atrocious system of registration of voters, which is such a curse in every constituency, and will also further, as I hope, give the women a fair measure of representation in this House. Lastly, I think the Government are engaged to-night in passing a sort of self-denying ordinance. Not one of the nations engaged in this War has flung Parliament into the cauldron of a General Election, and now, especially when America has come into this War, giving us a sense of hope, of strength and stability, I think if the Government had any plot of Dissolution in their heads, it would land them not only into political discredit, but in national disaster; it would be a sign of national senility. As one who has for a long time spent his days and some of his nights in this Assembly, I can only say that, looking back upon the great changes and vicissitudes that have taken place, it would be a sorry day for British statesmanship if by any electoral manoeuvre in the middle of this great struggle Parliament-such as we now have it is put an end to.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If the hon. and learned Member is right, every Member of this House finds himself in a position of great anxiety and great responsibility. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that perhaps, after all, this Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo might be carried and the Bill rejected. Let us then consider what are the arguments that have been put forward in the course of this Debate to incline any Member of this House to vote either for or against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo. I do not myself doubt that it is a revolutionary Bill. For the House of Commons, by a simple measure passed in the ordinary way as an ordinary Act

  1561
  of Parliament, to prolong its existence for months, and to do that, not once but two or three times, is certainly of a very unusual character. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. S. MacNeill) should feel seriously distressed about that which violates what is said, I think, in every manual of constitutional law, that such a proceeding as this is unconstitutional and revolutionary. But I am not quite convinced of the danger to which the hon. Member for Mayo draws attention, that it is likely to be used in some domestic controversy of the future. I am much more inclined to expect that anything that is done during this War will always be regarded as an awful example to be avoided in the future than as likely to be quoted as something to be followed, and, indeed, if anyone wanted to adopt it for domestic reasons, the precedent of George the First's reign, when the Whig Parliament extended the life of Parliament from three years to seven years, is very much more relevant. Nor am I quite convinced of the desirability of an election peculiarly in Ireland. The hon. Member for Mayo spoke, as he always does, in a very interesting way, but he did not convince me that it was desirable there should be a General Election in Ireland. I confess, when he propounded as the two objects he had in view, a General Election in Ireland and an immediate settlement of the Home Rule controversy, I was unable to agree with either of his arguments. It seems to me, on the contrary, that you will not get tranquillity in Irish politics either by a General Election or a settlement.
  Mr. DILLON: You cannot by the present system.
  Lord H. CECIL: I am not an admirer of the present system, but what I desire is to postpone controversies until after the War, and I do not think the Nationalist party, or any other party, will lose at all by postponing it until after the War. The rational thing is to decide all those questions in a Parliament in time of peace, with all the freedom of public opinion, the freedom of the Press, and, most important of all, the attention of the public. All our discussions now are unreal, not through any dark conspiracy of any Members on the Treasury Bench, but because the public is not interested in Parliament. All the interest is in the Army, and it is for that reason, and not because of any subtle or Machiavellian
  1562
  plot on the part of Ministers, that Parliament has to some extent fallen into neglect. I am not sure that while that tiling goes on the more we keep clear of such controversies as the Home Rule controversy, the better for us. Personally, the only way I would deal with the Disestablishment question is to gain time to deal with it after the War is over, if that would satisfy hon. Members for Ireland in dealing with Home Rule. I was going on to consider how I was to vote. I was trying to review the arguments which were to determine which way to vote if a Division were taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife very eloquently and very cogently spoke upon the immense evils of an election under present circumstances. Part of that argument I thought very convincing, but part of it perhaps was not so strong. It is quite true that a Parliament elected under such a register would not be very representative, but it is also true that a Parliament in its seventh year of existence is not very representative, so that we should not lose under that head, but rather gain.
  Finally, there is this consideration which weighs with me rather in favour of the hon. Member for Mayo, that if we do not have an election now, if we carry on— which is, I presume, the purpose of this Bill, which, I imagine, will be renewed again and again until that purpose is fulfilled—if we carry on till the War is over, then there is this great difficulty, that at the conclusion of the War there is the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. There is no opportunity of dealing with the Welsh Church, but the crisis comes upon you all unawares, with no time for organising the new government of the Church or bringing the matter before the country and obtaining any change or modification of the Act—in short, there is all the great inconvenience of being launched into a controversy on the Welsh Church by Disestablishment coinciding with the date on which the War is over. Therefore, that inclines my oscillating judgment to vibrate in favour of the Amendment. I am in doubt, and I confess I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say something to lay that doubt at rest. I confess I hope he will be able to say something which will reassure me as a churchman before he asks me to assent to the very revolutionary step he is taking, and to deprive churchmen of the opportunity they would have of arguing their case at the end of this month at a

  1563
  General Election. [An HON. MEMBER: "In war-time?"] I quite agree I could wish a more favourable opportunity. I would much rather argue it in time of peace, but at least it would be before Disestablishment had taken place. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a question of money!"] It is largely a question of money; it is a question of endowments. But I should like to be assured, at any rate, that it has the consideration of the Government, and that they do not view with an evil eye the suggestion that more time ought to be allowed to us, so that we are not plunged at one moment at the conclusion of the War into Disestablishment, a General Election, and the whole scheme of reconstruction which must follow the War. I venture to make that appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because on that matter my vote in this Division depends.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I desire to refer to the speech which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). That speech was made up, as nearly as all his speeches are, of bad jokes and false charges against his opponents. I only wish that the charge he made against the Government of intending to ride for a fall this evening had more foundation than the other charges which he made against the members of the party to which I belong, because we have moved this Amendment not only from the Irish point of view, but from other points of view surrounding the future of liberty and democracy in this country, we believing it to be desirable that the life of this Parliament should not be prolonged. Although the hon. and learned Member for Cork accuses the Government of going to ride for a fall, evidently he has no intention himself of risking a fall, because he told us that anybody who liked to have his seat in Ireland could have it.
  Mr. HEALY: I did not say anybody. I said Sinn Feiners. I would not give it to you, for instance.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I think the hon. and learned Member recognises that as we took his other seat from him we can take this one as well. But I will pass over his sneers about the £400 a year, which, by the way, he is, careful to put in his own pocket, and I will only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the statement he made
  1564
  that we did not from these benches protest against the deportation of Sinn Feiners from Ireland to Oxford is absolutely incorrect, because while the hon. and learned Member was in the Police Courts and the Four Courts in Dublin, raking in the shekels, the Irish Members were over here pressing the Government, and we moved the Adjournment of the House on this very question. Whatever may have been the circumstances on former occasions when the House of Commons prolonged its own life, they are of a totally different nature now, and the considerations which applied then apply no longer. We must remember that on the two previous occasions the life of Parliament was prolonged by the general consent of the House, but that general consent no longer exists. A considerable body of those who are entitled to speak for the overwhelming mass of the people of Ireland no longer agree to that course, and in view of the solid mass of opinion which is resisting this proposal, we should be depriving ourselves of the last shred of moral authority or force in this country if we agreed to prolong the life of this Parliament. We are not to be consulted about the government of our own country, and, if this Government can help it, apparently we are not to count here in the House of Commons. The Government must know perfectly well that they will be embarking on a difficult and almost impossible task if in view of the refusal of general assent to a measure of this kind it attempts to continue for another six or seven months the life of this Parliament.
  We must bear in mind the fact that since the life of Parliament was last prolonged a new Government has been formed in this country. The old principle was that new Governments rested upon the support of the people as a result of an election appeal. I am not suggesting that before a Government could be formed it would be necessary to have a General Election, but I emphatically say that the whole policy of the new Government since its formation has been to turn attention away from the House of Commons, to make little of it and to thrust on one side the Parliamentary system. In view of these circumstances it is desirable from many points of view that there should be a fresh appeal to the people to renew the life and the vigour of this Assembly. Practically no leading member of the Government, or even of the late Government, thinks it worth while to come down

  1565
  here to listen to what the House of Commons has got to say on this question. We know it is the policy of the Prime Minister to come here on as few occasions as possible, and, if rumour speaks truly, although the right hon. Gentleman cannot come down to the House of Commons on an important occasion when the House is considering the whole future of the life of Parliament, he can find time to go to Scotland to consider the result of an individual election in that country.
  What are the grounds on which we have been asked to pass this Bill? We are told that a General Election would interfere with the prosecution of the War. We make no concealment of the fact that we are anxious to avoid anything that would interfere with the prosecution of the War, but there are other things allowed to go on by this Government which are far more seriously interfering with the due prosecution of the War than a General Election could be. There is the persistent refusal of the Government to face and to deal with the Irish question. The policy of this Government has bred at every step of its career in Ireland distrust, suspicion, hostility and animosity, and the belief that the Home Rule Act which is on the Statute Book is to be regarded by the Irish people merely as a scrap of paper. I would ask the Government if they are blind to what is being said in Ireland, even about their latest promise to attempt a settlement of the Irish question? There are many people in whom they have bred this suspicion, and they are now saying that the Government made this proposal to attempt a settlement at a time when the crisis was on as to whether or not America was to come into this War. An election in Ireland would undoubtedly clear the air, and we are not afraid of it. On the contrary, we are anxious for the position to be laid before the world, and, in my opinion, even an election in England would clear the air and remove that atmosphere of apathy and indifference which surrounds the present House of Commons, and it would not necessarily be a hindrance in the prosecution of the War. It cannot be said that there is not a precedent for an election even during the course of the present War. What about the case of Australia? There they are having an election in the middle of their plans for the prosecution of this War, and is it suggested that that is a hindrance to the further prosecution of the War?
  1566
  The arguments which have been brought forward from these benches and the illustration in the case of Russia is more forcible and powerful, because in Russia they did not have an election, but a revolution, which this House has placed on record by the congratulations it sent to the Russian people and the Duma as an event of great importance in furthering and not in hindering the prosecution of the War. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has already referred to the threat made by the Leader of the House some time ago of forcing a General Election on us if we continued opposition in any form to the present Government. It seems to be thought that whenever the Government wish to threaten us with an election they are. furthering the interests of the War, and that it is not to be open to us to use the same argument when we claim that we are entitled to press for an election. Another reason why this Bill is recommended to the House at the present time is that there is in force an old register which would not be a true reflex of the opinion of the country. It is perfectly true that the register is an old and stale one, but what is the remedy for that position of affairs? The natural remedy which was attempted last year by the late Government was a new register. That attempt was made in the month of August, and since then we have had the Conference presided over by Mr. Speaker. We have also had a day's discussion on the subject in this House since the present Session began, and with regard to the recommendations made by that Conference we have a promise that the Government is going to introduce at an early date a great Reform Bill founded upon the recommendations of that Conference. We have also seen the spectacle of between sixty and seventy Members of this House opposing those proposals, even before they are embodied in the form of a Bill.
  Does the House of Commons think that an assembly which found it impossible last year to bring the old register up to date without interfering with the franchise, is likely to adopt any large measure of reform? Do hon. Members think that in spite of that opposition you will be able to pass a great measure of franchise and redistribution, and deal with other kindred matters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo that it is idle and absurd to pretend that the Government really proposes to press that measure

  1567
  through Parliament in the present Session. The result is that you have got the old register in force still, and are likely to have it in force, for many months to come Whenever it is suggested that the life of this Parliament should be no longer prolonged, the Government is always able to come down and say, "The register is a stale one, the register is an old one, and an election would not be representative of the voice of the country." As long as they are in a position to do that, they can continue the life of this Parliament indefinitely beyond the duration of the present War. Old as is the register, unrepresentative as it may be admitted to be at the present time, an election would be better than continuing Parliament without any moral sanction or authority in this present way. At least you would have this safeguard, that the new Parliament elected upon the old register would not be able to go on in existence beyond two years, because last year, fortunately, when the last Bill of this kind was being passed through the House of Commons, a Clause was inserted providing that any Parliament elected upon the old register should not have a longer life than two years. For these reasons, I hope that the House of Commons will agree to inspire new life, new strength, and new vigour into the democratic institutions of this country by having a renewed mandate from the people, and that we will have an opportunity of going to Ireland and showing the country there and our friends here that Ireland is still true to those principles which she has maintained during the length of this great struggle for constitutional freedom.
  Mr. GINNELL: Without observing that a decision on the question now before the House will affect the country in many administrative ways, apart altogether from the question of the Dissolution of Parliament, you have allowed the Debate, in some instances, at all events, to wander pretty widely beyond the immediate question. The immediate question before the House is the Resolution to extend the life of this Parliament. This Parliament has extended its own life, once, twice, and thrice, and, if allowed to do so this time, there is no reason why it should not extend its life nine times, like the life of a cat. It proposes, on the present occasion, to do more and to extend the lives of the local ad-
  1568
  ministrative bodies for which there is no reason whatsoever. These local bodies have necessarily to go on from day to day and from week to week administering the affairs of the country. Fortunately, women have votes for electing representatives on those bodies, and whatever reason there may be for prolonging the life of Parliament, there is none whatever for depriving the people locally of their undoubted right of electing men to conduct their own local affairs. Whether the War goes on or ceases those affairs must continue to be conducted, and the War itself in many respects increases the difficulties of conducting them, and creates new and difficult questions which should be dealt with by new men.
  The very same policy which is being carried on by the present Government in this House is also being carried on by them locally. I hold in my hand evidence that the local councils are to be prevented from renewing themselves in accordance with the law largely, if not wholly, because the Government have captured some of the most active members of those councils for their own purposes. I do not know whether that be true in this country or not, and it does not concern me, but it is true in Ireland. Members of local bodies are at the present time employed by the Government in Ireland in various ways. Sometimes they are employed for recruiting, and when the blunders of the Government render that policy impracticable they are employed for purchasing provisions, for purchasing wool, and for one purpose or another, and are paid salaries by the Government. These particular members of local councils in Ireland are at the present time most active in opposing every popular purpose in Ireland, and in supporting the Government in the suppression of public opinion, in the deportation of the most trusted and respected men in Ireland, and in every step taken by this autocratic Government against the will of the people in Ireland. For these reasons, being known as they are, those particular members are well aware that if an election to the local councils were held next month, as it is due to be held, they would walk the plank and they would no more get elected. I hold in my hand proof that a member of a county council in Ireland has earned and has received an appointment carrying with it a salary for his activity on the County Council of Mayo in opposition to the adoption of what is known there as "Count Plunkett's mani-

  1569
  festo." The Government may, as far as I care, appoint ninety-eight salaried placed men to assist them in this country in averting a General Election—it does not concern me much—but I object altogether to their practising that policy on a shabbier scale in Ireland.
  None of us in this House to-day can claim constitutionally to represent anybody but himself. Neither you nor any Gentleman here can claim to have a constitutional mandate to do anything but go to the country and get elected. This House has itself, on a deliberate Motion, decided that it should not exist beyond a certain time. That time has elapsed, and its mandate is gone. There is this further peculiarity in the condition of this House, that, besides outliving its mandate and besides being a time-expired Parliament, it is a self-paid Parliament. It will even give the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), with his historical knowledge, something to do to find a precedent for a self-paid Parliament whose time has expired re-electing itself. That surely has not been done in any country. I wonder if this so-called Mother of Parliaments has so far got into its dotage that it is going to set such a ridiculous example to all its progeny and to all the Parliaments of the world. Theoretically, we on these benches are inconsistent in taking any part in legislating here for Ireland or in recognising at all laws made here. If we were true to the mandate for which we were sent here, our sole duty would be to right any Government sitting upon that Treasury Bench and to deny their right to legislate for or to rule our country at all. But it has come to pass in our time that a Parliamentary party elected to represent Ireland in this House and supported by Ireland for that purpose is now the only body of men representing this House and the English Government in Ireland and supported by the British Government for that purpose. That is the topsy-turvy condition at which we have arrived.
  While denying any right in this Parliament to make laws for Ireland or to tax Ireland, and whilst submitting to those things as done by force and not by law of justice, since you have that power and are engaged in that work our further duty arises of thwarting you in that purpose and of striving here, whether inconsistent or not, if not to get what we want, then to prevent what we do not want. Ireland stands as much outside the British system, and has as little share in the progress and
  1570
  wealth to which she is compelled to contribute as countries which contributes nothing and which the British Parliament has no power to tax or to rule. A nation threatened with extinction in its own country is surely entitled to resist here complete extinction. That, as I conceive it, is our sole purpose here, and in view of that purpose the oftener our people are given an opportunity of electing representatives both to Parliament and to their local councils the more likely will those representatives be true and effective representatives
  One of the special functions of tins House is the provision and expenditure of revenue. That will be recognised in this country, at all events, as one of the most important duties of Parliament. The War has intensified instead of reducing that important duty of Parliament. If it has intensified it in this country, surely it has done so to a greater extent in Ireland. Taxes, when excessive, affect every material interest, and some of our nation's interests are greater even than material interests. Ireland is not gaining at present by the manufacture of ships and other requisites for the War, nor is any considerable amount of War expenditure being spent there. As Ireland is not gaining now, so in the future, after the War, she is certain not to gain. The one purpose for which you entered the War, according to your own cries at the time, was to practise business as usual and to capture German trade, while subordinate nations and Colonies, Celtic fringes and Hottentots, were doing your fighting. The Celtic fringes, I regret to say, did much of your fighting, and yet you are not yet satisfied. You want to sacrifice the Celtic fringes altogether, and you want to prevent Ireland having any opportunity, when these things are fresh in its memory, of deciding whether it approves of your conduct or not. As I have just said, there are greater interests in a nation even than money. Its people are ultimately a country's greatest wealth. During the last eighty years the population of England and Wales has increased from 15,000,000 to 36,000,000, while in the same period the population of Ireland has decreased from 3,250,000 to 4,250,000. That is how uniformity of taxation works out in practice.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There have been some endeavours to raise rather

  1571
  general questions on the present Motion, but nothing going quite so far as this. It is not permissible to) review the whole history of the taxation of Ireland any more than it is to review it in this country.
  Mr. GINNELL: I must submit, of course, to your ruling, Sir, but with the observation that I have devoted only a few sentences to the question of taxation and only one sentence to the question which I described as more serious, namely, that of the diminution in the population. I had passed away from taxation to the diminution of population, which is a much more serious matter. Both these questions are involved in prolonging the life of this House, which deals with the economic subjects determining those questions. However, it is not my intention to pursue that subject. We want a General Election not only to renew our representatives in this House, but to change the Minister responsible for the administration of Ireland. A General Election usually results in a shuffling of Ministers, and any change would be better than a continuation of the present men in office. We want the present Chief Secretary removed as one of the minor results of a General Election. We want him removed for the practical reason that he has been sent to Ireland to hold firmly the reins of government there, having been selected apparently for no other reason or qualification but his absolute ignorance of Ireland and of the sentiments of the Irish people. He spent a week in Dublin last February and went from Department to Department urging a certain improvement in them.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the first twenty minutes of his speech kept very well within the subject before the House, but he is now, for the second time, going very wide of it. We cannot have a general criticism of administration upon a Motion to read a Bill a second time this day three months.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is very hard, Sir, to reconcile your own ruling this afternoon in the case of other Members with your present ruling in my case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I desire to he orderly. I do not desire to be disrespectful, but the House must remember the very wide range you, Sir, allowed the hon. Member for East Mayo to travel over in Irish administration as well as in regard to the immediate subject before the House.
  1572
  It comes to this, that I am allowed only to speak on the Bill and on the proposal to postpone its consideration for three months. Not only would I postpone it for that time, but if I were a cynic and wished to bring this House into ridicule I would postpone it for the next seven years, because the longer this House persists in legislating for my country, at all events after its legal qualifications for doing so has gone, the longer it persists in doing that before the world at a time when Russia has sprung to freedom and when this House has been hypocritical enough to congratulate the Russian people on their successful revolution, and when that successful revolution has declared that the country of Poland subject to it shall be free, the longer this House persists in ruling a country and in making laws after its constitutional and moral authority for doing so has gone, the longer it persists in bleeding that country white by taxation after its constitutional authority has gone, the longer it persists in deporting the most respectable men out of Ireland after its authority has gone, the longer it persist in keeping in prison men sentenced by secret court-martial to penal servitude for political offences after its authority has gone—the longer it persists in that course the better for me and the worse for this House, because whatever shred of credit it had in the past it has sacrificed in the War. Some Ministers are still in office. One of them especially is still in office as Prime Minister. He climbed to that position by election, but he is afraid to-day to face the people and afraid he would not get elected. He has got this House to sanction the creation of countless new offices. They have been counted this afternoon at ninety-eight. He has filled them with his own satellites, who will help him in ruling not only the country but this House. The longer that continues, the worse for this House and the worse for this Parliament, and the more easy it will be for people who are not content with that sort of rule and who ought not to be content with that sort of rule to burst that sort of rule, to bring it to an end and to expose to the world for what it is, a House of Huns and hyprocrites.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended us to accept this Bill on the ground advanced by previous Leaders of the House in introducing similar Bills, namely, that the whole of our attention

  1573
  should be given to the War. The late Leader of the House stated that in his opinion it would be absolutely impossible to hold a General Election now and he gave various reasons for that opinion. For myself, I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) in thinking that the lack of paper which would prevent posters being published would be a good thing. I do not agree with the late Prime Minister in thinking that posters are good things either for the electors or for the candidates. I am not sure that that is not the case with election addresses. They could appear in the newspapers, and I think that is all that is necessary. We were assured, when the first and second Bills for prolonging the life of Parliament were brought in, that controversial matters would not be introduced, and although I do not think the assurance has been given in so many words this time it is understood that that is the intention of the Government. It is four months since the present Government came to office. Nearly all its members had been in previous Governments, and the previous Government was undoubtedly committed to the principle that controversial measures should not be introduced in the period for which this House prolonged its own life.
  I have here a list of Bills and pledges of legislation which have been given by the Government. They are nine altogether. The first is electoral reform. That has not got very much to do with the War. Then come Home Rule and Education. Education, as far as we understand it, is going to include the abolition of half-timers, and the raising of the age at which children have to attend school, which have always been controversial subjects, especially the former. Then we have had a Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which although it might on its introduction, by a stretch of the imagination, have been said to have some remote relation to the War, certainly in the form in which it has left the Committee, is merely an amendment of the ordinary criminal law and has nothing whatever to do with the War. Then we have a Bill for fixing agricultural labourers' wages, for allowing the Board of Agriculture, if it wishes, to farm the whole of the United Kingdom, and to limit the rent of agricultural landlords. That certainly has not very much to do with the War. Then we have a Bill for purchasing the brewers' interest and public houses, at an expenditure of
  1574
  £300,000,000 or £400,000,000, which may be needed for the War. That is a very formidable list for an ordinary Parliament when no War is going on at all. Now I come to the one Bill which has anything whatever to do with the War, which has been introduced since the present Government came into office—the Military Service (Remission of Exemption) Bill. I should be most anxious not to have a General Election at present if I were assured that the Government would do what they took office to do, and devote their whole attention to the War. If they would do that, I am sure everyone, with the exception of hon. Members below the Gangway, who do not count for a moment against the whole House, would support the Government. But if this Parliament is to be prolonged, if it is to do what my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) said was not only a revolution, but unconstitutional— if it is to do that, and then to take advantage of prolonging its own life in order to introduce controversial measures, I think the House ought to oppose the Bill. I hope and trust my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) will give me credit for speaking with the utmost sincerity. I am most anxious to support the Government as long as they will give their whole attention to the War, but if they will not do so, I certainly think the House ought to say their life should not be prolonged. The country ought to be made aware of the fact that during these four months very little of the time of the House has been given to the War, and a very great deal has been given to other matters and a very great deal more has been promised to matters which do not concern the War.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I do not agree with the right hon. Baronet. From the beginning I have held the view that it would have been much better to pass an Act prolonging the life of Parliament until the end of the war, and the fact that that was not done seems to me to argue at all events a certain want of confidence in ourselves or a consciousness that we are not devoting ourselves, or have not yet fully realised the colossal task we have to achieve to carry this great War to a victorious issue. It seems to me most unfortunate that at periods of six or nine months we should have debates of this kind, half-hearted, with very little spirit in them at any time, and not in any way displaying the mind of the House of Commons as it ought to be. I

  1575
  feel in a position of some difficulty to-day with regard to what has been said upon a question of vital interest to the Nonconformists of Wales. Of course, I absolutely accept the ruling of the Chair upon this point. I am glad it has been given, because I should greatly have deplored a debate under present conditions, which would have had the effect of relighting the fires of this ancient controversy upon the Welsh Church question. But, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock) and the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) have based their opposition to this Bill upon the claim of securing to the country an opportunity at an early date, before the War ends, of reconsidering the question, it is only frank, as representing those in my Constituency and associating myself with the views of those with whom I am associated in the Welsh representation, that I should say that, however deep and strong are the opinions of those who are favouring this recommendation for a reconsideration by General Election, the feelings and convictions of Welsh Nonconformists are equally strong and decisive on the other side. I desire to say that in order, if I can, to dispel any misapprehension upon the point, and not because for a moment I feel hopeless that it will not yet be possible in the near future to bring about, by the new spirit which is now running in the life of our country during the War, a new movement in favour of closer union in all our religious life. I should be false to my knowledge of the situation in Wales if I were to say that the reopening of this question at present would in any way lead to that effect. It would have the exactly opposite effect in my judgment, and for these reasons I hope that no further attempt will be made to raise a question which in the minds of Welsh Nonconformists is finally settled.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it will be necessary, and I hope the House will not consider it necessary, that I should address it at any length in connection with the Debate to which we have listened. I greatly admire the skill of my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) in the way in which, without circumventing your ruling, he managed after a long preamble, dealing very directly with the subject before the House, to bring in what he wanted to say about the subject on which the hon. Member has just spoken. I am very doubtful whether it is possible for me to escape
  1576
  the dilemma pointed out by the late Prime Minister of struggling unsuccessfully with your ruling, but since the subject has been raised I think it right to say this: I am sure no one in the House will expect the Government at such a time as this to be considering at all a question of that kind but I must say also that the fact that there is a case for a reconsideration of that subject at some time is shown by the fact that the Liberal Government which itself passed that Bill did introduce and intended to carry a measure giving a period of suspension at the end of the War. That shows that there is some case for time being given in such a situation as this. I am sure my Noble Friend was not in earnest when he said his vote depended upon a pledge to be given by me, and. I do not intend to give any pledge for the Government on this subject; but I should like to express what is my own firm conviction and what I believe will commend itself to the majority of the Members of the House, that, after all, we as a nation have gone and are going through, it is to me inconceivable and it would be in the highest degree deplorable that we should return, precisely where we left off, to the old controversies which were going on before the War. I will not believe that that can happen, and at a time like this, when we know that Nonconformists and Churchmen in Wales are fighting side by side and have been giving their lives together for the cause of the whole nation, I cannot believe that some method will not be found of dealing with this question which will not lead to the complete bitterness which an absolute victory on one side or the other will inevitably bring.
  7.0 P.M.
  I listened with the respect which it deserved to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), and I sympathise entirely with what he said about the necessity of this or any Government devoting itself entirely to the prosecution of the War. But how is that possible? Take, for instance, two of the measures mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). As regards the Franchise Bill, can anyone say it is not a necessity, when we do not know what the duration of the War will be, that there should be some register on which we can appeal to the country in order to return a proper House of Commons? That seems to me to be a necessity of the case, war or no war. When the War began there were few of us, and I was not wise enough to be one of them,

  1577
  who dreamt that it could continue for the length of time it has already gone on. Here is a great nation which is living its life in spite of the War and which is carrying on to a certain extent business necessitated by the War. In such a nation questions arise that must be dealt with and cannot be left over indefinitely until the War is settled; but I say this, that any Government which went out of its way to bring in any question which was not directly connected with the War would not deserve the confidence either of the House of Commons or of this country. Take the other subject mentioned by my right hon. Friend—Home Rule—about which I shall say a word or two, because it is in connection with that that an Amendment has been moved. We may be right or wrong—I know that many of my Friends do not agree with me—but as a Government we do believe that if it were possible to settle this question it would be a distinct advantage in the prosecution of the War. We believe also —I am not going to raise any false hopes in the House by what I am saying—that it is possible that the spirit which the War has produced in all of us may in itself create an atmosphere which will make it easier to get this secular quarrel settled than might be the case if we waited till the War was over. That is our opinion. Take the agricultural question. I have come back to the House after our very short Recess with feelings very much the reverse of elation over the prospect of the business which lies before us. It is business which in ordinary times could not possibly be got through in a single Session of Parliament. This agricultural question is directly dealing with the War, and I know nothing that deals with it more. We have got to increase our supplies at home, and for good or evil the measure which we have introduced is intended to enable us to do that.
  The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has moved an Amendment to postpone this Bill for three months, I think it was. His arguments, I must confess, did not carry the same conviction to my mind which they seemed to carry to the mind of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). He began by criticism of an action of mine which I should have thought that the House of Commons would always be ready not only to forgive but to approve, and that was that I had
  1578
  made an exceedingly short speech in introducing this Bill. This is the third time a measure of this kind has been before the House, and to my mind it would have been a real insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons to suggest to them that every argument I could put before them was not already present to their minds, and that they do not realise the situation as well as I do. I would like to say one or two words about the disrespect to which the House of Commons is said to be subjected. My Noble Friend gave the real explanation, and that explanation is that the heart of the people of this country is centred not in our doings here, but in the doings of our sons and our brothers who are righting a battle on which the existence of this House of Commons depends. It is only as an instrument for carrying on the War that the House of Commons is of interest to the people of this country, and I do not believe that what has happened since the War began has in reality lessened the hold that the House of Commons has on the people of this country. The hon. Member for Mayo seemed to take the view that if we had carried the proposal originally introduced, the time during which the War lasted was not to count. That seems to me a strange argument. It comes to this: that the smaller thing is going to establish a precedent which will ruin our Parliamentary institutions, and the larger thing, which includes the smaller, is going to leave them precisely where they were. I do not want to talk on subjects of that kind. The hon. Member complains that I made no statement on the first day that the House mot in regard to the promise I made on behalf of the Government that we would make an attempt to deal with the Irish question. The House will recollect that at the time I gave that promise I pointed out, as I fully realised, how difficult—and nobody knows it better than the Gentlemen who sit on those benches—the problem was, and I asked the House of Commons not to press us unduly in coming to a decision.
  We have done our best. The whole Government have done their best. We have done our best to devote ourselves to this question so far as the daily exigencies of the War would enable us to do. I am not complaining—hon. Members below the Gangway have good reasons for their action -but I may point out that in trying to come to a decision as to the best course for us to adopt, it is not easy to

  1579
  come to that decision when we have no means of consultation with a large section of those whom our decision will inevitably affect. In spite of that the Prime Minister had hoped to make a definite statement on the subject this week. As it happens—I know that it has been held unwise to give information as to the movements of Ministers, but the Prime Minister is not afraid of the risk involved, and he has authorised me to make this statement—he is unexpectedly called to a conference on the Continent to-morrow, which will occupy him two or three days, and that will of necessity delay the statement, but I still hope that early next week it will be possible for us to say what we intend to do in regard to this matter. The hon. Member for Mayo said to us, "Present the thing in a broad-minded way." We will never move a yard in this matter, or in any matter of the same kind, unless all of us realise what the difficulties are. If any section in Ireland or in this House begins with the idea that you are to do something which the majority of the Irish Members here want and it is all plain sailing—if they start on that assumption, to my mind it is utterly impossible to arrive at any solution of this problem which can by any possibility be carried out. All I can say about that is that we are earnestly trying. I do not wish the House to go away with any wrong idea, and I do not wish the action of hon. Members below the Gangway to be influenced at all by any hope I am holding out to them now, but I do say this that we are earnestly trying to find some method of solving this question, that the whole Government is most anxious to do it, and in their case, as I believe in the case of the House of Commons as a whole, there never was a time when there was so much good will in regard to this matter, and I think we need not absolutely despair, under circumstances of that kind, of arriving at some solution which will help us in dealing with this secular subject.
  That is all I wish to say except in regard to the Bill which is now before the House. It is quite true that we do think an election would be very undesirable. I did not say, as I was quoted as saying, that I regarded it as unthinkable, but I do consider that it would be a misfortune, and I assure the House that it is the last thing that the Government wish. Though I agree in the main with the speech of my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister,
  1580
  I think he carried it further than I would have been prepared to go. He pointed out the difficulties, and in some sense the absurdity of an election under the present* conditions. We all recognise that. It would be an immense departure from anything we have been accustomed to. My right hon. Friend rather weakened the strength of his own argument by saying at the end that if we had carried a Franchise Bill it would not be so bad. But all the other objections—and they are very strong—would remain just the same, franchise or no franchise. In my judgment that is the position. I said long ago, before this Government was formed, and before there was any idea that I was counting on the position which one Government or the other might occupy in the country—I said in December, 1915:
  "I think it may be quite possible that circumstances may arise which may make an election inevitable, whatever the register, and so for as I am concerned I should not have any distrust of the verdict of my countrymen whatever register was used on an issue such as this, in which the whole country from the top to the bottom is united in its aims."
  An HON. MEMBER: What issues?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to the War. That is what I meant. We are carrying on this War with our usual constitutional machinery. Do not let the House of Commons imagine that it is an easy thing to carry on a war with machinery designed for peace and adapted for peace. I remember quoting from memory words used by Lincoln, in a struggle which I think was not unlike that in which we are engaged. I wish I could remember the exact words, but I cannot, but this is the substance. He said that a civil war was meant to prove whether institutions not too strong for liberty were strong enough to preserve that liberty. That is the problem that every democratic country has got to face. This situation might arise—I am certainly the last to desire it, and I can say something more: this Government is not trying to arrive at a situation such as I am depicting, and will not try to arrive at it—in which, since our own Government and the conduct of the War depends upon the House of Commons, no Government would command the support of a stable and consistent majority in this House. Or circumstances might arise when this House was not ready to support a Government which believed that it had behind it the support of the country. In such circumstances, deplorable as it

  1581
  would be—and I for one hope the House of Commons which saw the beginning of this War will see the end of it—there would be no alternative except an appeal to the country to get a stable Government which would carry on the War. That is all I wish to say. An Amendment has been moved. The House understands the issues. They understand also that
  the time is short before the period when this Parliament would naturally come to an end. I hope, therefore, the House will let us get the Second Reading before the dinner hour to night.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 52.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dickinson, Rt. Hen. Willoughby H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Dixon, C. H.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Alden, Percy

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  King, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Finney, Samuel

  Lambert, Rt. Hen. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Law, Rt. Hen. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salferd, South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col, W. Houghton

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Geldor, Sir W. A.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Barton, William

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macdonald. Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gretton, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Bird, Alfred

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hamersley, Alfred St, George

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Bowden, Major G, R. Harland

  Hancock, John Georgo

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Boyton, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Martin, Joseph

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Maux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haelam, Lewis

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bull, Sir William James

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hen. Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Butcher, John George

  Hendry, Denis S.

  Morison, Hector

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cator, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hills, John Waller

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hinds, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Newman, John R. P.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts,Hitchin)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cleugh, William

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Clynes, John R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Coats, Sir Stuart A.-(Wimbledon)

  Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Coote, William

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Pennefather, De Fenblanque

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor.(Southampton)

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Currie, George W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Johnson, W.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Weston, J. W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Stirling, Lieut-Col. Archibald

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Swift, Rigby

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifle)

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, James

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tickler, T. G.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Younger, Sir George

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Wardle, Goorge J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Watson, Hon. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snowden, Philip

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

  Primrose

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  NOES.

  Boland, John Plus

  Hackett, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Muldoon, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cosgrave, James

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Keliy, Edward

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Dillon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Donovan, John Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonds. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ftrench, Peter

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Meagher, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Meahan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  O'Brien.

  Question put, and agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
As amended, considered.
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of Court to Suspend or Annul Certain Contracts.)
  (1) Where, upon an application by any party to a contract for the construction of any building or work or for the supply of any materials for any building or work entered into before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the Court is satisfied that, owing to the prevention or restriction of, or the delay in, the supply or delivery of materials, or the diversion or insufficiency of labour,
  1584
  occasioned by the present War, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without serious hardship, the Court may. after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for a variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the following Sub-section:
  "(2) Where upon any application by any party to a contract the Court is satisfied that, owing to any restriction or direction imposed or given by or in pursuance of any Regulation made under any Enactment relating to the Defence of the Realm, any term of the contract cannot be enforced without serious hardship, the Court may, after considering

  1585
  the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for the variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract or stay any proceedings for the enforcement of the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising thereunder on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit."
  This Amendment is merely transferring to the end of Clause 1, with the addition of some words supplementing, without in substance adding to, the remedy given, the words which at present form Sub-section (2) of Clause 2. Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 refers to building contracts, and Sub-section (2) to contracts affected by Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act, while Clause 2 will be left to deal solely with contracts of tenancy. This, I suggest, is a logical and orderly scheme.
  Mr. PETO: This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Warwick in the Committee stage, in which he said that he would make Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 a separate Clause. I, however, quite agree that it comes much more appropriately in Clause 1, and, so far as I am concerned, I do not see any objection to that as carrying out the undertaking which was given; but I should like to know, if the Solicitor-General will tell me, what is the exact meaning of those last words which are added? It seems to me that, so far as my lay mind can follow them, that they rather strengthen the provision, and rather assist in doing justice in all cases of contracts that are interfered with. I should like, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain, the meaning of the words, "or any term thereof," for I should be glad to understand what they involve. I do not wish to object; all I am anxious about is that nothing shall be done to alter a provision which is certainly regarded of very considerable importance.
  Mr. T. WILSON: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Clause refers to the case of colliery houses, in regard to which the custom prevails of having a fifty, sixty, or ninety years' lease? Have they to go to the Court before they can interfere with the property?
  Sir G. HEWART: I will reply first of all to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Peto). I do not appreciate his difficulty in regard to the words "or any term thereof" which form part of the addition that I propose to the Clause. The words "or any term thereof" are governed by the words "for the enforcement of." The Court, in dealing with a contract under this Subsection, is empowered to suspend or annul a contract, and also to apply a remedy by staying proceedings for the enforcement of the contract, whether as a whole or in part. With regard to the question asked by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Tyson Wilson), I do not think that this Clause has anything to do with that particular matter.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Relief in Respect of Certain Contractual Obligations.)
  (1) Where by virtue of any contract of tenancy any person is bound to do or abstain from doing or is under any liability if he does or abstains from doing any act or thing, and by virtue of any Regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm the doing of such act or thing is restricted or enjoined, he shall not during the continuance of the contract or on the determination thereof be liable to pay any sum of money or incur any forfeiture or other penalty in respect of the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing if and in so far as the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing is attributable to compliance with such restriction or injunction as aforesaid:
  Provided that the relief afforded by this provision from the obligation to do any such act or thing in consequence of such a restriction as aforesaid shall be subject to the following provisions:—

  (a) If the restriction is removed during the currency of the contract the obligation shall be fulfilled as soon as may be after the restriction is removed;

  (b) If the restriction has not been removed before the termination of the contract the person to whom the relief is given shall be liable to pay as damages a sum not exceeding the expenditure (if any) which would have been entailed by the fulfilment of the obligation.

  (2) Where upon any application by any party to a contract the Court is satisfied

  1587
  that, owing to any restriction or direction imposed or given by or in pursuance of any Regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, any term of the contract cannot be enforced without serious hardship, the Court may, after considering the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for the variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit.
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment just dealt with.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Relief from Liability when Fulfilment of Contract Interfered with by Requirement of Government Department.)
  It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any person of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on the part of himself or any other person of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of any Government Department, or of a competent naval or military authority, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference.
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, after the word "contract"["any contract is interfered with"], to insert the words "not being a contract of tenancy."
  This Clause is supplemental to Clause 2. Clause 2 relates to contracts of tenancy, and Clause 3 relates to other contracts interfered with by requirement of a Government Department. The words of Clause 2 are, "Where, by virtue of any contract of tenancy, any person is bound to do or abstain from doing, or is under any liability if he does or abstains from doing, any act or thing," and so forth. And, in order to make Clause 3 come spond, I propose to insert these words, "not being a contract of tenancy," in Clause 3. The Clause will then read, "Where the fulfilment by any person of any contract, not being a contract of tenancy, is interfered with," and so forth. Clause 2 relates to a contract of tenancy, and Clause 3 does not, and I propose to make the distinction perfectly plain.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Has the Solicitor-General considered the case of sureties to a contract? This Clause 3 does not appear to cover the obligation of the sureties. The person referred to in the Clause is the person whose contract is interfered with by the requirements of the Government Department. That does not affect the obligations of the sureties, and it seems to me that they could be sued in respect of that very contract. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted altogether, so far as I can see, to consider the case of sureties.
  Sir G. HEWART: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to this matter, which, however, has been fully and carefully considered. Where the principals are discharged from the performance of a contract, the sureties are not liable.
  Mr. CLANCY: Before the House rose for the Easter Recess attention was called to this very point of sureties, and I had upon the Paper an Amendment dealing with it. I attended here for a week, night after night, in the hope that my Amendment would be reached and dealt with, but subsequently I found that on one night at ten o'clock the whole of the business of the House was finished while I was absent. I had gone away under the impression that something would be done in regard to this question of sureties, and I consider the Government have committed a great breach of faith. I hope it will not be considered a breach of confidence if I say that I spoke to the Solicitor-General about my Amendment, and I pointed out particular cases with regard to Dublin in which grave injustice would be done if some Amendment were not inserted for bringing in the sureties, so as to ensure that they should not be altogether scot free if any variation were made in the contract by the Court. The Solicitor-General pooh-poohed me, and I think he scarecely listened to it; but I had it in my mind that I would explain the Amendment to the House and submit my argument to hon. Members in support of it. As I said, I had waited for my opportunity night after night, but found that on one evening the Government had discharged their business at ten o'clock at night. This Bill was the next in order, but they refused to go on, and I therefore think that the proper course to pursue now is to invite the Chief Secretary to say whether or not we should not deal with this matter in another place, or, if that be

  1589
  not possible, he will take action now on this Clause. I acknowledge that my remarks may be somewhat irrelevant to the Clause actually under consideration, but I thought I would avail myself of this opportunity of drawing attention to the point, in regard to which there has been a departure from a pledge given on the part of the Government.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I want to refer to what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. The Solicitor-General has said that there can be no proceeding against the surety where the principal to the contract under this Clause is not liable. But it is quite clear that on the words of the Clause that sureties are not relieved? At the end of the Clause the words are, "that necessity-is a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference." That is interference by a Government Department, and the person concerned is the party to the contract. The sureties do not take part in the business of the contract. The only point which concerns them is that they are under a penalty in case they become responsible under their obligation. There is no good defence for them, therefore, because the good defence is expressly confined to the person of any contract interfered with by the necessity of complying with the requirement, regulation, or restriction of any Government Department. I cannot see why the Solicitor-General, if he wants to have his law clear, should not now make it clear in the case of sureties.
  Sir G. HEWART: Two points have been raised, one in reference to Clause 1 and one in reference to this Clause. I will deal, first, with the present Clause. If I follow the hon. Member, the complaint is that Clause 3 does not in express or in sufficient terms apply to the case of sureties, and I am asked to make the law more clear. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will again look at the Clause he will see that it is reasonably clear. It is provided by the Clause that certain events, if they happen, are to be a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against a person in respect of the non-fulfilment of a contract, so far as it is due to the kind of interference with which the Clause is concerned. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks back at the early part of the Clause he will find that the interference which is spoken of is a
  1590
  necessity on the part of himself or any other person. I cannot imagine that in those circumstances a surety could be with success sued. With regard to Clause 1 I was a little surprised to hear that the hon. and learned Member was not satisfied with the attention I gave to the observations which he made about the Amendment he proposed to move. I thought I satisfied him that the point which he proposed to raise was not a point which it was necessary to raise.
  Mr. CLANCY: The conversation lasted two minutes.
  Sir G. HEWART: When the Bill came on the hon. and learned Member was not in his place, but he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that for that or any other reason his Amendment was not carefully considered. My answer to him was, and still is, that an Amendment that there should be power to bring the sureties before the Court is unnecessary, for this reason: If the sureties were not before the Court they could only be relieved by the action of the Court and if it was not desired that they should be relieved the party who thought so could and would bring them before the. Court.
  Mr. CLANCY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously say that any Court of the land would make an order adversely affecting a party not before the Court?
  Sir G. HEWART: So far from saying that, I have affirmed the exact opposite. What I said was that if the sureties were not there, and if the Court suspended or annulled the contract, that is not something adverse to the sureties, but relieves them.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask whether the Clause as it stands goes so far as to protect people bound by debenture deeds in certain cases with regard to certain premises?
  Sir G. HEWART: It is a little difficult to decide whether the terms of the Clause cover a particular case or obligation when all the materials are not before one, but if I rightly follow the question the hon. Baronet has put to me, that kind of case is covered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, after the word "authority"["naval or mili-

  1591
  tary authority"], to insert the words "under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm."
  The Clause as it stands provides:" Where the fulfilment by any person of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on the part of himself or any other person of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of any Government Department, or of a competent naval or military authority." In the Clause for which this was substituted there were words limiting its scope to acts done under Acts relating to the Defence of the Realm. I propose, therefore, to insert those words here. The effect is to limit the scope of the provision, and it was always intended that some such limitation should be inserted.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will not introduce these words for this reason. As I pointed out on the previous Clause, this provision would not cover particular power which has been exercised by the naval authority or Admiralty. That is a sort of power or title paramount or prerogative, not dependent on any statute or any regulation, and not covered by the Clause as originally drafted. If you insert these words you limit the naval or military authority to the statutory powers. Thus you precisely avoid giving protection that was desirable and would have been useful in a case called to my attention in which the Admiralty insisted upon what I may call a prerogative right which did not depend on any statutory authority. That is one of the main reasons I had in my mind when I moved this particular Clause. I did so on a request made to me by one of the learned leaders in the Courts who directed my attention to this power of the Admiralty. I think these words proposed are unfortunate, because they bring back the restriction to those vested in the authority by Statutes. I can well believe that in the number of matters which he has had to attend to the hon. and learned Gentleman may have overlooked the point I put to him, but I hope he will look further into the words, and that if he proposes to put them in in the case of the military authority, he will limit the provision so as to cover the point which I put to him.
  Mr. PETO: I desire to reinforce what has just been said. When this Clause was put in substitution for what was Clause 2
  1592
  of the Bill the building trades, who are very much interested in this Bill, immediately wrote to me to know what this meant. They took the most careful and most thorough legal opinion on the Clause. They saw that it was a fair substitution and better than the Clause as originally drafted, and were satisfied with it. The House has not been sitting for the last ten days, and I really do protest against Amendments that are not. so far as I am aware, even in manuscript but merely read out on the Report stage, altering the words of a Clause which has been the subject of minute consideration by parties outside this House and which they have been prepared to accept. What reason is there why we could not have had these Amendments printed some time within the last ten days, and so know where we are? Therefore I must protest as strongly as possible against the Solicitor-General making this further Amendment in this Clause. The other was more or less verbal, but this is of substance, and I do not know that it is at all certain that it does not mean litigation and disputes as to whether particular interference with the contract is under Regulation of the Defence of the Realm or not. I do not know whether ordinary powers of requisition constantly exercised can be properly held to be under special Act passed for the period of the War only. It seems perfectly unnecessary from the lay point of view to introduce this limitation It does not matter to the contractor who has got to perform the contract if the Government stops the performance of the contract whether they act under one authority or another. I ask that the party should not be required to show the particular authority at all vested in the Government, but that the fact that the Government so interfered should be quite sufficient reason for the contractor getting relief provided by this Clause. I can see no reason for the Amendment, and I can see strong reason against it.
  Sir G. HEWART: The words which I had first thought to introduce were these, "made or imposed for purposes connected with the present War," but I have proposed these other words. It is desirable that there should be a restriction of some kind. But I readily recognise the difficulty of discussing a matter of this nature upon an Amendment which has not been printed, and therefore I will not now persist with this Amendment. Before the

  1593
  Bill becomes law I will take another opportunity of considering words that may fulfil the object which the Government have in view.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Perhaps the House will allow me to thank the Solicitor-General for undertaking to 8.0 P.M. consider this matter. I quite appreciate the intention he has, and I am sure that if words can be found he will define the object the meaning of which he has stated.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I hope the Solicitor-General will give due weight to this matter. The words "for the purposes of the War" seem to me to meet the situation, but I know cases in which instructions have been given which were not actually covered by any particular provisions in the Defence of the Realm Act. They were instructions which could not be disregarded, but it might be disputed whether they were covered by any provision in the Defence of the Realm Act. I think if the form taken is "for the purposes of the War" it will meet the objection, but I think something of the kind ought to be done.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Sums made Irrecoverable by 5 and 6 Geo. 5, c. 97.)
  (1) Where any sum has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been paid on account of any rent or mortgage interest, being a sum which by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, would have been irrecoverable by the landlord or mortgagee, the sum so paid shall be recoverable from the landlord or mortgagee by the tenant or mortgagor by whom it was paid, and may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be deducted by such tenant or mortgagor from any rent or interest payable by him to the landlord or mortgagee.
  (2) If any person in any rent book or similar document makes an entry showing or purporting to show any tenant as being in arrears in respect of any sum which by virtue of the said Act is irrecoverable, or if, where any such entry has before the passing of this Act been made by or on behalf of any landlord, the landlord, on being requested by or on behalf of the tenant so to do, refuses or neglects to
  1594
  delete the entry, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding-ten pounds.
  Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "whether before or"["where any sum. has, whether before or after"].
  Since this new Clause was printed--it is not, of course, in the original Bill—it has created some interest and perhaps anxiety among people who have in mind the relation between landlord and tenant. The difficulty that the parties interested see is the apportionment of rates and rating which has gone on in a good many cases where there have been increases, and it would be a difficult matter of account to settle up these outstanding cases. It would seem, therefore, to the parties most interested that if the Solicitor-General could see his way to leave out the words "whether before or," and make the Clause read "after the passing of this Act," it would be better. I hope he will see his way to grant this.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I hope the Solicitor-General will not accept this Amendment, because part of the trouble which has; arisen in connection with this matter is covered by words in the Bill. The complaints which have reached me and many other Members of the House in regard to these matters are complaints which go a very long way back. There is a remedy provided now in the Bill, and if the words are left out, as suggested by the hon. Member opposite, that remedy will not apply in those cases. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will refuse to. accept them.
  Sir G. HEWART: I fear I cannot accept this Amendment. The Act which is being amended provided that these excess rents should not be recoverable by the landlord notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Nevertheless, in fact, as we know,. rents in excess have sometimes been claimed and paid. All this Section is doing is to provide that in cases where that has happened the tenant may recover back the excess. I see no reason for taking out the words as suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I am glad the Solicitor-General has refused to accept the Amendment. I think it would add to the difficulty of the whole question in relation

  1595
  to these rents. Only recently, since the Debates on the Committee stage of this Bill, most of us have received an enormous quantity of correspondence showing us cases where the rents have been raised far and away back in 1914, and where the people are actually paying that rent at the present time. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that only in my correspondence to-day there is an account from a paper of the Debates on this Bill, and of people having been advised not to pay any more of these rents.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to ask a question on this Clause as it stands. The terms are made retrospective. Suppose that before this Act was passed a mortgagor and a mortgagee have agreed that the mortgagor should pay an increased rate of interest owing to the increased value of money during the War, and that an agreement has been arrived at without any undue pressure on the part of the mortgagee, and the mortgagor is quite competent to look after himself and make an agreement knowing what he is doing. Could the mortgagor, although that increased rate had been paid by him under no compulsion, but purely voluntarily under an agreement with the mortgagee, turn round and say, "True it is that I paid this increased interest by agreement, but under this Clause I can demand it back" I Am I right in thinking that that is the effect of the Clause? If so, it appears to me a most extraordinary form of legislation. Let me illustrate in this way. The mortgagor and mortgagee may be on perfectly fair terms of bargaining. The mort-gagee may say, "Ten years ago I lent you money at 3½or 4 per cent." Now the normal rate is 5 or 6 per cent., and the mortgagee may then say to the man to whom he lent money, "I should like to increase the rate of interest." The mortgagor may perfectly well, consistent with looking after himself, say, "I want to be on good terms with my mortgagee; I will pay him one-half per cent. more. [Laughter.] Yes, that is quite an intelligible thing, especially with a view to the future. The mortgagor may, as I say, being desirous of being on good terms with his mortgagee, say," I will pay you one-half per cent. more. "Do I really understand that the effect of this Clause is that, although an agreement of that sort had been entered into perfectly voluntarily the mortgagor may go back on it under this Clause and say," True it is I
  1596
  have given you some more interest, but give it me back"? I said a moment ago that it may be desirable for a mortgagor to be on good terms with his mortgagee. Let me illustrate what I mean. As soon as the War is over the mortgagee in most cases will be entitled to call in his loan, and with a view to avoiding such a result the mortgagor may very well say, "It will pay me now to pay an additional rate of interest to my mortgagee so that he may not call in the loan immediately the War is over, and that I may have the advantage of having my loan continued although the War has come to an end." For that reason he may be willing to pay an increased rate of interest. I would ask the Solicitor-General to tell me how the matter stands, and whether this Clause really has the very extraordinary result I have suggested?.
  Mr. BILLING: Before the Solicitor-General replies I would like to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has used an argument which does not on the face of it appear to be sound. I have never in my experience known a case of a man who has borrowed money from another man and has requested him to increase the rate of interest. There are very few people who have borrowed money who would not be glad to find that they were going to have a refund under this Act. I do not see that the good feeling between these two gentlemen would be in any way affected. If by law the one who has lent is not entitled to increase the rate of interest, then if the one who has borrowed wants to get on good terms with this particular financier there is nothing easier than for him to say, "Although the law docs not permit me to pay a larger rate of interest now I shall be very pleased to pay it when the War is over." I cannot see any reason why the introduction of this Clause should cause any friction between two men who have had a financial transaction. I suggest that the Clause should remain as it is.
  Sir G. HEWART: The hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention to one particular hard case which may arise under a Clause designed to relieve an enormous number of hardships. Let us see exactly what is the position first. The hon. and learned Gentleman supposes a case in connection with which, contrary to the Act of 1915, there has been what I may call an excessive rate of interest.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Increased, not excessive.
  Sir G. HEWART: Excessive within the meaning of the Act of 1915, otherwise this proposed Clause has no bearing on the matter. It deals only with the excess interest, so far as it deals with interest at all, which under the Act of 1915 is irrecoverable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. What has happened hitherto, therefore, is in the case supposed that the mortgagee has relied on the good will of the mortgagor to continue to pay a rate of interest which, ex hypothcsi, is irrecoverable. He may go on doing so.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(3) This Section shall be construed as one with the Increase of Kent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915."
  Probably that would be sufficiently inferred from the Clause as it stands, but I desire to make it quite clear.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Belief from Disqualification for Membership of House of Commons in Certain Cases.)
  (1) Whereas by reason of the emergencies of the present War Members of the Commons House of Parliament have sometimes been, or may hereafter be, required to supply property to, or to permit the use thereof by, a Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, it is hereby declared that none of the provisions of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1782, or of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 180], shall be construed so as to extend to a contract or agreement entered into during the present War as to the price or compensation to be paid for any property so requisitioned or taken or as to any other terms on which any property so requisitioned or taken is to be handed over or supplied.
  (2) This Section shall not affect any legal proceedings instituted before the twenty-first day of February, nineteen hundred and seventeen.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "instituted"["legal proceedings instituted"], to insert the words "or any action committed."
  In view of the fact that the Adjournment is to be moved at 8.15, I doubt
  1598
  whether I shall have an opportunity of proceeding with this Amendment.
  It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

"NATION"NEWSPAPER.

  FOREIGN CIRCULATION (SUPPRESSION).
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I make this Motion in order to discuss a recent administrative action, taken in the first instance by an isolated Department of the Government, but for which now the Government as a whole has assumed responsibility. This particular action raises in an acute form a question which has been frequently raised before in the course of the War, namely, the question of the freedom of the expression and publication of opinion. Upon that question, whatever may be the record of others in this House, I think I can lay claim to complete consistency. On the first occasion upon which the question of the suppression of a newspaper arose I had the honour, with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) of championing the cause of a Tory editor, the late Tory editor of the "Globe" newspaper. On another occasion, only a few months later, it was also my duty to challenge the personal action of the present Prime Minister, at that time Minister of Munitions, in suppressing a Glasgow Socialist newspaper for giving a fairly accurate report of a notorious meeting which he held with certain workmen in Glasgow. I did not suspect that it would ever be necessary for me to have to challenge the conduct of the Government in regard to any Liberal editor. Their conduct up to the present has been so unimpeachable. Their docility and tameness have bordered upon servility, and in consequence it was not to be expected that even the most autocratic Government would quarrel either with the reports which they gave or with the opinions which they published. On this occasion, however, the new Government has raised this issue in a specially challenging form. They have taken issue with one of the great organs of opinion in this

  1599
  country, an organ which is regarded by the great majority of one of the parties in the State as one of the best exponents of its views and which has a long and consistent record of fearless, independent, and able advocacy of Liberal principles.
  In answer to a question to-day the Leader of the House informed us that the foreign circulation of this paper had been stopped because certain articles which had appeared in it on the 3rd and 10th of March had helped the enemy. No man in this House, and I think we may say no man in this country, desires to see any publication in this country or anything done in this country which will assist our enemies, and if there were any real foundation for the case that anything published in this or in any other newspaper would be of material assistance to the enemy in obtaining a decision in his favour in this War, then we should say that such a publication should be dealt with, but at least that those responsible for the publication should have the advantage of a fair and just trial. But what has happened in the present case? The offending articles appeared on the 3rd and 10th March, and no notice was taken of them. No communication was made to the editor or to the publishers of the newspaper. Two, three, four, five weeks were allowed to elapse, and nothing was done. Then the first intimation made was an announcement sent by the War Office to the foreign agents of the paper to the effect that the foreign circulation would be no longer allowed. It is peculiarly gratifying that the Prime Minister, in the midst of the heavy responsibilities which rest upon him in the conduct of a great war, should have come to the House to defend the suppression of a great Liberal paper. Of course, this method of dealing with a newspaper is not quite a novel method. I had not realised before that other papers had been placed on the index, as it were for export. The "Labour Leader," and the "Herald," which, I think better than any paper represents the popular view of the Russian revolution in this country, are forbidden export abroad. I am also told that a paper which has assumed the challenging name of "Common Sense" has received the same treatment, but there may be some excuse in the latter instance on the ground that, in war-time, of common sense there is no exportable surplus in this country. Certainly the action of the Government in
  1600
  certain directions would drive one to that conclusion. But what is the offence in the present instance? We have had a number of official and semi-official statements regarding the matter. There are certain newspapers which have more or less excellent claims to inspiration at the present time. We have, for example, the "Daily Chronicle," which was the first to tell us what exactly had happened and how far the Government was responsible. We find this in the "Daily Chronicle":
  "Writing on Saturday last, Mr. H. W. Massingham, editor of the 'Nation, referring to the fact that no copies of the current issue of that publication were allowed to be dispatched to its subscribers and purchasers abroad, said, Mr. Lloyd George's Government has now added British Liberalism to the list of prohibited exports. There is no justification for such an odious imputation against the Prime Minister":
  That is an odious imputation which they are going to defend to-night and which was defended by question and answer this afternoon. The article to which I am referring goes on:
  "Inquiries made by a 'Daily Chronicle' representative have elicited that the Government have had nothing whatever to do with this insensate prohibition."
  The Prime Minister has come down in person to-night to defend what the "Daily Chronicle," his inspired organ, describes as an insensate prohibition.
  "The responsibility for it belongs to the Intelligence Department of the War Office. Neither the Government nor the Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office appear to have been consulted or informed on the subject."
  The Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office, mark you, have never been consulted on the subject, yet we are told that, in the view apparently of some unknown official in the War Office, the article was calculated to help the Germans. But we have an equally, if not more, inspired oracle in the Press in the evening paper which is known as the "Pall Mall Gazette." I always go there because I realise it is really the fountain head for information regarding His Majesty's Government. If the First Commissioner of Works has ploughed up a new park, or if a new controller has been appointed, or if a new circular has been issued, the first news of it is sure to be in the "Pall Mall Gazette." If you see it in the "Pall Mall Gazette" it must be so! In the "Clubman's Gossip" the explanation is this:
  "The exploration put forward by the military gentleman responsible is that the paper was quoted in enemy countries. This in itself is no sufficient excuse for Government action. Everything depends on the actual nature of the matter which was published in the book, and if this was in any respect against the interests of this country, the editor should be called upon to answer any allegations that may be put

  1601
  forward. In this way there would be the advantage of a fair trial, and the public would be able to judge for themselves as to the real merits of the case."
  That is a sound, legal, constitutional, and British doctrine, not the method of the lettre de cachet, or the Russian ukase.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It was done by the late Government!
  Mr. PRINGLE: Of course, I said what I did say about the late Government, as my hon. Friend says, and not always with his support. I continue the quotation:
  "Instead of this course being adopted an attack is made by a military gentleman without any explanation, which is so utterly anti-British in its character that the sooner the matter is put right the better for the Government.…"
  I thoroughly agree with that doctrine. Apparently it is to be put right by a defence of this method of administrative action, by the edict and ukase, and not by regular methods, by the fair, legal, and constitutional method of trial. We have another advantage. The "Pall Mall Gazette" comes to our rescue once more. It anticipated the answer which the Leader of the House was able to give us this afternoon. Last night it told us that
  "The justification was the artiole which appeared on the 3rd of March, and that the matter was in the course of yesterday afternoon receiving the attention of the War Cabinet."
  As I said before, if we see it here, it must be so! I find in this article that certain passages which were quoted by the German Wireless are italicised. I will read the whole of the passages, so that the House may be in a position to judge of the terrible character of the opinions expressed:
  "The event towards which our efforts had been directed for almost five continuous months has at length come to pass."
  That is the German withdrawal, and that is the intimation that our efforts had succeeded. The writer goes on to say:
  "It found our soldiers wanting."
  That is, that they were taken by surprise, which everybody knows to be the case.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why cannot you read it without making comments on it?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am entitled to make comments on a quotation if I wish to do so.
  "The greatest retreat on the West since the Marne has taken place; but in this case almost all the honours go to the enemy."
  I thought that was admitted by nearly every journal in this country at the present
  1602
  time. That is the whole passage which was quoted in the German Wireless. The context is this:
  "It is true we cannot pass any final judgment upon the retirement until we know its dimensions. But we know something of its manner, and it is not encouraging. For some time our Army has been relentlessly pressing the sector from which the Germans retreated, yet we find that the enemy silently slips away, leaving few prisoners or material behind him. When the Russians escaped from Warsaw by the sacrifice of a strong rearguard and the garrison of Novo Georgievsk, we justly appreciated their achievement. But the Germans evacuated Grandcourt without our knowledge,and they have since abandoned one place after another, Seare, Miraumont, Warlencourt, which we had been battering and isolating for weeks, and have staved off pursuit with a handful of snipers."
  That is a pure and simple recitation of the facts. The most interesting thing of all in this matter is that an exactly similar account of the situation was given by the "Times" newspaper:
  "We must be careful not to exaggerate the possible consequences. It has yet to be seen how far the enemy will go.… The loss of their elaborate entrenchments may not be quite the sacrifice it seems.… The change will impose increasing demands on our troops; it may require modifications of training and it will certainly tax more severely the capacity of commanders of all grades. Again, we may take it as quite certain that the present German movement on the Somme and the Ancre imply an intention on the part of the enemy to shorten their line. If, as may be expected, they ultimately shorten it by many miles they will have additional reserves in hand for special objects. But the German withdrawal may mean far more to us. It may temporarily disarrange our plans for the spring campaign. If our preparations have been made in the expectation of finding the enemy on a certain line, and when the time comes to strike he is many miles behind that line, delay is inevitable. Probably the German Staff, whose decision to fall back was not made yesterday, have fully counted upon these considerations".
  All showing the same conclusion, that at this period the German withdrawal was a calculated movement on their part in respect of which our troops had been unable to interfere. There is another organ of the Press which was even more emphatic—that is the "Observer." Here is what Mr. Garvin says:
  "The retreat was bound to be represented by the Germans as a supreme triumph of Hindenburg's genius, baulking the Allies, establishing Germans on another yet still stronger line, and even serving the profound purpose of some mysterious offensive plan, which would expose the Western Allies to overwhelming defeat in a more gigantic Tannenberg."
  Then he describes it as "a military masterpiece of which nothing could have been more competent, inasmuch as it left the German armies absolutely intact and was calculated to severely dislocate our own arrangements on this part of the front." I am only giving a couple of extracts, and I do not wish to overburden the House. There were articles of a-similar tenour in the "Daily Mail." We all know that the "Times" and the "Daily Mail" have far larger circulations on the Continent and

  1603
  abroad than any other newspapers in this country, consequently the news and the views which they report are calculated to have a far greater effect in helping the enemy than anything which appears in a paper of a more limited circulation. Yet while the "Nation" is penalised for putting this view of the German retreat, absolutely no action whatever is taken regarding these other offenders, if, indeed, they are offenders. I do not deny that the article from which I have quoted is a pessimistic article. But pessimism, I should have thought, was the last thing that the Prime Minister would have banned. We all remember a great attack made by a former Home Secretary, in a Government of which the present Prime Minister was a member, on the "Times" and the "Daily Mail," and what was the attack made upon those newspapers? It was that they were circulating news and views abroad which were seriously prejudicing the position of the Allies with neutrals. I have taken the trouble to look up that Debate, and I find this statement there by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in dealing with the particular article in the "Daily Mail":
  "I do not say that this particular article hart that particular effect on that particular man, or anything of that kind, but it is common sense that such articles as those published by the great official Press, and by the newspaper most widely read next to that one on the Continent, must have had a discouraging effect upon our friends in Bulgaria, and an effect tending to produce the impression that we really were done for, that our workers were idlers and drunkards, and things of that kind, and are not really prepared to make the sacrifice necessary in order to carry this War to a triumphant conclusion."— [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 30th November, 1915, col. 600. Vol. LXXAVI.]
  That was the view put forward at that time by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs speaking from the knowledge he had at the Foreign Office. Yet the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman then was a member, took no action whatever to interfere with the foreign circulation of these papers. It is true that he himself, as I have indicated, has been a great dispenser of pessimism. I think no man has said more to give comfort to the enemy in this War than the present Prime Minister. I do not say he has done it for unpatriotic motives; I do not say so for a moment. I think he was doing it from the point of view of enabling the country to have a true appreciation of the situation, just as I believe this article was intended for the same purpose. Let me quote what he said about another great
  1604
  retreat—a retreat, by the way, which was represented as a considerable triumph by the military writer in the"Nation"— but this was the view of the present Prime Minister:
  "With the resources of Great Britain, France and Russia, yea, of the whole industrial world at the disposal of the Allies, it is obvious that the Central lowers have still an overwhelming superiority in all the materials and equipments of war. The result of this deplorable fact is exactly what might have been foreseen. The iron heel of Germany has sunk deeper than ever into French and Belgian soil; Poland is entirely German, Lithuania is rapidly following; Russian fortresses. deemed impregnable, are falling like sand castles before the resistless tide of Teutonic invasion."
  Yet the man who said that is objecting to these inoffensive remarks of a military critic in the "Nation," on the ground that it is helping the enemy. Could there be anything more preposterous and absurd?
  I come to the other point. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo suggested that this line of thought on the part of military writers was expressly enjoined upon them by the secret Press instructions of the Government. These instructions on two separate occasions enjoined these writers to state to the public of this country that we should look for no striking military success, that we should not exaggerate, but that we should rather minimise any successes that were attained—that, indeed, there was to be no great military decision. We were to look for a war of attrition, dragging on into 1918. Those were the instructions issued to the Press exactly one week before this article was published. I know for a fact that the military writer of the article has always been an optimist with regard to this War. He has always believed that our Armies could break through in the West. I am not going into that question. I think recent events have tended to prove he is right in that conclusion. He has always believed that, but, in face of that injunction, and in face of the orderly character of the German retreat without losing any guns, with a loss of hardly any prisoners— [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, at that period, before the 3rd March. This gentleman put the situation fairly as it was at that time. The strange thing is that the prohibition did not affect that particular number of the "Nation." It was applied to a number which came out last week, which gives his view of the more recent successes. He sings a paean of praise for the valour and for the capacity of British soldiers. He describes it as the

  1605
  greatest victory in the West. Surely that is the right way to put it. We have had far too much rejoicing in the Press over bogus victories of this country, and when we get a real victory the people do not know when to cheer, and that is all due to the policy of the Government. This man has been trying to put a correct account of the facts before the people of this country, so that when a great victory was won, as it was won last week, he should be able to carry the people with him and enable them to appreciate thoroughly the magnitude of the success that has been won. Surely that is not the type of critic to discourage. We used to hear in the old days a great deal about the "Hide-the-truth Press" and the "Hide-the-truth Government." The right hon. Gentleman himself in those days was one of the foremost advocates of a policy of candour and frankness. His colleague who now presides over the Admiralty equally shared that view, but their practice now with respect to certain aspects of the War is in marked contrast with the professions which they then made of the policy they then advocated. They are now not the truth-tellers but the truth-concealers, and it is in complete harmony and keeping with that character that they said, by administrative edict, interfere with the circulation of a candid, fair, and an honest opinion regarding recent military movements.
  I think I have made a case that the Government have not put forward a reason for this oppressive action which can hold water. They are ostensibly suppressing a paper for expressing an opinion regarding military operations for which they themselves, by their official notice, called for. That is practically what it amounts to. Anything more unjust or tyrannical it is impossible to conceive. Is it not obvious that the reason which has been put forward cannot be the real reason? Why have the "Times" and the "Mail" and those other papers in the past been left alone? Why have they been allowed to continue criticising military operations in much the same way as the "Nation" with complete impunity? Because they do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman, and because the editor of the"Nation"— one of the most fearless and courageous men in British journalism, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows—has had the courage not to take in every respect his marching orders either from the Press
  1606
  Bureau or from 10, Downing-street. No, Sir, there is a larger matter involved. You are stopping a paper of high reputation which puts forward well-considered and carefully balanced views, which represents the greater part of Liberal opinion in this country, as the right hon. Gentleman will find out when he wants his General Election. You are stopping that paper from going either to our Allies or to neutrals. You have here a paper which, better than any other journal or newspaper in this country, has represented the position of the United States both here and abroad, you have that paper tabooed; you have also the paper which has given the soberest and soundest views of the Russian Revolution put under edicts. Can there be anything more deplorable from the point of view of the good name and the character this country should bear among other nations? We have rejoiced and the Prime Minister himself has ontrivalled his own eloquence in praising the Russian revolutionists in setting up freedom of opinion in Russia and abolishing the censorship there. He has welcomed with open arms the advent of President Wilson into the War, but the men who are most sympathetic, and the organs of opinion which are most sympathetic both with I resident Wilson and with the Russian Revolution are to be dealt with by the iron hand of this Government.
  It is not only America and the other Allies who will suffer. This paper, which gives a considered view of our politics both in relation to the War and in relation to domestic affairs, is not to go to the men in the trenches. We are told that these Gentlemen on the Government Bench are anxious to have a General Election in which the men in the trenches are going to vote. But what sort of vote is it going to be when you are going to suppress every opinion which criticises you and with which you disagree? Is that the way to obtain an intelligent verdict from the soldiers in the trenches, who are surely as much entitled as the people at home to? know exactly what is transpiring here? No, they are to be favoured with the "Daily Mail" and "John Bull" These are the brands of Liberalism which the right hon. Gentleman is going to export to our fellow-countrymen who are fighting our battles, and the old watchwords are to be heard no more. Upon every ground of public policy this is a regrettable matter, and I trust before this Debate is over

  1607
  the Government will be able to announce the withdrawal of this most objectionable edict.
  Mr. BARTON: I beg formally to second the Motion.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have to claim the indulgence and courtesy of the House, and I regret that I was not able to be present at the commencement of the Debate. I had an engagement at 8.15 at the American Embassy, but I found myself called upon to take part in this Debate, and I hope the House, after I have stated what I have to say, will not regard it as an act of discourtesy if I do not remain. No act of discourtesy is intended, but my engagement is a dinner to the very distinguished naval officials who have come over from the United States of America. I should not have been down here at all except for the fact that my name has been directly associated with the subject matter of the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. He has stated that it was asserted in the "Daily Chronicle" that I was in no way responsible for the prohibition of the export of the "Nation" newspaper, and that is substantially accurate. I had nothing to do with the paraparagraph that appeared in the "Daily Chronicle," but it is an absolute statement of the fact; and the first I heard of the prohibition of the "Nation" newspaper was Mr. Massingham's letter in the "Times." I want to state that at the very outset, because I want to make it clear that if any action was taken against the "Nation" newspaper, it was not on account of any attacks it had made upon me or any other member of the Government, and it was done in the ordinary course of the action of a Government Department following precedents which had been set by the late Government.
  I want to make that quite clear to the House. The Government who issued this i edict were carrying out the policy initiated by the late Government, and: they carried it out by means of the same officer and in exactly the same manner. What was the policy of the late Government with regard to prohibition of the export of newspapers? They drew a distinction between the suppression of a newspaper at home and prohibiting the export of that paper abroad. The first would be undoubtedly an interference with freedom of discussion at home, which is
  1608
  sometimes absolutely necessary, but the other was put upon a totally different ground. The prohibition of the export of certain newspapers was put on the ground that if they were sent abroad they would tend to encourage the enemy. What was one of the first cases in which that policy was carried out? It was the "Labour Leader." It was forbidden to export the "Labour Leader" out of Great Britain, but there was no interference with its publication here. There were very violent articles in that paper, and there were articles which not merely criticised the Government and members of the Government, but condemned the War, and, as far as I know, there has been no suppression of that newspaper and no attempt to interfere with its articles. The late Government discovered that the articles in that newspaper were quoted abroad to the encouragement of the enemy and undoubtedly to encourage the enemy. [An HON. MEMBER:"NO!"] Undoubtedly it did encourage the enemy, with the result that the late Government took the step of forbidding the export of the "Labour Leader."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It was the War Office.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I am coming to that, and I am going to say what happened in that case. The War Office, in conjunction with the Home Office, stopped the "Labour Leader," and the same official of the War Office who has operated here consulted the Home Office. After obtaining the assent of the Home Office, the "Labour Leader" was forbidden, and probably that fact remains up to this very hour. The same official acted here with the consent of the same Department, but in the case of the "Labour Leader," representing a powerful section of the nation, was there any Motion for the Adjournment? Did my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pringle) get up in the House of Commons and move the Adjournment of the House?
  Mr. HEALY: Or the "Skibbereen Eagle."
  The PRIME MINISTER: There was a question put in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). The House of Commons was notified of the fact that the same thing had been done there as has now been done in the case of the "Nation," and

  1609
  there was not a single word of protest except from the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Might I interrupt my right hon. Friend?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I would rather not, because I want to get on.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend said that what has been done in the case of the "Nation" was exactly the same thing as was done in the case of the "Labour Leader." Would he explain to the House what the same thing is?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I say that the same thing was done, and I am going to tell my right hon. Friend what was done. He must really allow me to finish.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The question was quite plain. Give us an answer.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman at the end of my speech finds that I have not given him an answer, he had better ask me, but he must allow me to go on. What happened in the case of the "Labour Leader" is exactly as I have stated. The War Office official consulted the Home Office, and the Home Office—there was then a Liberal Home Secretary—assented to the prohibition. What was the ground for that action? The ground was that the articles in the "Labour Leader" were encouraging the enemy, and that they ought not to be sent abroad. Exactly the same thing has happened in this case.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not so.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Let us see what has happened. For some time articles have appeared in the "Nation" pressing for peace on the ground—that was the general drift of the argument— that a military victory was impossible and that it was practically a deadlock. You may say that is a perfectly proper thing for discussion amongst ourselves, and it may be. The Government took that view. They have not interfered with any discussion on that ground. It is a very different thing, however, when you get articles in a paper which not merely claims to speak for Liberalism, but in the columns of which Liberals in the House of Commons claim that it is a most important spokesman of the whole of the party. When these articles first appeared, the view of the Foreign Office was that the actual copies of the paper in which they appeared ought
  1610
  to be prohibited, but by that time the articles had appeared, the paper had gone, and you could not be it. The articles continued, and they culminated in an article— because the whole drift of the articles was on these lines—which appeared on the 3rd March. If my hon. Friends will look at the "Nation" week by week they will find that was the general drift of the argument.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No, it was not.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Let us see what was said on the 3rd March.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can you give any instance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am going to give an instance now. Let us see what was said on the 3rd March, because that was the article upon which action was taken. Let me read just an extract. I am reading this extract from the copy which was circulated by the German wireless agency throughout the whole of the neutral countries:
  "The outlook is thus threatening and almost critical on the sea. But this may now also be said of the War upon land—"
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I forget whether that was quoted by my hon. And learned Friend.
  "The event to which our efforts have been directed for almost five continuous months has at length come to pass, but it has found our soldiers wanting—"
  Mr. SCOTT: Did the "Nation" write that?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. "It has found our soldiers wanting."[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]
  "The greatest retreat in the West, since the Marne, has taken place; but in this case almost all the honours go to the enemy."
  HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
  9.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is no use quoting articles, whether from the "Times" or "The Daily Chronicle" or any other paper, which are military criticisms upon the retreat. That is one thing, but where is there a single passage in any paper of that kind which says that our soldiers have been found wanting? "The honours belong to the enemy." After two or three years of the most gallant fighting that has ever been seen upon land or sea our soldiers are found wanting! What is the good of quoting articles which contain criticisms of the German retreat and what it means! I am told that this

  1611
  is Liberalism. There ape letters which have been published, some of them last week in the "Nation," from right hon. Friends of mine saying that it represents Liberalism, and that it is a suppression of a report of public opinion. Is that the public opinion of this country? Another hon. Gentleman said that it is the view of the great body of sober Liberalism throughout the country. Is it really the view of sober Liberalism that our soldiers have been found wanting? I do not believe it. I decline absolutely to take that view.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Then there is no reason to suppress it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no reason to suppress it! Let my hon. Friend wait. I have only spoken for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and I listened to my hon. and learned Friend in the most absolute silence and patience during the whole time of his speech. Let us see what happened. First of all, these three Government Departments I have mentioned considered this article separately. The first was the War Office, which actually issued the edict, the second was the Home Office, the third was the Propaganda Department, which is in the Foreign Office, and, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) reminds me, it was also considered by the Foreign Office itself. Four Departments of the Government considered it separately, and they each of them came to exactly the same conclusion, that it was extraordinarily mischievous to allow articles of that kind to be circulated.
  Mr. HOGGE: What else could you expect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Let me put another fact. We had actual representations from headquarters in France about this article, saying that it was most discouraging to the soldiers that things of this kind should be published. Of course it is. To circulate articles in a paper which claims to represent a party which is half of the population of this country and which claims to be the spokesman of that party, saying that our soldiers have been found wanting, that they have been outmanœuvred by the enemy, and sentences of that kind, of course discourages them. Here there were these five different representations, and upon those representations, much stronger than in the case of
  1612
  The "Labour Leader"—in the case of the "Labour Leader" two Departments considered it, and in this case four separate Departments considered it, and there was in addition representations from France— the same action exactly was taken as was taken in the case of the "Labour Leader" without any protest from any section of the House of Commons at all. I have no hesitation in saying that not merely did it encourage the enemy, but that the enemy thought so themselves. What did they do? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) is very amused at an article which attacks our soldiers in France and which says they are found wanting. What is there amusing in that?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very easy for my right hon. Friend to say things of this kind, but if he says them he must wait to hear the reply to them.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I listened to my opponents with absolute civility. I never sneered; I never laughed. My right hon. Friend must learn to listen to his opponents in the same sort of way, and when he does he will be treated exactly the same way as I claim the right to be treated myself. In these circumstances, I ask, what could any Government Department have done, unless it had departed from the policy which was laid down by the late Government?
  Mr. PRINGLE: That is why you got rid of them!
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no! They were not got rid of because they protected the honour of our soldiers in France.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why were they got rid of? [HON MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I think the House desires to hear the Prime Minister's speech and every other speech with as little interruption as possible.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is the position with regard to this article. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no interference either in the case of the "Nation" or of the "Labour Leader" with the circulation of its opinions here at home. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about America?"] America will look after its own freedom of speech. Here we are not, so far as the "Nation" is concerned, interfering with the discussion of any opinions which it chooses to put forward. I do not agree with those opinions. When

  1613
  the enemy think that articles which appear in a newspaper are an encouragement to their own forces and a discouragement to ours, and which do harm to us in neutral countries, we are entitled, for the protection not merely of our own soldiers, but for the protection of the people at home, and in order to prosecute this War, to save bloodshed and to bring it to an end at the earliest possible moment, to stop its export. Let me ask the House of Commons what an article like this means. There is no doubt at all about the economic pressure on Germany. There is no doubt in the least about the fact that they are suffering privations. There is no doubt in the least that they have constantly to make appeals to their people to keep them up to the mark. How does anyone know whether this War will end in the trenches or by economic forces, or whether it is going to be by a combination of the two? See what an article like this means! Just at the moment when the pressure is at its greatest, when the discouragement to the enemy is growing, here comes an article in a paper, which claims to be the spokesman of half the people of this country—I am not going to discuss the question whether it is—which says that in the field our soldiers have been found wanting and that they have been outmanoeuvred. Does anyone mean to say that that is not an encouragement to the enemy 2 What is the first thing the enemy do? They circulate this in every newspaper throughout their own country. If an article of that kind had appeared in a paper which claimed the same status in Germany, does anyone imagine that it would not be circulated throughout the length and breadth of this land in order to encourage our own people? Are we not entitled, when encouragements of that kind may make all the difference at any moment between peace and war, when they may make all the difference between a prolongation of the War and bringing it to an end and to the horrible bloodshed which gallant men are facing—are we not entitled to say we will take no risks about that? That is why we have done it.
  We found these articles circulating in Germany, quoted at full length, with an exaggeration of the power and influence of the paper. Here we know its power and we know its influence. We know exactly the forces behind it. We know perfectly well that it has a pacifist directorate. I would not say a word willingly against Mr. Massingham because J do not
  1614
  want this to appear as a sort of quarrel between the Government and any particular newspaper, but, at any rate, it has a purely pacifist proprietary. Articles written by some of the directors of the "Nation" have actually been picked up in the German trenches, circulated for the encouragement of their soldiers. I have one of them here. This is the point of that: the sentiments expressed in that letter are exactly the sentiments expressed in the articles in the"Nation"—it is the same thing, the same line— circulated amongst the soldiers in the German trenches, published extracts in order to encourage the German troops. Are we really not entitled to protect our own soldiers in these circumstances against the export of articles which may have the effect of prolonging the War in the judgment of every adviser we have? I agree absolutely with them. Do not let the House of Commons be misled by a very natural sentiment against anything which appears to be like a restriction on freedom of speech. There is no restriction of freedom of speech and discussion within the limits of this country.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Except in Ireland!
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as this paper is concerned there has never been the slightest interference with it on the ground of attacks on the policy of the Government or criticism of the War. We have never even attempted to suppress it on the ground even of articles of that kind. When we know the extent to which moral force counts in sustaining the strength and courage, not merely of this nation, but of the nations with whom it is warring, we are entitled at any rate to protect ourselves and to protect our soldiers by forbidding the export of material which is the greatest encouragement the enemy can possibly get.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought I understood from my right hon. Friend that he intended to remain, at any rate to listen to a single speech in reply to his. It occurred to me, and I think to most Members in the House, during the course of the admirable speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle), and still more during the impassioned oration to which we have just been privileged to listen, that we run a risk of making too much of this on both sides, and I am very sorry my right hon. Friend has not remained in order that we might have procured his assent to certain

  1615
  propositions to which I think he would very readily have agreed, and which would, I think, have shown that the differences which exist on this matter in the House are not nearly so wide as have been represented by the two very excellent orations to which we have listened. I have read these articles in the "Nation." I read them since the matter was raised at Question Time, and I am bound to say, after all this thunder that has occurred, I cannot see what reasonable ground there is for taking exception to them. If I were to take up the time of the House in reading the whole article, it would not be necessary for anyone to say anything further on the subject. The article of 3rd March in relation to the whole position in which we stand is absolutely immaterial and innocent. I say that without any reference to the opinions contained in that article, or to expressions of agreement with them or disagreement from them. You must observe a sense of proportion in these things. We have as our first resolve to beat the enemy, but we also wish to preserve some decent and sensible principles of government in this country for our own use and enjoyment, not only now but in days to come.
  This article of 3rd March consists of mere expressions of opinion on military matters couched in moderate language. There is no disclosure, such as has "often occurred in many newspapers, of military or naval facts. There is no shrewdly informed speculation about plans and forthcoming operations. That is another great danger, because really instructed discussion about future operations maybe of value to the enemy. There are no attacks of a personal character upon naval or military commanders in the field, such as might make bad feeling between them and the men who have to risk their lives on the faith of their judgment and authority. There is nothing in this article about submarines so alarmist as what was said by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the City. There is nothing so alarmist as was said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) when he described our situation at a public meeting as being one of dire peril. There is nothing in this article half so alarming or so fruitful from the point of view of enemy propaganda as that. The Prime Minister, who left the House just now, made a speech—I well remember reading it last year—in which he said the British
  1616
  Government was always too late, and he dwelt on this with all the powerful oratory and iteration which is the aid of the oratory in which he excels, and he pressed this point, and if there was anything which could have encouraged the Germans it would have been this speech by so prominent a Minister. There is nothing in this article like that. We must look at facts. Rhetoric, prejudicial arguments, all these things have their place, but there must be cool and loyal study of facts in the House of Commons. Everything in this article makes mild reading compared with the Dardanelles Report from the point of view of public confidence. If the House will allow me to say so, I noticed several very objectionable passages about that Report—very objectionable. But we must not allow personal matters to come into these questions. Then there are in this article a series of, I must say, fairly obvious remarks about the German retreat in Champagne, which was being proclaimed as an immense victory for our Armies and as a great disaster for the Germans. As a matter of fact, everyone now sees that the Germans were very well advised to make that retreat, and if they had been so foolish as to wait they would have suffered under the massed artillery of our Army the same kind of ill-usage as they have received in front of Arras. But that seems to be a very cogent and a very reasonable observation to have made at that time, and I cannot conceive what there is improper in it. Anyhow, it was an unauthoritative, unofficial expression of opinion, not accompanied by disclosure of information or forecasts of plans.
  We have been told by my right hon. Friend, who has just left us, that it discourages our troops. Has it discouraged our troops? Does he really think that our troops in the trenches, in close and continual contact with reality, knowing the whole of this as no other human beings can know it, are going to be discouraged by what they read the editor of the "Nation" has said about the character of the German retreat? What they are concerned about is the demeanour of the enemy on their front and the amount of artillery support they have from their rear. They are not in the least likely to be discouraged because they know Mr. Massingham has expressed an opinion that the Germans were well advised to accelerate their retreat. They have got a great deal more dis-

  1617
  couraging and difficult obstacles to get over than that. Then we are told that it will encourage the Germans. I never thought I should hear that argument from my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister. I remember the contempt, the robust and manly contempt, with which he used to treat that argument when it was used about encouraging the Boers. He knows perfectly well, and so do most Members of this House who have been in it for the last fifteen or twenty years, that the military authorities always are inclined to resent any criticism of an unpalatable character, and to say that any criticism of that character has the effect of encouraging the enemy. It is the cheapest kind of argument, and, pushed to its logical extreme, it would lead to a universal harmonious chorus of adulation from morning to night about whatever was done until some frightful disaster took place.
  Are we really to believe that the German General Staff are going to derive encouragement from Mr. Massingham's military opinions of the present operations on the Western front? Conceive the position. Here are the great leaders of the German Army gathered together at their headquarters. They have to grapple with the most formidable problems that have ever confronted human beings. The capture of 10,000 prisoners, the forcing of great positions, the accumulation in their front of immense masses of material, 100,000,000 Americans declaring war against them, and that at this moment of deep depression there suddenly arrives the "Nation," which shows them for the first time their retreat in its true light. Then we are told, "Ah, it may not affect the Staff opinion, but what about the opinion of he German masses, the masses of the German people?" Their rations are reduced, but never mind, they have Mr. Massingham's article to encourage them. The House knows perfectly well that all the newspapers of these belligerent countries have continually throughout the War clipped unfairly extracts apart from their context, and twisted them, and made whatever mutilations they thought convenient, from newspapers of the other belligerent countries. That has been the universal system.
  Mr. DILLON: The "Times" does it every day.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the German Press is extremely fertile. I do not know what the experience of other
  1618
  Members may be, but my experience in reading the newspapers throughout this War has been that very much more frank and virile admissions are made by German newspapers than are made by our newspapers. That is not entirely due to the censorship. It is due to the fact that our newspapers very largely confine themselves to optimistic statements. There is hardly a day goes by but we see very damaging statements in the German Press, ii words can damage now. One of the most extraordinary facts of the situation is the lack of the power of words and of ideas. If words and quotations did play a real and vital part in this War, I see every day that German papers contain statements, indiscretions, criticisms, and admissions which would be of a damaging character. Does one really pretend that snippets from newspaper articles weigh for an instant or weigh for a pennyweight in forming the opinions of immense masses of millions of people, gripped by a great war and bowed under the cruellest afflictions that have ever racked the human race? Does anyone suggest that in this time of suffering and privation, universal over the nations of Christendom, that a few little snippets from newspapers, cut here and there from amongst other things, are going to influence nations, to influence their fighting value, and to make a difference in their capacity for continuing this War? It is absurd.
  Mr. HEALY: Why stop the "Irishmen"?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has struck that note four or five times.
  Mr. HEALY: I will go on doing it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend must settle that with this Government, of which he is a strong supporter.
  Mr. HEALY: This Government has not suppressed any newspapers yet.
  Mr. DEVLIN: He is only a supporter of the Government since they dropped Home Rule.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Then we are told that the Germans used these kind of articles as propaganda to mislead neutrals. I want to know what neutrals were misled by the "Nation's" article. It certainly did not mislead the United States. If we are to attribute these tremendous evil influences to occasional

  1619
  articles in a weekly newspaper, that they may, as the Prime Minister has indicated, perhaps, make the whole difference between our winning or losing the War, then it is only fair to attribute also the good things that happen. You may just as reasonably contend that it was these articles that brought the United States in. Is it not quite absurd to suggest that the people of the United States are not perfectly capable of forming their own opinions about the character of the submarine warfare or of the retreat on the Western front? Of course they are. I have studied with some attention American publications during the War, and I have been struck by. the very much greater degree of information and of impartial critical knowledge possessed by the people of the United States, as judged by their periodicals, than is possessed by the people of this country, judged by the publications we have here. Then we are told, "Anyhow the Germans have used the article." That is the real argument which the Prime Minister used. If they think it does not help them, therefore it ought not to be allowed. Do not let us exaggerate the position. Let us look at the real and important point which is at stake. The fortune and the liberty of our Press ought not to be decided or ruled by what use the German newspaper agencies choose to make of it. It ought to be decided on its own merits in regard to definite facts. The administration of this country in regard to newspapers cannot be based upon the caprice of a Munchausen department which collects tit-bits for the German wireless telegraphy. Ever since the beginning of the War the Germans have been sending snippets from all papers, not only from the "Nation." I remember when I was at the Admiralty night after night there were quotations from the "Morning Post," quotations from the "Times," and quotations from the "Daily Mail," which were very disagreeable to the Admiralty. I remember seeing those. I do not recollect that any action of this kind was taken. If the Germans had not telegraphed this quotation from the "Nation" they would have found something else just as good to serve their purpose. There is always something just as good in the vast newspapers of this country which can be cut out and used at the right moment to serve their purposes. I can see that the Government have got into a mess over this simply because, in
  1620
  the first place, their agents made a weighty matter unnecessarily of this small? point, and because they, in what I think is an undue love of power and an undue love of the assertion of arbitrary power, will not speak a few kindly words to the House of Commons, and indicate that this sort of thing will not occur again. I think that, supposing an article in a newspaper like the"Nation"—a newspaper that carries a great deal of the intellectual and moral thought of this country in association with it—became very freely quoted in the German wireless, it would be quite easy for the Censorship authorities at the War Office to send copies of the German wireless to the editor of the "Nation," pointing out to the editor that "this is the sort of use that is being made of your criticism, and we think you ought to know it." And I have very little doubt, if this were put, especially in a matter of so little importance as this, a mere academic opinion on a technical matter by persons not versed in technical affairs, that the view and wishes of the Department would have been met in a friendly and civil manner. At any rate, that seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do.
  There must be clear rules and definite principles upon which the censorship is administered. Papers have been prohibited because of sedition. There is a law on that. There are definite canons to which papers must conform or not conform. It is not a mere matter of taste of the tact of some perhaps very unqualified though very worthy person sitting in a small room at the War Office. It is impossible to make the status and position of the English Press, and the regulations applying to them, dependent upon the quotability or non-quotability of that Press by the German wireless agents. That is altogether an illegitimate foundation on which to act in regard to what is fair and right in this country. I have read these articles most attentively, and I say without any hesitation that if these articles are to be penalised, there is no criticism, however moderate, of military operations which may be printed by any paper in this country which could not be equally penalised, and if this paper is penalised there is no paper which has criticised the Government which could not equally be made the subject of these restrictions. And I hope that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), who is going to represent the Prime Minister in the later phases of this Debate, will establish a little closer con-

  1621
  tact between the opinion of the Treasury Bench and the universal, or almost universal, opinion of the House of Commons.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We will Judge that by the Division.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend is a member of a Government which is grappling with the most terrible dangers and difficulties that any body of men were ever called upon to meet. And I say in all solemnity to him, "Do not look for quarrels; do not make them; make it easy for every party, every force in this country, to give you its aid and support, and remove barriers and obstructions and misunderstandings that tend to cause superficial and apparent divergence among men whose aim is all directed to the common object of victory, on which all our fortunes depend." I say, in conclusion, that it is not a remarkable and it is not an important thing that your military censorship should behave in an unreasonable and stupid manner. That is nothing new. We have had that often before. It is unpleasant, but not nearly so unpleasant as other things that happen in war, and it is not very important. But what is important is that the Government should deliberately adopt and make a point of principle of the clumsy and erroneous behaviour of a military censor in some particular case. That is very important and very melancholy, because observe the consequence. A clumsy act of this character will be taken as a starting point for the future. It will be taken as the starting point for future acts of oppression and unreasonable and unnecessary restriction in regard to matters which are very important. I regret very much that the Government have let themselves be drawn into making this a great point of principle, when a few deft words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time to-day would have blown the whole thing into the air, and would have removed any objections and difficulties which the Government had with regard to this particular newspaper and satisfied the House of Commons, and terminated the matter on a footing of general good will. But for that purpose it is necessary that the Government should make clear that they intend to deal fairly and justly by expressions of opinion from all quarters in this country, and that they are not going to give or offer us the kind of rhetoric and argument which might do
  1622
  very well on public platforms, but is entirely unsuitable to the cool discussions in the House of Commons.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: The Prime Minister made it quite clear in his speech that he was not responsible for the suppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation," and that he knew nothing about it until after it had taken effect. But with the usual loyalty to our permanent officials he accepted responsibility for that suppression, and therefore, although most of us here are content to accept what the Prime Minister and the Government say, I think we may very well offer our contribution of criticism towards an attitude which allows one Department—for, in spite of his speech, it is only one Department—to make this attack upon Liberalism in this country. I do not speak, goodness knows, as a supporter of the "Nation" newspaper. It represents a type of cocoa-crank philanthropic Liberalism which I cordially detest. But I know perfectly well that there is not a paper in this country, whether it be the "Labour Leader" or the "Nation," or even the "Daily Mail," which has not printed during these three years of war something to which objection might be taken. Every single newspaper has done so. Every single Member of the House of Commons, who has spoken on platforms, has said things which he regretted ever afterwards. The question is clear. You allow one party in this country to watch the papers belonging to a hostile party, to which they do not belong, as the cat watches the mouse, and to take a single sentence, like this one which has been quoted ten times to-night, and to say, "Because' of that sentence we will pillory that newspaper to the whole world as an unpatriotic newspaper which is encouraging our enemy and discouraging our troops in the trenches."
  I remember not so long ago, in this House, that the "Daily Mail" published a map in regard to Bagdad which was universally held to be an encouragement of the Germans. But the "Daily Mail" was not suppressed. No! The fact of the matter is we have allowed in this matter the War Office, and the War Office alone, to decide what papers are to be penalised and what papers are not. There is nobody, if he hunts the War Office from top to bottom, but will agree with me that he will not find a Liberal in sight. You have got there a body of men who are

  1623
  brought up under certain conditions. They do not read the "Nation" normally in the War Office; they only read it to spy upon it and see what holes they can pick in it. I, and I think an enormous number of people in this House, resent very deeply taking a single sentence picked out in this way. After all, we are talking about the influence upon civilian opinion of what is published in the "Nation" newspaper. What right have the War Office in this country to decide what is the effect upon civilian opinion? They know nothing whatever about civilian opinion, or they would not have raised this hornets' nest to-day. If it is a question of civilian opinion, then let us trust civilians and not people in uniform. [The hon. Member read several passages from the "Nation."] Is an article which contains passages like those really going to throw our soldiers in the trenches into a state of depression and terror? But I am dealing with civilian opinion. I should like to lay down this proposition: If you are going to interfere with the Press, when you are dealing with a ticklish proposition like Germany, at the present day, what you should prevent from being circulated in Germany should not be those articles which make the case look black for us, but those articles which tell the Germans exactly how much of Germany we are going to secure, what we are going to do with the German people, how much indemnity we are going to get out of them, and suggesting that we should take all their mineral values as a war indemnity. There is not a man in this House who does not know perfectly well that the articles of Count Reventlow in the "Deutschland Zeitung" are examined here with the greatest possible pleasure, and if Germany knew her own business best she would prevent the publication of them in the "Deutschland Zeitung" because of their effect on opinion in this country. At bottom this is really a question of principle. Do we believe that our cause in the world at large can be benefited by strangling the expression of opinion? I do not only protest against the prohibition of the export of the "Nation," but there was, in fact, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the prohibition of the export of the "Labour Leader" and of the paper called "Commonsense," or any of the other papers, the export of which from this country was prohibited.
  1624
  If we had frankly gone through the War exporting the opinion of every little group we should have been in a better position at the present day than we are now. We should have excited not only more confidence among neutral Powers, but we should have got greater respect from them as well. Now, when we are joined in this War by the greatest democracy in the world, now when we have seen Russia become a democracy inspired and actuated by the same feelings as those with which we are ourselves imbued, is not the time to suppress ideas of liberty and Liberalism. This is not the time to interfere with expression or circulation of opinion. When I was in the United States recently I had a conversation with Colonel House, who said that the papers which he read, as representing opinion in this country, was the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Nation." I stated that I hardly knew the "Nation," but that I believed the editor of it was Mr. Massingham. Everybody in America seems to read the "Nation," and it seems to be in the same position as the "New Republic." What impression is this extraordinary action of our War Office going to make upon American public opinion and the people of America? Anything more silly could not have been invented. What does it matter whether the "Nation" is pessimistic or optimistic? What does matter is our good name, and, because of that good name, I support this Motion.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was waiting to see whether any Member of the House rose to defend the action of the Government, in order that I might offer to him some reply. No hon. Member seems ready to take that burden upon himself, and therefore I hope the House will allow me now to offer a few observations. We all welcomed the intervention in the Debate this evening of the Prime Minister. I hope that he may never have occasion to come to the House of Commons again with so weak a case. I was astonished to hear him to-day say in justification of the action that was taken in this instance, that it was done on the advice of the same Departments, and the same officials, who took certain action under the late Government. This is not a matter for Departments or for officials. This is a question of policy, which is a matter for Ministers, and when the Prime Minister said that, after all the same officials were installed in this

  1625
  Departments as were installed there a year ago, I would point out that there has been a change of Ministers, and I have no hesitation in saying that if these articles had been submitted to me when I was at the Home Office, I should not have dreamt of authorising the prohibition of the export of this paper.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Oh, yes, you would.
  Mr. SAMUEL: More remarkable still is the argument which the Prime Minister urged upon the House that the late Government prevented the transmission abroad of some newspapers, and that therefore the present Government were justified in prohibiting the transmission abroad of any newspaper, and that, whatever their action, it is covered and justified by the precedent set a year ago. Everything depends on the application in this sort of action, and every case must be judged upon its merits. The case of the "Labour Leader" was, I venture to say, with all respect to my hon. Friend who has just spoken, by no means on all fours with the "Nation." The paper called "Common Sense" was not prohibited by the late Government at all. People who read the "Labour Leader" week after week, and read the "Nation" week after week will realise at once that the two cannot be put on the same footing. The "Labour Leader" from the beginning bitterly assailed the national policy in this War; it has attributed ignoble motives to everyone concerned in the War in this country, and, in the view of many of us, it has been guilty of perversions of facts which cannot be compared with anything that has appeared in the "Nation." You might as well compare— what shall I say?—"John Bull "with the" Spectator "or the" Guardian. "If I had to choose, and if it were really the case that if you prohibited the transmission abroad of the "Labour Leader" you must also prohibit the transmission abroad of a paper of the character of the "Nation," and if the two were to go together and you could not distinguish the case of one from the other, then I would a thousand times rather let them both go whatever the disadvantages might be than prohibit the export abroad of both of those papers.
  I have looked carefully at this incriminated article of the 3rd of March. If I thought that it really justified the action that had been taken, having my-
  1626
  self so recently had the responsibility and most difficult task of judging these questions, I should without hesitation get up in this House and say so. I do not think so. It appears to me that there has been no adequate ground for such a prohibition. I disagree with very much in that article. I think it was an unfortunate article. I regret that it should in terms have belittled the achievement of our Armies in a manner which the facts did not justify. I think it is a mistake to go out of our way to pay compliments to the German command. But many newspapers have said the same thing in similar terms. It is one thing to disagree with the terms or tone of an article in the newspaper and it is one thing to disapprove of it, but it is quite another to suppress it by force of law from transmission to other countries. Not everything which may be inexpedient to print and not everything which we may even think might be of some service to enemy propaganda ought, therefore, on that ground to be prohibited from transmission abroad. If there is doubt, there is only one safe rule. If you are in doubt in these cases, and these are very difficult problems for any Minister to decide, the only safe rule is to give the decision on the side of liberty. When you have a newspaper conducted with the literary distinction which characterises the "Nation," which deals in a serious spirit with matters of great national policy, it is I believe a great mistake unless the case is overwhelmingly strong to prevent it being received by thoughtful men in other countries. You give the impression abroad that after all the national position cannot be so strong if it is necessary in this way to silence critics. It does not strengthen our case; it does not help us to win the War if we allow the idea to be spread among the free populations of the world that we are unduly surrendering our national principles of liberty. We see, indeed, the direct advantage of repression, and the military mind is particularly prone to see the direct advantage, but it does not always realise the indirect, impalpable harm which is done by withholding liberty. It appears to me that the Government in this matter have made a serious mistake, and I would venture respectfully to suggest to them that as soon as may be they should retrace their steps.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not often found myself in such complete disagreement since the War began with my right

  1627
  hon. Friend who has just spoken as I do at this moment. He made this statement: if you are in doubt, weigh the scale on the side of liberty. I say at once, when you are at war, if you are in doubt, weigh the scale on the side that will not injure you in prosecuting the War. My right hon. Friend said that if this had come to him as Home Secretary he would not have sanctioned this interference with the export of the "Nation." He went on to say that this was a subject matter of policy, and a question, therefore, for Ministers, and not for officials. I entirely disagree with him. How does he draw the distinction? Is the claim that because a particular journal is intellectually conducted and is supported by a vast mass of opinion in this House that therefore it is to be subjected to different treatment from another publication which has not those advantages? If there is to be censorship at all as regards export abroad, it must be done on a very wide scale; it must be left to the discretion of officers, and can rarely be brought to the decision of members of the Cabinet.
  Mr. SAMUEL: To the best of my recollection, I do not think there was any prohibition during the time I was at the Home Office which did not come personally to myself, except in Ireland, and those were dealt with by the Minister responsible for Ireland.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be so; I really do not remember. But I wish to point out to the House a remarkable distinction between the argument of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee took up this position, and I am going to ask him now if he adheres to it. His position was that there should be no censorship on things exported abroad unless they gave away information which would be of value to the enemy, and that there should be no censorship on the expression of opinion. I wonder if he adheres to that principle. If he does it is entirely contrary to the whole course which has been adopted by every Government since the beginning of the War. My right hon. Friend referred to the point as to discouragement to our soldiers, and he asked: Are they going to be disheartened by receiving a copy of the "Nation"? He is a very good judge of
  1628
  that, but I would put this to the House as a whole, that possibly the Commander-in-Chief is as good a judge as to the effect on our soldiers as either of my right hon. Friends. I really, if the House will believe me, am discussing this thing without any heat, and certainly if it had been left to the decision of the Government I am afraid I might, against what I believe would have been right, have been influenced by my knowledge of the storm that would be raised in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee said if we had taken the easy course of saying—and I do him the credit of saying he would not have adopted it—that it was all a mistake of some stupid War Office official, the whole thing would have been put right. I do not think so. His whole case was this:: A great people like the Germans are not going to be influenced by what is said about the course of events by a newspaper writer. I ask the House of Commons, a large number of whose Members cheered that statement, to call back to their minds many Debates in this House in which the previous Government, and perhaps this, so far as I know, although I do not recollect it, has been attacked over and over again for the stupidity with which its propaganda was carried on in neutral countries throughout the world. If that is so, is propaganda of no value? This is the ground on which the export of this paper was prohibited. The ground is that it was admirable propaganda for our enemies. That is the sole ground. Was it? My right hon. Friend made a suggestion which seemed to me very naive. He said we have only to write to the editor of the "Nation" and point out the use that was being made of this, and it was a very small thing, and would instantly stop. I give Mr. Massingham credit for more sincerity in his view than is implied by that statement. The whole gravamen of the charge against the paper is that its whole tendency not in a particular article but week after week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—week after week, was to put forward this view: "We cannot possibly win the War; then why go on?"
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can you give any specific instances?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. and learned Gentleman puts that question wishing to find out the fact, let him read

  1629
  The "Nation" week by week, and I am certain that he will agree with me that that is its tendency.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is there no indictment against the paper?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. The Prime Minister gave one, but I have myself since this matter arose looked through half-a-dozen copies before that, and my opinion is that what I stated is literally true. The whole tendency of that paper is this view—and I do not find fault with it except that it injures our cause—"We cannot possibly win the War, and for that reason it is a crime to go on. "What other effect can that have than to injure us and encourage our enemies? This seems to me the position. The late Home Secretary said there is all the difference in the world between the "Labour Leader" and the ground on which its export was prohibited and that of the "Nation." There is all the difference in the world, but both were prohibited for the same reason. It is perfectly true —although I have not had the advantage of reading it I have seen it—that the "Labour Leader" may, as he says, impute low motives to members of this Government, and of previous Governments, and may even be seditious in its character. But what has that to do with it? Sedition cannot affect us abroad. That only affects us at home. Yet it is allowed to be printed and circulated at home, and the sole reason for which it was prohibited from going abroad was that it said what encouraged our enemies and discouraged our own people in the fighting line. I would like to call attention to another remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. He said—and I do not think he realised what he was saying when he made the remark— [Laughter]—that happens to all of us when we are speaking impromptu—that any newspaper which was obnoxious to the Government could be treated in this way. May I point out to him that the harm a paper which attacks this or any other Government can do from the political point of view is done at home, but if that were our motive the last thing we should do would be to stop the foreign circulation of such a paper, for I venture to say that if I were an enemy of the "Nation" and were influenced by that object the last thing I should have done would have been to give it the splendid advertisement occasioned by the prohibition of its export.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: You did not do it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was announced publicly by the War Office. I do not think this is the small thing my right hon. Friend said. I take an entirely different view. I would like, if it were possible, to preserve the freedom during the War which this country has always enjoyed when there is no war. But no nation at war has found it possible to take that course.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Russia.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Though I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the change that has happened in Russia, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that already they have found it necessary to imprison a good many people who were against that Government—I would like to see that if it were possible here, but it has not been done by any Government at war, and I do not think it can be done by any Government at war. This is really the test. Let the House of Commons put away from its mind altogether—for it can do that—any idea that this is done by any politicians in the Government against newspapers to which they are not friendly. As a matter of fact, none of us knew anything about it till it was done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have already said so at Question Time to-day, and I would point out this to the House, that from the beginning of the War there has been a postal censorship, and this is part of that postal censorship. The object of it is to prevent material leaving this country which would help the enemy. This whole subject has been dealt with in precisely the same way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee takes the view that these innocent articles could not possibly do any harm to anybody. I will put as against his opinion this fact: It has already been pointed out by the Prime Minister that before the War Office took any action at all attention was called to this newspaper by the Home Office, and they said that its export ought to be prohibited. The Foreign Office also took exactly the same view. The War Office officials, of course, took it. The head of the Propagandist Department, of his own initiative, called the attention of the War Office to these articles, and said they are doing us an immensity of harm abroad. There is the fact. We have a system established by the late Government which has existed since the beginning of the War, the object of which is to prevent the

  1631
  export of material which will damage us abroad. The same machinery which has been worked from the beginning was at work here, with this difference: that the damage from this particular class of periodical was so great that four different Departments called attention to it, and in addition, as was pointed out, the Commander-in-Chief in France wrote about it, not on the ground of criticism of himself, for, as he said, there was no criticism of himself—
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Was any Minister of any Department consulted?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think probably not.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: He wrote personally on the subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think he wrote personally. It came from headquarters.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have thought he had more important things to attend to.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has spoken—and I think it rather interests the House—of a Government wishing to exercise arbitrary powers. That is very interesting, coming from him. I have no doubt he thinks he is a much better judge of what is important than the Commander-in-Chief, but I am not sure that the House of Commons agrees with him. This is the fact. This newspaper has been dealt with in precisely the same way as every other. The ground on which the "Labour Leader" was stopped is precisely the same ground, with this difference, that it had not the same influence in the House of Commons, and therefore the same protest was not made. I take, I am sorry to say, a very different view as to the importance of this matter from that which is taken by my right hon. Friend. In my real belief this is a test of whether we put peace aims or war aims first, and all that I can say is this, that I would welcome a decision of the House of Commons on this point, and I sincerely hope that we shall not only have speeches, but that we shall have a Division upon it, so that not only the House but the country can judge of the attitude which is taken up.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I regret very much that there has been introduced so much electricity into this Debate to-night. The question raised, and rightly raised, by my
  1632
  hon. Friend has, I think, had a most unfortunate result. It has changed what I think is the real issue before the House, which I will endeavour to state. Let me say, in passing, that it is edifying to hear the two Front Benches slanging one another on the question of the liberty of the Press. The right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House from the Front Bench opposite (Mr. H. Samuel) told us that he, and he alone, was responsible for all the cases that came before the late Government. Then he was responsible for about fifty cases of suppression. There are sixty publications—
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Not then.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the greater proportion of them were during the last year, before 31st January. Therefore, I think we ought to take into consideration the fact that the opinions of right hon. Gentlemen seem to change according to the side of he House on which they sit, and I refuse to salute the right hon. Gentleman, who has been responsible for suppressing, shall I say, scores of publications in this country, as a champion of the liberty of the Press. Now, let me say that I think the Government were wrong in the action which they took with regard to the "Nation." The "Nation" does not represent my views, and I speak entirely apart from the particular publication itself, and I think that is how the House ought to consider it—not as one individual case, but whether our machinery is right, and whether the liberty of the Press is properly protected. Here let me say that I think we ought to do justice even to Mr. Massingham, and that I think the phrase to which so much importance has been attached has been slightly misrepresented. I admit that, at the first glance—and I certainly thought so—the view expressed to-night by the Front Bench was the right one, and the phrase "found wanting," if used in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term, would be a serious thing, because in that case it would mean that our soldiers were no good and that they were unable to attack the Germans; but I do not read it in that way at all, and I think we ought to be just in this matter. How I read it is that when this retreat took place our soldiers were taken by surprise and that they were unprepared for the particular act of the Germans. I venture to say that that was in the mind of the writer when he wrote it. What I claim in regard to all these matters is that

  1633
  the question of intention should be taken into account. The question of intention ought to govern the whole policy in regard to the Press in this matter, and I say, therefore, that while I think the phrase was unfortunate, I do not think the Government are justified in the method which they employed.
  My first objection to it is that the action of the Government was futile. It served no purpose to prevent a paper that is supposed to be helping the enemy going abroad. You have allowed so many Germans in this country to have their liberty that if anything appears in this country calculated to help the enemy, make no mistake about it that it goes there all right. You give passports to neutrals to go to and from Holland and Sweden. These men may take all the information they desire to give to the representatives of Germany that they meet in their heads, and as the result of their own observations they can give all the knowledge that the enemy wants. The point is that the Government do not succeed in their purpose that these things should not be circulated in Germany. Every page of the "Nation" will still get into Germany —make no mistake about that—and get there probably sooner than before, because this is the most splendid step you could take to secure publicity for the "Nation." I almost wish I could arrange a little suppression with the Government myself. I am jealous of the free advertisement. It is only my loyalty that prevents me doing it.
  I object to it further because it is carried out by the purely military authorities. I think there my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House really went a little too far. In war-time—I think the whole House is agreed upon that—we must not talk too much about liberty so long as its exercise interferes with the progress of the War. The military, in regard to military affairs, ought, of course, to be supreme. In Home affairs, where military administration is not touched, I deny the right of any general sitting in the War Office practically to run—it does not do it in this case—an organisation in a single day. I therefore say that the method is entirely wrong, so far as dealing with the Press is concerned. Why? The Leader of the House said there was a long continuance of the articles. It may be so. Then were any steps taken to warn the editor against the line he was pursuing? That is a fair question. It was going on
  1634
  for weeks. Why not have given him an intimation that if this conduct was continued you would have to take severe action? It is fair that the Press of this country, which has been so loyal and patriotic throughout, should have all the assistance they can get from the Government, because it is very difficult indeed to carry on the Press at all with the many limitations made by the Government. I think, therefore, that any paper that is going to be dealt with in this manner ought first to have the right to be heard, and to state its own case. The principal injury, if it was an injury, was in this case done weeks before. There was, therefore, no object in not delaying on that score.
  I have another reason why I object in this case to the action of the Government. It is that the Government only deal with papers which, they say, are quoted by the German authorities in order to help the people in Germany. What does that mean? It really means that the seat of authority in regard to the control of the Press of this country rests in Berlin. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Yes, it does. The Germans have only to quote certain papers often enough, irrespective of the matter, and it is the judgment of the Germans, not of Britons, that will settle the matter! I object to that. I think the whole method of the Government is wrong in this matter. My view is that if you have a censorship it ought to be a proper censorship; and if I had to be responsible for it, I should say that every military article dealing with strategy and so forth should be submitted to the censorship before being published. It is done so now. Every article published in newspapers by military writers is submitted to the censorship for the sake of the article itself, and for the sake of the liberty of the newspaper. Although not compulsory, it is always done, and that is what I would suggest to the Government should be done in future. They should make it compulsory for military articles to be submitted to the censorship, and then they will deal with the evil, if it is an evil, at the source.
  Let me make a practical suggestion to the Government. I think the punishment, if punishment there should be, is severe enough in this particular case, and I would say to the Government that they ought to withdraw the prohibition on an understanding that they submit the military articles in future just the same as other newspapers do. I think that would be a

  1635
  fair proposal. I do not know whether it would be accepted. I have had no communication with the newspaper or those connected with it, but I do think, with proper censorship, it is unjust to hold this further authority over the newspapers of the country. Therefore I ask the Government to consider that course of procedure not only with regard to the "Nation," but also the "Labour Leader." The power they are taking to deal with the Press on purely military matters, without any civil appeal, is one they do not require in time of war, and I do not think it is a power this House ought to grant.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: As one of those who wrote a letter to the "Nation" deploring the action of the Government, I should like to say a few words before this Debate closes. May I say at once that the letter I wrote was one of a very qualified nature, because I personally am opposed to the action of the Government, not because I think the article is one that ought to have been written, but upon the broader lines put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. I should like, in the first place, to do what justice I can to the Leader of the House as one who has read the "Nation," I think, every week since its inception, and to say I think his statement as to the attitude taken by the "Nation" during this War is absolutely accurate. I cannot understand how my hon. Friend can for one moment question it. The attitude taken by the "Nation" all through this War has been, in my opinion, perfectly deplorable. I have read it week by week. I read it when I was in England, and I read it during the four months I was in Russia regularly, and I found it was regularly read there. There is hardly a single thing which the "Nation" has been publishing about the War with which I agree, whether its object be peace, whether it is the question of territorial acquisition in South Africa or other Colonies—whatever it may be, I find myself in almost complete disagreement with Mr. Masingham and the paper he represents. But surely we have got to look a great deal beyond that, and it is for that reason I should like to identify myself with the right non. Gentleman who spoke last and to ask whether something cannot be done so far as this paper is concerned for the future? I have
  1636
  no authority to speak for Mr. Massingham at all. I always like to read his views. I like to read both sides. I disapprove of his views, and I have no right to put forward any suggestion on his behalf; but I do think at this time, above all others, it is deplorable that a paper which represents advanced democratic views in this country should be excluded horn our Allies.
  Take the position in Russia. Out there one gets practically very few papers at all except the "Times," the "Daily Mail," and a few other papers. Of course, at the present time delivery of papers is tremendously late, so that there was no chance of anyone reading the papers until a month after publication. But you do not want it all one way at the present moment in Russia, because you are going to find that the Germans, with all their various activities, are going to suggest that the tendency of this country is not democratic at all. I have read with absolute dismay a speech made by the Leader of the House upon the question of what happened in Russia. I also listened with dismay to questions put by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) asking, not about the safety of the 2,000 or 3,000 men who were mown down in the streets of Petrograd with machine guns, but about the safely of the author of that outrage. When I read about keeping out these great organs of public opinion because the Germans are likely to use them against us and to stir up the revolutionaries in Russia, the conclusion in Germany will be that we are really anti-democratic and they are not, and that is a deplorable state of things. I do not sec how we are to fight against that if we are to keep out a newspaper that represents thought of that kind. We have to look carefully at what is happening at the present time. Here is a paper which you find in the hands of every thinking man who understands English at all in Petrograd—I am not speaking only of civilians, but also of soldiers and admirals, who are far more democratic than the soldiers or the admirals in this country. I remember, to my astonishment, when I was out there and happened early in my visit to meet one or two Russian admirals, they looked upon me as a reactionary because I differed from these distinguished men. I spoke with M. Miliukoff, and he remonstrated with me for putting forward views which differed from the hon. Member for Black-

  1637
  burn (Mr. Snowden). You have a curious state of opinion out there, but it is a great mistake for this country to ignore the whole educated opinion of Russia that reads these papers and who are too intelligent to allow their views to be influenced by what one man says in this country. You have to consider the position not only in France but also in neutral countries. There are certain newspapers that will be read always by the intellectuals of all countries. I agree that no harm has been done to the "Nation," for it has got the best advertisement it ever had, and I shall watch its advertisement columns with interest in the future. But surely in the case of a distinguished public writer like this, is there realty any possible danger of any articles being written in that paper which is going to do serious military damage? There is not a man in this House who would not only be too glad to stop that paper being circulated abroad if they thought it was likely to do any military damage. I feel confident that any little damage which might be done abroad by this paper is far less than the damage that is going to be done to this country by even an apparent keeping back of democratic and Liberal opinion. Hon. Gentlemen have no idea what influence this country has had unconsciously in the great events which have recently taken place in Russia. It is to this country they look as an organ of public opinion, as the home of freedom, and as the one country where you are not put into prison for stating your views, but where you are allowed to state them whether they are believed in by the authorities or not. We should not do anything that takes away that opinion among foreign peoples. It is not only speeches, such as the one I alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman that one has to consider, but one has to consider what we have been doing lately in Russia. Whom did who send there to represent us? I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have heard some of the opinions that have reached me about Lord Milner's performances in Petrograd and elsewhere. I am told—whether it is correct or not I do not know—that he came back without having the least idea that there was going to be a revolution.
  Mr. DILLON: He stated so.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not want to go into it in any detail—I should be out of
  1638
  order if I did—but I do want to say that this Government, who sends such an Ambassador who, to put it mildly, makes itself publicly ridiculous, have to be very careful what they do next. When we find, first of all, Lord Milner's antics in Russia, and next the Leader of this House making a speech which in my personal opinion was a most unfortunate one, and then the suppression of the one organ of Liberal opinion which circulates in Russia, well, I think it is at least open to question whether we are behaving very wisely. I, therefore, do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the slightest intention, if this goes to a Division, although I sympathise with Mr. Massingham, of giving a vote to embarrass the Government, but it is the Government of the country, and, therefore, I support it, and the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I have given very little trouble during the War. I do not like this Government, and I liked less the one which preceded it. If I had had my way we should not have changed the first. Some amiable gentleman, as usual, suggests that one may get a job for saying so, but that, of course, is one of the pleasantries of public life. There are in this House a large number of people who have not the slightest hostility towards the Government, and do not in the least want to press this matter to a Division to make a large show of opinions upon a matter where the Government obviously think that they are doing their duty, and where, I dare say, the majority of the country will think that they are. I am not concerned with that. This House is the place to express our opinions, and I intend to express mine without in the least bit intending, if we go to a Division, of voting against the Government, but I do think that the Government might give us some sort of statement as to what will happen in the future to the "Nation," which during the last few years has done most admirable work in the best literary form. It has fought a hard, uphill fight, and is a first-class typical paper, honourably representative of this country abroad, and whatever punishment there has been there has been enough of it. Surely the "Nation" might be allowed to go on and preach the gospel in which everybody knows that Mr. Massingham believes without the interference of the military authorities, and I do hope that we may have some sort of assurance as to what is to be the future of this paper, and that that assurance will satisfy

  1639
  the vast majority of the thinking people of this country, even although they do not agree with the sentiments of Mr. Massingham.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) made a reference to what he believed to be the opinion of the majority in this House on the matter, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a somewhat unfortunate remark, which he has since repeated, when he suggested that we should be able to test the degree of opinion in the House by means of a Division. By this time I think he has revised that view. He will have noticed that since this Debate began no person has risen to support the action of the Government. He will have noticed also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has said that in his view the Government is wrong. Does he think he will test the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy in the Division Lobby? Does he think that the Division Lobby will give any indication of that view? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) has just indicated his view that the Government is wrong in this matter, but that he does not propose to vote against the Government when the Division comes. It is surely obvious that the Government, under present conditions, will not collect the opinion of the House in those matters which do not directly appertain to the main conduct of the War. The Division Lobby is no criterion in those matters. Take my own position. I do not find myself in any difficulty or dilemma upon the matter. I think the Government have made a mistake, but I do not propose to vote against the Government. That attitude is quite logical and straightforward. I desire to give the Government my strongest support in the conduct of the War. I desire to strengthen its hands, and as long as I think the Government ought to be supported in the conduct of the War I am not willing to give a vote against it on any of these minor matters, which I believe would lie one of its hands behind its back and embarrass it with the conduct of the War.
  I go further than that. I am not content to take the somewhat obvious and easy method of abstaining from voting. I have never done that. It is difficult to say that one ought to have the courage of his
  1640
  convictions when he is voting against his convictions, but if one thinks, in a great crisis of this kind, that the Government ought to be supported in the conduct of the War, then one ought to carry that to its logical conclusion and give his support in minor matters even when he thinks it is mistaken. It follows from that that in a matter of this kind the Government will not be able to collect the opinion of the House from the Division Lobby. It must find some other means of ascertaining and testing the opinion of the House. The course of the Debate ought to have given the Government some indication in that matter. I do not claim that this newspaper represents Liberalism more than any other paper. I do not want to say I agree with it in the general course of its policy or sentiment or even with regard to these articles. They deal with technical military matters on which I do not claim to form any authoritative opinion or to be able to criticise the opinions expressed by other people. It is not because I agree with these articles or the sentiments expressed in them that I think the Government has made a mistake. I want that to be perfectly clear. But one can only form an opinion as to the Tightness or wrongness of the Gov3rn-ment action from the case that is submitted to one or the particulars which are given by the Government in justification of its action. I think it will be agreed by any reasonable man who looks at this without prejudice that no conclusive reasons have been submitted for the suppression of these articles. No case whatever has been made or has even attempted to be made. We have no indictment against the newspaper. We have not set forth the exact nature of the offending articles, and, indeed, the little illustration which was given was in contradiction of the main gravamen of the general statement. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both laid emphasis upon this fact, and this was the main reason for the suppression, that for some considerable time the tendency of this newspaper has been to advocate an inconclusive peace on the ground that a military victory was impossible. If that is the gravamen of the charge surely it is possible to give some illustrations of it, to quote a definite article in which that view was put forward. No case whatever has been attempted. We have not had a single

  1641
  article pointed out in which that is done. We are told, on the contrary, that the articles in respect of which the foreign circulation of the paper has been prohibited are those' for 3rd and 10th March. I am not aware that in these articles any particular reference has been given which would justify that general sweeping statement. One illustration was given. The Prime Minister quoted a sentence with regard to our soldiers being found wanting. But surely that sentence, whatever be the meaning of it, has no relation whatever to the charge which preceded it. That does not substantiate the charge that the paper was advocating an inconclusive peace on the ground that a military victory was impossible.
  I think also an injustice has been done to this newspaper in regard to the meaning which has been imputed to that sentence. If it had been used in the sense which was imputed to it that would be. an unspeakable outrage. It would be abominable. It would be a vile slander upon our soldiers. I do not believe there is a single man in this country who in that sense would say that our soldiers had been found wanting, or indeed that in any sense the soldiers as a whole had been found wanting. It is perfectly clear that the sense in which this article is used is that the Higher Command has been found napping, that it has been outwitted and out-generalled by the Germans in the matter of this retreat. That is the obvious construction which any reasonable person would place upon it. I do not profess to know whether these views are right or wrong. They are matters of purely technical military concern on which I am not qualified to express an opinion. But if the utterance of unjustifiable and violent criticism upon our soldiers is to be made a ground for the suppression of the foreign circulation of a newspaper, this ought to be applied equally all round. Here is a sentence reflecting very unfavourably and possibly unjustifiably upon the Higher Command in the Army. I remember a time when there were newspapers in this country which expressed the most unmeasured and, in my opinion, unjustifiable censure and criticism upon the greatest soldier whom we had at that time, Lord Kitchener. If the suppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation" be a just punishment for the words which it used in this article, then the same punishment ought to have been meted out to those who were guilty of a similar offence at an
  1642
  earlier time, and guilty of that offence in a much more aggravated form. We have been told that the Commander-in-Chief has referred to this publication, and has suggested that it ought to be suppressed. I think there is a rule in this House that when quotations are made from any specific document for the purpose of influencing Debate, that document ought to be produced in this House. In order to justify the suppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation" reference has been made to a dispatch, a document, or a minute by the Commander-in-Chief, in which he was recommended that course. I see the Under-Secretary for War here. He is the Minister who can answer on that point. I ask for the production of that recommendation from the Commander-in-Chief, and I ask whether it will be produced in accordance with the rules and procedure of this House. I hope that if it is not produced to-night it will be pressed for on a future occasion. It is a very salutary rule. If there are matters in the letter or dispatch which it would be inadvisable to publish the Government would have been acting properly if they had suppressed any reference to it. By making reference to it as a ground for action in this matter they are bound to produce it and give it publicity.
  HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!
  Mr. SCOTT: If we have made a mistake—
  HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!
  Mr. SCOTT: I intend to continue my remarks. In the mistake that has been made in this matter we are only concerned with one paper, a weekly newspaper, and not with one of the greater newspapers in the matter of circulation. The gravamen of the dissatisfaction with the Government over this matter is that no clear principle is apparent. Even after listening to all that was said by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite there seems to be no reason that the suppression of this circulation except the whim or caprice of varying prejudice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Mr. BILLING: Is it in order for a Member of this House to talk in his sleep? There are two hon. Members who are fast asleep who are saying, "Divide divide!"
  Mr. SCOTT: I hope that my hon. Friend will not attribute the condition in which he alleges these hon. Members are to my

  1643
  remarks. It is very dangerous for a Government in these matters to depart from the line of clear principles and definite rules. Its action is apt to broaden, without clear principles and definite rules, so as to apply to all kinds of cases to which it should not apply. This action is very dangerous at home. It may lead to many grave abuses. I submit that it is also very dangerous abroad, and is calculated to do us grave injury abroad. It has been suggested that the views of this newspaper, if circulated abroad, would encourage our enemies and enable the German Government to rally the flagging public opinion in that country.
  Mr. HOGGE: Let us have a Division.
  Mr. SCOTT: That may be true to some extent; but how much more will it enable the German Government to rally flagging public opinion if they are able to say on the authority of the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country that the state of public opinion in this country is so inflamed—that the views which the Government cannot suppress in this country are so dangerous that the Government dare not allow them to be circulated in foreign countries.
  Mr. HOLTrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. SCOTT: As far as Germany is concerned, the action of the Government in this matter is likely to be much more dangerous to this country than any views which may be ascribed to the "Nation."
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I desire to make a few remarks—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Postponed proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: I wish to raise this question on the Adjournment, but I would not have done so at this late hour had I not seen here the Minister of Pensions, who. may expect me to raise it. I shall, however, keep the House no longer than is possible. I wish to ask a question with regard to the scale of gratuities which has been drawn up by the Minister of Pensions, who has already said on more than one occasion that the scale does exist, and that a scale has been drawn up under which gratuities can be awarded. He has also said at various times that the payment of those gratuities will be largely at the discretion of the Pensions Minister. I trust my right hon. Friend entirely, and so long as he with his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, are at the Ministry of Pensions, the gratuity will be dealt with generously by both of them. But, obviously, when they have both gone, it will be the official machine which will be left with the distribution of the gratuity, and, as both of them know, the gratuity will be distributed very much according to the literal wording of the scale. Therefore, what I want my right hon. Friend to tell us is on what scale are the gratuities going to be paid? We know that the maximum is to be £150; but suppose that the disabled soldier who is entitled to a gratuity only gets £10, or £20, or £50, or whatever the sum may be, how is that going to be awarded? I think that the public and the soldier are entitled to know this just as the soldier is entitled to know how his pension is going to be awarded. The disabled soldier knows the degree of his disability, whether it is 100, 80, or 60 per cent., and that he gets a certain pension, and he knows the amount of that pension. Can we know something of the same kind about the gratuity, and the way in which it is awarded? I want to know the principle, because when the whole thing is settled both pension and gratuity will continue to be paid by officials under that

  1645
  machine, and that obviously will create difficulties. If the right hon. Gentleman gives some assurance it will probably save me a lot of trouble in putting questions and save him a great deal of trouble in answering them.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I have had some correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman about the case of Mrs. Mary Power, of Dungarvan, who had four sons in the Army. Three of those sons have been killed and two were married. An unmarried son, to whose case I particularly refer, joined in February, 1914, and at that time there were no allotments and no regulations as to pensions and allowances. That unmarried son was killed in September, 1914, and the Minister of Pensions refuses to recognise a claim in any way. The County Water-ford Pensions Committee has called attention to this case, and the county secretary of that Committee referred the case to me, so that I might get some satisfaction. It is a case which, I submit, deserves sympathetic attention and consideration. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is to the effect that he had no evidence that the mother was dependent on this son and that therefore he was not in a position to award any pension to the mother. The answer of the City of Waterford Pensions Committee, which has also dealt with this case, though the mother lives thirty miles away, is, I think, a good one. This case, I may say, is one which has attracted great attention, and I think the Ministry of Pensions will be judged in county Waterford by the way in which they meet this case. I have pointed out that at the time this son joined he could not make an allotment as no regulations of the kind existed. In the reply of the Pensions Committee it was pointed out that in September, 1914, the mother was not a very old woman, something over sixty, and was then able to make out a living for herself by working in the town in which she lived. Now the position is changed. Her health has suffered, and probably the loss of her three sons has brought about that result. Three of her four sons have been killed, and the fourth has been wounded. It is no wonder under these circumstances that her health has suffered. If her son who was killed, and whose case I have specially mentioned, had lived long enough to find his mother suffering in health, and to find that she was unable to make a living,
  1646
  I have no doubt that he would have come to her rescue. The other brothers had wives dependent upon them. I think that is a very extraordinary case if the Ministry of Pensions can do nothing—as they say they can do nothing—for the mother of a boy who has been killed in the War like that.
  There is another case I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman. I am referring to a particular case of an Irish Guard. This soldier has been totally disabled in the left arm, and the forefinger of his right hand has been wholly disabled, shot through, the knuckle pierced. He has been discharged from the Army and has a pension at present of 18s. 9d. a week. He has applied to the National Health Insurance Society, to which he belonged before the War, and has asked them to give him since 17th August last, when he was discharged—as I think he is entitled to claim—10s. a week for twenty-six weeks of disablement benefit, and then 6s. a week. The benefit society to which he belonged declined to pay him this 10s. a week. They say that if he is wholly disabled the Ministry of Pensions is bound to provide for him; that his pension ought to be more than 18s. 9d. a week, and that they ought not to be called upon to find 10s. because the Ministry of Pensions has only given a pension of 18s. 9d. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell me something on these two cases.
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes: Taking the two eases in order, the first seems to be a very sad case indeed, and I am afraid it is outside the scope of the existing Warrant. The principle of pre-war dependence runs through the whole Warrant. It is a thing that is in this Warrant, and has previously been in all Warrants. We have got through it with regard to the apprentice and the student, and with regard to the woman who has been widowed during the War, but I am sorry to say that all other mothers are subject to this—that they must prove some dependence on the son prior to the son going away. It is not a question of the son not having made an allotment. It used to be a fact that if the son had not made an allotment then the mother, even if there had been prewar dependence, would not have been entitled. We have done away with that, and if the mother showed pre-war dependence on the son she would be entitled to the extent of that pre-war dependence.

  1647
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he will send in the case again to us we will have it carefully considered, and I think I can say for the Statutory Committee that something will be done for such a hard case.
  With regard to the other case—it rather comes within the Department of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall)—certainly someone has erred. If the man has had awarded to him anything less than the full rate of disability pension, he is entitled to all he has paid for and been led to expect from the Insurance Committee.
  I take it—of course, I cannot speak for my hon. Friend—that it is the duty of somebody to see that the society should pay what he is obviously entitled to, namely, 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks, and then 5s. a week as long as he lives, in addition to anything less than the full disability pension. That is his legal right, and I have the word of my hon. Friend that he will look into it.
  Mr. O'SHEE: What would the full disability pension be?
  Mr. BARNES: The full disability pension, flat rate, is 27s. 6d., and he would be entitled to the full 10s. for twenty-six weeks and 5s. a week thereafter as long as he lives
  Mr. O'SHEE: Why does he not get 27s. 6d., but only 18s. 9d.?
  Mr. BARNES: Because he is not on the full disability pension.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Why not?
  Mr. BARNES: The awarding officer has regarded him as a man who still retains some capacity, therefore he is not entitled to a full pension. In any case, it will be reviewed under the terms of the new Warrant automatically, so that he will get something in addition to the 18s. 9d. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) wants to know why the gratuity men are not to have their gratuities as something certain, just the same as the disabled men.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not mean that. I want to get to know how a gratuity is awarded, just as I know now how a pension is awarded. Supposing a man writes to me and says, "The Pensions Minister
  1648
  has awarded me £50, and here are my circumstances," how am I to tell that that is right?
  Mr. BARNES: A disabled man has a specified injury or disease and we measure his pension accordingly, whereas a gratuity man has no specified injury or disease at all, and it is impossible to say what amount he would be entitled to, because the Warrant lays it down; that he is entitled to a sum of money according to length and character of service. Those are the main things in connection with it. He is entitled to a maximum of £150, and in speaking of a scale in this connection I am afraid I have used the word in rather a loose sense. It is true we have a scale, but that is a scale only to an amount of the £150. A man might not have been in the Army more than a month, and therefore he would be entitled, other things being equal, compared with another man who had been in a year, to a small amount. But there may be circumstances in connection with that man's month's service which would entitle him to more than a man who had been in for a year, and therefore what we have done is this. We have said, "We will draw up a rough scale for our own guidance as to the particular amount of £150."I think it is up to £80 for a private and £100 for a non-commissioned officer, and we have retained £50 in our hands, so to speak, to play with. In the case of a man who had only been in the Army for a month, and who would only be entitled, on length of service, to a small amount we might say that he should be awarded £10; but then he might have had some hurt. I heard of a case the other day of a man who had been in the Army for a short time only and had been sleeping under canvas, and owing to the draughts had become very deaf. That would be a clear case, either for a pension or a big gratuity—probably a pension if the disease had been aggravated by the man's service —but if not for a pension, certainly for a high gratuity, notwithstanding that he had only been in the Army for a short time. Supposing we were to publish a scale, it would not be true unless there was a clear explanation accompanying it of what it meant. Consequently the only reason that we do not want to publish a scale is that we do not want to mislead anybody. The thing is only experimental, but as soon as the scale, or whatever you like to call it, has been drawn up in more

  1649
  or less permanent form I should have no objection to anybody knowing all about it I might allow myself just to give a few figures as to how the matter stands up to the 11th, one week after the new Warrant came into operation, and to show what had already been done. We had on the 11th 13,000 applications from old soldiers for pensions or gratuities. A large number of these gratuity cases had hitherto had nothing. We have not had time to analyse them all, for the figure is a very large one. We have not had time to see how many have earned pensions and how many gratuities, but it is quite certain that so far as we have gone all will get something. There were 475 cases of aggravated widows whose husbands' disease was aggravated by the War, and who were entitled under the old Warrant only to a gratuity equal to about 5s. a week. Of the 475, we had already dealt on the 11th—a week after the Warrant came into operation—with 114. There were 1,229 widows who had no claim under the old Warrant. We have dealt with ninety-eight, and of those eighty-seven had been given pensions. There were a few cases of parents dealt with up to the 11th—that is to say, thirty-four out of thirty-eight had benefited by an average of 3s. 2d. per week. Of 2,819 dependants only forty-one had been dealt with, thirty-seven having been granted pensions, and only four
  1650
  rejected. In the light of these few figures, I think I might comfortably claim from my hon. Friend that this is not a question of Appeal Court, but that things of this sort will sink into comparative insignificance when we come to look at the matter after a few weeks. You will then find that a very large number of these men who hitherto have been denied pensions will at once, some of them, get pensions and some gratuities. What is of equal importance is that a large proportion of these widows will be lifted up very appreciably in the scale of allowances and pensions level. I think I can ask on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary and myself that we should be allowed a sufficient amount of freedom—shall I say, that we shall have the confidence of the House?—in putting this new Warrant into operation. I can assure the House that all we have in mind is not to make promises, but to carry out the Warrant in its literal interpretation— that is to say, that every man whose disease has been aggravated by the War shall get a pension; every widow entitled to it shall get a pension; and that all those men who have been discharged as medically unfit shall get a more or less substantial gratuity.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  PEACE TEEMS.
  PEACE TEEMS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  FOOD EXPORTED.
  FOOD EXPORTED.
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL"COMPANY (COMPENSATION).
  "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL"COMPANY (COMPENSATION).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (CRUTCHES).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (CRUTCHES).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION (PRIVATE BRISTOW, BEDFORD REGIMENT).
  MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION (PRIVATE BRISTOW, BEDFORD REGIMENT).
  AIR SERVICES (CASUALTIES).
  AIR SERVICES (CASUALTIES).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  School Teachers, Ireland (Magistrates).
  School Teachers, Ireland (Magistrates).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Fatal Accidents Inquiries (Fees).
  Fatal Accidents Inquiries (Fees).