Sitting of 21 February 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
BRITISH MUSEUM.
Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum for Grant-in-Aid—(King's Recommendation signified)—referred to the Committee of Supply.—[Mr. Fisher.]
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 19th February; Sir Albert Stanley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 29.]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 6th February, 1917, amending the Orders in Council of the 9th February, 1914, 3rd February, 1915, and 3rd February, 1916, as to the establishment of the Secretary of State for India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Sheffield
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 16th February, 1917, inter alia, partially rescinding the Motor Cars (Prohibition on Special Roads) (County of Perth) Order, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Seventy-eighth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention that the functions of the delegates from India appointed to assist the Secretary of State at the Imperial Conference should be confined to advising the Secretary of State, or whether they will attend the special meetings of the War Cabinet and take part in its deliberations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Of the representatives of India only the Secretary of State will be a member of the War Cabinet for the purpose of these special sittings. My colleagues from India will not be members of the Cabinet, but, generally speaking, they will accompany me to its sittings and will take such part in its deliberations as the subjects under discussion may require.

    ROYAL NAVY (HARD-LYING MONEY).
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the. Admiralty has cancelled its decision to grant hard-lying money to the officers and men in the river gunboats in Mesopotamia, and further has ordered that all such hard-lying money already paid to the said officers and men is to be refunded by them from their pay by monthly instalments; and, if so, whether, in view of the hardships undergone by the said officers and men, he will take steps to make the grant of the hard-lying money effective?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Hard-lying money in the gunboats was authorised locally without the necessary prior sanction of the Admiralty, and as it

    1305
    appeared that the discomforts experienced in the vessels were mainly due to the climatic conditions and were met by the payment of the usual climate allowance, directions were given for the recovery of the overpayments involved. Upon further representations being made, however, it was decided to allow full rates of hard-lying money (instead of half-rates as paid in the first instance) in the small craft employed in the Mesopotamian Rivers, and the orders that had been given for the recovery of past payments were cancelled.
    Colonel YATE: Thank you.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Mrs. Bridget Cosgrove, of Church Street, Rath-keale, county Limerick, was receiving Navy separation allowance in respect of her son, Michael Cosgrove, who was stoker on H.M. motor lighter "K 10," as the certificate, No, 032,213, dated 22nd April, 1915, from the Accountant-General of the Navy proves; that for a considerable time past she recived no allowance, and has not got any news of her son; whether he will say if she is entitled to a pension; and, if so, why she has not received it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Cosgrove disappeared on the night of the 1st February, 1916, and as there is no sufficient evidence on which to presume death, he must be regarded as having deserted. No steps have therefore been taken to award a pension. Separation allowance of 2s. 6d. a week (in addition to allotment of 5s. a week) was paid until 13th July last, in clusive.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Was he on board ship when he deserted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will find that out. I cannot say off hand.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: On what ground is it supposed that he deserted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be very glad to show my hon. Friend the papers about the matter. There is no other presumption but that he deserted. The separation allowance was paid in full from February down to July, but it should have been stopped long before that time.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are a considerable number of cases in which seamen's wives and mothers are receiving a smaller separation allow allowance, sometimes as much as 6s. a week less, including the maximum allotment, than the wives and mothers of soldiers in similar circumstances; when did the Admiralty first issue orders advising sailors' dependants under such conditions to apply to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary allowance; and is he aware that the Statutory Committee has all along refused to make supplementary grants in such cases, it being outside its province to supplement an inadequate flat rate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are cases such as my hon. Friend mentions in the first part of his question, but they are few in number, and it does not follow that there is hardship involved by the difference in the payment. An Admiralty Order was issued in June, 1915, promulgating the principal Regulations governing the grant of Navy separation allowance, and as it was realised that no series of Regulations, could provide adequately for every individual case, it was then stated that a Statutory Committee was in course of formation and that one of its functions would be to consider the question of making awards in any such exceptional instances. I can quite realise that the-Statutory Committee might take exception to supplementing an inadequate flat rate, but I am not aware that the Committee has refused to supplement Navy—or, in fact, Army—separation allowances when, but for such supplementation, hardship would be entailed?
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that no hardship is involved in paying a sailor's wife 6s. a week less than a soldier's wife? Is he not aware that in these cases in which the Admiralty on policy pays a sailor's wife 6s. a week less than a sailor's wife the Statutory Committee have absolutely refused to supplement it, and say it is a matter for the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can imagine that the Statutory Committee refuse to supplement the flat rate if they think it adequate, but if hardship can be shown I have yet to learn that they have refused to consider a case of that kind.
    Mr. SCOTT: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "hardship"? Does he mean hardship arising out of other

    1307
    circumstances than those connected with the rate, or hardship arising out of the fact that the Admiralty pays an inadequate amount?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that the rate generally is considered fair. I have already said, in reply to a previous question, that I am in communication with the Statutory Committee with reference to the very cases he was then putting to me.
    Mr. SCOTT: You have taken six months to learn.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any men in the Royal Naval Division now serving as soldiers in France who are prohibited from making a larger allotment than 8s. a week to their wives, and whose wives therefore, if they have a large family, are in a worse position than the wives of the other soldiers alongside whom they are fighting?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A comparison of the figures shows that the pay and separation allowance issued in respect of an A.B. of the Royal Naval Division in France are together in excess of the pay and separation allowance of a private soldier so long as the family consists of one, two or three children, but less if it consists of four or more. As stated in answer to previous questions, the scale of Navy separation allowances has been so fixed that when taken in conjunction with Navy pay it produces in the general case substantially the same result.
    Mr. SCOTT: As the right hon. Gentleman says the statement is right that the sailor's wife is getting less than the soldier's wife where there is a large number of children and where the sailor and the soldier are serving together in the trenches in France, why did he give me a contrary answer last Wednesday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not remember that.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that certain troops now in Egypt were under the impression when embarking that it was not necessary to make allotments providing their wives signed a statement to the effect that no allotments were desired by them in excess of the "Government allowances; whether he is
    1308
    aware that many among these troops from the time of landing in Egypt have, till recent date, received their full military pay, this leading the men to believe that a Regulation existed providing for the arrangement mentioned; whether, in point of fact, there was and is any such Regulation; and, if not, what steps will be taken to meet the circumstances of the debt now standing to the accounts of the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such occurrence, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me full particulars.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE (POWERS AND DUTIES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will circulate with the Votes the Memorandum drawn up between the Ministry and the Statutory Committee relative to the powers and duties of both?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): The Departmental arrangements between the Pensions Ministry and the Statutory Committee are at this stage largely of an experimental character, and may require revision in the light of experience. I do not, therefore, think that it would be advisable at this stage to give these internal arrangements the publicity indicated in my hon. Friend's question. I will, however, be happy to supply him with details if he will see me personally on the subject.

    NEW PAY WARRANT.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the Minister of Pensions when it is proposed that the new Pay Warrant shall be published; and whether it can be arranged that an advance copy may be placed before the House before the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill?
    Mr. BARNES: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 12th instant, but I think it will be possible to act on the suggestion contained in the second part of the question.

    NAVAL CARPENTERS AND JOINERS (CRYSTAL PALACE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the carpenters and joiners at the Crystal Palace

    1309
    have been ordered to supply themselves with a list of tools; that it takes three sheets of foolscap to describe the tools that they have to get; that many of the tools will never be used by the men; and that men have been informed that if they do not buy the tools they will be punished; and whether he will arrange to supply these men with tools from the stores for use when they require them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The practice of supplying carpenters and ratings in the Royal Naval Air Service with tools from store was found to be unsatisfactory because the men did not exercise sufficient care in the custody of them. For this reason and because of the general scarcity of tools, of which it was believed many of these men possessed private sets, it was decided to adopt the system in use with many ratings of the Royal Navy, under which the rating is required to provide himself with suitable tools and is paid an allowance per day for so doing. In the case referred to this allowance is 3d. per day. He may buy such tools as he needs at cheap Government rates. The list of tools was drawn up by the technical officers of the Royal Naval Air Service after consideration of the nature of the work to be performed, but the desirability of reducing it is now receiving consideration.
    Mr. WILSON: With regard to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's reply in which he said that the men are asked to pay for tools, is he aware that quite a number of these men who asked for leave were refused it, and will he see to it that when they ask for leave of this kind it will be granted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It must depend upon the exigencies of the service and the grounds upon which leave is asked for. I will look into the point.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (LEAVE).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention had been called to the fact that a young man of he Royal Naval Reserve, through no fault of his own, was unable to get back to Portsmouth before his leave expired, and that, notwithstanding the fact that he had a note from the senior naval officer at Lerwick and from the captain of the mailship that the delay was unavoidable, after the journey of near 800 miles, he was
    1310
    put into a cell without fire or blankets and with little food, and kept there for nearly thirty hours; and if, in view of the fact that the commanding officer at Portsmouth found no fault, he will make inquiry as to the person responsible for this action and see that suitable punishment is awarded him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been ascertained that the boy in question arrived at the Royal Naval Barracks at two a.m. In order not to disturb others, as are the orders for men arriving after midnight, he was allowed to sleep in the police office. Immediately after the ordinary service breakfast his case was investigated by the officer of the day and subsequently by the Commander and dismissed. The loom he slept in was properly warmed.

    TIMBER (CYPRUS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the export of timber from Cyprus is forbidden, and all wood required for the military operations in Egypt has had to be brought from Scandinavia; and whether steps will now be taken to develop the forest resources of Cyprus?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): The exportation of timber from Cyprus is prohibited by law, but this prohibition has been relaxed in order to assist the troops in Egypt. What is possible is being done to develop the forest resources of Cyprus consistently with the pressing need for reafforestation in the island.

    IGNATIUS WOODS (ARMY SERVICE CORPS).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the results of the inquiries promised into the case of Ignatius Woods, 775 Company, Army Service Corps, No. 078,439; is he aware that Woods joined the Mechanical Transport of the Army Service Corps in April, 1915, after an interview with Major Jellicoe at the War Office, London, who told him that if he served the corps satisfactorily as a non-commissioned officer he would recommend him for a commission; that on 8th April, 1915, Ignatius Woods, on the recommendation of Major Jellicoe, above referred to, received the rank of sergeant,

    1311
    but that he did not receive sergeant's pay; that, though Ignatius Woods was sergeant-in-charge of the Mechanical Transport workshops in Belfast up to June, 1916, without complaint, he received a letter from Major Oakley, 373rd Company, Bedford, stating that Colonel Fisher, on 27th April, 1915, promised him sergeant's pay; if he is aware that this man was sent to France on 8th October without receiving a single penny of sergeant's pay, and reduced to the rank of private; what is the result of Woods' application for a commission on the interview accorded him on 18th October, 1916; and if he proposes to take any further action in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The acting appointment was only given to Woods to enable him to prove his capacity in a position of authority with a view to furthering his application for a commission. Appointments of this description do not carry pay. On going to France Woods automatically reverted to the rank of private in accordance with the usual practice. I understand that he has since been promoted a sergeant. He was not interviewed at the War Office in October last. He was tested for a commission in the Army Service Corps in France, but it was not granted.

    MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the offer of Mr. H. A. Barker to treat, without charge, by his system of manipulative surgery officers and men who are disabled by joint injuries; and whether, in view of the evidence of the success of this gentleman's methods, he will take steps to appoint a committee of surgeons to investigate and report upon his methods?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: On the general question I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Down on this subject. It is not proposed to appoint such a committee.
    Mr. PETO: Would it not at least be worth while to have the views of eminent orthodox surgeons on this gentleman's work and the evidence he can bring before them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have seen the views of very eminent surgeons, and they are all against it.
    Mr. PETO: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the evidence of people in the highest position who will give him exactly the opposite information?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I have not.
    Mr. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to see it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
    Mr. LYNCH: What are the surgical qualifications of this gentleman?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is rather difficult to say. I can only say he is not a qualified medical practitioner or surgeon. His name is not on the Medical Register, and therefore the War Office is precluded from employing him.

    RAID ON MEETING (GLASGOW).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the recruiting authorities in Glasgow organised a raid on a meeting of the Shop Assistants' Union, held in the Shop Assistants' Hall in Glasgow, on 9th February; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to permit further raids on trade union meetings throughout the country?
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a raid made by the military and police authorities on a meeting of employés in the wholesale drapery trade called by the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen, and Clerks in the rooms of the union in Argyle Street, Glasgow, on the evening of the 9th instant; and if he can say under what authority and for what purpose this course was taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made into the matters raised in these questions, and my hon. Friends will be informed of the result.
    Mr. WATT: Is my hon. Friend aware that the meeting was gathered together to assist Mr. Neville Chamberlain in his scheme?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I am not aware of that, but full inquiries are being made, and when I hear I will tell my hon. Friend.

    MRS. CORNWALLIS WEST.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, to restore confidence in the impartial ad ministration of the law, he will say if Mrs. Cornwallis West has been tried by court-martial for having tampered with military officers as other persons have been tried and punished for having tampered with private soldiers: and, if not, on whose authority and under what particular law she has been exempted from such a trial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir. The Government do not propose to take any such action.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say why?

    ARMY OFFICERS OF ALIEN ORIGIN.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers there are in the Army, including the Colonial Forces, whose parents were not British subjects at the time of their birth; and whether there has been any reason for thinking such persons to be unworthy of confidence?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that it would be impossible to give this information.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that there are persons who are not considered worthy of confidence but are considered worthy to serve and die in the trenches?

    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Territorial Force who have commanded regiments at the front have been promoted to, or given appointments in, a higher rank than that of lieutenant-colonel?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of Territorial officers in command of regiments at the front who have been promoted to higher rank is eighteen; the number at home three.

    IRISH REGIMENTS.
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
    1314
    he will state the number of men who have been compulsorily drafted from English, Scottish, and Welsh regiments to fill vacancies in Irish regiments and the number of Irish battalions which have been absorbed through lack of recruits; and whether individual Irishmen serving in non-Irish regiments have been given opportunities of transfer to Irish regiments if they so desire?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I fear that the information asked for in the first part of the question could not be obtained without a prohibitive expenditure of labour. It is not desirable in military interests to state the number of Irish battalions absorbed. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: Is it not a fact that this information could be obtained from not more than two officers altogether, and does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable to give some information on the subject if only to persuade Irishmen that their regiments are rapidly ceasing to be Irish?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman about the number of men to whom I should have to apply. I was informed this morning that I should have to apply to all the commanding officers.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary question?

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether any recognition has been given to soldiers who are now prisoners in enemy countries or who are interned as prisoners of war in neutral countries; and whether recognition of bravery has been afforded to French soldiers by the French Government under similar circumstances?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No recognition has been given to soldiers who are prisoners of war in enemy countries or interned as prisoners of war in neutral countries except certain rewards for services rendered by Sir C. Townshend's force prior to the Siege of Kut. No prisoner of war can be considered for reward until the circumstances of his capture have been investigated. It is not permissible to confer rewards except on the recommendation of

    1315
    a soldier's superior officer and for some definite act of bravery or for exceptionally good service. I have no information as to the practice of the French Government.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot my hon. Friend reconsider his decision, as many of these prisoners formed part of the first Expeditionary Force, and therefore are very worthy of recognition?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite sure those men are worthy of recognition. I cannot imagine a British soldier being taken prisoner without some very good ground, but there are Regulations, I am told, which insist upon any prisoner being examined to account for his being a prisoner.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Regulations be altered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will consider that.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General the number of parcels received from Germany in this country for German prisoners of war in the years 1914, 1915, and 1916?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The number of parcels received in this country from Germany and Austria-Hungary for prisoners of war in-eluding interned civilians in this country and in the British Dominions and Colonies was 30,136 in 1914, 497,749 in 1915, and 579,107 in 1916. There is no separate record of the number of parcels received from Germany for German prisoners of war.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he will state how many incapacitated by wounds or illness and civilian prisoners of war, respectively, over forty-five years of age have been returned to and have arrived from Germany since the 1st January, 1917; and whether the new German blockade threats interfere with the carrying out of the recent agreement for exchange?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): No incapacitated British and German combatant prisoners of war have been repatriated since the 1st January. We have sent back to Germany 376 civilians over forty-five and twenty-five British civilians over forty-five have arrived here since that date. We understand that some forty-four British civilians
    1316
    over forty-five have arrived in Holland. It has not so far been considered practicable to proceed further with repatriation since the recent German declaration.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he will say how many prisoners of war, specifying British, Colonial, and Indian, are in Turkish hands; and whether any improvement in their condition can be reported?
    Mr. HOPE: The present number of British prisoners of war in Turkish hands is as follows:

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    British

    323

    …

    1,652

    Colonials

    13

    …

    140

    Indian Natives

    195

    …

    8,573

    Note.—In addition there are still untraced:

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    British

    17

    …

    1,388

    Indian Natives

    —

    …

    4,879

    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Mr. HOPE: I should hesitate to go into a long report which has come in, and I do not wish to generalise as to its conclusions.
    Mr. WATTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he is aware that an agreement has recently been arrived at between France and; Germany whereby prisoners of war who are fathers of families and have also been interned for a certain length of time may be transferred to Switzerland; whether similar negotiations have taken place in favour of the same class of British prisoners of war; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. HOPE: It is understood that an agreement has been reached between France and Germany for the transfer to-Switzerland of the limited number of 100 prisoners of war from Germany and France who have been eighteen months in captivity and have three children; owing to the many difficulties now experienced in effecting the transfer of incapacitated prisoners of war to Switzerland, it is considered to be inadvisable to enter at present into negotiations which would merely emphasise these difficulties and be of very limited application.
    Mr. WATT: Is not the Foreign Office extraordinarily slow in getting advantages the French Foreign Office get for-their prisoners?
    Mr. HOPE: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Is it not the fact that the French and German exchange in Switzerland took place in January, 1916, and, owing to the difficulties of the War Office and Foreign Office of this country, British prisoners did not arrive in Switzerland until June, and what was the cause of that?
    Mr. WATT: The Foreign Office.
    Mr. HOPE: I must ask for notice of that question.

    WOUNDED MEN (MEDICAL NOTES).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what medical notes have been, and are, sent with wounded men from Flanders; and whether arrangements will be made to permit a wounded man being accompanied by medical notes on his own case and the details of treatment carried out, so as to avoid delay and unnecessary manipulation on his arrival in England?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Each man has attached to his coat a card giving particulars of the case. Improvements of this card are now being carried out, and a fuller history of the case will be given.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    REJECTED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is still calling up by compulsion attested men who have been rejected since August, 1915, and to whom a notice calling them up for re-examination has not been sent before 1st September, 1916; and, if so, why it is taking no steps to call up compulsorily Mr. Gager, to whom this description applies, but who was declared by the South-Western magistrate to be excepted, the War Office having stated that it did not recognise the validity of this decision?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to him on this subject on the 20th February.

    DANIEL GRIFFITHS (LLANELLY).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his
    1318
    attention has been called to the case of Daniel Griffiths, aged thirty-six, school teacher, Llanelly, who has been ordered to do work of national importance; whether he is aware that Griffiths on being medically examined and passed C3 and is already engaged in work of national importance by reason of the fact that Circular 952, Board of Education, and Army Council Instruction 1398 make teaching a certified occupation to all medically classed below A; and whether, having regard to these facts, instructions will be given for Griffiths to remain in civil occupation at his present work as a teacher?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 19th February to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn with regard to Mr. Daniel Griffiths.

    CALLING-UP NOTICES.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the military authorities are constantly issuing calling-up notices allowing not more than twenty-four hours' time; and if he will give instructions that the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act, under which Reservists, while called to the Colours, are entitled to at least fourteen days' notice, should be observed in all eases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Reserve Forces Act, 1882, provides no specified period of notice which must be issued to a Reservist calling him up from the Reserve for service with the Colours. Where possible, it has been usual to give fourteen days' notice to Reservists who are called up under the Military Service Act or who have passed into the Army Reserve on attestation, but in some cases it has not been found practicable to give so long a notice as fourteen days. Occasionally men who have had more than two months' notice that their exemption was cancelled have been instructed by recruiting officers to join at twenty-four hours' notice. Instructions were issued from the War Office some days ago that a minimum of seven days' notice should normally be given to such men. This will be the general practice, except in cases in which there is reason to believe that the man affected may attempt to conceal himself in the hope of evading service for a time, or in which there are other special reasons of a military or civil nature.

    PRIVATE PLUMB, 3RD CAMERON HIGHLANDERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will have an investigation made into the case of Private J. Plumb, No. 27,334, C Company, 3rd Cameron Highlanders, Invergordon, who is turned forty-one years of age, and who was passed by the medical board for C2 class and who registered for munition work, but instead of being provided with such work was sent to Invergordon; will lie note for inquiry that on the 18th January the Director of Recruiting stated that this man had been enrolled with a view to using him as a substitute in a munitions firm, but immediately after this Private Plumb was summoned before a medical board and put into A1 class, though no examination was made of him, and if, after inquiry, these facts are substantiated, will he have this man used as a substitute for munition work, for which he is specially qualified?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry is being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. GIN NELLasked on what principle and under what Statute or Regulation conscientious objectors, so found by the revision section of the Central Tribunal, who have been released to work under the Home Office scheme, and do not comply with Regulations of the Home Office, are handed over to the military authorities?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The principle should be well known to the hon. Member if he has followed the various questions and debates which have been raised in this House on the subject. The Regulations are those which govern the transfer of soldiers to Section W of the Army Reserve and their recall therefrom to military service.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman say by what legal authority men who have been certified by a tribunal as being exempt from military service on the ground of conscientious objection are sent to the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: These men are not certified.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: They are!

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of the Local Government Board whether the Government contemplate making any general withdrawal of exemptions from service in the Army granted by local or Appeal Tribunals without reference to those bodies; and, if so, under what Statute will this action be taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The whole subject; of exemptions is receiving consideration; but I may say that exemptions granted subject to the provisions of the Military Service Acts cannot be withdrawn otherwise than in accordance with those Acts.

    MERCHANT SERVICE (SHIPMASTERS OF ALIEN ORIGIN).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary to I the Admiralty how many masters of British merchant ships who, though British subjects, were not at the time of their birth the children of British subjects have been compelled by the Admiralty to abandon their commands; how many of these persons have shown themselves unworthy of confidence and by what actions: and how many have been proceeded against criminally for misconduct?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It would, I am afraid, take some considerable time to search through the records to ascertain the names of all persons who, though British subjects, were not at the time of their birth the children of British subjects, and who were in consequence refused Admiralty confidential instructions.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: How is it possible to carry out the Regulations if the right hon. Gentleman has not the information asked for in this question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend asked for the total number. I say it takes a considerable time to ascertain all that, but we can ascertain the facts in a particular case.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: How does the Admiralty ascertain the facts in a particular case unless they have a list of persons to whom the Regulation applies?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have not, so far as I know, a list of persons to whom the Regulation applies.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES (MERCHANT SHIPS SUNK).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether publication can be given of losses to the mercantile marine, requisitioned by the Government or engaged in ordinary commerce, sunk: by enemy submarine or other enemy action, in continuation of the Board of Trade Return of January, 1916?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend proposes to deal fully with this matter in his speech this afternoon.

    KING'S LIVERPOOL REGIMENT (PAY BOOKS).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, on the eve of departure for France recently of the 2/6th King's Liverpool Territorial Regiment, the men's pay books were given out and with very few exceptions the men were marked down as owing various sums to the battalion; that some of the amounts reached £10 and over; that on the quartermaster-sergeant of one company being spoken to on the matter he admitted it was a mistake, but said these sums had to be put in the books and the men had to put their names to the amounts, but the matter was being inquired into; that the pay books state that these amounts will be debited to future pay; that many of the men so debited owe nothing; and will he have this matter fully inquired into and the men released from these deductions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am having inquiry made, and my hon. Friend will in due course be informed of the result.

  REBELLION IN IRELAND.

    COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister why the evidence taken before the Commission of Inquiry into the Porto bello barrack murders has not yet been published; and when it will be presented.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This was an open inquiry and was very fully reported in the Press at the time. The republication of
    1322
    the evidence as a Blue Book is not, therefore, regarded as a matter of urgent importance at the present time.
    Mr. DILLON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that shortly before Christmas the then Prime Minister gave me an unqualified pledge that the evidence would be now published? In view of the fact that most of the present Ministers were members of that Government, are they going to repudiate that pledge?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the question and answer I think he will find there is no word "now" in the answer. Whether there should be the expenditure of the labour and money required for producing a Blue Book, which, so far as I can see, is not of urgent necessity, especially at the present time, is a matter for consideration. In the judgment of the Government at this time there is no necessity for spending money and labour in this way.
    Mr. DILLON: There is very great necessity. I shall call attention to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment the first opportunity I get.
    Mr. LYNCH: As the Prime Minister never comes to the House, may I ask the Leader of the House how far he has power to engage the responsibility of the Prime Minister by a pledge given in this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of this question.

    LORD MILNER.
    Mr. KINGasked what date Lord Milner arrived at Petrograd; whether he is still there; and whether, consistently with the Allied interests, he can give any information concerning the Petrograd Conference?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As has already been announced, Lord Milner is in Petrograd. I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to the Conference.

    MINISTERS' SALARIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will define the new Ministerial positions to which Lord Milner and Lord Curzon have been appointed, with

    1323
    the salaries attached thereto, and say when this House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing those appointments and salaries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Lord Curzon is a member of the Cabinet and holds the office of Lord President of the Council, to which is attached the salary of £2,000 per annum, and Lord Milner is a member of the Cabinet without portfolio, and receives a salary of £5,000, the Vote for which was agreed to on 13th February.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether that is correct? Is he in receipt of £5,000 a year, or in receipt of a salary out of the pool?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered that question in the Debate on this very point.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what causes the delay in carrying out the promise of his predecessor in office to publish full Reports of the proceedings in the secret courts-martial held in Ireland last May; and when those Reports will be available?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo put a similar question to me some days ago, and he then promised to put a question down. If he puts it down for Thursday of next week I hope to be in a position to give him an answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to discriminate between two Members sitting on the same bench? If the information is now available, why cannot the House have it? It is for the House I asked this information, and not for myself.

    AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY (CIRCULAR).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he sanctioned the circular issued to its creditors by an American mortgage company in London in which a reference is made to the opinions of the Treasury?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury were consulted by the company on the subject of the proposal in question before the
    1324
    circular was sent out. The Treasury expressed the opinion that it was very desirable in the national interest that arrangements of the character proposed should be carried out, but expressly stated that they could not allow a statement to appear in the circular to the effect that the proposal met with the approval of the Treasury, or that shareholders who declined the offer would be required to sell their holdings to the Government. The question whether the terms offered are such as ought to commend themselves to the shareholders is a matter for the shareholders themselves to consider, and the Treasury has expressed no opinion on that question.

    BRITISH FIRMS (DEBTS DUE FROM ENEMIES).
    Captain BARNETTasked whether the Government are considering the measures to be taken at the end of the War, or otherwise, for protecting the interests of firms in this country to whom debts are due from enemy countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Committee was appointed by the Treasury on the 13th November, 1916, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Babington Smith, K.C.B., to report on the arrangements to be adopted for the liquidation of the commercial, banking, and other financial transactions between British and enemy persons, the completion of which was prevented by the outbreak of War, and for this purpose to consider the returns made to the custodians of enemy property and to the Public Trustee and the Foreign Claims Office and any information on matters relating thereto.
    The members of the Committee are:—

    Sir Henry Babington Smith, K.C.B., Chairman.

    The Right Hon. Donald Maclean, M.P.

    The Hon. M. Macnaghten.

    Sir Algernon Firth, Bart.

    Sir William Plender.

    Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, of the Foreign Office.

    Mr. Brien Cokayne, Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England.

    Mr. Walter Leaf.

    Mr. Stewart, Public Trustee.

    Mr. J. J. Wills, of the Board of Trade.

    The Secretary of the Committee is Mr. H. Mead Taylor, Gwydyr House, Board of Trade.

  WAR LOAN.

    WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether it is proposed to still offer for sale the 15s. 6d. War Loan Certificates at post offices; and whether, with a view to encouraging thrift, ho can see his way to allow a larger amount than £500 to be held by one person?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The £l for 15s. 6d. War Savings Certificates are still on sale at post offices, banks, etc., as before, and I sincerely trust that the stimulus given to the sale of these certificates during the War Loan campaign will result in the continuance of the excellent results then obtained. In view of the fact that neither Income Tax nor Super-tax is payable in respect of the interest earned on War Savings Certificates, I am not prepared to raise above 500 the limit for the number of certificates which may be held by or for the benefit of any one individual.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from memory what will be the cost of bringing in this money?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not a memory equal to that.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the promise he has now given will be carried out in the case of anyone succeeding him in his present office?

    PREMIUM BONDS.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a substantial amount was subscribed to the War Loan through the medium of sweepstakes that were organised; whether he will recognise the attraction to a certain portion of the population of an investment where prizes are one of the features; and whether he will take into consideration, in order that the section of the population referred to may be attracted to take a financial interest in the country, the issue of a further loan in the shape of premium bonds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not wish to say more at present than that I have an open mind on the subject of the raising of money for the War by the issue of premium bonds. The hon. Baronet is, of course, aware that legislation would be required before such an issue could be made.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon. colleague the Member for the Bewdley Division (Mr. Baldwin)?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the principle of the Lottery Act which prohibits gambling of all kinds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have only said I have an open mind. It will be time enough to discuss its merits later.

    AGRICULTURISTS IN NAVY AND ARMY.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the number of men who have joined the Navy and Army from the county of Devon since the commencement of the War who were previously engaged in agriculture?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As a large body of men, formerly engaged on agriculture, will have probably gone into the Navy and others into munition work, I am afraid that there is no reliable figure which I can give to my hon. Friend.

    OATS (CULTIVATION).
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the nature and terms of the arrangement made by the War Office with farmers for breaking up grass lands for the growing of oats; whether it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom; and, if not, to what part of it?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will send a copy of the form of contract to my hon. Friend if he so desires. The organisation was intended to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom. In view of all the circumstances it has been decided that we should no longer be justified in maintaining a separate organisation to stimulate the product of oats required for Army needs.
    Mr. FABER: Is this appointment which was made being discontinued?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. As we are no longer justified in maintaining the organisation we are no longer justified in maintaining the gentleman who is in charge of it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the' War Office demands an expenditure of 25s. an acre on artificial manures for oats on broken-up grass land? Is he aware that we in Scotland are suffering from too much fertility, and that the expenditure of 25s. is totally unnecessary?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    KING'S PARK (STIRLING).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked whether it is intended to plough up the King's Park at Stirling; and whether there is no other undeveloped land in the neighbourhood which is available and might be utilized for food crops instead of this communal land, which is the only pleasure-ground of the people of Stirling?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): No such proposal has reached my Department.

    MACHINERY (FOOD PRODUCTION).
    Mr. LUNDONasked what sum was granted by the Treasury for the purchase of machinery in connection with the production of extra food for England and Scotland, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): An outlay up to £370,000 has been sanctioned for the purchase of machinery in connection with the production of food in England and Wales. For information as regards Scotland the hon. Member has, I think, already been referred to the Secretary for Scotland.

    SUGAR.
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, in view of the increasing scarcity of sugar, he will consider the advisability of restricting the amount employed in the manufacture of lemonade, ginger beer, gingerade, and other similar compounds known as teetotal drinks?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The Food Controller has already considered the advisability of restricting the amount of sugar employed in the manufacture of lemonade, ginger-beer, gingerade, and other similar beverages. Conferences have been held with representatives of the several trades
    1328
    concerned, and it is proposed shortly to-issue a General Order dealing with this matter.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Does this-include alcoholic liquors?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller considers that it is no part of his duty to make a discrimination.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (RATION'S).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether, having regard to the fact that our present food rations are largely due to enemy submarine, warfare and to the fact that our own prisoners in Germany have still smaller rations, he will at once, without waiting for the decision of any committee, at least put the German prisoners in this country on an equality with ourselves in the matter of food?
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the quantity of bread, meat, and sugar allowed per day to each interned German and to each German prisoner?
    Mr. J. HOPE: As I stated yesterday, a new scale of rations for German prisoners, combatant and civilian, will be issued immediately as an Army Council Instruction. I have no power myself to fix rations for any description of prisoner.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman relieve the feeling of the country by stating when the new scale is to be put in force?
    Mr. HOPE: Immediately. I understand that it will be published this week and applied next week.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Before it is put in force, will it be submitted to the House of Commons to see that the rations are not in excess of what the Germans allow British prisoners?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand that it is to be put in force at the earliest possible date, and I take it that the hon. Member does not want any delay.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will the German officers who are prisoners be in a position to buy out of their private resources food over and above the rations allowed?
    Mr. HOPE: As I answered yesterday, the case of the officers is quite distinct. Hitherto they have bought their own food, but now they will not be allowed to buy

    1329
    more bread, meat, and sugar than the rations Lord Devonport recommends. Other food they will still be able to buy.
    Mr. G. FABER: Will they be able to buy other food without limit?
    Mr. THORNE: Does that mean that they will be allowed to buy more than the ordinary rations and that other people will have to run short?
    Mr. HOPE: That will not be allowed.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, having regard to a possible shortage of sound potato seed, he will explain how it is practicable to force early potatoes this spring, dig them out before fully matured in the month of June, and replant for next winter's food?
    Mr. DUKE: Inquiries made by the Department of Agriculture do not indicate that there is a scarcity of sound potato seed of main crop varieties. There is, however, only a limited quantity of seed of the early varieties of potato available, and the Department are satisfied that this will be planted and the crops lifted early in the season for food without any special advice being issued. It is already customary to plant land, from which early potatoes have been taken, with a second crop.

    SOLDIERS ON FARMS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangement is being made for sending soldiers to farms in Scotland for work there during the next three months; if so, will he say how many are to be made available and how they are to be allocated; and will they all have had previous experience of farming?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first part of my lion, and learned Friend's question is in the affirmative. I am not in a position to give definite figures, but I am informed that there will be available to-day in Scotland for distribution a substantial number of skilled agricultural workers. In addition there will shortly be available a larger body of men without special agricultural training or experience. The allocation of the men will be arranged by the National Service Department in co-opera-
    1330
    tion with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the District Agricultural Executive Committees on Food. Production.

    TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that tea exported from this country into France or any French colony is liable to a surtax of 2½d. per lb. as compared with tea imported into France direct from the East; and whether, having regard to the relations now existing between the two countries and the difficulty of transport, he will approach the French Government with a view to the abolition of this surtax, at least for the duration of the War?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave, for Mr. Balfour): His Majesty's Government have already approached the French Government on the subject of this surtax, but the latter have not been able to agree to its abolition. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by further representations.

    CORN PURCHASE (ROUMANIA).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House what has become of the corn purchased last year by the British Government in Roumania, of the money paid for it, and the amount of this money?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not propose to say anything on the subject at the present time.

    SWINE FEVER, ANTHRAX AND SHEEP SCAB.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the number of cases of swine fever reported for the years 1915 and 1916, and the number of cases of anthrax and sheep scab reported in bullocks and sheep respectively during those years?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The number of outbreaks of swine fever in Great Britain was 3,994 in 1915 and 4,331 in 1916; the number of cattle attacked by anthrax was 607 in 1915 and 644 in 1916; the number of outbreaks of sheep scab was 257 in. 1915 and 424 in 1916.

    VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.)asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the safety of the Victoria and Albert Museum, for which he is responsible, against the admittedly additional risk of fire caused by the placing of inflammable material in the building for the purposes of a fair without his consent?
    Sir ALFRED MOND: So far as it falls within my province, effect has been given to all the recommendations of the London Fire Brigade for securing the safety of the building. In the event of any future proposal to put the Victoria and Albert Museum building to such use, I should, if First Commissioner at the time, certainly refuse consent.

    BEDLINGTON POST OFFICE.
    Mr. BURTasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to complaints from the Bedlingtonshire Urban District Council relating to a charge of 3d. which has lately been imposed on callers for letters on Sundays at the Bedlington Post Office, even if there are no letters for them; whether he is aware that large numbers of men are at the front from that district and that the relatives are naturally anxious to have the latest information from them; whether the demand for payment on Sunday letters is general or does it apply only to a few places and those of a less population than Bedlingtonshire; whether there are many smaller towns in the locality where the inhabitants still have the privilege of a free delivery of their letters on Sundays; and whether something will be done to remove the grievance, either by delivering letters or by ceasing to enforce payment from callers on Sunday?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The right hon. Member has twice drawn attention to this matter, and for the reasons which have been fully explained to him in correspondence I regret that I am unable to modify the decision arrived at.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Attorney-General whether, as the Defence of the
    1332
    Realm Act gives His Majesty in Council power by Regulation to alter or repeal for the duration of the War all or any portion of the Statute Law, he will say why Bills are presented to Parliament when the objects of such Bills can be obtained by the Government by Orders in Council?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The assumption made in the first part of this question has no foundation in fact. The validity of the Regulations in question depends upon their indispensability for the public safety and the defence of the realm.

    PRE-WAR CONTRACTS.
    Mr. PETOasked when legislation may be expected to be introduced dealing with the position of contractors under conditions brought about by the Defence of the Realm Act in respect of the suspension of pre-war contracts and other analogous matters?
    Sir F. SMITH: To-day.

    POLITICAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that there are persons in Scotland convicted of political offences who are being treated like ordinary criminals and are compelled to do routine work usually allocated to prisoners of the most degraded type; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to secure that persons convicted in Scotland of political offences may be punished in a manner commensurate with the offence and not be placed in the same category as ordinary criminals, and thus bring Scottish law into conformity with that prevailing in England?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am not aware how precisely my hon. Friend would define a political offence, but it is the case that no special treatment has in Scotland been accorded to offenders against the Defence of the Realm Regulations. In England a Court may, in the exercise of their discretion, allocate offenders to the first or second division. This system has not been applied to Scotland, and I am not prepared, under existing conditions, to introduce legislation for the special benefit of this class of offenders.

    BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce a Bill for carrying out the principles of the Business Names Registration Act in regard to limited companies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): The matter referred to is at present under consideration, but I am not able to name a date for the introduction of a Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressing necessity of bringing limited companies into line with firms in regard to business names?
    Mr. ROBERTS: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, he is quite aware of the special nature of the matter and is giving it his serious consideration. He hopes to introduce a Bill at an early date.

    BROTHEL KEEPER (CONVICTION).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a brothel keeper who was recently convicted at Bow Street and sentenced to pay a fine of £20 and eight guineas costs, although it was stated in evidence that the takings of one week were at the rate of £6,200 a year and that large sums were paid to cabmen for introducing visitors; and whether he proposes to take any action in relation to such cases?
    Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been called to this case, which is one of the cases to which I referred in moving the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill now before the House. The fine imposed was the maximum allowed under the existing law, but it is proposed by the Bill to raise the maximum fine.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that men who belong to the ordinary working classes go to any such houses?

    DARTMOOR PRISON (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
    1334
    ment if he can give information as to the future use of Dartmoor prison?
    Sir G. CAVE: It has been arranged that Dartmoor Prison shall cease to be used as a prison, and shall be handed over for the duration of the War to the Home Office Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors. The men who will be sent there by the Committee will be employed on the large farm attached to the prison, and on the reclamation for agricultural purposes of neighbouring portions of Dartmoor. The men will live and work under conditions similar to those in force at the Committee's establishments at Wakefield and Warwick. It is hoped that the buildings may be ready for the reception of conscientious objectors in about a fortnight's time.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended that the building should revert to the purposes of a prison after the war?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.

    GOAT (TETHERING BY ROADSIDE).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mrs. Ellen Gilkes was fined 5s. recently at the Neithrop Police Court, Banbury, for the offence of tethering a goat by the roadside; and, if so, whether, in view of existing conditions, he will inquire into the circumstances of the case with a view to a remission of the fine?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am having inquiry made into this case and will give the hon. Member an answer as soon as I am in possession of the facts.

    METROPOLITAN AND CITY POLICE.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase of pay, by way of war bonus or otherwise, has been given per man to the members of the City police and also to the members of the Metropolitan police since the outbreak of war; and whether he can say what percentage of their pre-war pay the war bonus or other allowances represent which have been given since War began?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the Metropolitan police, to the full reply given by my predecessor on 29th November last. The City

    1335
    police received the same bonus as the Metropolitan police in March, 1915, and again in October, 1916. As the pre-war pay differed according to the rank of the police officers and some of the allowances given since the War are dependent on the circumstances of the recipients, it would be difficult to state the result in the form of a percentage.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the increases were in pay or allowance, or am I right in saying that the war bonus only amounts to 3s. per week?
    Sir G. CAVE: The whole of the increases are contained in the answer to which I refer.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Metropolitan police received their war bonus prices have increased by 50 per cent?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware they have risen.
    Mr. FLAVIN: If the bonus were at the highest possible amount, it would not represent 15 per cent.; and can the right hon. Gentleman say how a man with a family can live on an increase of 15 per cent, on his pre-war pay, as compared with more than 80 per cent, of an increased cost of living.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think it is a good deal more than 15 per cent.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Give us the figures we ask for.

  NATIONAL SEKVICE.

    GRANGE-ON-SANDS TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. F. M. Thompson, of Grange-on-Sands, who has been ordered by the local tribunal to find work of national importance or join the Army; whether he is aware that this man, a widower age forty, lost his wife recently and was left with the care of nine children, their ages ranging from five weeks to fifteen years; whether he is aware that either course urged by the tribunal probably involves the breaking up of the home and the loss to the children of the supervision of both father and mother; and whether he will take steps to impress the
    1336
    importance of the proper care of these-nine children upon the tribunal and its chairman, the vicar of the parish?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am having inquiry made in this case.

    MUNITIONS VOLUNTEER SCHEME.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will make a statement giving the results obtained by the munitions volunteer scheme; whether it has proved successful or the reverse; whether Sir H. Llewellyn Smith was responsible for the scheme; and whether he has been transferred to another Department?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The war munitions volunteer scheme, for which the Government is responsible, has provided and is continuing to provide a large body of mobile and highly skilled workmen who are essential to the maintenance and increase of the output of munitions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling my attention to this matter and thereby-enabling me to refute an unfounded allegation against a distinguished member of the public service. I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging the invaluable services of Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith to the Ministry of Munitions. I am happy to say that the Ministry still has the benefit of his advice as one of its general secretaries.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Then there is no truth whatever in the attack made on this distinguished Civil servant?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Absolutely no truth; and I regret that an influential organ should have allowed itself to be made the vehicle of an attack upon a man who, from his position, was unable to reply.

    INCOME TAX (DRAWBACKS).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the hon. Member for Worcester (Bewdley Division) whether he is aware that the repayment of Income Tax drawbacks by the Inland Revenue Departments is in some cases over three months behind for amounts that have been agreed with surveyors of taxes; and whether, seeing that an undertaking was given to the House last summer that greater promptness in making remittances would be observed, so that a longer

    1337
    interval than fourteen days should not elapse when amounts were settled, he will now take steps to see that the undertaking will be observed?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Junior Lord of the Treasury): If my right hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I will gladly ask the Board of Inland Revenue to make inquiry into it. As regards the general question, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the very full explanation which was given as recently as 28th November last in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, on a Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon?
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Inland Revenue Department keep the promise made to me last year on this subject?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue Board are doing all they can to deal with the matter. My right hon. Friend will recognise that we have to do much work with a depleted staff, and that the accounts is not quite so simple as in peace time.

    CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Board recently appointed to consider claims for a war bonus for Government employés would also embrace those that have been obliged to leave the service through an accident and have been rendered quite unfit for employment of any kind?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

    RAPHAEL CARTOONS.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.)asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Raphael cartoons form part of the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum or whether they are deposited on loan; and, if the latter is the case, whether the consent of the lender was obtained before they were exposed to the admittedly additional risk of fire
    1338
    caused by filling the rooms immediately below the cartoons with inflammable material for the purposes of a fair?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Raphael cartoons are deposited in the museum on loan and special precautions have been taken for their protection. As regards the latter part of the question, I do not think the position can be conveniently explained by way of question and answer in this House, but I shall be glad to give the hon. Member information on the subject.

    HAMBURG-AMERICA LINE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any steps to have the premises of the Hamburg-America Line in Cockspur Street vested for the purpose of sale under the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916; and, if not, whether he will do so forthwith?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The premises of the Hamburg-America Line have been vested in the Public Trustee for the purpose of sale, and he informs me that the necessary steps are being taken to offer the property for sale by auction at an early date.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    PLUMAGE.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the necessity of saving tonnage for food and other essential imports, he will totally prohibit the use of space in vessels for the carrying of feathers of wild birds, which serve in our food-producing Colonies as valuable killers of insects which are destructive to crops; and whether he can state if feathers of birds more than doubly sufficient for the Home trade are at present stored in London warehouses awaiting a future market?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the statement which the Prime Minister is to make very shortly on the subject of further import restrictions.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKERS' RAILWAY FARES.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the

    1339
    case of men who have been transferred from the Army to the Ministry of Munitions and who have been sent long distances from their homes to work, he can make arrangements, when these men obtain their week-end leave, on the production of their transfer, for them to travel at Army rate; and is he aware that some of these men are working 200 miles from their homes and the present cost of travelling makes it almost impossible for them to visit their wives and children?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This question is receiving careful consideration, but I regret that it is has not so far been found practicable to exempt munition workers from the restrictions recently placed upon travelling in order to enable railways to meet the urgent demands made upon them in connection with the requirements imposed by the War.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made into this matter? Some of these men have been employed a considerable time.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have received a number of representations, and the matter is still receiving attention, I am in communication with the Railway Executive, who are sympathetically disposed in regard to the question.

    RAILWAY WAR BONUS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the railwayman's 10s. war bonus is being paid by the Government, and what method is adopted to arrive at a decision as to what number of employ és a railway company will receive Government Grants for to pay the said bonus?
    Mr. ROBERTS: On the railways in Great Britain of which possession has been taken by the Government one-sixteenth of the present war bonus to men coming within the railway conciliation scheme is paid by 'he individual companies. The balance is chargeable to the working expenses of the companies as a whole, and therefore affects the net receipts. Under the agreement with the companies any deficiency in-the aggregate net receipts as compared with the net receipts of 1913 is made good by the Government. No special Grants are made to the companies for the purposes of paying war bonus.

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE (ENEMY DEBTORS).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of enemy money there is in the hands of the Enemy Debtors' Committee and the Public Trustee; how much has been paid to creditor firms in this country and upon what basis has it been paid; and whether, in view of the fact that firms in this country are being financially handicapped owing to the non-payment of enemy debts, he will order the payment of a percentage of the money now held by either or both of the above authorities?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The money received by the Public Trustee under the Trading With the Enemy legislation amounts to about £9,657,000. Distributions have been made under Orders of Court amongst British, creditors of enemies to a total amount of £265,000. The Orders provide for the payment of the creditors in full or rateably so far as the assets of each enemy debtor will permit. The Enemy Debts Committee have no power to receive money due to enemies. I am not as at present advised prepared to recommend the making of such an Order as is suggested in the last part of the question. The Enemy Debts Committee, are however, now considering what arrangements should be adopted at the termination of the War or otherwise for the liquidation of transactions between British and enemy persons which were uncompleted at the outbreak of war.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee are taking into consideration grants and allowances made to applicants out of local voluntary funds, as, for instance, the Lord Mayor's fund raised in Bradford; if he is aware that the grants and allowances referred to are of a purely temporary nature pending the decision in each case of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee; and if, therefore, he will direct or advise this committee to ignore any such allowances when dealing with applications for relief on account of civil liabilities?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is not the practice of the Civil Liabilities Committee to take into account temporary allow-

    1341
    ances made from a local fund at Bradford or elsewhere pending the determination of the Civil Liabilities Grant.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Commissioners for the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee, when they send to applicants for particulars and documents relating to their applications, stipulate that the applicant must enclose an addressed envelope fully stamped to cover the cost of returning the documents; and whether, having regard to the slender resources of persons who apply for relief from civil liabilities, he will arrange that all such inquiries sent out by the Commissioners shall be accompanied by a large envelope returnable through the post free of charge, as is the case in regard to inquiries sent by surveyors of taxes to rich and well-to-do people respecting Income Tax assessments?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I was not aware that any Commissioners had requested applicants to enclose stamped addressed envelopes with their documents. I will, however, draw the attention of the Commissioners to the undesirability of any such practice.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many Belgian refugees there are at present in Scotland and how many of these are of military age and of military fitness; and if he will say why such men should find shelter there, while Scotsmen, in many cases without military fitness, are sent to Belgium to keep back the enemy?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part of the question, I must deprecate both the suggestions which it conveys as being, so far as I am aware, unfair to the military authorities and to our Allies.
    Mr. WATT: No, no; it is quite true!

    CZECHS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, in connection with the aim of the Allies
    1342
    to liberate the Czechs, that in Bohemia there are, approximately, 4,250,000 Czechs and 2,500,000 Germans; and can he say how it is proposed to deal with this German minority, who desire to maintain the Imperial connection, as in the case of Ulster?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is obviously premature to discuss questions of this nature.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will their liberation be followed by the liberation of the Irish people?

    DUBLIN TRIAL (EAMONN DE VALERA).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has furnished to the American. Ambassador a full report of the trial by secret court-martial, contrary to Statute, together with the evidence, in the case of Eamonn De Valera, an American citizen, a surrendered prisoner of war in Dublin last May, and of the sentence of death, commuted on account of his American citizenship to penal servitude for life; and if he will inform the House of any communications received from the American Government on the form of trial in this case, on the denial of facilities for defence, the character of the evidence, or otherwise, with reference to the case?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish the American Embassy with particulars of this case?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not understand that the Embassy have asked my right hon. Friend.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (OFFICERS' UNIFORMS).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the contemplated Regulations for uniforms for officers of the mercantile marine will include engineer officers as well as navigating officers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Any arrangements made for standard uniforms for the Mercantile Marine would necessarily include engineer officers as well as deck officers.

    Summer Time (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the inconvenience caused in Ireland last year by the Summer Time Act and the application of an incorrect time, for which there was no Irish demand, whether before further enforcing those measures in Ireland he will ascertain Irish opinion of them or allow time for discussion of them in this House?
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government still adhere to their theory of not introducing contentious legislation during the period of the War; if so, will he take care that the views of the very great majority of the Irish people who are opposed to the Summer Time Bill will be recognised; is he aware that the enforcement of this Act on Ireland would mean harm to agricultural interests in the hours of work; and, in view of the unanimous opposition from rural Ireland to the extension of this measure to Ireland, will he confine his theories to Great Britain?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot make any statement on the subject of the Summer Time Act until I have received the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been inquiring into the whole question. Two Irish representatives—the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh and the hon Baronet the Member for South Westmeath —were appointed on the Committee, in order to ensure that full consideration should be given to the special circumstances and needs of Ireland, and I understand that the Committee have, in fact, made a thorough inquiry into the working of the Act in Ireland.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a distinct desire on the part of the people of Ulster to conform to the altered time proposed, and not as stated in the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think that is very probable.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a distinct desire on the part of the people of Munster, Leinster and Connaught not to conform to the altered time?

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Sir John Henry Maden, for the North-East Lancashire (Rossendale) Division.

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL,—"to amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1916, and the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, and to grant relief in connection with the present War from liabilities and disqualifications arising out of certain contracts, "presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL; supported by Sir George Cave and the Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
    COMPANIES (FOREIGN INTERESTS) BILL,— "to prohibit the alteration, except with the consent of the Board of Trade, of articles of association or regulations which restrict Foreign Interests in Companies," presented by Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS; supported by Sir Albert Stanley and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    SIR E. CARSON'S STATEMENT.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir E. Carson): The House will observe that we have taken the same course this year as my predecessors took last year and the year before in presenting the Naval Estimates to the House. You will find in them very little information. They are, I believe, technically called Token Votes, and the only Vote which really states anything is Vote A, which gives certain information as regards the number of men for whom we require the Vote. Stated briefly, at the time of the outbreak of the War the number of men employed in naval ratings was about 140,000. It had increased by last year to over 300,000 men, and we are asking now to bring it up if necessary to 400,000. All I need say about that is that the Vote itself demonstrates the natural expansion of the Navy and the necessary enlargements and strengthening of the Navy, having regard to the great weight of responsibility which rests upon it. If anybody desires to survey the history of the Navy since the outbreak of the War, I can refer him to the statement made in 1915 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), and to the speech made last year by my predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour). I shall have before I sit down to say something of our programme for the coming year, because it must be apparent to anybody who takes an interest in the matter that in certain respects there are obvious differences and considerations, having regard to the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present.
    I ought perhaps briefly to refer to the changes which have taken place at the Admiralty. Recently the late First Sea Lord has been replaced by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. I cannot help saying that I think the country in the present crisis is extremely fortunate in having at the Admiralty Sir John Jellicoe. His knowledge of the Service is unparalleled.
    1360
    There is no important post in the Admiralty which he has not, between his sea services, filled. As one of the Sea Lords on two occasions, as the Director of the Naval Ordnance, and as an expert in gunnery, he is unique as an officer at the Admiralty. But in addition to that, what I value most is that with that experience he has held in his hands the destinies of this country for two and a half long years, with faithful, able, and watching service, preserving our shores from the assaults and attacks of the enemy. The other greatest change is the change of the Commander-in-Chief, who is now Admiral Sir David Beatty. He has had a unique career. At a very early age he is now commanding the greatest Fleet that ever sailed the seas, and I believe that he has the confidence of every man who is serving under him. I believe he always had that confidence, but from what I have seen in my visits to the Fleet, I believe it is a daily growing confidence, founded upon the connection of the officers and men with this distinguished admiral. There have been other changes at the Board to which I will make a passing reference. We have appointed a fifth Sea Lord to deal mainly with the Naval Air Service, because, as the House will recollect, an Air Board has been appointed. He represents the Admiralty on the Air Board, and I feel certain, from what I have heard, that the appointment of the Air Board, with the necessary co-ordination between its services and the supply being vested in the Minister of Munitions, will greatly increase the efficiency of the Air Service, and greatly increase what is above all necessary, the output of our aeroplanes.
    We have had another change, of far-reaching consequence, and that is the-appointment of the Shipping Controller. The Transport Department at the Admiralty had grown to an enormous extent since the outbreak of the War. The whole of that Department, except so tar as it is concerned with naval transport and the duty of naval transport to the Army, has been entirely taken over by the Shipping Controller. May I say, in passing, that I am not sorry for it because I certainly shall be relieved of a great many complaints where the requisitioning of shipping, which is daily increasing, has to take place, and where. I am glad to think, in the future it will be dealt with by the Shipping Controller, and not by me. The appointment of the Shipping Controller makes other changes, to which I will refer

    1361
    later on, but more especially in regard to the question of the building of merchant ships, which, as the House will readily understand as my statement proceeds, is a matter of the most vital urgency to this country at the present moment. I am not going to take up a great deal of time in surveying the work of the Fleet. The House and the country will expect me mainly to deal with the growth of the submarine menace, and I intend, I hope, to deal with it perfectly frankly. The vast work, the unceasing, silent and watchful work of our Fleet, deserves, at all events, a passing word. The Grand Fleet, though never advertised, is never done working. The great volume of trade in and out of this country has gone on unceasingly and unremittingly. Our Allies in every quarter of the world have been helped ungrudgingly.
    4.0.P.M.
    The great mercantile fleet of Germany still lies idle in her harbour. Her ports are desolate and deserted. I do not think people really realise the calls that have been made upon the Navy as the War has expanded. They think of home waters. Probably they sometimes think of the waters that surround our Colonies. But we are largely assisting in the expeditions in Mesopotamia, in Salonika, in Greece, and in Egypt. In all these theatres of War we have to keep the seas clear so as to bring the necessary support, the necessary equipment, and the necessary ammunition to carry out warlike operations. Notwithstanding that, let me say that, upon the whole, in my belief, this country has suffered less in privations than any other of the belligerents. I very much dislike statistics. I am afraid, however, I shall, if I am to convey information to the House and to the country, have to trouble the House with a certain number of statistics. Let me just give a slight picture of what has been done. Let me give the House a summary of some of the work that has been carried out on the sea in the direction of transport since the War began, and which has been going on daily up till the present moment. I have a Return here which has been brought up only to 30th October, 1916. You may, however, take it from me that in proportion the same amounts are being transported at the present time.
    In regard to personnel, the total numbers that we moved across the seas up to that date were 8,000,000 men. Although I
    1362
    regret to say we have had two or three untoward incidents, when you think of the vast domain of sea over which they were: moved, I think we may say that these men were removed almost without mishap. Take supplies and explosives. Up to 30th October of last year we had moved 9,420,000 tons; 288 ships; sick and wounded over 1,000,000; horses and mules over 1,000,000; with petrol alone amounting to 47,504,000 gallons. When people begin to-be anxious—and may I say rightly anxious!—I would ask that they should not think that the account is all on one side. Do not let them imagine, because certain incidents occur which cause us anxiety, that at the same time the work which we are carrying out is not gigantic. Let me direct attention to another matter. We have during the last year examined on the high seas or in harbour ships coming in voluntarily, by arrangement, or being compelled to, numbering 15,158. Since the commencement of the War we have examined 25,874. In the month of January of this year we examined in British ports alone 764 ships. From the Returns which I have up to the present I am encouraged to think that the numbers will not be less in February, notwithstanding the blockade. That is the work which constitutes the blockade of Germany! But does anybody conceive what is the extent of that work? Let them picture to themselves the size of the Atlantic Ocean. Let them conceive the work that is required to guard that ocean and to take care that these ships coming into our harbours are examined on their way to Scandinavian and other ports. I saw the other day the admiral of one of our squadrons who helps to carry this out. I wish the House could have heard his description of the work. He showed me a diagram, dotted over the whole Atlantic, of the ships that he met from day to day. If you could see the picture it would give some idea of the herculean task which we so lightly pass over when we are criticising the conduct of affairs.
    However, I pass from that. I only think it right to remind the country of it. I cannot, however, pass from this part of my statement without paying a passing tribute to the bravery and the distinction which has been won by our Naval Division in France. They have covered themselves with glory. May I say that they owe their origin to my right hon. Friend sitting opposite (Mr. Churchill). Having said so much, I come now to deal with the

    1363
    submarine menace. It is not a recent menace. It has been for months and months a growing menace staring us in the face. I myself spoke in this House on 15th November, about a month before I was given my present office. Although the speech is a very ungrammatical one—[laughter]—as reported—[renewed laughter]—I merely desire to quote a few lines from it to show that when I went to the Admiralty I was at least alive to the fact that there was a submarine menace. I made that speech following my right hon. Friend opposite, the ex-President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced proposals in relations to the Food Controller. I said:
    "There is no use our shutting our eyes to the great difficulties we are going to have in the future for transport. It is all very well to hide away in the corners of newspapers the submarine menace. It can do us no good shutting our eyes to the fact, and we really are not telling the Germans anything they do not know. They know perfectly well, and no small print in the corner of a newspaper will make any difference."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November.1916, col. 864. Vol. LXXXVII.]
    I intend to-day to act on the principles I there laid down. I assumed my present office with a full sense of responsibility, and of anxiety in relation to this question, and I can assure the House that I have never from the day I went to the Admiralty to the present moment ceased to work in reference to this submarine menace. People ask me about it. They say: "Are you optimistic or are you pessimistic?" I am neither one nor the other. My duty is to tell the House and the country the whole extent of the menace. It is grave. It is serious. It has not yet been solved. I can honestly say that we have never for a moment ceased to work at it in the Admiralty. But no single magic remedy exists, or probably will exist. Nevertheless, I am confident that in the development of measures which have been and are being devised its seriousness will by degrees be greatly mitigated.
    Let me tell the House what we have done by way of organisation. We have established at the Admiralty an Anti-Submarine Department, composed of the best and most experienced men we could draw for that purpose from men serving at sea. Their whole time is devoted to working out the problem. I have had their reports brought before the Board, and the Board take full responsibility for the approval of their methods and suggestions. Shortly after Sir John Jellicoe came to the Admiralty he issued an invitation to
    1364
    every member of the Fleet to send in any suggestion that occurred to him for dealing with this difficulty. We have, in addition to the Anti-Submarine Department, the Board of Inventions and Research. It is presided over by Admiral Lord Fisher, and associated with him are the greatest scientists the country possesses. He is there to tell them the wants of the Admiralty, and they are there to work out the methods by which those wants can be met—men like Sir J. Thomson, Sir Charles Parsons, Sir G. Beilby, and many of equal distinction associated with them; and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend opposite described a body of that kind the other night as a "chemist's shop." These are some of the greatest men we have. They give us of their best freely, and, as far as I am concerned, I cannot for a moment imagine that a great and distinguished public servant, who has done so much in the past as Lord Fisher has done, is not also giving to the Admiralty ungrudgingly the whole of his abilities and the whole of his services in trying to solve a problem of this kind, which threatens the very existence of this country. However, if anyone can suggest a better organisation, if anyone can suggest an improvement in the organisation, I shall be only too happy to consider it. For my own part, since I have been at the Admiralty, so far as I know, every single intelligent suggestion which has been made—and there have been many of them—with a view to helping us in these difficulties, has been worked out and tested with elaborate care by the bodies to which I have already referred.
    One matter has greatly helped us. The first question that was put to me in my present office was asked by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) with reference to the law affecting the arming of merchant ships. I then stated the proposition, which, although commented on, has never, so far as I know, been denied by either the belligerents, our enemies, or by the great neutral countries, as to the right of every merchant ship to arm itself for defensive, as contrasted with offensive, purposes. I have been greatly interested in observing the effect of the arming of merchant ships. You may take it from me that in the last two months the number of armed merchant ships has increased by 47.5 per cent., and I do not know that that conveys to you the amount of work that was involved. We had, in

    1365
    the first place, to get guns in competition with the Army. We had to get the mountings, and, above all, we had to get the gun ratings. All I can say is that that increase in the arming or the merchant ships is going on better and better each week. When I tell the House the percentages, so far as I can gather, of the number of armed merchantmen and unarmed merchantmen that escaped the submarine menace, they will see how right we were to throw our whole force and power into carrying out this arming. As far as I can gather, of armed merchantmen that escape there are about 70 per cent, or 75 per cent., and of unarmed merchantmen 24 per cent. Therefore you you will see how important is every gun you get and every ship you arm.
    Commander BELLAIRS: By an armed merchant ship does the right hon. Gentleman mean one with a gun in the stern only?
    Sir E. CARSON: I do.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that that is the percentage of ships attacked, and not of all ships?
    Sir E. CARSON: Oh, attacked, of course. We have made great preparations, and I would like, in passing, to say that the French have helped us considerably in this matter. There was some question at one time that some of the neutrals raised—as to whether our ships had a right to enter their ports armed. I must state that that has all been practically got over, and I do not believe that any international lawyer—and although the Germans have abandoned international law, the neutrals have not —will controvert the proposition which I stated in this House as to the right of a merchantman to arm itself against offence. I am stating that about the arming of merchant ships, and the effect it produces, not to minimise the difficulties or to minimise the extent of the danger in which we are placed.
    I must now state the progress of our losses, but their real significance can only be realised by comparing them with the volume of our shipping. I propose to compare, first, the total of British, Allied and Neutral shipping, taking the first eighteen days of each of the months of December, January, and February, with a view to showing the extent to which the so-called blockade by Germany has in-
    1366
    creased those losses. What I am going to give you are the figures of merchant vessels over 100 tons net lost through submarines and mines, excluding fishing vessels; and the reason I exclude fishing vessels is because they are not brought in in a comparison with the amount of our trade entered and cleared every day in the various ports of the realm. Taxing the total of British, Allied and Neutral in the first eighteen days of December, we lost of steamers over 1,000 tons sixty-nine, amounting to 201,934 tons; in January, sixty-five steamers, amounting to 183,533 tons; in February, eighty-nine steamers, amounting to 268,671 tons. Now I will give you the British for the first eighteen days of each of those months. In December there were 24 steamers over 1,000 tons, amounting to 92,573 tons; in January, 23 steamers over 1,000 tons, amounting to 82,158 tons; and in February, 47 steamers over 1,000 tons, amounting to 169,927 tons. I will now give you steamers under 1,000 tons lost in the same way. The total of British, Allied, and neutral in December, was 10, amounting to 6,292 tons; in January, 7, amounting to 4,379 tons; and in February, 14, amounting to 6,957 tons. Of the British, in December there was not any; in January, 1, amounting to 466 tons; and in February, 8, amounting to 3,468 tons. In addition to that, there were losses amongst sailing vessels, the total British, Allied, and neutral in December being 39, amounting to 15,096 tons; in January, 19, amounting to 10,321 tons; and in February, 31, amounting to 28,968 tons. Of these in December, six were British, amounting to 2,531 tons; in January, two were British, amounting to 2,193 tons; and in February, seven were British, amounting to 8,134 tons. Let me give you the total. The total of the items I have given for December were 118 vessels, amounting to 223,322 tons; for January 91 vessels, amounting to 198,233 tons; for the first eighteen days of February 134 vessels, amounting to 304,596 tons.
    Mr. FRANCE: Do those figures include the whole of December and January?
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes, and the first eighteen days of February. Having stated those losses, let us now turn to see what those losses were out of, and what was the volume of the trade. From the 1st to the 18th February—I am talking now of the daily number of vessels over 100 tons net,

    1367
    arriving and sailing into United Kingdom ports, exclusive of fishing craft or sailing vessels, and exclusive of estuarial traffic— for the first eighteen days of February we had arrivals in port of 6,076 ships, and we had clearances for the same eighteen days of 5,873 ships. That together shows an enormous amount of shipping which still goes on notwithstanding the German blockade. You may take it from me, and it may be another figure interesting to the House for future consideration, and whatever may arise in reference to this question—that the estimated number of ships in the danger zone at any one time —I mean the danger zone at home—is about 3,000. The losses are bad enough and they are dangerous enough, but they are not equal to the blatant and extravagant bravado of the German accounts. Here is an intercepted message to New York, taken from the "Deutsche Tages-zeitung," giving a great account; of the actions of their submarines, which I am not at all tempted to minimise, but I am attempting to put them in their true light. After boasting of the deeds of their men, they say this:
    "They are taking into account that at first the increase in sinking will not be so very great as they would wish, for submarine scare has been thrown into the English with paralyzing effect, and the whole sea was as if swept clean at one blow."
    Twelve thousand ships in and out in eighteen days does not look anything like a paralysing effect or a sweeping of the seas. Then they go on and say this:
    "It caused us nearly joy that English government has seen itself necessitated to forbid publication of ships losses."
    Sir, there is not a particle of truth in that statement, and so far as I am concerned, I would never be a party to holding back from my fellow countrymen the losses which I believe, so far from making them shrink from the conflict, will put into them the spirit and determination that will eventually drive back these German vessels. I dare say some people will criticise our action in giving all these details, and I dare say people will say, "Are you not letting the Germans know how far they have been successful?" Not at all. I am letting the neutrals know the truth, and in my opinion the greatest asset that this country possesses is the unconquerable courage of our race. In face of all these sinkings, with their accompanying sacrifices and trials—and God knows it is wearying work to read of the boats with frozen corpses that are brought in which
    1368
    have been submarined without notice by a nation that said they would not shrink from sinking our hospital ships and drowning our wounded—that is all bad enough, but I am encouraged by the fact that I have not yet heard of one sailor who has refused to sail. That is what is going to win the War, and however neutrals may have been nervous and frightened, you will see our example spread, and you will sec, as days go on, that the neutrals will resume their sailings.
    Mr. W. THORNE: And their services ought to be better recognised.
    Sir E. CARSON: I agree. I propose to make a change in the method of publishing our losses, which I hope the House will approve of. Nothing can be worse than inaccurate recording of these losses. I take up a paper and I see "Twenty-four ships sunk," or something of that kind, in a big headline. When you come to examine that with the real knowledge of the facts you know that these are accumulations coming in for many days. When you read down the list probably you recognise by the names of them some are fishing boats, or trawlers, not that I am minimising the loss of fishing boats or trawlers, but when you read it you get no comparison with the actual volume of the trade that is being done. I propose, therefore, to publish—I am not sure that I shall be able to do it every day, but as near as possible every day—the number not merely of British merchant vessels sunk by mines and submarines, but also the arrivals of British vessels of over 100 tons net in United Kingdom ports, exclusive of fishing and local craft. I also propose to publish the number of British merchant vessels which are attacked and escape. I shall also publish the number of fishing vessels which are sunk.
    Major Sir EDWARD COATES: Armed and unarmed?
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes, if I can. I do not propose to publish the number of neutral and Allied vessels sunk. In the first place, we have not always the accurate information, and, in the second place, the neutral and Allied Powers prefer to publish their own losses themselves. If they should be copied into our papers I do not mind, but I shall deal with our ships in the manner I have mentioned, and if any hon. Member thinks there is anything

    1369
    else which I ought to be able to give with reference to information I can assure him I shall be quite willing to do so.
    Mr. PETO: I wish to ask one question. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can publish the names of those men who lose their lives in the manner he has just described?
    Sir E. CARSON: I rather think that the names of the men who lose their lives are published in the casualty lists as far as we can get them, but it is not a very easy thing to get the names.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability or otherwise of publishing the number of German submarines destroyed?
    Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Member will see that I am not going to shrink from that question, but I am dealing with one matter at a time.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Will fictitious lists be prohibited?
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes. I am often asked, and my predecessors have often been asked, Why is it the Admiralty have not from time to time published the number of German submarines destroyed? It has been pointed out to me by many hon. Members, and with considerable force, that the daily toll of British merchant shipping is published to the world, but nothing is said about the losses the enemy incurs in the submarine campaign, the effect being that all the honour appears to rest with the enemy, and that apparently nothing is being done on our part to cope with this menace. I frankly admit that that is an argument of force, but I am bound to remind the House of the other side of the question. In the first place, I have no doubt myself that the policy of silence pursued by successive Boards of the Admiralty about the losses of enemy submarines is the policy that the enemy dislikes most. Just see what it is. A submarine starts out on its campaign of murder and all the enemy know is that it does not return home. What has happened is a complete mystery to them. They cannot tell whether the submarine was lost from a defect of construction or design, which is a very important matter, or some error of navigation, or whether her loss was due to one or other of the methods that the British Admiralty has devised for her destruction. This is the first point. The second
    1370
    point is that if we were immediately to announce the certain destruction of an enemy submarine the enemy would know-without waiting that a relief for that particular boat was required and they would at once dispatch another submarine, if available, to operate against our ships. I would rather leave them to imagine that they are there when they are not. As it is, the enemy cannot know for some time the exact number of their submarines that have been operating at any particular moment.
    But undoubtedly a further and the strongest argument is that we at the Admiralty do not know ourselves whether an enemy submarine has or has not for certain and in fact been destroyed. All we know is that from day to day and from week to week reports come to us of engagements with enemy submarines, and it follows of necessity that the results range from the certain, through the probable, down to the possible and improbable. In the case of the submarine it is only absolutely certain when you have taken prisoners. After all, the submarine is operating mainly under the water. A submarine dives, and very often someone thinks that it has sunk. A submarine sometimes dives when it is wounded—no doubt never to come up again, but you cannot tell. I should be sorry to mislead the country by giving them only what you could call, under the circumstances I have mentioned, "certainties." I know it would be misleading. On the other hand, if I gave them probabilities, it might be equally misleading. The degrees of evidence in relation to the sinking of every submarine, or the report of the sinking of every submarine, vary to the most enormous extent. You may say, if I had nothing else to do at the Admiralty, that I might be able to weigh the evidence. Well, I can assure you it is no easy matter. I hold in my hand at the present moment brief accounts of some forty encounters which we have bad with the submarine since 1st February. Recollect what they are doing, and how they are working. The fact that we nave got into grips with them forty times in eighteen days is an enormous achievement. Perhaps it will make my meaning dearer if I give to the House a few illustrations. I may be raising the veil somewhat on how the battles are carried on, and with what varying results, but I will give you a few illustrations to show what I mean by the difficulty of establish-

    1371
    ing in the large majority of cases definite conclusions. I will take my illustrations in the order of probability.
    The first illustration I give presents no difficulty whatsoever. A few days ago one of our destroyers attacked an enemy submarine. They hit the submarine, and, as events showed, killed the captain. The submarine dived. If it had remained below, it would have been an uncertainty, but as a matter of fact she was injured only so much as that she was compelled, but able, to come to the surface. She was captured, and her officers and men were all taken prisoners. That is an absolute case. But look how different it might have been if the submarine had been so injured that she was unable to come to the surface, and had remained at the bottom of the sea! My second illustration is that of a report received from one of our transports that she had struck an enemy submarine and was herself damaged, and that she was confident that the submarine had been sunk. A further report was received later that an obstruction which was thought to be the sunk submarine had been located. This is a claim of which we may say there attaches to it a degree of probability amounting to almost certainty. The injuries to the damaged ship were found to correspond to such injuries as would be caused by ramming. My third illustration will be that of a report received that two of our patrol vessels had engaged two enemy submarines and sunk them both, but there were no casualties in the patrol boats and no survivors from the submarines. A fuller report received of this engagement appears to show that one of the submarines was sunk, but it leaves a degree of doubt about the second. My fourth illustration will be that of one of our destroyers reporting that she had heavily rammed an enemy submarine which was awash. There is no doubt that the destroyer struck the submarine a severe blow, but it is not possible to establish that the submarine was sunk. This, I think, might be described as a case of strong probability.
    The fifth report I propose to quote is that of an enemy submarine being engaged by two of our patrol vessels, who were subsequently assisted by two destroyers. The result of the engagement is reported as doubtful, although it is certain that one of the destroyers was slightly damaged in running over the conning-
    1372
    tower of the submarine. In another case one of our patrol vessels reported striking a submerged object after engaging an enemy submarine, and an examination of the patrol vessel bore out this report. It is believed that the submerged object struck was the submarine engaged, but it is not quite clear, and in this case there is a considerable degree of doubt. I will give three more illustrations in which the claim is made, ranging from possible to improbable. A patrol vessel reports that she has been in action with an enemy submarine, that the fifth shot hit the submarine's conning-tower and it is believed that she was sunk. The second case is that of one of our smaller airships sighting a submarine on the surface and dropping a bomb just after the submarine had dived. Lastly, there is a case in which an aeroplane dropped a bomb on the enemy submarine when in the act of diving. The submarine was not seen again, but the result is quite unknown. I have given you these illustrations in order that you may see that we are not, from any purpose of concealing or not trusting our people, who, after all, have to bear the brunt of all this, keeping anything back. At the same time, we ought not to publish anything that would be misleading.
    I have dealt with the submarine menace, and I have told you really all I know myself. You have now got the situation. I have neither tried to under-estimate it nor to exaggerate it. How are we to deal with it? We are doing our best on the naval side, but I am bound to say that, in my opinion we must firmly and determinedly take such other measures as we can devise, on the assumption that it will be only by degrees and through the development of measures that we are adopting that the danger can in time be mitigated, even though it may never be entirely eradicated. We cannot afford to take risks. The Food Controller's work and the Food Producer's work will all help to contribute to the solution, but in my opinion we must go further. I understand that the Prime Minister will to-morrow ask the House, and, of course, the nation, to allow the Government to reduce imports, so as to limit them to those which are essential for the carrying-on of the War and the food of our people. I do not hesitate for a moment to say that the Admiralty have felt it their duty to urge that point upon the Prime Minister and upon the Government. Look at the help

    1373
    it will be to us. Look at the reserve it will give the country in ships. If you can reduce your imports—and you certainly can — you will relieve for the watching of the remainder and the outgoing ships, patrols, destroyers, convoys, every kind and description of ship which aids and assists in our organisation upon the seas.
    5.0 P.M.
    You will relieve the dangers and the difficulties of the captains, officers, and men of your merchantmen. May I say, in passing, that I cannot talk too highly of the work of the merchant service, nor can I talk too highly of the courage and bravery beyond all description of the men on the patrols and the mine sweepers. These men carry their lives in their hands at every moment of the day. They do it ungrudgingly. And for what? To save your shores and feed and keep your people in comfort. If anyone is inclined to doubt that, let him contrast his life at home, even with reduced imports, with the daily and hourly dangers which confront these men who never cease and never know a moment's security. There are other methods also for alleviating the situation.
    I said I would say a word about the programme for the year, and I said it was plain we were in a different position for framing programmes to those who have occupied this position in other years of the War. Our programme now must be largely framed with a view to as speedily as possible alleviating the losses caused by the submarine menace. You cannot expect in any near time to lay down and complete great battleships, of which we have large numbers, and for which in his programme we owe a deep debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). We have arrived at an entirely different state of affairs, and are faced with an entirely different problem. We want to build, of course, such craft as will be most readily and soonest available, and we also want to make good the losses in the mercantile marine, and therefore we have two, as it were, competing programmes. I do not say it in any sense as wishing to give any idea that there is friction in relation to the matter. On the contrary. But in this state of facts, with these competing programmes, we have appointed between the Admiralty and the Shipping Controller and the Board of Trade a junta to arrange how these necessary programmes are to be carried out, so that
    1374
    the most suitable yards may be appropriated to the most suitable kinds of ships. We are taking care, and I think we can assure the House, that not a single slip in the country will be left empty during the coming months.
    We have also set up and strengthened a Department for controlling labour in the shipyards. When I say "controlling," what I mean is this: The Admiralty necessarily had a right of priority in the early part of the War in relation to labour. There was at times, I think, a good deal of wastage, and the Admiralty have set up now a Department to prevent that and try to have the labour properly allocated according to the programmes which have to be carried out. It is my duty hereto-day to point out to every labourer and every workman engaged in the yards and in the docks that whether they are engaged in building merchant ships or in building ships of war that each of these classes of ships is equally engines of defence in the life of this country. May I say that on them devolves, as much as upon any man in the Admiralty, the power of defeating the submarine menace. Every nail, every rivet, put into a ship contributes towards the defeat of the murderous weapon of the Hun. I believe that the menace can be and will be beaten. I believe it can only be solved by the nation itself acting in the ways I have indicated" in conjunction with the Navy, but that it can be and will be solved is certain.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the illuminating account which he has given of the present position of that great Department of the Service over which he presides. I think the House particularly appreciated the frank and manly way in which he stated the difficulties and dangers with which he was confronted and the losses, without minimising them in any way, which are from day to day inflicted upon our mercantile marine. My right hon. Friend rightly devoted the bulk of his speech to the submarine danger. No graver danger menaces us to-day. It is curious, looking back over the past, to the days before the War, to see all the-dangers which we then foresaw and which we then laboured to provide against. How many they were. How formidable they seemed. How serious were the anxieties and the pre-occupations of those who were responsible for trying to prepare against them. There was the danger of surprise by treacherous attack in profound peace upon

    1375
    our Fleet—a danger which was described as "a bolt from the blue"; there was the danger of armed merchantmen in large numbers breaking out upon all the trade routes of the Empire and upon our commerce; there was the dangers of aerial attacks upon our dockyards, our arsenals, our magazines, and our oil tanks; there was the danger of sabotage on a gigantic scale, the Zeppelin danger, the mining danger, the danger that the Army would not leave this country in time or get safely across to its station, the danger that we should be exposed to a raid or an invasion before our Territorial Force could be properly trained, and after our Regular Army had left these shores; the danger that we should not be able to maintain our oil supply.
    All these dangers looming up through what were then the mists of the uncertain future have been successfully surmounted, have been overcome. No serious or vital miscarriage has come to us from any of them. They have drifted past us and floated away behind us; and now in the fourth campaign of the War we are confronted by new dangers and new difficulties, different altogether from all these dangers which I have recounted to the House, but certainly not less serious in their character, and dangers which arise not from any of the forty years' pre-war preparation of the Germans, but from new efforts and new devices and new methods which they have made and adopted since August and September, 1914. All that great fleet which was the product of successive German Navy Laws and grew year by year under our eyes, against which we used to measure ourselves so carefully and so anxiously with just this or that percentage of margin of superiority in every class of vessel—all that great fleet and all the preparations of a secret and elaborate character which they had made in every part of the world for the levying of aggressive war by sea have been effectually frustrated, and our chief and almost our sole anxiety at the present time arises not from the ships of the German Fleet as we knew it before the War, but from vessels scarcely one of which was in existence at the declaration of War, and from the adoption of methods of warfare which before this War were considered by the best judges incredible or almost incredible that any civilised belligerent would adopt or that neutral nations would endure. That is a curious reflection, but it is not
    1376
    an unencouraging reflection, for I think the recollection of the many perils and difficulties we have overcome, in spite, no doubt, of many errors and shortcomings, should inspire us with sober confidence that we shall succeed, no doubt with much suffering and loss and anxiety, but still that we shall in the end succeed in meeting the present and future perils, some of which my right hon. Friend has so vividly and pointedly described to us to-night.
    Last year, when I spoke on the Navy Estimates, in following the predecessor of my right hon. Friend, I thought it my duty to strike a note of warning and of criticism. This year I have no such intention. Everyone is fully alive now to the serious position in which we stand, no one more so than the Minister on whom the chief burden of responsibility is now thrown. Indeed, so much are people alive to this danger, that it is right also for us to keep in mind that, serious as the danger is, it is possible even to exaggerate it, and that, above all, there must be no undue alarm or panic, not only in our merchant seamen, who have shown themselves entirely immune from any threat of danger at the present time, but also in the civil population of this country, who also must preserve the most sober and calm state of mind in regard to the dangers by which we are now confronted. Criticism has its place, but criticism in war-time to be justified, and to be helpful, should be criticism before the event. Nothing is more easy, nothing is cheaper, nothing is more futile than to criticise the hazardous and incalculable events and tendencies of war after the event has occurred. Therefore, I shall not hark back this afternoon to what I ventured to submit to the House last year further than to say—I think I am entitled to say-it—that I never made a speech in this House—I am sorry to say I have made a good many—for which I was more roundly abused, and I never made a speech which was more necessary in the general and vital interests of the country. It was quite clear last year that new dangers were coining upon us, and that the submarine menace would renew itself in forms more difficult to cope with than the first submarine campaign had manifested. The possibilities of large overseas submarines, and of a great multiplication of German submarines, were already fully in view. It was an open secret that the German mind and the German effort were

    1377
    already turned in these directions. The only reason we did not care to speak openly about it was for fear that that movement might be stimulated by discussing it as a danger and by showing apprehension of it; but the movement was well marked and was tolerably well known. It was also evident that the Board of Admiralty, as it was then constituted, although composed of most able and skilful officers and although guided by all the comprehension and ability of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, had not got the drive, vitality and resourcefulness which the new situation and the changing and aggravated situation urgently and indisputably required. It was evident that at the time it was right to say so, and that was the time to say it.
    My right hon. Friend this afternoon, in the account he has given of the measures which he has taken and which are being taken to cope with the new development of the submarine, has described to us the institution of an Anti-Submarine Department, with special charge of this section of Admiralty affairs. It was high time that a measure of that obvious character should be taken. There is not the slightest reason why measures of that character, and others which are connected with it and which deal with the same set of expedients, should not have been adopted, not in January and February, 1917, but in the similar months of 1916. I proposed this time last year that Lord Fisher should be recalled to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord. After a very long interval another solution has been adopted The Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet was recalled to the chief naval position at the Admiralty. If you look back, I do not think that that solution was reasonably possible this time last year. The victorious battle of Jutland had not then been fought. We had not then taken the definite measure in general battle of the whole German Fleet, nor had Sir David Beatty at that time either the full experience in handling large bodies of ships or the full measure of the reputation which has since enabled him, with so much general acceptance, to fill the vacant place created by Sir John Jellicoe's recall to the Admiralty. But when the time came for Sir John Jellicoe to leave the Grand Fleet and to return to the Admiralty, from which, as the House is aware, he was so reluctantly spared at the outbreak of War, the obvious successor, acclaimed by all,
    1378
    was at hand to take his place. In Sir David Beatty we have a Commander-in-Chief who, by his gifts and also by his exceptional training, not only possesses the regular qualifications which admirals of distinction possess, but he has, perhaps, in a greater degree than almost any of the other principal officers of the Fleet, what may be called the "war mind." It is not only seamanship or technical attainments or even leadership of men that are required in a Commander-in-Chief, but also that feeling towards the art of war, that deep comprehension of its sombre yet simple problems, without which all other qualifications, however valuable, however laboriously attained, still only receive a limited scope. The nation is fortunate in that, as this struggle deepens and darkens, it finds two such leaders of the Navy afloat and ashore— with the Fleet and at the Admiralty. Let me also say that the fact that Sir Doveton Sturdee, an officer who had a decisive victorious naval action to his credit, should have loyally accepted the position of serving under his junior is only one of the many instances of the loyal comradeship which the officers of the Naval Service have by long tradition always observed towards each other.
    It is impossible to allow the mind's eye to run over the flotillas and battle squadrons of the Grand Fleet and over the leaders—trusted, experienced, and war-hardened leaders—who are in command of them, without being infected by the desire, which all ranks of ratings in that great Fleet have, that a further opportunity of a blue-water battle may be provided them before the year has closed. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think—I am sure he will not—that it is from any want of confidence in the present Board of Admiralty, or in the brilliant sailor on whose advice he relies, if I repeat in a somewhat different and modified form what I said last year, namely, the hope that no personal consideration or old animosities, born of controversies and reforms of the past, or prejudices of this or that important person, will prevent him from endeavouring, as opportunity offers, to find some means by which the fertile genius of Lord Fisher can be more effectively associated with the conduct of naval affairs. I read with some regret the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. Meux) the other day. However these

    1379
    matters ought to be decided, they ought not to be decided on the grounds that he adduced. That is not the language, that is not the spirit in which, in time of war, the appointment of men of the highest ability to the national service should be approached. Let us keep our hatreds for the enemy. That is a sound general rule which has much wider application than I am making of it at the moment. I understand the difficulties of this matter, and I do not attempt to prescribe the manner or means by which they can be surmounted. But of this I am sure, that this is not a time for the personal proscription of any naval officer of the highest ability. We need all our talent, we need all our resources; and if my right hon. Friend in his own way and in his own time finds it possible to take some action in this direction, I am certain—I do not speak without a varied extensive and peculiar knowledge of the subject—that it would conduce to the interests of the Navy and sustain in the hard and trying months that lie ahead of us the confidence and spirit of the nation.
    I listened with great attention, in common with all the rest of the House, to the full account which my right hon. Friend has given of the various and numerous palliative and defensive measures which are being adopted by the Admiralty to minimise and, if possible, restrict within limits which are not injurious the submarine attacks of the enemy. The statistics which he has placed before the House are impressive and are very serious, but, at the same time, I am glad that he has stated them, because they enable us to measure accurately and definitely the evil and the danger by which we are assailed so far as it has at present manifested itself. The right hon. Gentleman was also quite right to place before the House, and in consequence before the country, the other side of the picture—not merely the ships which are being sunk each day, but the enormous number of vessels which, charged with their precious cargoes, are reaching our harbours safely, plying boldly on their course and on their new voyages, and, on the other hand, that unpublished, not accurately recorded, but at the same time steady and cruel denudation of the enemy's submarine strength which is constantly and ceaselessly at work through the activities, through the enterprise, through the ingenuity, and through the daring of our seamen, not
    1380
    only in the ships of war but also in the merchant ships. It has two sides to it. Both sides inflict great suffering and injury, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a wise step in reverting to the old practice of publishing a regular list of sinkings, sailings and arrivals, such as we had in the days of the first submarine campaign. He has also asked the House to support him in not attempting to publish the losses inflicted on the enemy submarines, and the reasons he has given have been potent and powerful. It is entirely a matter for the House. I am certain the House would not wish to put any pressure upon them or allow any pressure to be put upon them in such a matter If the Admiralty is prepared to publish regularly the losses which they are sustaining, and feel themselves strong enough at the same time not to publish any claims of the losses they are inflicting, no policy is more calculated to convey a feeling of confidence to those who think carefully and soberly about these matters.
    Many of the methods which are adopted to combat the enemy submarines it is, of course, impossible to speak of. Some are of very early date, and some have been developed in the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, for many very valuable lines of inquiry were patiently pursued in his tenure of office. But of those of which we can speak, none is more important than the arming of merchant ships and the building of new merchant tonnage to replace what has been lost. I have been struck, and I dare say many Members have had the same experience, with the great amount of misapprehension which exists in the mind even of quite well-informed people about the character and method of submarine warfare. It is a widespread delusion that a submarine has to rise to the surface in order to discharge its torpedo, whereas of course, a submarine fires its torpedo in perfect safety from any gunfire with only a foot or two of its periscope showing above the water. The object of putting guns on a merchant ship is to compel the submarine to submerge. If a merchant ship has no guns, a submarine with a gun is able to destroy it at leisure by gunfire, and we must remember that on the surface submarines go nearly twice as fast as they do under water. Therefore, the effect of putting guns on a merchant ship is to drive the submarine to abandon the use of the gun, to lose its surface speed, and to fall back on the

    1381
    much slower speed under water and the use of the torpedo. The torpedo, compared with the gun, is a weapon of much more limited application. The number of torpedoes which can be constructed in a given time is itself subject to certain limits. Any trained artillerist or naval gunner can hit with a gun, but to make a submerged attack with a torpedo requires a much higher degree of skill and training. One of the things we counted on to check the indefinite development of German submarine expansion was the difficulty of training crews. That difficulty does not manifest itself as long as submarines are free to use the gun, but it will undoubtedly manifest itself when they are driven back on the almost exclusive use of the torpedo, by the fact that the great majority of merchant ships which they meet will be effectively armed, and the result will be, or should be to a certain extent, that a very large proportion of torpedoes will be wasted, because the difficulty of firing at a ship advancing with accuracy is very great, and there is only a very limited are ahead of a ship from which a torpedo can be discharged with the certainty of getting home. Also the torpedo is easy to dodge, and a shell is impossible to dodge. I thought it was right to explain in a few simple words this matter which is bread and butter to every family in this country. It is of the highest importance that the ships which are being built to replace existing tonnage, what we might call tonnage casualties, should possess a speed superior to the speed of an enemy submarine submerged. That I hope is so.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money)The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money) indicated assent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad my hon. Friend assents to that, because it is of the utmost importance that the Admiralty's view on a matter of that kind should be fully realised and adopted by the Department of Shipping Control. Another point, which is of great importance, is that not only should guns be put on the ships, but there should be at least one good gun-layer on each. I dare say that is becoming the case now, but it was not the case until a short time ago, and many cases have been brought to notice of vessels which carried guns but carried no man really competent to direct the shot to its objective. I listened with interest also to what my right hon. Friend
    1382
    said about the programme of construction. At the beginning of the War, as the result of preparations made long before, it was decided to adopt a system by which the whole available labour supply we could control at that time should be concentrated on the finishing up of the warships which were then under construction, concentrating, of course, in the first instance upon those which were most nearly ready for sea. The next great thing was the programme of small craft which was undertaken in the autumn of 1914, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is very glad to have at his disposal now. It was not until the beginning of 1915 that the question of merchant tonnage began to arise as a competitor to these other demands on our shipbuilding resources. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that merchant tonnage to replace submarine casualties and submarine hunting vessels now practically monopolises, and ought to monopolise, our shipbuilding activity. He is quite justified in not attempting to add to the very great preponderance of capital ships which years of great expenditure before and since the War have given us.
    I wish now to revert to the more general consideration with which I started. The action of the Grand Fleet is inherently offensive in its character. From its northern bases it exerts from hour to hour a continually increasing pressure upon the enemy which we expect will ultimately become decisive, and from which the enemy can only free himself by winning a great battle at sea. But, apart from the Grand Fleet, we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that submarine warfare in its present form and condition has very largely thrown us back upon a defensive attitude. It is quite right to arm merchantmen on a great scale, to provide enormous numbers of small escorting craft of all kinds, and to build tonnage to replace what is lost with the utmost rapidity. Still, we cannot deny that these measures, important as they are, efficacious as they no doubt will be to a very considerable extent, are by themselves the negation of the true principles of war. Almost the first of the great principles of war is to seize the initiative, to rivet the attention of the enemy on your action, and to confront him with a series of novel and unexpected situations which leave him no time to pursue a policy of his own. It is easier said than done. The submarine has robbed the stronger Navy

    1383
    of its power to carry warfare close up to the enemy's coasts and harbours. But for the submarine, our flotillas and cruiser squadrons would from the beginning of the War have been in close contact with the enemy, and a succession of hard fought flotilla and cruiser actions, culminating perhaps in a main battle between the supporting battle squadrons, would have ensued from week to week and from month to month, as the result of which it was a fair conclusion, on the balance of strength which we possessed, that the enemy's Fleet would have been decisively beaten into its ports, and could then be effectively mined in. The submarine has altered all this. It would be madness to jeopardise the solid and probably decisive advantages which we derive from the distant action of our Grand Fleet. To do so would be to cast away the greater for the less, and the substance for a shadow.
    But when all that has been said the fact remains that the discovery of a method of maintaining the naval offensive ought to claim the first place in the thoughts of the Navy and of the Admiralty, and it is to the solution of that problem that their most earnest desires and concentrated attention should be unceasingly directed. Although there are good grounds, as far as I know, for believing that the submarine campaign of the enemy will not exercise a decisive influence this year upon the fortunes of the War, we cannot afford to assume that it is an evil which cannot continue to increase indefinitely, nor while it continues are we entitled to claim that time is on our side. The Prime Minister, in a very formidable sentence for us to hear at the end of so many months of war, said the other day that time was a hesitating neutral, undecided on which side to swing his terrible scythe. That is an observation which deserves to be pondered over without alarm but without self-delusion. Up to the present the great War has maintained a steady and unbroken crescendo. Every year almost every month, has seen larger armies, greater exertions, more powerful weapons and agencies of destruction, and more lavish expenditure of life and wealth and strength. We have felt that this great effort, all our efforts, and those of our enemies, are moving steadily forward towards a culminating point. But there is no reason to assume that the culminating point, when it is reached—the culminating point of our
    1384
    efforts and of their efforts—will necessarily give a decisive result. It is not impossible that the intensity of the struggle might decline and yet be continued. It is not impossible: that the War might drag on in a broken-backed condition, with smaller armies, with finer fighting lines, with weaker and feebler populations, with shattered finances of ruined civilisations and attenuated resources, but with undiminished animosities and passions, for a very prolonged period. If, which God forbid, such a course and development of the struggle should be opened out, then undoubtedly the German submarines might exercise a more decisive influence upon its course than they are likely to do in the currency of the present year. Therefore, problems connected with the man-power of our Armies, and problems connected with the mobilisation of the whole energy of our country and of our Empire, are not less important than those measures of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken this afternoon. For that very reason the brains of the Navy must never be content with any development, however weighty and however successful, of offensive and defensive measures, but must search unceasingly and untiringly for some effective means of gaining and maintaining an effective offensive against the enemy. In looking at our own anxieties and troubles we must never forget those of the enemy. The resources and endurance of the vast communities which are now engaged in the War have far exceeded all previous estimates and conceptions. No one would have believed that the social, economic, and financial structure of the nations at war could possibly have borne the prolonged and intense strain to which they have been subjected. No one ever thought the War could have continued at this intensity and at this pitch with unassuaged fury for so many months.
    An HON. MEMBER: Lord Kitchener!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Lord Kitchener prescribed three years as the duration of the War, but the scope and scale of the War, the outpouring of life, the outpouring of munitions, the waste of treasure, the mobilisation of the whole energies of great nations, neither Lord Kitchener nor anyone else had foreseen. The foundations of the great scientific and civilised countries of the world have proved more solid than anyone ever dreamed before the War. Blockade was the great weapon of Britain.

    1385
    On blockade we counted with good assurance. Blockade has operated more slowly than we expected and more slowly than it was reasonable to expect from any computations that could be made before the War. It has operated more slowly than we expected, but it has operated, and is operating, nevertheless, and its severity is continually increasing, and its effects are cumulative. Much later than we expected, less decisive than we hoped, but still powerful in its operation, the blockade is now beginning to grip the inner life and vitals of the enemy. It is an easy question to ask, "Why not before?" That is an easy question to ask and it is not an impossible question to answer. The Admiralty and the Foreign Office always had different points of view, and so they ought to have on these matters. In February, 1915, the Admiralty proposed the adoption of a rationing system for the small countries subject to the naval blockade, allowing them only what they had consumed in any previous year. As far back as February, 1915, I brought that before the Cabinet on behalf of the Admiralty. It was a natural and obvious proposal for the Admiralty to make, and a perfectly right one in itself, but we always recognised that there was another set of considerations beside those which were present in our minds, with the care of which the Foreign Office were charged, and it was equally important to them to keep those considerations in view. No one can say at the present time whether more weight was assigned to the considerations which the Foreign Office bore in mind than should have been the case, but is it not a very remarkable thing that we have at last reached a very high degree of stringency in our blockade—I think that is admitted—without losing the acquiescence or even the goodwill of the neutral world?
    I have no patience with those shortsighted folks who cannot appreciate the immense importance which attaches to the attitude of the United States or who do not see what a supreme event in human history the entry of the United States into the War would be. It would be a deliverance, not merely of the Allies, but of all mankind, friends, foes, and neutrals alike, for it would derange decisively the terrible equipoise which is characteristic of the present situation, and by deranging it would set a final term to the miseries of Europe and of mankind. We have at length applied a naval blockade which, in its stringency, has never been sur-
    1386
    passed, not even in Napoleonic days, in regard to any great area of coastline. We have applied a blockade which, as my right hon. Friend has told the House, in a year subjects to searching examination 15,000 ships. At the same time, we have seen the United States drawn, not, as in the Napoleonic Wars, into quarrel with us, but to the very verge of war with those we are blockading. How easy it would have been, by unwise or impatient action, to have given an opposite inflection to events! Is not the present situation between Germany and the United States proof that consideration for the lives of others and the laws of humanity, even when one is struggling for one's life and in the greatest stress, do not go wholly unrewarded? If in the end, at the very moment when our blockade reaches its highest point of efficiency, the United States were to be drawn into actual war against our enemies, would not that be an important factor in determining the view which history will take of the foreign policy pursued by Sir Edward Grey?
    6.0 p.m.
    Colonel BURN: I should like to add my congratulations to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the lucid statement he has made in introducing the Navy Estimates, which, in the circumstances in which the country is placed by the War, must be considered very satisfactory. The nation will be very glad to know that we are to be told the whole truth as to our losses by the enemy submarine menace—the piracy campaign. I am convinced that the nation is ready to bear whatever news it may have to bear with a stout heart, because of their trust in the Navy and in the full knowledge that the Navy is doing perfectly admirable work, and that our first line of defence is the blue-water school. Sufficient credit cannot be given to the Navy for the immunity of this nation from attack or for the patient watch that the Navy is keeping in the North. Sea. It may not be understood by some how difficult is that silent watch. I have had what one might call a unique opportunity for judging what the Navy has done, because the duties I have been called upon to perform have taken me to every theatre of war. I have been to the Dardanelles and back three times, and to Egypt and back four times, and I know something of what is being done in the Mediterranean. I certainly could not recommend any hon. Member, or any

    1387
    friends of theirs, to undertake a passage through the Mediterranean pleasure cruise at the present time. We have to thank the Navy for the watch they have kept and for the immunity of so large a number of our ships in passing through the Mediterranean to or from Egypt. Our traffic backwards and forward to India has been very carefully guarded. Our transports to Salonika, almost without exception, have landed their cargoes safely—their human cargoes as well as their cargoes of munitions of war and food. The captains of those ships go to sea fearlessly, ready to face every danger, knowing that the dangers they have to meet are many, and always to be met with in any part of the oceans over which they travel. Nobody can give sufficient credit to the captains of our mercantile marine and the P. and O. ships for what they have done in face of these dangers. I should like to testify also to the magnificent courage of the captains of the cross-Channel boats, who day by day, very often twice a day, make the passage across between the French ports and the British ports. Their responsibility has been very great. They have had responsibility for the safety of thousands of our British troops-—for the men coming to or returning from leave, as well as the drafts going to fill up vacancies in the line. These captains have had to face great dangers, especially at the time when it was ordered, for some months, that the passages were to be made by night alone. I do not suppose that anyone in this country fully realised what that danger was. The great danger they had to guard against was floating mines. In the night, when nothing could be seen, because they had no lights, there was always a great chance of running into a floating mine. There were numbers of floating mines up and down the Channel, and if one of these boats had struck a mine in all probability every man on board would have gone down, because you cannot save people at night in the dark; that is next door to impossible. The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to these captains who have done this splendid work ungrudgingly and fearlessly. I should like to draw attention to the work that has been done, work that is not advertised, but is none the less magnificent work for the nation, by those men who man the trawlers, who have done so much
    1388
    in every sea, in the Mediterranean and the Channel and the North Sea, in sweeping for mines, when their lives were in danger every moment. I myself have met them at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and at the Dardanelles, those men day by day and night by night sweeping for the mines. They were very likely men who had gone out as Naval Reserve men, and been taken on board some of our cruisers which were out in the Eastern Mediterranean during the early attack on Gallipoli by our naval guns. Some of these cruisers were sunk, and these men had been drafted on to trawlers. I met men myself who told me what they had gone through, and the dangers they had run, and were running every day.
    I would like specially to bring before the House that splendid deed of heroism that was done by the men of a trawler in my Constituency, a Brixham trawlèr, who-saved seventy-one warrant officers and men who were in an open boat from the "Formidable," which had been torpedoed. These men were taken on board the trawler in a terrific gale, when it seemed almost humanly impossible that it should be done. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend opposite (Dr. Macnamara) assisted mc very materially and got for these men an adequate reward. But what I would like to point out is the-magnificent pluck of these men, who are always ready whenever an opportunity arises to show that they are Britons, and that anything they can do for our country, in peace or war, will always be done. I think that my right hon. Friend's statement about the way in which the submarine menace is being grappled cannot but be satisfactory. Everyone, I am sure, realises the great difficulty in undertaking this work, but we feel convinced that this will really be grappled with, and that in a short time we may hope that our daily list of losses will be very materially diminished, and that by the arming of our merchant marine, as we are doing, the German submarines will not be so very anxious to attempt this kind of work. We feel that, despite all the Germans say in their papers, Britain still rules the waves. We realise that that is our first line of defence, and that while our Army is doing magnificent work in France and in Flanders our blue-water school is the first defence of this country, and we are dependent before anything else on the Navy keeping its silent watch in the North Sea, and, that

    1389
    being maintained, we can feel secure that our troops will be transported and that our stores will be transported, and that the Navy will have played its part for our country, and will have done the great work to enable us to finish the War successfully.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The House will heartily agree with the high praise which the hon. Member for Torquay and previous speakers gave to our merchant service and our fishing service. Indeed, both these services have practically proved themselves to be an integral part of the defences of this country, and the House will expect some official recognition to be given in the course of time to those great services which have been once more placed in the position which they occupied in the time of Drake when they were an integral part in the defence of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke of the changes in organisation which have taken place at the Admiralty. One of the most important of these changes was that the former First Lord of the Admiralty went to the Foreign Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was speaking about how the blockade had been strengthened. I think that we owe this in most part to the fact, that for the first time in the Parliamentary history of this country, a statesman has gone straight from the Navy to take charge of the foreign affairs of the country, for it is obvious that all the strength which the Foreign Office derives, it derives from the Navy. Its prestige is high or low with neutrals, according to the ability of the British Navy to cope with the situation that faces the country. The First Lord of the Admiralty spoke of the growth of the Navy from 160,000 men to 400,000 men. That leads me to remark that, as compared with the Army, our changes in the Navy are mainly changes of material rather than of personnel, for it so happens that the 160,000 men, at which the Navy stood when the War broke out, practically corresponded with the number which we had planned for the Expeditionary Force. Since then the Navy has expanded two and a-half times, while the Army as a whole, has expanded twenty-five times, and I believe that the Expeditionary Forces, our troops abroad, have expanded to the extent of about twelve and a-half times.
    When the First Lord spoke about the changes at the Board he mentioned that
    1390
    we had introduced not merely officers from the sea service and so brought their practical experience of the War to the Board, but he had brought a new Fifth Lord to take charge of the Air Service. He mentioned one significant fact in connection with the Air Board, and that was that this officer was relieved of the duty of supplies. That is a change which I have been pressing upon the Board of Admiralty in regard to the whole Board. The members of the Board of Admiralty are far too much concerned with mere routine duties, with questions of supplies, promotion and pay, and we ought to have a Board which deals with war, and has not got its mind distracted by other things. I am confident that we shall have to revive the old method of the Navy, by which the Navy Board dealt with questions of supply and routine, and the Admiralty Board dealt with the conduct of war. I hope that that change will ultimately come about.
    I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty a question in regard to the new organisation of the Anti-Submarine Department. It is not a critical question, as he will readily understand, because I suggested in the last Session of Parliament that such a Department should be created. I am most grateful to the First Lord of the Admiralty for having created that Department. We have seen the results in some of the statistics which he has given us I want to know whether the Anti-Submarine Department are going to wait on the Inventions Committee for inventions, or will rather develop all the inventions themselves to the best of their ability? The House must be aware that though the Inventions Committee is highly scientific and is presided over by an old naval officer who had much in common with the Navy of the past, it is hardly in touch with the practical side of the modern Navy. The Anti-Submarine Department, on the other hand, consists of young officers who are thoroughly in touch with submarine development, who know how to handle submarines, and who are the very best men to know the sort of inventions required to deal with the submarine menace. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House that the Anti-Submarine Department is perfectly free to develop inventions by itself, and that ail the wisdom and all the data which are before the Inventions Committee in its various stages are handed over to the Anti-Submarine Department.

    1391
    The First Lord of the Admiralty then passed on to the arming of ships. He pointed out that within the last two months the arming of ships had increased by 47 per cent. It all depends upon the basic figure of two months ago. Naturally he would not want to give that information, because it is confidential and it would be giving information to the enemy, but I interjected a question in the course of his speech as to what he meant by arming, and whether he meant that a merchant ship was armed with one gun in the stern. He said that that was the case. I would impress upon the Board of Admiralty that that is not sufficient armament for merchant ships. A merchant ship with a gun in the stern has to turn round when it sights a submarine and run away from the submarine, whereas if it had a gun in the bow it could at once open fire. I hope that the time is shortly coming, especially as the United States has indicated its views that we can arm ships at the bow, when our merchant ships will be generally armed both at bow and stern. It is not merely that the merchant ship protects itself, but the knowledge that three-fourths of our ships are armed with guns bow and stern, would make the submarines very shy in approaching a ship lest it should turn out to be armed.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee pointed out that the guns drive the submarine below the surface where the speed is slow. When von Tirpitz started on his plan in the spring of 1915 of building a great number of standardised submarines of large and small type for the purpose of attacking our mercantile marine he made a cardinal error. He designed them mainly to use the gun and to get a high speed on the surface. Without going into any technical explanation, let me say that the two things are antagonistic, and that if the speed is high on the surface, the result is there is low speed below the surface. A submarine has great difficulty in overtaking a merchant ship if its speed is below twelve knots, and it has great difficulty in getting into position in order to fire its torpedo. We have therefore won the first round as soon as the ships have got the guns. We have always armed ships, and it never was the case that we regarded it as necessary to arm ships only in the stern. I had sent to me the other day by a correspondent a copy of the "Glasgow Courier" of 1797. In that paper there was a number of advertisements of
    1392
    merchant ships which were going to sail, and in several cases it was stated that the ship was fully armed. In one case there was mention of twelve carriage guns, as a temptation to send cargoes by that particular ship. The statistics which the First Lord of the Admiralty gave us showed forty-seven British ships as having been lost on eighteen days in February. I regard that as remarkably satisfactory from our point of view, and I say that because I am perfectly certain that they will be unsatisfactory from the German point of view.
    The Germans aim at sinking a million tons in the first month, which was to be their high-water mark, but they will not get anything like that. The First Lord of the Admiralty dealt with all ships above 1,000 tons, but my right hon. Friend did not deal exclusively with vessels of over 1,600 tons, which constitute the oceangoing tonnages, and the casualties will be less in connection with these vessels. I ventured to make a forecast when the Germans announced their submarine campaign on 31st January, though it was mere guesswork for one who has not all the essential data. It was a surprise announcement to the world, and at that time I estimated that they would sink perhaps 300,000 tons of British ships of more than 1,600 tons, and that we would sink some thirty to forty of the submarines against us in the first months of the new campaign. The figures which the First Lord of the Admiralty gave show that the Germans will not attain to anything like the amount of ocean-going tonnage that they expected, and suggest that my estimate was exaggerated. I suggested that 300,000 tons would prove very unsatisfactory to the Germans, and that the loss of thirty to forty submarines would create a panic among the remaining submarines, so that they would not attain the same figure in the second month. That remains to be verified, of course. We have to consider alongside these figures the margin we have got. We have to acknowledge that the submarine is not the only cause of the waste of shipping, but the Navy itself has used merchant shipping as though there was an inexhaustible supply. Ships have been sunk to make breakwaters and ships have been turned into dummy Dreadnoughts, which appears to be a useless step in naval policy.
    I would like to differ, in a friendly way, from what the First Lord of the Admiralty said in regard to secrecy. He put the case

    1393
    at its worst when we were giving immediate information. It is true that to announce at once that a submarine had been lost would give important information to the enemy. But that is not what the public; demand. What the public say is that the essenial military advantage of not telling us of a success at once gradually diminishes and diminishes until three or four weeks afterwards there is practically no military advantage in letting it be known that so many submarines have been lost. It may be said that about these things there is no certainty, but there is uncertainty in any battles that are ever fought in regard to casualties. All we can do is to make an estimate, and it would hearten the public and neutrals to-day if we were informed what is the Admiralty's view as to the number of encounters, the number of submarines sunk or captured—the probabilities, the possibilities, and the number that they think escaped. We are aware that Germany is publishing entirely false information in her own country, and that false information is being sent to the neutrals. Against that we have the policy of silence on the part of the Admiralty. The policy pursued in regard to this matter is very well reflected in a letter I have from a workman, received only the day before yesterday. He wrote from Palmers Green. He said:
    "We hoar all sorts of rumours about the number of U-boats sunk, but ordinary people think that if we have sunk one the Government would be only too pleased to let us know—not how it was done, or where, but the bare fact. For us to lose forty ships in a week and not be able to retaliate seems to a humble observer terrible. If we are glad to record that we have taken eleven prisoners and one machine gun on the Western Front, surely we should be glad to know that we had sunk one U-boat."
    I do not put that forward with any intention to criticise. I recognise that the First Lord of the Admiralty made one of the frankest speeches heard in this House for a long time, and he is acting on the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister some time ago, when he said that "frankness is the beginning of wise action." I wish to induce him to go a little further, and I am sure the Government will not regret it. Let me say that there is danger in not taking the public into your confidence in another direction. An uninstructed public is always a dangerous public, and I think that was shown in connection with the Zeppelin menace. There was alarm around many cities in this country, and perhaps the House is not aware that guns were taken for the de-
    1394
    fence of Birmingham, as I am informed on credible authority, from our destroyers at Dover and placed around Birmingham simply to meet the requirements of old women of the male sex. In other words, guns were taken from destroyers that were employed for offensive purposes in the Navy in order to station those guns round a city which might never be menaced; and that was simply because of the fear arising from uninstructed public opinion, owing to the secrecy of the Government. In connection with this question of active submarine tactics it is obvious that the Government has a very difficult task before it, and it requires the united use of every offensive device that we can think of. The submarine has tremendous advantages in the lawless warfare which Germany is waging. Every single thing it sees on the surface of the water is to be let fly at with guns or torpedoes, without parleying, whether it be a hospital ship, or neutral, or belligerent merchant vessel. That makes our task more difficult. There is only one complication facing the German submarines at this moment, and it is in connection with the vessel sailing from the port of Halifax which bears Count Bernstorff and his fortunes, for it is a little uncertain whether those on board a German submarine will be able to recognise that vessel.
    For this offensive I venture to suggest to the Admiralty that they should do all they can to tap American inventiveness. We know that at Washington they have an able naval attaché, but he is not a scientific expert on inventions, and what we really want is to get together some of our best men in this country and send them over to America in order to tap American inventiveness, more especially in regard to electricity. I believe that America is ahead of the rest of the world in electrical appliances, and this War largely turns on the use of electrical appliances. The submarine below the water cannot verify its position and is dependent on appliances which might be upset by electrical devices or its position located by them. I think we should send some of our experts to America in order to get the advantages of the brains in that country to reinforce our means of resisting the submarine menace. Further, I would ask the Admiralty to unify their system of patrol areas and bases as far as possible. There are too many separate Departments dealing with submarine warfare. I think you have some six separate Departments in

    1395
    the Mediterranean. I know that there has been a Naval Conference, and that may, perhaps, bring about the unity which is needed there. At home there are a great many old retired officers in control of different areas and bases. I submit that it should be remembered that this War is a young man's game, and that young men should be put in charge of patrol areas and bases, and that retired men of sixty-five or even seventy years of age, who have done splendid work in coming forward when the Navy wanted officers at the beginning, should now make way for younger men, who are more in touch with, and more accessible to, new ideas, and are full of energy and initiative. They would also draw out the best that is in the men of the mercantile marine, who carry on the work at these patrol areas and bases, and who are somewhat awed by the distinguished old admirals. I suggest that change for another reason. Promotion in the Navy is not as fast as it should be. I think the Admiralty will find that only fifteen commanders were promoted in the last batch. There are only two sets of promotions each year, and fifteen is far too low a rate of promotion. Indeed, the Navy is still to some extent, I am sorry to say, under the routine method of everybody waiting his turn.
    I heard quite incidentally of the captain of a battle cruiser, a man who had three years' experience of a battle-cruiser, and who had therefore over two years' experience of a battle-cruiser in war. He was promoted some three months ago. He has since been unemployed and has got to wait until his turn. A man cannot be a captain of a battle-cruiser without being exceptionally well qualified to fulfil the duties of the position he would obtain on promotion, yet men of such attainments, who could be employed, have to wait their turn.
    Let me pass on to the interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. He took credit to himself for some warning he issued when he spoke in this House on the Navy. I have not been able to read that speech again, but my distinct recollection is that it was not a warning in regard to submarine matters, but in regard to the output of big ships, and he was taking credit to himself for having warned us in regard to the present situation. There is no question about our superiority in big ships, but if the right hon. Gentleman had fore-
    1396
    warned the Admiralty to take measures-with regard to submarines at that time, I would think more of his foresight. He, again, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), raised the question of Lord Fisher. If Lord Fisher was attacked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, the House must recollect that it is said Members and certain sections of the Press are trying to impose upon the Board of Admiralty the appointment of Lord Fisher to the position of First Sea Lord. That is a very disastrous state of affairs. If Lord Fisher is to come before us in that way it necessarily follows that those who think that the appointment of Lord Fisher would be disastrous to the Navy will have something to say; they cannot afford to remain silent while a Parliamentary intrigue is on foot. That is obvious.
    I am bound to point out that an additional reason for appointing Lord Fisher to that post in 1914, given by the right hon. Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill), was that he was concerned in an avalanche of shipbuilding. The position of the First Sea Lord demanded that a great strategist should be appointed, and not a man concerned with material. I venture to submit that even as a judge of material Lord Fisher does not shine. There were some 550 motor boats ordered of quite unsuitable type, and they are now in harbours carrying officers and burning petrol instead of hunting submarines. There were the monitors, and what use have they been except in a very limited field? There are other things which one can only speak of with bated breath in private conversation and which are sufficient to condemn Lord Fisher on material grounds. We must also remember the peace distribution scheme of concentrating every ship in Home waters, which was largely responsible for the escape of the "Goeben." Inefficient ships of from 19 to 24 knots were stationed to capture a 27-knot vessel which had been many months on the Mediterranean station. Then, again, the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau" escaped in the Pacific owing to the fact that proper ships were not there to catch them, and that was Lord Fisher's policy, which was carried on by his successor. He was responsible for the excessive concentration policy which brought the ships home. He was responsible for the state of affairs to which the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs drew attention in this

    1397
    House when he said that at the beginning of the War that there was no naval defence for trade routes, and that there was not along the whole stretch of the East Coast of Great Britain of 600 miles a single submarine proof harbour. He was responsible for the fact that there was no development of anti-submarine tactics. The Navy never even studied this problem prior to the War, and one of the most hopeful features at present is that we were so entirely ignorant of this matter at the beginning of the War that we are gradually strengthening and developing our methods every day now, so that there is everything to hope for. Only last week Lord Curzon revealed another fact. He told us that we pursued an entirely mistaken policy with regard to mines at the beginning of the War. That is true, but it is also true that mines suitable for laying in the deep seas did not exist in the British Navy.
    Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL dissented.
    Commander BELLAIRS: What I say is correct. We had mines and did not lay them, but they were unsuitable, because the Admiralty had laid down that the mines were not to cost more than £60, while the Germans cost £250. The good mines we are laying to-day cost about the same figure as the Germans. With regard to submarines, the Admiralty received a warning in November, 1914, when Lord Fisher was in office, that submarines might be expected in the Mediterranean, but no preparation was made in regard to that factor. There was no netting of the Straits of Otranto where a number of those submarines might have been caught when the submarines were sent out. Last Session, prior to the reform of the Board of Admiralty, I had given notice that I would draw attention to the Channel raid and the attacks that were being made on our Dutch trade. Happily the situation has changed. The Board of Admiralty has been reformed, and there is no longer any intention on my part of dealing with those facts. I congratulate the Admiralty on the offensive policy which it is pursuing. We have had a number of air raids on the bases of the submarines and destroyers, and we have had several sharp actions with the enemy destroyers. That is the only way in which war can be waged. Our policy should be like that of the English poet Spenser, when he said:
    "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere, be bold."
    1398
    I venture to say that in proportion, as we pursue an offensive policy, our ascendancy with the neutrals will go up and up, and, what is even more important, our ascendancy with our Allies. The British Navy has not taken that position with our Allies which belongs to it by right and which belongs to the British admirals no less surely than the French generals speak with authority in France and throughout the different land spheres of war. I attribute that fact simply and solely to the Admiralty policy being uncertain and to their failure to give clear guidance to our Allies at the beginning of the War. I think it an impossible situation that we should be supreme in Home-waters only, and that out in the Mediterranean our Navy should be under the command of a French admiral, and in the Adriatic under an Italian admiral. I hope that will be changed, and I believe it will be, because there is clear evidence of policy now at the Board of Admiralty, and our ascendancy will consequently go up by leaps and bounds. I venture to say we should always remember that the sea, though it is called a fickle mistress, takes but one lover at a time. The one who makes himself master of the sea is the one who is the boldest wooer.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING.
    Mr. GERALD FRANCE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to-the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the protection, maintenance, and organisation of the Mercantile Marine are vital to national life and to the successful prosecution of the War and that there should be more frankness and consistency in the statements of the Government relating thereto."
    I cannot profess any regret that this: Motion has come on before that of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) ["to call attention to the administration of the Air Service"]. I say that because, in my view, and in the view of the House, I believe, the position of the mercantile marine is to-day one of the most important, if not the most important factor, in the consideration of the War as a whole and our success in that War. May I, in the first place, say that the speech to which we have listened to-day from the First Lord of the Admiralty to some extent meets some of the points raised in my Motion, and to which therefore I need not now refer. One

    1399
    cannot, if I may say so as a humble Member of the House, look with anything but gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the encouraging and striking picture he gave of the work of the Navy, and particularly when he emphasised so strongly in that speech the fact, for it lies at the very basis of the matter, of the essential part of the mercantile marine in the success of this War in support of the Navy, and as it was so well put, far better than I could possibly put it, by the First Sea Lord only a month ago:
    "Without our mercantile marine the Navy, and indeed the nation, could not exist."
    I would even venture to go further and say that without the mercantile marine and without the protection and maintenance of the mercantile marine, not only could not the Navy exist, not only could not the nation exist, but the Armies in every part of the world could not do their work, and the War would of necessity come to an end, and the whole Allied cause, which is resting so largely on that basis, would be seriously endangered if not altogether destroyed. The main basis of my Motion is therefore that the protection and maintenance and organisation of the mercantile marine is at the present moment our supreme need in considering, as we are to-day, naval matters. I need not, I hope, say, as I have been associated in a humble capacity with naval work for the last two years that I am not going to make anything in the nature of an attack either on the Board of Admiralty or upon those responsible for the policy of the Admiralty or the policy of the Navy in all its Executive work which it has done so magnificently from the first day of the War. My object in putting down this Motion—and I had no other object or motive—was to help the Government if I could in this part of their task in the prosecution of the War.
    I think it is well known, and it has been made quite manifest to-day, that the Board of Admiralty does regard this matter with regard to the mercantile marine as of supreme importance, and regards its protection as of supreme importance, and regards the danger which threatens it as very serious indeed—a danger not only affecting British shipping, but Allied and neutral shipping, which enter very largely into the supplies and strength of our position. My request, my very urgent request, to them, which to some extent has been modified, but only
    1400
    to a partial extent, by what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day, is that they will be frank and consistent. To-day we have had a -good deal of frankness from the right hon. Gentleman. We have yet to prove whether the future will show-consistency. As I say, the past has not done so, and I refer to the immediate past of the last month. The late Government were frequently charged with not taking the public sufficiently into their confidence. They were told that they did not tell the public enough of the real situation. If I may say so without offence, and without any subtle sense of attack at all no one can accuse the present Ministry of being possessed of a dumb spirit. I make no complaint of the speeches or interviews of Ministers or of the Press notices. I think the present temper of the public desires that there should be free and full discussion as to many of the points which lie at the basis of their existence. But I do ask—and I think it is of supreme importance, that a rather more even temperature should be maintained and that there should not be fluctuations in declarations of policy or in advice which is given to the nation and the information which is given to it. For example, a month ago we had that speech from the First Sea Lord, in which he broke the long and honourable silence which was naturally laid upon him while lie was discharging that magnificent work which he had performed for the nation in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. That was a speech which, I think, we all read as a very serious warning to this nation. In that speech he said that
    "The submarine menace to the merchant service is far greater now than at any period of the War, and requires all our energy to combat it. It must and will be dealt with, of that I am confident. But we have to make good our inevitable losses, and in order to do this we are dependent on the shipbuilding industry of this country. The munitions organisation has done a great work for the output of munitions; it now remains for the shipbuilders and marine engineers to rival that work."
    That speech was confirmed in another part of the Ministry by the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, who told us that we were in the position of a beleaguered city. We had the warnings and regulations referred to to-day of the Food Controller, pointing to the fact that great preparations are necessary in view of the danger threatening, and the country, I. believe, was preparing itself seriously for that task. Then we had a Debate the other day in another place, initiated by Lord

    1401
    Beresford, in which he gave some very startling figures with regard to losses during recent times. He told us that in the seven days prior to his speech 150,000 tons were sunk, and that in twelve days 222,000 tons were sunk. I believe those figures include neutral and Allied ships. To-day we have a further figure given to us, a figure which is a very impressive one. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that in the first eighteen days of February 268,000 tons of British, Allied, and neutral shipping were sunk, and the British totalled 169,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman gave figures for December and January and the totals for these eighteen days, but he did not give us the totals for December and January and up to the 18th February, and therefore one is not quite able to judge of the total number of tons since the beginning of December. I would venture to point out that the loss of 169,000 tons in eighteen days, if it is continued, as I hope and believe it will not be, amounts to this, that in twelve months at that rate 3,750,000 of tons would be sunk, and when one considers what is the balance of available tonnage for civil needs, and how much tonnage there is at present being taken up, one is bound to consider that a very serious figure indeed. The speech made by the representative of the Admiralty in the House of Lords the other day, a speech which has not received sufficient attention because it was to a certain extent overshadowed by the speech of Lord Curzon, dealt with these figures and the measures which were taken to counteract the evil. The speech of Lord Curzon, which I believe made a great impression upon the country, began with the statement that
    "It must be gratifying to your lordships to have heard lord Beresford adopt the tone of cheerful optimism which characterised the greater part of his speech."
    We had many happy experiences of Lord Beresford when he was speaking in this House, and I think it must have been something in his style of speech, which was always attractive and which always bore with it something of the ozone of the deep, which made appear cheerful optimism the figure of losses, which totalled 222,000 tons in twelve days. They did not strike me as exactly bearing out that description. Lord Curzon went on to say that no question of concealing information from the House and the public was in his mind, and that his idea of government was that a maximum rather than a minimum amount of information should be given. If I may
    1402
    say so, the figure which remained in the public mind was the figure of 5 or 6 per cent, as the loss represented by the net tonnage as it stands to-day as compared with the beginning of the War. I know that is so from personal experience. The-day after the speech I happened, both in the middle of the day and in the evening, to meet men, not Members of this House, with whom I have talked on the seriousness of the shipping position, and they both quoted to me the figures of 5 and 6 per cent, which Lord Curzon had given, and which had converted them tio the extent of not thinking that the restrictions upon diet and extravagance were as necessary as had been instilled into them by other Ministers in this country. May I examine how Lord Curzon arrived at that figure, because the right hon. Gentleman, (Sir E. Carson), while giving us figure with great frankness to-day, did not quite adequately touch on the relative position of the losses as compared with the vital needs of the country.
    Lord Curzon referred to the fact that 75 per cent, of the shipping of the mercantile marine was being employed by Government in one form or another, but that figure was corrected by my hon. Friend who represents the Shipping Controller in this House (Sir L. Chiozza Money) the following day to one of 63 per cent., owing to the fact that he referred to 12 per cent, of those ships being used for practically civil needs. At the same time, whether it is 75 per cent, or 63 per cent., the losses which are inflicted by submarines must inevitably be taken from that part of the merchant marine which is free to conduct the ordinary work of the mercantile marine. One may fairly well assume that neither the Army nor the Navy are keeping for their use one ship or one ton more than is absolutely necessary to conduct the War. I do not bring the charge that deliberately they would do-so, and therefore the losses, in so far as they occur among the 63 per cent, or 75 per cent., will have to be made good to the Army and the Navy, and the result is that the great bulk of these losses must fall upon the balance of the mercantile marine, and that therefore the figure of 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, should be very carefully examined. To arrive at that figure Lord Curzon took net losses. He must have added, or put on the other side of the account, the German ships which have been taken and which now, for the time-being, form a part of our mercantile

    1403
    marine, an asset which you cannot count twice, and which you cannot rely upon for meeting the needs of the immediate future. Then that 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, made no reference to the losses to neutral and Allied shipping, and although I have not got the figure with me, everyone who knows the figures of the imports and the relative importance of the imports which have come to this country m the past in Allied and neutral shipping must realise very definitely that when they are sunk a serious blow is inflicted upon the imports of food and other necessities to this country just as if that shipping were British shipping. Especially is that so at the present moment, when it is generally admitted that the financial and economic interests of the Allies are pooled, and that to injure any part of the Fleet which is bringing food to or otherwise helping the Allies is to affect us as much as if a British ship were sunk. Then that 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, figure does not bear any reference, I submit, to the increased losses which have been taking place during the last few months, but simply is a bare average from the beginning to the present moment, which I think may fairly be said is not a fair estimate of the damage which is taking place at present.
    I therefore come to the question which I intended to ask, and which I fully admit to a certain extent the First Lord has answered to-day, but not entirely to my satisfaction, the question, namely, "What is the position to-day?" The First Lord said that Germany knows that position perfectly well, and to discuss it frankly in this House is not giving them information which they have not got. I have proof of that in my hand. I will not trouble to read it in detail to the House, but it is a quotation from a paper called "Die Zeit," of the 31st January, detailing, for the encouragement and support of the German people, the figures of the losses from 1st December to the end of January, putting them at 152 ships (329,000 tons), and so on. I mention that to show that they are making use of figures which may very possibly be exaggerations, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has shown, and for us to show that we are prepared to meet the figures frankly will not help them, but will more likely discourage them. I want to put a question to the First Lord very seriously and very definitely, and in doing so I do not wish to
    1404
    suggest for a moment that the policy he has announced to-day of telling us everything frankly is not one which he fully intends to carry out, but up till now it is quite clear that we have not been told everything. The right hon. Gentleman tells us now that we are going to be told everything, and he asks if any addition can be suggested to the figures which he would give from time to time, and he points out that an accumulation of ships appearing on a certain date in a paper gives very little indication of what is happening from day to day. May I ask if it is possible to publish figures in such a way as that the general progress of the losses from day to day can be seen, and if, in addition to showing what ships are sunk by submarines and mines, he will tell the country what ships are destroyed or sunk by raiders? I think it is only fair to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is abroad in the City and in shipping circles a very strong impression at the present moment, and that impression is spreading to the community at large, that we are not being told all the losses, that we are not being told what is being sunk by submarines, and what is being sunk by raiders, that we are not being told of the activities of the raider or raiders at the present time which are known, and that in consequence the public are apt to believe that the losses are entirely owing to submarines, while there are, in fact, losses due to a raider. That may be an entirely unjustifiable rumour, but it is very strongly believed.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does my hon. Friend mean that we include, as losses from submarines, losses really caused by raiders?
    Mr. FRANCE: No. There is at the present moment in the City of London, and in shipping circles, a strong impression that the figures of losses generally are not being given completely.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I say that I have given the losses absolutely as I know them.
    Mr. FRANCE: I am very much obliged indeed to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I say this in explanation. Of course, sometimes there is a ship overdue, and it has to be overdue a considerable time before you can make out whether it has been lost; but, subject

    1405
    to that, that there may be a ship overdue, so far as I know no losses have been concealed.
    Mr. FRANCE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that that statement will give great satisfaction, and will do a great deal to remove what I regard as a very dangerous rumour, because if a rumour of that kind gets abroad, there is much more likelihool for there to be a panic if there is an idea of an attempt at secrecy, than for the whole truth to be told, especially when, as at the present moment, there is a tendency for fantastic stories to be circulated as to the gigantic number of submarines which we are catching every week. I recognise that there may be military reasons which from time to time make it impossible to make immediate announcements of our losses, but I am glad to know that the policy of the Admiralty and of the Government is to conceal nothing in the way of losses in the mercantile marine at this moment.
    7.0 P.M.
    From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think he is convinced of this—and I agree with him—that if the people of this country cannot bear the truth and act accordingly in a spirit of sacrifice and determination, then they are neither brave nor strong enough to win this War, or wise enough to bear the results of winning, when that result comes. That is all I want to say at the moment in regard to this question of frankness and consistency. I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for having given such evidence of his determination to be frank, and for the statement he has made to this House to-day. May I just say a word or two in regard to the question of the protection of the mercantile marine, because, as was said by Lord Curzon in another place, the most effectual way of protecting the mercantile marine is to destroy the submarine. With the last speaker I will not for a moment venture to discuss any details or methods of what is being done or use any language which might be turned against us. Nor would I ask any question which would be indiscreet or which would tend to hamper the Government or the Admiralty. Personally I have never been inclined to see—and I have been confirmed in that opinion to-day—any advantage whatever in the face of the danger in asking for the details of successes in destroying sub-
    1406
    marines. I do, however, think the facts and illustrations which have been given to-day by the right hon. Gentleman are most encouraging and most helpful. They will have an excellent effect upon neutrals—I mean in knowing that these combats are taking place, and that they are meeting with so much success. This has been said without revealing anything in the nature of the numbers or places or the details. The statement will be of very great value.
    Another point I should like to mention with regard to our losses in merchant ships is this: No doubt at the present time it is being considered that there should be certain special routes, specially protected. That is obvious. Also that certain instructions should be given to merchant vessels in regard to those routes. That also is perfectly obvious. I am going to say something which may not in certain quarters meet with approval, but I think it is necessary to say what I propose to say. While joining with the several speakers who have spoken on this matter during the last few weeks in a tribute of the most profound admiration for the officers and men of our merchant ships who do their work with such conspicuous bravery, it is of supreme importance that all these officers should follow the directions that are given to them by the Admiralty. In saying that I am speaking of a virtue which may become a vice. It may be that in their bravery, in their British sailor-like disregard of danger, they are apt sometimes not to regard with sufficient care the instructions given to them by the Admiralty, instructions which are for their own preservation, and not only so, but for the preservation of all the precious cargoes which they bring to these shores. I hope the Admiralty and those who are responsible now for the general control of the mercantile marine will act together to see not only that these instructions are always clearly defined, but so far as possible carried out. If there are any who are either too brave, or not sufficiently wise to obey them, I trust that thorough steps will be taken to see that they are obeyed. There is one point. I would like to refer to for a moment, and that is the question of the possibility at some stage or other of our having to have recourse to the system of convoying. I know perfectly well what is the opinion, the adverse opinion, as to the possibility of convoys. I do not for a moment advocate it at present. I would not so

    1407
    presume to do. I think, however, that history does show that in any war in which this matter has come prominently to the front, sometimes, or almost always if the vital interests of this country are concerned with regard to food imports, convoying has had to be carried out. I hope it may never become necessary in our case. I ask, however, although it may not be necessary now, that full preparation should be made beforehand in regard to the necessary plans and arrangements if at any future time a system of convoying should be necessary. The movement and manœuvring of ships is a matter of great difficulty. These are matters for which I think preparation should be made for in advance. I put forward the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that if such a plan should need to become operative in the future owing to further serious depredations, or should the position become even more serious than to-day, that the matter should have been prearranged. May I also suggest this, that apart from the system of convoying, in regard to merchant ships it should be considered, if it can conveniently be arranged, that an unarmed ship should as far as possible be accompanied by an armed merchantman. There are ships of the same speed travelling in the same direction as others, and while the arming of merchant ships has proved to be of such value, until it is possible to arm them all, some such arrangement as I have suggested as to voyages might be considered.
    We were told to-day with regard to inventions and research, and the work which has been done and is being done at the Admiralty, that there is a new Department. We were told to-day officially for the first time of the Anti-Submarine Department. I do not want to ask anything which it would not be advisable to answer as to the relations between the new Department and the Board of Inventions. We have been told that the Board of Inventions is a Board of great distinction. But one does not quite realise—it was not stated quite clearly—what are the functions, what the co-ordination between it and the Anti-Submarine Department. I should like to make one suggestion in regard to those who are studying this problem. I am not going to put forward any name or to advocate any personalities. There has been too much of that. I think it might be a point for those who have to discuss this problem and have this work
    1408
    to do, that they should be asked to do what we as Members of this House have been asked to do: remember that we are at war. In the Departments, as well as outside the Departments I think this question of personality had far better be excluded. But I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although it was a sailor who first pointed out the position of the submarine in future warfare as compared with the Dreadnought—a prophecy which has not proved quite accurate—I am not going to deal with that at this time—it was not a sailor who first thought of and described the very-policy which the Germans are now carrying out—that of an attempted blockade of merchant ships by the submarine. Similarly might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was not a soldier who first of all described in detail the tanks. The type of mind which thought cut the problem—if the right hon. Gentleman likes to think so, we will say a lower type of mind—which conceived the possibility of such brutal outrages as attacking merchant ships with the submarine, the type of mind which thought out and predicted the whole scheme, the type of mind that thought out the tanks and wrote a descriptive account of what would happen in tank warfare, was that of the author of imaginative and scientific fiction. There were two gentlemen—two authors. If I may suggest it to the right, hon. Gentleman, in these problems, which are largely problems of a wide imagination, it may be wise to call into the councils of the Admiralty, not only the naval and the military men, not only the scientists, but the men who in the past have proved their capacity for having wide imaginative views on the great questions of warfare.
    There is only one other point which I wish to urge, and that is the question of the maintenance of British merchant shipping. That, of course, includes a tremendous and continued effort of shipbuilding. A year ago we had a statement—a very sad statement—made by the then First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that the resources and yards of this country in regard to men, material, etc., were not being fully utilised. I want to remind the House, and the Government, of what has been done in the past in regard to output. It ought to be possible to do it—or more—now and in the future. In 1913 there were 1,932,000 tons gross of merchant shipping constructed in this country,

    1409
    while at the same time there were warships constructed with a displacement of 271,000 tons. Those were the days when there was no special pressure, when there were the ordinary trade union restrictions. Those things now have gone. There is special pressure. There are now fewer trade union restrictions. There is great need. If that amount of shipping could be constructed in 1913 alongside that great construction of war vessels, I think there is every encouragement for the Government in carrying on the policy which to-day the First Lord has announced, that there is to be a devotion to only practically those types of ships of war which are engaged in directly combating the submarine, and that an enormous effort is to be made in regard to the building of merchant ships. In the first place, if we were not going to overcome the submarine menace, which I am perfectly certain we shall do—because we must!—I think the House and the country will realise that if the submarine is not vanquished it is practically the end of the British Empire. The submarine in the bands of even a smaller Power could be carried to such an extent that it might mean a vital blow at a country. If the War were going on indefinitely one would not advocate the suggestion of the provision of what may be termed palliatives. The building up of what is being knocked down might not indeed be the soundest of policies. As, however, this War is not going on indefinitely, as it is quite evident that our enemies are making a supreme effort, that they have set a period of time to endeavour to snatch a result, then it seems to me that the wise policy is that which the First Lord announced as the policy of the Government.
    We hear figures given of the ships ordered. Ships ordered are no use as compared with the figures of ships actually launched, and not only launched, but engined and ready for sea. A few months ago we know there were a large number of ships in the water. They were useless because they were without engines. This is largely a question of labour. I would like to urge very strongly upon the united forces of the Admiralty and the Shipping Controller to see to it that in this struggle which must go on on this labour question that the country does not suffer; men skilled in shipbuilding and engine-building should be brought to meet the need with which we are confronted. I only want to say one word about organisation. I
    1410
    would like to ask this question, and in that I concentrate all I wish to say on the subject. In the endeavour to use the tonnage which is employed by the Admiralty in various parts of the world has it been found possible to make use of civilians who are accustomed to shipping problems at the various points where shipping is being used? If that is so, it will be interesting to know to what extent civilians have been made use of in that connection, and how much further they propose to extend that policy.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman who, I understand, is going to reply will not give us to-night an assurance that if everybody pulls together, everything will be well, that we are to be patient and not too critical, that everybody has an excellent intention, and everybody's motives are good. The other night the right hon. Gentleman was using language of that kind when a reference was made to any possible dispute that mignt arise between the Shipping Controller and the Admiralty. I do not for a moment suggest there is any likelihood of any dispute between those two Departments that has any unworthy motive or personal consideration. The Board of Admiralty, the War Office, the Food Controller and other Departments are each of them, no doubt, trying to do their own job as thoroughly as possible in the interests of the country, and in that work there are from time to time possibilities of friction taking place. What I ask is that when such disputes occur—not of an unfriendly character, but of a perfectly natural character — the Government, who, after all, are the final arbiter in all these questions, should regard this question of mercantile marine as of supreme importance, and that the basis of success in this War is that nothing shall be allowed to interfere with the mercantile marine as support for the Navy, as support for the Army, as support for the life of this country and of the whole Allied cause. If the Government, in their decision with regard to disputes, which are almost inevitable between various Departments, will take that course, then I think the result of the War will be certain.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it is remarkable that almost the whole of the First Lord's very able speech, in which he explained the present maritime position of the country, and a very large part of the able, and, as I think, the

    1411
    very helpful speech, of the right hon. Member for Dundee, were occupied with the functions and the relationship to the needs of the country of the mercantile marine. It is certainly something quite new to me, and a source of satisfaction that we should now see the Admiralty fully appreciate the fact that the mercantile marine is playing a part in this War which is absolutely interlocked with the part that is played by the Navy, and even is essential to carrying on the War on land, as well as that the ordinary duty of the mercantile marine of feeding the civilian population which in time of war becomes in effect one of the functions that is necessary in order to carry on the War at all. The First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out very clearly, I think, that the submarine has altered the relationship altogether in two respects of the Navy and the merchant service. The first is that the merchant service now no longer has, as in the past century, completely to depend upon the Navy for protection. It has got to be armed in order to protect itself, in which we revert to the very ancient history of the merchant service in the very beginnings of the Navy; and, in the second place, modern war on land and sea has shown, at any rate, that a country like ours cannot possibly carry on war without having the mercantile marine to transport the troops, to transport munitions of war, to feed the civilian population, and to act as auxiliaries for the Navy to the gigantic extent they have. It shows the justification for the hon. Member for Morley in moving the Resolution that is before the House. The purpose of his Motion is to call attention to the necessity for the protection, maintenance, and organisation of the mercantile marine as being vital to national life and to the successful prosecution of the War. I think the hon. Member made a very good case himself, and I want, in seconding his Motion, to take up from a rather different point of view the arguments he addressed to the House.
    I think it is quite clear that the course of this War shows that the whole position of the mercantile marine, and particularly its relation to the Admiralty, has got to be reviewed, and will probably have to be completely altered. There is no question that the Navy itself is founded upon a successful and a great mercantile marine. We find in the War, as the hon. Member for Morley has said, 65 per cent, of our
    1412
    merchant tonnage taken up for one purpose or another directly connected with the War by the Admiralty, and that seems to me to show that we should have been wise if we had carried our preparations in that direction far further than we did, so that the Admiralty had had control to a large extent of the whole merchant tonnage, and to a large extent also a say in the actual construction of that merchant tonnage, so that, in the event of war, they could allocate every class of ship to its proper war station, including all the various functions that have been performed by the merchant service in the present War. If it is necessary to supply 65 per cent, of the merchant tonnage, it is quite clear that if these vessels had been constructed, to some extent, with a view to their use in war, and all had been allocated to their proper station in time of war, we should have been in a far better state of preparation. On Thursday last the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), speaking in this House, dealt with the question of an Admiralty Regulation which precluded officers of alien birth being employed during war on merchant ships, on account of the necessary secret instructions that have to be given. He said:
    "People who are not in a position to offer as good terms to their servants must necessarily go short, because the scarcity of officers in the mercantile marine is now so great that vessels to-day, as a result of this rule, are sailing inefficiently manned"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th February, 1917, col. 886].
    I was very much struck by that remark at the time it was made. It seemed to me an extraordinary position to take up on the part of any shipowner that these men are merely the servants of the shipowner in the carrying out of their duty, just as if shipping was an ordinary trade, and had no special relation to the War we are prosecuting. His Majesty evidently takes a very different view, because, in addressing to the Imperial Merchant Service Guild a letter of appreciation about a year ago, through Lord Stamfordham, he spoke of the merchant service, and what it had done during the War, as his merchant service, and even one of these servants of the shipowners is actually aide-decamp to His Majesty at the present moment.
    It is, therefore, quite clear that there-is a special relation between the nation, as a whole, and the merchant service, the men of which are risking their lives every day, and who, in the eloquent words of

    1413
    the First Lord, "take their lives in their hands every day, in order to protect and serve their country." I was glad to hear the First Lord say that, and I think it will be a great satisfaction to the officers and men of the merchant service to feel that the Admiralty, at all events, do not regard them as merely the servants of the shipowner, which is the view of the hon. Member for Hexham. It would be easy to show that the merchant service has grown up by the direct action of the State—by protection in another sense, perhaps, than the one in which the hon. Member for Morley has used in his Motion. It is founded—and, indeed, the Navy is founded, as it arises from and through the merchant service—upon the Navigation Laws passed in the time of the Commonwealth. Then we had absolutely no merchant service worth talking about at all. The Dutch had swept the seas, and we consequently had no naval power. It only gradually grew up until the time of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws in 1819, when we owned 44 per cent. of the merchant marine of the world. Before the outbreak of the War our percentage was very much lower than that.
    I want to call the attention of the House to the old policy underlying those laws, which I think is absolutely sound, although no doubt in any re-enactment of them at the present time they would have to be modified for the twentieth century. There are two principles enshrined in the navigation laws as then passed, one of which is that goods produced overseas should be carried in vessels "onely such as do truly and without fraud belong onely to the people of this commonwealth" and the other is that "masters and mariners are for the most part people of this commonwealth." That has a very direct bearing on this War. I want to show the First Lord that, owing to the Admiralty never having had the close connection it ought to have over the merchant service, the question of manning and officering—officering is now engaging their attention—has operated in a very curious way during this War. When the German raider the "Moewe" was out about a year ago, she sunk a great number of our vessels, among others, a collier named the "Corbridge." The "Moewe," being not only short of coal, but of men, the commander examined the men found on the "Corbridge," and ascertained that they were getting £8 a month from the owners.
    1414
    He offered £10 a month to any who would volunteer for the German service, and proceed to sink more vessels under the British flag. He got a very good response. His staff was increased by eight men from that collier. Four were Greeks, one was a Spaniard, two were Norwegians, and one was a Swede.
    The ownership of the vessel itself is almost as important a matter. We know that the whole of our law, quite apart from the Navigation Law, has always been that merchant ships under the British flag should belong to Great Britain, but the company law has rendered that inoperative, because now we find not only ships entitled to fly the British flag, but whole lines of steamships owned by the enemies of this country are entitled to fly the British flag because some half a dozen people in this country have become incorporated as a company, although nearly the whole of the capital may be owned in Berlin. Those are two subjects relating directly to the question of these men, and they are concerned with the protection and the organisation of the merchant service.
    I want to ask, in view of the teaching of this War, that the Admiralty should very carefully consider and make preparations in advance establishing the relationship of the merchant service with the Admiralty. The First Lord in his speech referred to an answer which he gave me in December, which was of the very greatest importance with regard to the rights of arming merchant vessels. I would like to say that the whole conception of a merchant vessel having to protect itself and its cargo and crew by its own action as an armed vessel shows quite clearly that the Admiralty cannot be uninterested in this question or unconnected with it. We know that no private individual is entitled on his own motion to provide his own guns and gunners to fight when this country is at war. That must be the act of the Government, and the First Lord's words are so important that I should like to quote a portion of his answer fully. It is as follows:
    "Our position is perfectly clear—that a merchant seaman enjoys the immemorial right of defending his vessel against attack, or visit or search by the enemy, by any means in his power, but that he must not seek out an enemy in order to attack him, that being a function reserved to commissioned men-of-war. So far as I am aware, all neutral Powers, without exception, have taken the same view with regard to this question, which is clearly indicated in the Prize Regulations of the Germans themselves."

    1415
    No more satisfactory statement could possibly have been made, and I should like to ask, now, whether the First Lord agrees with what appears to arise out of that answer, and it is this: According to the law of nations, merchant vessels are entitled to defend themselves against attack, but if they do so they are clearly committing a belligerent act, and have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities attaching to it. If merchant officers are given Royal Naval Reserve commissions, and a uniform which is recognised by the State, they are not necessarily part of the combatant forces of the Crown at all on account of that. They are not mobilised, they are not part of the Navy, they are not doing naval work, and they are not engaged in seeking out the enemy's ships, and are not in the full sense belligerent. These men continue as mercantile officers, although potentially they may be combatants. When all ships of war operated on the surface the rule was that if a naval vessel hoisted a signal or fired a shot across the bow and called upon a merchant vessel to stop, she must do so and submit to the right of search, or decide to defend herself.
    Since the right hon. Gentleman answered my question Germany has announced to the whole world that she proposes to sink at sight not only our vessels, but the merchant vessels of all neutral countries when they are found within what she calls the blockaded area, and she has given notice to every merchant ship that they are liable to attack, and therefore every merchant ship captain is entitled without further notice, whenever he meets a submarine, to take any steps he can to avoid that attack, due notice of which has already been given. If that is so, what is the difference in the German position between the case of Captain Blaikie, of the steamship "Caledonia" and Captain Fryatt, of the steamship "Brussels"? In the case of Captain Fryatt the Germans claim that he had no right as a civilian to take any steps to protect his vessel, and they murdered him after a mock trial. In the case of Captain Blaikie they took a different course, and they said that they had reason to suppose that he was on an armed ship, and consequently he was a belligerent, and on that account they said they were not going to shoot him. They made that announcement just before they announced their policy of sinking every merchant vessel on sight. The connection
    1416
    between this and the line of argument they took is obvious. They wished to justify what they intended to announce by saying that they were going to regard all merchant ships as belligerent ships. We really come to this position, that a merchant vessel, whether armed or not up to the moment she opens fire, is entitled to all the privileges of a civilian trader. If she attacks a submarine, then she is entitled to all the privileges of a belligerent. I think that brings the connection between the marine service and the Navy more clearly forward even than it was before.
    I would like to emphasise one thing which was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). He pointed out that it was of enormous importance that all these merchant vessels which were to replace the lost tonnage should be provided with engines, so that they will be able to go at a speed exceeding the submerged submarine. I have been told by a great many captains that they consider they are inadequately armed by this gun only on the stern, but I know from Admiral Jellicoe himself, and I am not going to dispute his view, that that is considered to be the proper place to arm any ship for defence against the submarine, because if she is going away from the submarine she offers the smallest target, and at the stern she has the best gun platform and the best means of using her gun effectively. But surely the whole question is at what speed can the vessel go. I have seen letters from captains of merchant vessels which have been attacked where the submarine travelling on the surface has travelled at a greater speed than the vessel she is attacking, and consequently the submarine has been able to play with the merchant vessel being pursued as long as it pleased her to keep out of the range of the gun on the stern, and she has been able to plant her shots anywhere she likes on the merchant vessel. The question of the speed of the vessels you are about to construct now is vital to this question. A submarine can now go at 20 knots on the surface and only 12 knots submerged. I think if you give the captain of a merchant vessel a good gun mounted on the stern, and a vessel that can travel fifteen knots an hour, he will give a good account of himself, and we shall have no more grumbling about having guns in the bow as well.
    I want to put four or five different points quite shortly, which I think show that the Admiralty must exercise a much

    1417
    closer control over the merchant service in the future than they have done in the past. The first is that in the designing of merchant vessels they should provide for their possible employment in one or other of the numerous subsidiary services in case of war. They should also be able to use a sufficient number of vessels of the mercantile marine which they think would be of the greatest possible use in case of war. All vessels which are to be provided with armaments clearly ought to be to some extent designed by the Admiralty as far as the gun platform is concerned, and there should be the necessary stiffening to make them effective vessels to use the guns which they intend to mount upon them. With regard to personnel of the merchant service, the First Lord told us to-day that in this Token Estimate he is asking for 400,000 men. He mentioned the growth of the naval personnel since the beginning of the War. We know that is made up to a large extent by drawing from the men and officers of the marine service. The Merchant Service Guild, with which I am connected, had many months ago obtained for the Admiralty over 2,000 officers to take commissions and do combatant work in connection with the Navy. Therefore, I say that the whole of the personnel of the merchant service is very much concerned with the Admiralty. That is what is going to affect the Navy in time of war, and in that way you can extend the Royal Naval Reserve and give them the necessary training. I consider that the entire registry of the British Mercantile Marine should be under the review of the Admiralty. If the Admiralty had a say in this matter, as they ought to have, I am quite sure they will be very careful about the rules which permit the employment of aliens, both as officers and men, in the merchant service, because you cannot draw from the miscellaneous lot of men I have decribed for any purpose in the Navy because you could not depend upon them in time of war.
    There are just two or three detailed points I want to put before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to which, perhaps, he will be able to give me an answer. Both in this House and elsewhere he has never withheld his meed of praise for what the merchant service has done. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France), that in some cases I have no doubt that Admiralty instructions have not been followed as they ought to have been,
    1418
    and I assure the First Lord that I shall do everything I can, when I meet the members of the Merchant Service Guild, to lay before the merchant officers what has been said, and do all I can to impress it upon them. If the Admiralty would like to send somebody down to meet those men, I think it would be a good thing if they would do so, because then they would give this information with more authority. I frankly admit that it is very nice to hear these words of praise. There are a few little points, some of them rather important, with regard to which the merchant service officer does not feel that he is quite fairly treated. I would like, first, to refer to the question of discipline on board the vessels which are employed by the Admiralty. I believe it is a fact that the Naval Discipline Act is being gradually extended. In the early days of the War, in October, 1914, a memorial was sent to the Admiralty by no less than fifty-three officers commanding transports, saying, in fact, that they could not be responsible for the safety of the troops entrusted to them unless they were given the powers of the Naval Discipline Act, so that they might exercise some control. The Central Liquor Control Board had done a good deal by limiting the opportunity for drinking at the ports, but there is still a great deal to be done, and I should like to hear at any rate with regard to these very important vessels that the powers which are conferred on the Admiralty under the Naval Discipline Act are being more widely used. Then there are the Regulations issued by the late Board with regard to the uniform of officers in the merchant service. That caused an immense amount of heart-burning and bad feeling, and I am very glad that those Regulations have been withdrawn. I will quote a line or two of what one officer says:
    "The Admiralty must know what discipline means. They also know the extreme difficulty there is in preserving discipline in the merchant service. Therefore, we feel that if due consideration were given to the matter they would remove the recent Regulations which are entirely subversive of discipline on board merchant ships."
    I believe that to-day a conference has taken place between representatives of the shipowners and of the association of the officers concerned, and I most sincerely hope that under the wise guidance of the Admiralty they will thrash out this question and agree upon some uniform which will not be regarded merely as the livery of the owner of the ship and worn

    1419
    in that capacity, but which will be regarded as a mark of distinction and as something which will show that these men have a definite part in the national organisation for the protection of their country in time of war. I want the right hon. Gentleman to reply on the question of seniority as between officers of the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. He answered a question of mine a month or two ago, but the answer does not seem to have been fully understood. He told me that officers of the Royal Naval Reserve would never take precedence of officers of the Royal Navy, but it is not quite clear whether sub-lieutenants in the Navy take command over a lieutenant-commander of the Royal Naval Reserve. I would like to call attention to an extract from a letter which I have put before the Fourth Sea Lord, sent by a lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve who won the D.S.O. some time ago, and who is very bitter on the point:
    "Shortly before I left my last ship I had to submit to the orders of a supplementary lieutenant of the Royal Navy, who was a second officer in a liner when appointed R.N, three years ago, and who had been in his first command only three months. I had then been a destroyer commander over one year."
    I do not think that can possibly be the intention of the Admiralty in carrying out the Regulation. Another officer says that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me is not satisfactory:
    "He says that a lieutenant-commander of the Royal Naval Reserve cannot take command over a lieutenant of the Royal Navy, but at the same time he says that the relative rank of lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve is senior to lieutenant in the Royal Navy. Now the question is: Can a lieutenant in the Royal Navy take command over his senior in rank, i.e., lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve?"
    I should like to know exactly how the matter stands and whether any fresh Regulations have been issued. A good many of these men who are lieutenant-commanders of the Royal Naval Reserve were commanders of very big liners before the War. They have done their regular Reserve training from time to time, and they have now been in command of a destroyer for a year or more. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs, and has no parallel in the Army that their junior officers, who may have been their juniors in the merchant service before the War and who are now supplementary Royal Navy lieutenants, are to take command over them. There is also the question of discharge from hospital in cases of sickness
    1420
    where the medical authorities do not consider the disease has been entirely caused by the War. I have called attention to one case of pleurisy, in which the man says:
    "I can swear on oath that pleurisy or anything like it has ever troubled me in my life. Moreover, I was passed as fit and sound by the naval medical officer at the Admiralty."
    Under the Regulations a man in such a case gets a week's notice and a week's pay. This man very properly writes:
    "This comes mighty hard on me, having no pay for just on three months now. How is one to exist and keep a family? I left a life's berth to go to this, and then some people wonder why there are slackers about."
    I hold no special brief for the shipowners, as I fancy the House will have gathered, but I am quite sure that there: is no shipowner who would treat an officer who is suffering from an illness like pleurisy in such a way, giving him a week's pay and saying that they have no further liability whatever. Even when it is more than doubtful that the illness was caused by the War there is this Regulation:
    "The grant is made entirely without prejudice, and implies no liability on the part of the State towards the officer."
    I do not think those Regulations are quite conceived in the spirit one would expect in a time of war and in respect of men who are performing the service that these men are performing to the State. The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to the hardships of the crews of these vessels which are sunk and who, after exposure in boats, finally arrive on shore frozen and dead owing to the terrible weather that we have had. Surely men who keep on stoking m the stoke-hole, working the engines, knowing that any moment a torpedo may blow them to eternity, surely men who have to take to boats and are finally frozen to death are worthy of a special mention. We know that the Naval and Army casualties are recorded. It is perhaps poor consolation to the families to see their names mentioned, but surely these men are just as worthy of the necessary space in the public print for the authoritative announcement that they are casualties and that their death has occurred whilst defending and serving their country just as much as the men in the Royal Navy and the Army. The right hon. Gentleman said that some of them are published, but they are not published in such a way that anybody can see them. The Admiralty recognise that they have just as much claim on their country as any man in the Army or Navy, and I hope that it will be done. I hope that what I

    1421
    have said with regard to a closer union between the Admiralty and the merchant service will at any rate be considered. I should like the Admiralty to take the view that agriculture and the great transport trade are really pillars of the State with the Navy, and that the mercantile marine is as intimately connected with the Navy as it is certain that the Navy has grown out of the merchant service in the past. The conditions which have arisen out of the present war show that there must be a far closer connection between the two in the future, and that the Admiralty are going to take some responsibility for the design of vessels, for the allocation of vessels, and for the personnel of the officers and crews.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There were a number of interesting suggestions made after the First Lord's speech, and before the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend, that shall certainly be represented in the proper quarter; but, under the Rules of the House, I am restricted now to the point which has been raised by the Amendment. The First Lord's statement earlier in the day showed how emphatically is the acceptance of the earlier part of the Amendment that the protection, maintenance, and organisation of the mercantile marine are vital to national life and to the successful prosecution of the War." There cannot be any two opinions about it. We are all in agreement there. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, "that there should be more frankness and consistency in the statements of the Government" respecting this matter, I think it was met in anticipation as regards frankness by the speech of the First Lord. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) went so far as to say that it was one of the frankest speeches he had ever heard on such an occasion, and I am sure it will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. France). No doubt that frankness will be marked as time goes on with complete consistency. With regard to our mercantile marine losses, my hon. Friend will have heard the announcement of the First Lord in introducing the Estimate as to the statements to be published. My right hon. Friend is not sure whether it will be possible to publish a statement day by day, but at any rate it will be published at the shortest
    1422
    possible intervals, and I am quite sure that not only my hon. Friend, but the whole House and the country will be perfectly satisfied with the statement which the First Lord made on the publication of losses in the mercantile marine. My hon. Friend referred to the question of convoying. That is a naval question, as to the expediency and practicability of which I do not think ho was quite prepared to dogmatise. I am certainly not, but his views shall be placed before the proper authorities.
    Mr. FRANCE: That is on the policy of preparation?
    8.0 P.M.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; it is on the question of the policy of preparation. The hon. Member's views shall be placed before the proper authority. My hon. Friend asked questions: in respect of the Anti-Submarine Department. He inquired if that Department was expected to wait on the Board of Inventions and Research, r if, supposing it had something before it the development of which promised good results, it could go ahead. Of course it can go ahead, and, if it so desires, it can go to the Board of Research, but there is no necessity for it to wait until that Board takes action. My hon. Friend also inquired whether it had been found possible to employ civilian transport officers. It has not been found so possible, and there are weighty Service reasons against doing it. But a large number of the transport officers are Royal Naval Reserve officers with a lifelong experience of the loading of commercial ships and the general working of ships in port, and they are, in their capacity of transport officers, in the actual control of ship-loading. Further than that, a number of these transport officers have civilian assistants to help them in the discharge of their duties. Expert civilian advisers visit the ports, and any suggestions they may make are at once taken up, and, if they are found practicable and useful, acted upon. Then we have a number of civilian experts at the centre, the Transport Department, and that number is constantly growing. My hon. Friend was quite right in laying great stress upon the relations between the shipyards and shipyard labour and this problem. Apart from the Allied problems of restriction of imports, the restriction of consumption, and the development of home produce, the answer to the submarine menace lies in the shipyards and in the marine engineering shops. The Admiralty

    1423
    has at present in each shipbuilding district an admiral and a staff, and under him of experts in the labour problem in connection with shipbuilding and repairs. And, again, in the shipyards we have technical officers not merely superintending Admiralty work, but also assisting in the development of commercial work. Now we have the great advantage at the centre of the whole-time services of Mr. Lynden Macassey, and all these agencies are developing all possible co-ordination at the centre between the several departments and branches, and in the locality in the direction of securing wherever possible better organisation in the yards, so that the whole-time capacity of every skilled man shall be fully occupied, and so, too, that there may be greater mobility of labour, more dilution, and the frank setting aside of demarcation rules, and of any rule which seems to lend itself to a reduction of output below the maximum.
    I think we must look for a substantial acceleration in the output of merchant tonnage of the right sort, and at the same time all possible expedition in the matter of repairs and new construction. I repeat that, apart from the allied problems to which I have referred the answer to the submarine menace is in the shipyard and the marine engineering shops and the boiler shops. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend say what he did on this point. Under Mr. Macassey's direction, and with the assistance of other gentlemen and the close co-operation of the Minister of Labour, the Board of Trade, the Labour Exchanges, and the Shipping Controller, the answer I have given is the only one that can be given. With regard to the points raised by the Seconder of the Amendment I will now say a few words. The hon. Member spoke of the question of discipline on board merchant vessels employed by the Admiralty. He knows the crews of certain auxiliaries and armed merchant cruisers and transports sign on under the terms of T 124. The period of engagement is the duration of the War and the officers and men who sign on under T 124 are subject to the same discipline as naval officers and men. Therefore, as far as they are concerned the crews of certain auxiliaries, armed merchant cruisers, and certain transports no question arises in connection with the contention he has put forward. There are certain other cases in
    1424
    which men remain in the service of the-owner. In those cases there is a clause embodied in the Board of Trade articles which puts them under naval discipline, and no question again arises as to them. There remain still other crews of transports engaged in the naval and military service who sign under the ordinary Board of Trade articles. They represent the great majority. If they sign for foreign service they sign for the voyage, but if for home service they sign until the 30th June or the 31st December, which are the dates, as the hon. Member-knows, on which these agreements are signed. These crews are not under naval discipline. They are under discipline as laid down under the Merchant Shipping Acts. As my hon. Friend knows, since the War began these provisions have been modified and strengthened by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. I have no doubt he knows the extent to which they have been modified. That is the whole story as regards discipline in the various crafts and of the various services.
    Mr. PETO: Are you extending the application of the Naval Discipline Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are cases-where they are not working either under T 124 or the Board of Trade Articles, and they are being brought under the Naval Discipline Act generally.
    Mr. PETO: But if this provision is good for one transport, why not for all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot submit myself to cross-examination upon the point. I recognise my hon. Friend's point of view; indeed, he has raised it many times; but I have now-stated the exact position. With regard to uniforms for these officers, as my hon. Friend knows, we are going into this, matter pretty closely with the owners of the vessels and with the Board of Trade; in fact, we had a conference to-day between the various parties. It is generally agreed that there shall be a standard uniform not to be compulsory. The details will be worked out by a Board of Trade Committee, including representatives of the Admiralty, owners, and officers. Any company that requires their officers to wear a uniform must adopt the standard uniform, and any company which wishes to retain its own emblem may put that emblem on the standard uniform. I cannot take my hon. Friend any further than that,

    1425
    I have given him the result of to-day's proceedings. If there is any further question he desires to put to me, and if he will indicate it. I will try to elaborate the point. As regards the relative seniority of Royal Naval officers, Royal Naval Reserve officers, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers, I may tell him that officers of the Royal Naval Reserve rank with, but after, officers of equivalent rank in the Royal Navy, but lieutenant-commanders of the Royal Naval Reserve rank after all lieutenants in the Royal Navy for purposes of command, the reason being that, before 1914, there was no such rank as lieutenant-commander. A lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Reserve ranks below a lieutenant of the Royal Navy for this purpose. The hon. Member put the case of the sub-lieutenant. I can say nothing about that beyond that I will make inquiries. Officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve rank after officers of corresponding rank in the Royal Naval Reserve. In the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve an officer has no right of command at all outside the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve unless ordered to take such command by superior authority. That is the whole story, but if my hon. Friend wishes for further elucidation and will communicate with me I shall be glad to see what I can do for him. He also referred to the question of hospital treatment and sick pay of officers in the mercantile marine engaged in the Royal Naval Reserve or on transport work for the naval or military services under Admiralty authority.
    Mr. PETO: I put certain cases before the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are as follows: Officers of merchant shipping in Admiralty employment under naval discipline T124, or under the modified Board of Trade articles, are granted ninety-one days full pay sick leave where the injury or disability is attributable to the Service. It is now proposed to extend that and to give these officers also ninety-one days full pay sick leave where the injury or disability, though not originally attributable to the Service, has been aggravated by it. That is an extension which follows the extension granted with regard to the treatment of men in the services in connection with disability pensions and allowances. If at the end of that time they do not return to the Service their claim for any further compensation will fall to be dealt with under the Injuries in War
    1426
    Compensation Act. That applies alike to officers and men in the mercantile marine serving on ships under Admiralty authority, and they will get benefit according to their rank and pay, the degree of disablement, and the incapacity resulting therefrom.
    On the same point, although my hon. Friend did not refer to it, I should like to deal with it as regards the men. I make no apology whatever for doing that, because these men deserve every consideration at our hands. I would refer to the matter because there was apparently some misunderstanding about it. As regards the men who serve under similar conditions to T 124—that is to say, under Admiralty authority and under naval discipline, engaged in naval or military service, if a man falls sick he is, of course, treated on board ship, or, if he is landed, he is sent to a naval or other hospital, assuming that the sickness is through no fault of his own. There he is treated free of expense, with pay until he returns to duty. Then comes his claim, if any, under the Injuries in War Compensation Act. We have to consider at that point whether it is a disability that is attributable to service, and, in such a case, he is eligible for injury pension, varying from two-thirds of his peace pay in respect of total disablement downwards, according to the degree of impairment of earning capacity. I cannot refer to that without recalling to the hon. Gentleman that the pay is certainly higher than is the corresponding service pay. The dependants of the man are likewise eligible for pensions and allowances in the event of death of a man from similar causes. The widow's pension is calculated at one-third of the man's peace pay, or 10s. a week, whichever be the greater. The child's allowance is one-twenty-fourth of the peace pay, or 2s. 6d. a week, whichever is greater. The allowance to other dependants varies with the degree of dependence. In the case of ships engaged in naval and military service, although not in the direct employment of the Crown, there are precisely similar arrangements under the War Risks Clubs scheme, except that the men or the dependants are eligible in that case, in the first instance, to benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the benefits thus received are deductible from those payable under the War Risks Clubs scheme. My hon. Friend also-pointed out that when men have given

    1427
    their lives, as they have done in such heroic circumstances it sometimes happens that there is no notification of that, and their relatives have not the satisfaction of seeing that their services are recognised in the roll of honour, the Casualty List. As I said earlier, either in reply to a question or by way of interruption, in all cases where the names of officers or men of the merchant ships in Admiralty employ are known to the Admiralty, those names are published in the casualty lists.
    Mr. PETO: In the naval casualty list?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is so. The difficulty is that in regard to many of the merchant ships in our employment we have no cognisance of the names of the officers and crews, because they are paid not by us, but by the owner. We ultimately foot the bill for the hire of the ship and the claims of the crew, but we do not get the names.
    Mr. PETO: You could get them.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If we receive them we shall certainly publish them, as we have already done in the case of those we have received. I am not sure whether it would not be a good thing to make this intimation to the owners.
    Mr. PETO: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to take steps at once to see that the onus is upon the owner to report to the Admiralty the name, in the event of death or casualty, of every man and officer.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am quite sure I need scarcely mention that to my right hon. Friend the First Lord to secure his agreement to that step being taken, so that we should not miss the opportunity of paying whatever tribute is possible to the gallantry of these men. Finally, I should like to say that I associate myself most cordially with what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends as to the dauntless gallantry of the men of the merchant service and the men on the trawlers engaged in mine-sweeping and other operations. No tribute we could pay would overstate our debt of gratitude and our obligations to these men. My hon. Friend has interested himself many times in questions and in Debate in the matter of the recognition of their services. I cannot carry the matter further now than the answer I gave on the 17th February last year in reply to a question put by him and my hon. Friend the Mem-
    1428
    ber for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) which, perhaps, I may be allowed to read:
    "The Board of Admiralty cordially associates itself with the tribute which my hon. Friends have paid in their questions to the services rendered in the one case by the Channel packets and in the other by the ships serving as Fleet auxiliaries and requisitioned by the Admiralty for war service. I gladly take this opportunity also of acknowledging the inestimable value to the Empire of the services rendered by the mercantile marine generally. I need hardly assure the House that these services will be adequately recognised at the proper time." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1916, col. 220, Vol. LXXX.]
    Mr. PETO: When will that be?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume it will be at the close of hostilities. I would appeal to the Mover of the Amendment to allow it to be technically negatived. Then we shall be in a position to carry the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and, if the House desire, we can proceed in Committee with the general discussion on Vote 1.
    Mr. FRANCE: If I agree to that course, may I understand that the Government and the Admiralty accept the principle of the Motion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I accept the earlier part, certainly. No one can take objection to the declaration
    "That … the protection, maintenance and organisation of the Mercantile Marine are vital to national life and to the successful prosecution of the War."
    There is no need to dispute that. As regards the latter part, I think I have answered that.
    Mr. PETO: Will the Admiralty exercise more control and supervision over the merchant service, its construction and maintenance, and everything connected with it, than they have done in the past?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot carry it further than I have done. I have explained how the position stands, and how far we have gone in connection with a standard uniform, if the Mover allows his Motion to be technically negatived, we shall be in a position to resume the general discussion on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
    Amendment negatived.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, A. "That 400,000 Officers, Seamen, and

    1429
    Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I understood through the usual channels that this Vote was not to be taken to-night.
    Sir E. CARSON: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. GULLAND: I understood from the Noble Lord that he did not intend to take these Votes to-night, and I think a considerable number of Members have left the House on that understanding. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to take Vote 1 and leave Vote A.
    Sir E. CARSON: If there is any misunderstanding I would much rather we should not have any criticism about it. I will, therefore, move to report Progress.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    SUPPLY [19TH FEBRUARY].
    Order read for further consideration of First Resolution, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
    Resolution further considered, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn.'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am very
1430
sorry to have to say, on the part of the Government, that it is impossible that the statement which the Prime Minister intended to make to-morrow can be made to-morrow. This is due to the reason I explained earlier in the week. We had hoped to have everything settled up to half an hour ago, but it so happens that representatives of the Allied Governments are with us to-day, everything has not been arranged, and it is impossible that the statement can be made to-morrow. I am going to make a demand on the House, which I am very unwilling to make, and that is that we should sit on Friday in order that the statement may then be made. I am sure the House will not resist my taking this course, but every hour is of importance, having regard to the agricultural problem. The first Order to-morrow will be the National Service Bill, followed by other Orders on the Paper.
Mr. GULLAND: I am sure the House will gladly fall in with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and give the Government every facility. The only fear I have is that the right hon. Gentleman may not have a very large attendance on Friday because I am afraid in many cases hon. Members have made their engagements otherwise. He will understand the reason of the small House if there is one. I presume no other business will be taken on Friday. Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate precisely what other business will be taken to-morrow?
Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The National Service Bill, followed by the Report of Supply (19th February), and probably Ministry of National Service (salaries and remuneration).
Mr. G. LAMBERT: I presume there will be an opportunity of debating the statement and of expressing an opinion whether the proposals are sufficient from the agricultural point of view.
Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be taken on the Adjournment Motion?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I fancy that will be the simplest way, but at all events it will be taken in a form which will permit of discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  INCOME TAX (INSTALMENTS).
  INCOME TAX (INSTALMENTS).
  INCOME TAX (LIABILITY OF WORKMEN).
  INCOME TAX (LIABILITY OF WORKMEN).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  FRIENDLY ALIENS.
  FRIENDLY ALIENS.
  SELECTION BOARD (MEETINGS).
  SELECTION BOARD (MEETINGS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MACHINERY (EXPORT LICENCES).
  MACHINERY (EXPORT LICENCES).
  PETROL SUPPLIES.
  PETROL SUPPLIES.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PHEASANTS (SALE).
  PHEASANTS (SALE).
  HOARDING FOODSTUFFS.
  HOARDING FOODSTUFFS.
  GRASS LANDS (IRELAND).
  GRASS LANDS (IRELAND).
  SEED POTATOES.
  SEED POTATOES.
  CORN BARNS (IRELAND).
  CORN BARNS (IRELAND).
  LABOURERS' PLOTS (IRELAND).
  LABOURERS' PLOTS (IRELAND).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (REMUNERATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (REMUNERATION).
  INDIAN HOME DEFENCE FORCE.
  INDIAN HOME DEFENCE FORCE.
  INDIA (DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES).
  INDIA (DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES).
  MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION (SUPPLIES).
  MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION (SUPPLIES).
  CONSPIRACY TRIALS (INDIA).
  CONSPIRACY TRIALS (INDIA).
  SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE (REFERENCE).
  SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE (REFERENCE).
  DOMINIONS ROYAL COMMISSION.
  DOMINIONS ROYAL COMMISSION.
  CONQUERED GERMAN COLONIES.
  CONQUERED GERMAN COLONIES.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  COUNTESS MARKIEWICZ.
  COUNTESS MARKIEWICZ.
  AIRCRAFT RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  AIRCRAFT RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS (PLUMAGE).
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS (PLUMAGE).
  ROUMANIA.
  ROUMANIA.
  PRESIDENT WILSON'S NOTE (REPLY OF GREECE).
  PRESIDENT WILSON'S NOTE (REPLY OF GREECE).
  VACANT LAND CULTIVATION SOCIETY.
  VACANT LAND CULTIVATION SOCIETY.
  GARDENING (SCHOOL INSTRUCTION).
  GARDENING (SCHOOL INSTRUCTION).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (CONVICTION).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (CONVICTION).
  CIVILIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  CIVILIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Congested Districts Board.
  Congested Districts Board.