Sitting of 26 February 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill (by Order).
Read a second time, and committed.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:
That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173 a apply to all such Bills:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That Four be the quorum:
That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government Regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses, and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:
That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Mr. Brace.]

DOMINIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Fifth Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken in the Central and Western Provinces of Canada in 1916 before the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions. Parts I. and II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MORPHIA (BRITISH MANUFACTURE).
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of morphia and morphia salts of British manufacture that was exported to Japan, including Formosa and the leased territories in China, during 1913, 1914, and 1915, and the value thereof; whether he has official information showing that the amount so exported is required for medical and legitimate purposes only as prescribed by the International Opium Convention, 1912; if not, whether he has evidence to show its destination and the other uses to which it is put; and whether the Government will proceed to put into force the Opium Convention, which was ratified by Great Britain in 1914?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The quantities and value of morphia and morphia salts of British manufacture recorded as exported to Japan (including Formosa and Japanese leased territories

    1653
    in China) during the years specified amounted to 252,110 ounces, valued at £118,794, in 1913; 352,130 ounces, valued at £143,975, in 1914; and 204,742 ounces, valued at £136,059, in 1915. These figures do not include exports by parcel post, respecting which no figures are available. With regard to the eventual destination of this morphia and the uses to which it was ultimately put, these are questions which concern the Japanese Administration, but are outside the competence of His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would not be desirable to put the opium Convention into force pending the deposit of ratifications by all the Signatory Powers.
    Sir W. COLLINS: Is this not evidence that much of this morphia finds its way into China in substitution for opium?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I have no information on that point.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MAXIMUM PBICES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of issuing licences to dealers in trades controlled by the Government, so that in cases where the maximum prices are exceeded the licences may be withdrawn and the offending traders thus prevented from further trading?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): If the hon. Member would be good enough to give me particulars of the trades he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider whether any steps such as he suggests can be taken if the matter is one that concerns the Board of Trade. If it is not, I will call the attention of the appropriate Department to the suggestion.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication on the subject of the depletion of men engaged in the refrigeration industry; and whether, in view of the effect of such depletion upon the food resources of the country, he will take steps to avert such a result?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the importance of cold storage in this country, and I understand from the Reserved Occupations Committee that this trade is
    1654
    receiving a considerable measure of protection under the list of certified occupations.

    SAUSAGE SKINS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade what representatives of the trade he consulted, and on what points, with regard to the restriction of the importation of sausage skins?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Firms and associations representing users as well as producers were consulted by the Board of Trade. It is not desirable to publish the names of those consulted.
    Mr. SCOTT: Without giving the names of individual firms, can the hon. Gentleman give me the name of any association that was consulted?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think I have given my hon. Friend privately.

    MEAT EXPORTS (SOUTH AMERICA).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the total number of beef quarters, sheep, lambs, and boxes of offal shipped from Buenos Ayres and Argentine ports to the United States of America since the date of the publication of the Food Committee's Report; and what were the names of the owners of the vessels by which the goods were conveyed?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade made an arrangement, some months before the publication of that Report, with the owners of British insulated steamers trading between the Plate and the United States of America whereby all the refrigerated produce in question has since been brought to this country. We have no information as to any meat being carried in neutral vessels, but, if there is any, the quantity must be very small.

    DELIVERY OF FOODSTUFF'S (LIVERPOOL).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the delay in the delivery of foodstuffs from Liverpool; if he has been informed that in one case, for instance, a firm of Liverpool sugar brokers passed an order on to the forwarding agent for the transport by rail of a consignment of sugar on the 3rd January last which had not been railed on the 17th of that month; and if he will make inquiries and ascertain whether there is any reasonable excuse for the present condition of affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that there has unfortunately been some congestion of traffic in the Liverpool district. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with particulars of the case to which he refers in order that inquiry may be made into it.

    GROWING CROPS (DESTRUCTION).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture why no steps are being taken by organised effort to protect the grain and growing crops of this country from rats, sparrows, rooks, and wood pigeons; and if he is aware that it is at this period of the year that the greatest destruction is caused by these pests?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): It is the duty of War Agricultural Committees to organise the destruction of agricultural pests wherever they may be rampant, and some committees have already been active in the matter. Further, the Board are considering, in conjunction with the Local Government Board, whether powers ought not to be conferred on local authorities so that they too may take any necessary action within their districts.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked when the proposed Order enabling farmers to kill game destroying crops will be issued; and what is the cause of the delay?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Order in Council making the Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act to enable the Board to deal with this matter was issued on Friday last. The Board are making their Order under it to-day, and I will send a copy to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will that Order be identical with that suggested by the representative of the Food Controller?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I think not.

    ROYAL PARKS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the ploughing of 100 acres in Richmond Park has now been completed; what it has cost up to date; what was the cost of the hire of the plough; and what is the cost of the deer fence and of its erection?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Owing to the long spell of frost only about 22 acres of the
    1656
    65 to 70 acres to be cultivated have been ploughed. The cost of the work cannot be stated at present, but detailed accounts are being kept and will be furnished in due course.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the prices of the commodities grown on this highly-cultivated ground—what will be their value?
    Sir A. MOND: I shall know when we get the crops.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there a guarantee of six years for the First Commissioner's crops?
    Mr. SCOTT: Did the right hon. Gentleman in his zeal undertake this work without any estimate of the cost?
    Sir A. MOND: No. Sir. I had estimates of the cost from highly-skilled experts.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total cost?
    Sir A. MOND: I cannot tell yet.
    Mr. SCOTTasked whether the land to be ploughed up in Bushey Park has been let to a neighbouring farmer; if so, at what rent; was it put up to tender; was there any competition; and is the Government to have any share in the crops.
    Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the other questions do not therefore arise.

    CATTLE FEEDING CAKES.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Munitions when it is proposed to effect a reduction in the price of feeding cakes to the farmers, which have been doubled during the War, and which is hampering the production of milk and other food products?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): As my right hon. Friend is aware, I was asked only last week by the Food Controller and by the President of the Board of Agriculture to appoint Mr. Bigland as Controller of Oils and Fats generally. I shall be glad, therefore, if my right hon. Friend will repeat his question a little later.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will there be power to fix the prices?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will consult my right hon. Friend.

    DIETARY SCALE.
    Mr. FELLasked the Home Secretary if he has taken steps, with regard to the asylums and institutions under his Department, to have the scale of diet reduced, for both the officials and inmates, to that now enjoined on the general public by the Food Controller?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The scales of diet in asylums are under the control of the local authorities. The Board of Control is in communication with the local authorities, and finds them anxious to do their utmost to conform to the Food Controller's standards. Similar action is being taken in the case of other institutions connected with my Department.

    SUGAR.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will in the future only sell sugar on the condition that the retailer sells it without requiring the buyer to purchase any other article; and whether he will refuse to sell sugar for the purpose of manufacturing sweets?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): In reply to the first part of this question, I am unable to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on 15th February. As regards the second part, the Food Controller has already taken steps through the Sugar (Confectionery) Order, 1917, to reduce to 50 per cent, of their 1915 consumption the amount of sugar which may be used for the manufacture of sweets. The question of further restriction in this direction is under consideration.
    Mr. SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that a system of sugar tickets is the only system that wall protect people with small incomes and enable them to obtain the sugar to which they are entitled?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already explained to the hon. Member that that matter has been fully investigated, and it is not thought in the best national interests to employ in this direction so large a proportion of our available man-power which can be utilised so much better in other directions.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is he prepared then to employ all that extra labour suddenly when the emergency arises?
    Mr. LOUGH: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Order published this morning by the Food Controller against the necessity for having any article purchased cannot be made to apply to sugar?
    Captain BATHURST: This is a very difficult and complicated question, and the risk involved in adopting the right hon. Baronet's suggestion is that it might result in the remedy being worse than the disease.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether I am to understand from his answer to the first part of the question that he is considering the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes; and I may assure the right hon. Baronet that as soon as the Food Controller returns to his duties, which it is hoped he will do in the course of a few days, he intends to investigate fully the whole sugar position.

    POULTRY (DESTRUCTION).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is in possession of any statistics which will enable an estimate to be made of the destruction of poultry by foxes?
    Captain BATHURST: So far as I am aware, no such statistics exist.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman possibly arrive at any estimate of the damage to food done by rats, mice, and wood pigeons, as well as by foxes?
    Captain BATHURST: No; but I have not the slightest doubt that the damage done by such pests is infinitely greater than what is done by foxes.

    WILD RABBITS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that wild rabbits are selling at over 100 per cent, more than they were sold for in pre-war days; if he is aware that a number of rabbits are consumed by the working-class population in all parts of the country; if he is aware that rabbits are very destructive on agricultural land; and if he can see his way to engage a number of discharged soldiers for the purpose of netting and killing rabbits, to be put upon the various markets at a cost of not more than 25 per cent, over and above pre-war prices?
    Captain BATHURST: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question, but the adoption of measures, in addition to those provided by the Ground Game Act, for killing larger numbers of rabbits on agricultural land appears to be a matter for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    DESTRUCTION OF FOXES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that foxhunting for the current season will conclude within one month of this date, and that such destruction of foxes as is thereby accomplished will cease, and that during the coming summer there is danger of a phenomenal increase of the numbers of these animals, his Department will consider the advisability of offering a reward to take effect during the spring and summer months in each rural parish for the head of every fox brought in?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already informed the House that the masters of foxhounds are taking steps to reduce the number of foxes. There does not, therefore, appear to be any necessity to take further action at present.

    SEED POTATOES.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Department of Agriculture have notified the Abbeyleix District Council that they would be unable to supply seed potatoes of any variety other than "Up-to-Date" to applicants requiring seed under the Government food production scheme; and, as practical agriculturists from the Queen's County consider the "Champion" and other varieties of potatoes more productive, of better quality, and more suitable to the soil, and as such seed can be purchased in sufficient quantities and at a lower price in the county, will he ask the Department to reconsider the matter with a view to purchasing the required supplies in the county?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am informed that the Department of Agriculture have notified the Abbeyleix District Council as stated. If sufficient seed can be secured in the Abbeyleix district at reasonable prices, there seems no necessity for putting the loan scheme into operation.

    TILLAGE REGULATIONS, IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) if he will say what action has been taken in response to the resolution sent him on 24th January by the Multyfarnham Food-production Association on the subject of grass land for tillage and their subsequent resolution on cow pasturage for the villagers; by what date land in the district will be made available for each of these purposes; and (2) if he will say what progress has been made towards the compulsory distribution, in default of tillage, of the grazing tracts in and around the parish of Mayne, Westmeath, namely, Kiltoom, Coolure, Derra, Lispopple, Turbotstown, and Lakeview, the neighbouring small holders and landless men in each case being eager to till the land this season, provided that they are made purchasers on the usual terms?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture are unable state until after the expiry of the date specified in the Regulations the steps which it may be desirable to take in cases in which the rated occupiers of grass lands fail to comply with the compulsory tillage regulations. The provision of pasturage for cows is not contemplated under the Regulations, the object of which is the cultivation of the soil.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to take action promptly, having regard to the lateness of the season as soon as he learns that the owners refuse to regard it as their duty?
    Mr. DUKE: There has been no loss of time in dealing with this question.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the defective method of election, the minority in the three southern provinces of Ireland are totally excluded from any share of local government; and will he say how it is proposed to safeguard the interests of the minority in view of the powers now conferred on local authorities to enter on and distribute land which they may consider is not use fully employed?
    Mr. DUKE: No such power as is suggested has been given.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the distribution of any land now in the possession

    1661
    of the Congested Districts Board or Estates Commissioners, and which has been acquired from its late owner by Imperial funds or which the Government may acquire in the near future, first claim is in all cases given to applicants who have agricultural skill and who have served, or Are serving, in the forces of the Crown?
    Mr. DUKE: In the allotment of untenanted land the Estates Commissioners give preference to men, otherwise qualified for land under the Land Purchase Acts, who have served or are serving in the Army or Navy, or who have members of their families so serving. The Congested Districts Board will continue to consider most favourably applications from eligible persons who have or had sons serving in the Army or Navy, or who have themselves so served.

    COMPULSORY TAKING OF LAND (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, as President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the War Cabinet have conferred on him, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations the like extended powers which have been obtained by the President of the Board of Agriculture and by which local authorities may compulsorily take land which, in their opinion, is not being usefully employed; and will he say what appeal, if any, and to whom, there will be where an owner or occupier has his land taken from him under the Regulations mentioned?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have been given power to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of urban allotments when they are of opinion that it is necessary for the local food supply and that the use of land for this purpose has been unreasonably withheld, and they may delegate this power in approved cases to a local authority. They propose to exercise this power whenever it may be necessary to do so in co-operation with the Local Government Board, who, when they deem it advisable, can appoint arbitrators and hold inquiries at which the owners or occupiers of land which was being compulsorily acquired may be heard.
    Major NEWMAN: Does the Chief Secretary mean that he has got power to delegate these powers to urban district councils and not to rural district councils?
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir; we have no power to delegate to urban district councils.
    1662
    There is power in the Department of Agriculture to take possession of lands which are unreasonably withheld in urban districts for tillage, and to make arrangements by which the urban district council carries that power into effect, but the business will be put through in the manner which I have explained, by co-operation between the Departments of Agriculture and the Local Government Board.
    Major NEWMAN: The question is this: these powers only refer to urban districts; rural districts are not affected?
    Mr. DUKE: I think the hon. and gallant Member will know there is an entirely separate system in the rural districts of Ireland.

    SEEDS AND MANURES (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDON(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is now in a position to state whether landless men and labourers other than occupants of union cottages will be afforded the same facilities for the securing of seeds and manures as those mentioned in the Regulations issued by the Irish Food Committee, and, if to, will he instruct the Local Government Board to immediately notify all rural district councils throughout Ireland of such a decision?
    Mr. DUKE: This matter which the hon. Member and his colleagues have several times pressed upon my consideration has been investigated by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Local Government Board. The exclusion of non-rated men from the advantage of the loan scheme is felt to be a hardship although the numbers affected are believed not to be very large. In order to meet their case, the Local Government Board will authorise the district councils to make special arrangements for intending cultivators who are not rated. Where persons who are not rated are getting allotments or taking land in conacre, and are not in a position to pay cash for the necessary seed and manures, advances to them will be sanctioned if they make such arrangements with the rated occupier as will obtain his consent to the addition of the amount of the loan to his rates, they providing for his reimbursement when the crop is harvested, or otherwise to his satisfaction.

    RETAIL PRICES (INCREASE).
    Sir JOHN BARRAN(by Private Notice): beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to

    1663
    the Food Control Department whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the immediate steps to be taken by his Department to secure that retail prices of certain foods of which there are abundant stocks in this country shall not be advanced to the public in consequence of the restriction of imports announced last week?
    Captain BATHURST: There is, of course, no justification for an increase in the retail prices of those food commodities of which there are abundant stocks in this country, in consequence of the proposed restrictions upon their importation, announced last week by the Prime Minister. My attention has been called to cases in which such an increase has already taken place. The Food Controller will not hesitate to take drastic action in the event of an increase in the price of any food commodities taking place which is not justified by the circumstances. I should like to add that the inflation of food prices has, in some cases apparently, resulted from anticipatory statements in the Press, and in the interest of consumers it is hoped that such statements will be made with great caution.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "drastic steps," seeing that within an hour after the Prime Minister's statement grocers were charging increased prices for commodities which they must have had in their possession?
    Captain BATHURST: I have only just received notice of this question, and I am not entitled to speak to-day for the Food Controller as to the steps he will take, but I hope the House will rest satisfied with the expressed "drastic" without asking me to further explain. It was obviously impossible for the Food Controller, or anyone, to take any action whatever within an hour of the statement made by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. PRINGLE: But when will steps be taken? The increases are now actually taking place.
    Captain BATHURST: I am not prepared to add anything to what I have said.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether people are entitled to continue consuming these specific articles at the old rate of prices? If not, how are the prices to be regulated?
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he will take the opportunity, when dealing with the question of prices, to inform the House what steps can be taken to enable the public, and especially poor people, to obtain sugar without being obliged to buy other articles at the same time?

  DIAMOND TRADE.
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, whilst members of English firms engaged in the diamond trade are serving this country in the trenches, their German competitors, operating from Holland, are permitted by English law to import goods into this country through the intermediary of members of the Diamond Import Committee acting in their private capacity and to dispatch the same to subjects of alien enemy countries resident in India, receiving a commission for their services; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Member has been misinformed. It is not the case that German firms operating in Holland are forwarding diamonds to enemy firms in India through the intermediary of the exports appointed by the Foreign Trade Department to examine diamonds imported into this country.
  Mr. NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him specific cases?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly. Any information which my hon. Friend gives me will be welcomed and examined.
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the injury which has resulted from the acts of the Departments and in view also of the complaints arising from the past action of the diamond committees by which such Departments are, guided, ho, will introduce legislation at an early date to afford parties considering themselves aggrieved by the decision of the Departments to appeal to a Court, or judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, with power to award compensation to those who may sustain loss consequent upon complaints which prove not to be well-founded or to have been recklessly undertaken?
  Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member is referring to the export of diamonds and

  1665
  intends to suggest that the decisions of the competent Departments with regard to -applications for export licences should be made subject to review by the Courts, I do not think it desirable that this course should be pursued. Questions relating to the import of diamonds are dealt with by the, Foregn Trade Department, who inform me that any importer who is dissatisfied with the seizure, under Section 6 of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, of diamonds imported into the United Kingdom has a legal remedy, and that no further provision seems to be required.
  Mr. NIELD: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the onus of proof put by the Statute on the person who is Aggrieved is almost impossible to satisfy in present circumstances, and that this makes it necessary for another tribunal to be set up?
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the diamond import and export committees, against the protest of diamond dealers, require that the latter should furnish to them the names and addresses of their customers as well as the prices paid or charged for goods; whether this disclosure of information by traders to their competitors in trade was necessary; and whether, to prevent injustice, he will direct that the goods, the subject of investigation, should be identified by numbers to be assigned by an approved authority or other methods which will preserve trade information not necessary for the discharge by the Departments of their public duty?
  Mr. ROBERTS: It is necessary, for the due performane of its duties, that the Diamond Exports Committee should be in possession of the information referred to by the hon. Member, and the Foreign Trade Department inform me that their experts who examine diamonds imported into this country must be in possession of similar information, in order that they may give a considered opinion as to the origin of the goods. I see no reason for any change in the present practice.
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the injustice which permits of an alien trader getting direct advantage from the absence on military duty of members and staffs of English firms and the impropriety of members of the diamond import and export committees being engaged either
  1666
  personally or as members of a firm, or through agents, so that in the result they derive pecuniary advantage in competition with traders whose goods they have to adjudicate upon, he will consent to the appointment of a Committee of this House to investigate the constitution of the diamond import and export committees with a view to their reconstruction on a representative and totally impartial basis; and whether such committee should be directed to consider and report upon measures for the further and better coordination of the various Departments and authorities concerned in the import and export of diamonds, so as to ensure that an impartial administration should be had wherever an offence has been committed or reasonably suspected by traders in this country, irrespective of nationality, and proceedings taken?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir, I am not prepared to consent to the appointment of such a Committee. The diamond exports committee was appointed by the late President of the Board of Trade, and I am convinced that it has performed its difficult duties to the best of its ability in an impartial manner and without regard for the pecuniary or personal interests of its members. I understand from the Foreign Trade Department that the experts appointed by them to examine diamonds imported into this country have rendered valuable and devoted service. It is regrettable that any suggestion should be made that their experts have used their position for their private advantage.
  Mr. NIELD: May I give the hon. Gentleman particulars?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly.

  IRISH CANALS.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to take over the control of the Irish canals?
  Mr. ROBERTS: As at present advised the Board of Trade see no particular reason for taking the action suggested.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman, in view of the general expression of opinion from Ireland in favour of this proposal, in a position to promise that the Board of Trade will give this most important subject careful consideration?
  Mr. FIELD: May I ask the reason why, when the railways were taken over, the canals were not also taken over?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot exactly state the reason why, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend has a perfectly open mind upon the question.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    TEA, COFFEE, COCOA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the export of tea, coffee, and cocoa is now or about to be prohibited to all foreign countries, except under licence, or is it the intention to prohibit such exports to countries contiguous to enemy countries; will it be permissible to continue the export to those having no direct communication with enemy countries, whether situate in Europe, North or South America, or elsewhere; is it proposed to prohibit the importation into this country of coffee and cocoa; is it intended to restrict the import of tea equally from foreign countries and our own Dominions; and, if not, to what extent will the prohibition apply, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The export of coffee, cocoa, and tea was prohibited to all destinations by Order of Council on the 19th February last, and I am informed by the War Trade Department that licences for export will be issued only for small quantities after consultation with the Ministry of Food. The import of these articles is also prohibited, but in the case of tea and cocoa licences will be given for the admission of a certain quantity from British Possessions.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the answer mean that no importations at all of tea will be allowed from foreign ports?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is how I understand it.
    Colonel YATE: Does this prohibition extend to small parcels sent to prisoners of war and to soldiers serving at the Front?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that is why the Food Controller takes power to admit of licences being granted in such cases.

    PLUMAGE.
    Sir W. BYLESasked whether, during the last three years, 1,865,431 lbs. weight of feathers, exclusive of ostrich
    1668
    feathers, have been imported into this country; and whether, having regard to the shortage of tonnage and its effect on our food supply, these imports of luxuries will be stopped?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The importation of feathers (ornamental and down) is now covered by the Prohibition of Import (No. 14) Proclamation established on Friday last.

    FRENCH INTERESTS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in regard to restrictions of imports or to any action tending to the erection of a tariff wall for the protection of British products, he will bear in mind the claim of France to favourable treatment and will take all the steps within his power to safeguard to the full the interests of our Ally?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The restriction of imports is undertaken in the common interest; but we are anxious to do what we can to diminish the loss of inconvenience which this policy may cause either to Allies or neutrals.
    Mr. LYNCH: Was it sufficiently considered that, whereas France is taking more than her due share of the weight of military burdens, she will suffer by these restrictions in her pocket, and is that equitable?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not admit the premises of the hon. Gentleman to the effect that France is taking a greater share in the work of die War than we are.
    Mr. LYNCH: In saying so I was simply paraphrasing the words of the Prime Minister himself.

    HOPS.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the proposed limitation of the output of beer to 10,000,000 barrels, and the consequent injury to the hop industry in this country, in which so much capital is invested, he will preclude the importation of hops till 1922; and whether, considering that the tonnage required for such foreign substances as rice, maize, sugar, syrup, glucose, and saccharine, even for the reduced output, will amount to 670,000 tons, and, in order both to save this tonnage and to help home industries, he will confine the materials to be used in the manufacture of beer to malt and hops only, such ingredients only being used by the eminent firm of Guinness, Dublin?
    Captain BATHURST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The importation of hops is already prohibited. A certain number of licences to export, in spite of the prohibition, have been granted by the Board of Trade for special reasons; but it is, I understand, proposed now to discontinue this practice. The period during which the prohibition shall remain in force cannot now be decided. It is not proposed to take such action as is suggested in the second part of the question. The figure of 670,000 tons given in the question appears to be erroneous. This figure should apparently be 67,000.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask whether the prohibition of the import of hops which has now been issued is going to be carried out better than the prohibition which was made in June?
    Captain BATHURST: That is a matter for the Board of Trade, and not for the Ministry of Food.

    LEGISLATION.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister how much of his scheme for the restriction of imports and the development of home resources is outside the scope of proclamations and will require new legislation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Legislation will be necessary, and will be introduced to give effect to the proposals with regard to the development of our agricultural resources.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when that legislation will probably be introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I am sorry I cannot give a time now.
    Mr. LOUGH: Having regard to the far-reaching nature of the Proclamation, will my right hon. Friend give an opportunity of discussing it in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot see any reason for taking that course at present.

  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT (NEWSPAPERS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, it will be required of the proprietors of newspapers, not being corporations, who as such proprietors are registered according to the provisions of
  1670
  the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881, also be registered as provided by Section 1, and further to have their names printed on all copies of the newspapers they publish and on their business letters and trade circulars as specified by Section 18 of the first-mentioned Act?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Registration under the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881, does not exempt the proprietors of a newspaper from compliance with the provisions of the Registration of Business Names Act if that Act is otherwise applicable.
  Mr. SCOTT: Does that apply to the copies of newspapers, that the names of the proprietors should be printed in each copy of the newspaper?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think they have to appear in the paper.

  NORWAY (TERRITORIAL WATERS LIMIT).
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs whether the three-mile limit is accepted by the Norwegian Government as defining territorial waters on the Norwegian coast; whether now or at any time since the beginning of the War a limit of four miles has been claimed by Norway and such claim admitted by His Majesty's Government; whether, as a matter of fact, ships seized on the coast of Norway by British patrols outside the three-mile limit have been released on the ground that they were in territorial waters; and what is the general principle observed by His Majesty's Government in relation to the territorial waters of neutral countries?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Norwegian Government have always claimed, but His Majesty's Government have never admitted, that the territorial waters of Norway extend four miles from its coast. No ships seized on the coast of Norway by British patrols outside the three-mile limit have been released on the ground that they were within territorial waters.

  PERSIA.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, without prejudice to the national interest, he can make any statement as to whether a new agreement has been concluded with

  1671
  the Russian Government with regard to the spheres of influence of Great Britain and Russia in Persia superseding the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907; and whether any such fresh agreement as may have been made safeguards the integrity and independence of the Persian Empire?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 is still in force, and no contingent arrangements for modifying its character in any way affect the integrity or independence of the Persian Empire.

  SHOPS EARLIER CLOSING ORDER.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Home Secretary whether the existing Closing Order for shops expires on 30th April next; and, having regard to the benefits which the present arrangements have secured for shop assistants, he can see his way to maintain the arrangements at least for the duration of the War, if not to fix it on a permanent basis?
  Sir G. CAVE: The existing Order will expire on the 30th April. Certain representations have been made to me in favour of the continuance of the Order, and these and any other communications on the subject which may reach my Department will be carefully considered before any decision is taken.
  Captain BARNETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of shop assistants affected by the Order is almost negligible, whilst tens of thousands of small shopkeepers are vitally concerned?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account before he comes to a decision, that thousands of poor people, in many cases where the supporter of the household is at the War, have been absolutely ruined as the result of the Order?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is just the kind of case we have to consider.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I can supply evidence if necessary.
  Mr. HINDS: May I say that if the right hon. Gentleman consults the Chamber of Commerce and the trading communities he will find that the statements as to shop assistants and employers are absolutely wrong, as given by the hon. Member.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of alien enemies with respect to whom internment orders were made between 11th December, 1916, and 14th February, 1917, excluding any cases of aliens brought into this country by sea; and how many clubs and restaurants belonging to alien enemies were closed in London between the same dates?
  Sir G. CAVE: Between the dates mentioned about forty alien enemies, mainly aliens previously exempted from internment, were interned, and sixteen orders were made under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in respect of persons of hostile origin or association. The above number docs not include aliens brought to this country by sea. There is at present no power for any authority to close clubs or restaurants on the ground that they belong to or are conducted by alien enemies; but I understand that in consequence of internment orders made against the occupiers and frequenters of certain places of this kind which were the resort of enemy aliens or persons of hostile association, these places have either closed their doors or ceased to be used for the purpose mentioned. I am unable at the present moment to give particulars of such places. I hope that power will shortly be obtained to close restaurants kept by aliens.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if Mr. Jacob Strumpf and Mr. Schumacher are included amongst those interned?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes; those persons are included.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation why they were not interned two and a half years ago?
  Mr. BOYTONasked the Home Secretary if he can state the reason for the release from internment of the following persons after only short periods of detention: Anton Dupré and Louis Perath-oven, Austrian alien enemies, and Andrew William Nuttgens, a German; if their employers, Messrs. Burns and Oates, Limited, entered into sureties of £100 each; if these men are still in their employ; and whether it is the intention of the Government to release other enemy aliens on similar terms, and thus provide unpatriotic firms

  1673
  with labour, whilst others are called upon to release men for the Army and as volunteers for National Service?
  Sir G. CAVE: Dupré and Perathoven are wood carvers coining from that part of Austria which is known as Italia Irredenta and speaking the Romance language. They were released from internment in 1915 to resume their occupation, their employers entering into a bond for £100 in respect of each man. Nuttgens is a German stained-glass worker who was brought here as a child less than one year old, and speaks and understands no language but English. He was exempted from internment in 1915 on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, without bond. No reason has ever been suggested for regarding any of these men as open to any suspicion, and they are all still in Messrs. Burns and Oates' employ.
  Mr. BOYTON: May I ask why these men were originally interned, and why they were released if they were any danger to the public?
  Sir G. CAVE: They were interned subject to consideration by the Committee for a short time, and released after the Committee found no reasons for their internment.
  Captain BARNETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these released enemy aliens are under military age, and that two of them are under the age of thirty?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, I am aware of that; but if my hon. Friend has followed my answer, he will find that two of them are practically sympathisers with Italy and not Austria, and the third is here since he was an infant in arms and cannot even speak a word of German.

  FATALITIES (STREET ACCIDENTS AND ZEPPELINS).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the total number of fatal accidents in the London streets between sunset and sunrise since the beginning of the War, and the total number of persons killed by Zeppelins during the same period?
  Sir G. CAVE: Information in the precise form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but the total number of fatal accidents in the Metropolitan Police dis-
  1674
  trict during the hours of darkness—i.e., between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise—between 1st August, 1914, and 31st January, 1917, was 954. The number killed by Zeppelins in the Metropolitan Police district was 137. The corresponding figures for the City are 29 fatal accidents and 13 persons killed by Zeppelins.
  Mr. H. LAW: Have we not now come to the time when the policy as to lighting should be reconsidered?
  Sir G. CAVE: The policy has just been reconsidered and alterations made.

  COAL MINES (ANIMALS EMPLOYED).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any Reports for 1915 on the horses and ponies employed in coal mines from the divisional inspectors and horse inspectors other than the few lines contained in the Exports already published for that year; and, if not, whether he will request the divisional inspectors to furnish him with information as to the number of animals employed in the coal mines in 1915, the number of deaths from accident and disease, the number of injuries, and any other material facts?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Reports of the inspectors have been made as brief as possible, in consequence of the present emergency, but I hope that by next year it will be possible to resume the normal practice, and call for full reports from the inspectors. The figures asked for in the latter part of the question have already been published in Part 2 of the Chief Inspector's General Report for 1915, page 76.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it possible to get those reports from the inspectors, though you do not go to the expense of publishing them?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes.

  METROPOLITAN STREET LIGHTING.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Home Secretary whether he can explain why the lighting of London has not yet been made uniform in accordance with the orders of the

  1675
  military authorities; whether he is aware that in some boroughs burners are in use consuming 3½ cubic feet of gas per hour in lamps which are almost completely opaque; and whether he will consider, in order to give a reasonable light and at the same time save gas, if it would be more advantageous for the lower part of the lamp to be clear but a smaller burner used?
  Sir G. CAVE: The alterations in the method of obscuring street lamps to which I referred on the 12th instant are being carried out by the lighting authorities as rapidly as the exigencies of labour will permit, but I am aware that there are some lamps which still remain to be dealt with. A considerable reduction in the consumption of gas has been effected by the use of single burners in multiple-burner lamps and by substituting lower-power burners for those normally used. If the lower part of a lamp is left clear, the result is to throw a disc of light upon the pavement which is visible from above; and I am advised that, taking all things into consideration, the method of obscuring which has been approved is the most satisfactory.

  COCAINE (USE IN DENTISTRY).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Committee appointed to consider the question of authorisations for the use of cocaine in dentistry has now submitted its Report; if so, when copies will be available for the use of Members of tin; House of Commons; and (2) whether the general permits to unregistered practitioners in dentistry to use solutions containing not more than 1 per cent, of cocaine is to be extended beyond 28th February; and, if so, to what date?
  Mr. DENNISSasked whether the Report of the Committee dealing with the use of cocaine in dentistry may be expected before the end of this month; and, if not, whether the general permit to unregistered dentists as to the use of 1 per cent, cocaine will be extended pending the decision of the Home Office in the matter?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have just received the Report. It will be presented to Parliament to-day and I hope that copies will be available shortly. The Report raises some questions which will require consideration,
  1676
  and I propose therefore to extend the general permit referred to in the questions for two months.

  HUNGARY.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the charges made by Dr. Seton Watson against the "Morning Post" newspaper that that journal has been made the instrument of a German-Magyar intrigue to deceive English public opinion, through the medium of its Budapest correspondent, as to the feeling in Hungary on the War, and in other ways has been used for enemy objects; whether he is aware that this correspondent is accused by Dr. Seton Watson of fabricating leading articles, purporting to have appeared in Budapest newspapers, and forging speeches purporting to have been delivered in Parliament by Hungarian statesmen, with the object of misleading this country for enemy purposes; whether he is aware that the same charges have been independently made by an official organ in Paris; whether steps have been, or will be, taken under the Defence of the Realm regulations to investigate these charges against the "Morning Post"; and whether, if it is found that the charges are true, steps will be taken to punish those responsible for these publications?
  Sir G. CAVE: My attention has only been called to the matter by the hon. Member's question. I understand that the charges are strongly denied, and I do not see my way to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. DILLON: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, when such charges are made, not only by responsible persons in this country, but by one of the leading semi-official journals of Paris, will take no steps to ascertain whether they are well-founded or not?
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not see my way to take any action. The hon. Member has already put questions to the Foreign Office, which has given a similar answer.
  Mr. DILLON: If he was an Irish newspaper editor he would be sent to penal servitude.
  Mr. A. F. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the editors of this paper whether any uninterned alien enemy is in regular communication with them?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I have had no cause to make any such inquiry.
  Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the editor whether a Magyar named Joseph Szebenyei is in the employment of the "Morning Post," and will he take the trouble to satisfy himself and the public that the articles which have appeared in the "Morning Post" and which have seriously misled people in this country are bonâ fide articles?
  Mr. DILLON: They are forged articles by foreign spies.
  Mr. WHYTE: Or whether they have been composed in London out of speeches and articles which did not appear in the enemy capital to which they were attributed?
  Sir G. CAVE: If my hon. Friend will give me any material on which to proceed I will make inquiries.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman not taken the trouble to investigate the material referred to in the question?
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to approach the "Morning Post" and ask for their explanation of this extraordinary incident?

  POST OFFICES (EXTRA DUTIES).
  Mr. FELLasked the Assistant Post-master-General what recompense is to be made to the postmasters and employés in the various post offices for the work thrown upon them by the issue of the War Loan?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The question of remuneration for this work, so far as it is done by scale payment sub-postmasters is at present under consideration. In the case of directly employed Post Office servants extra attendance, whether for War Loan or for other work, is remunerated under the ordinary rules governing overtime payment.
  Mr. FELL: Do I understand that something will be done for those postmistresses and postmasters who have been really doing banking work for the last two or three weeks and handling very large sums of money?
  Mr. PEASE: The question is now under consideration, and we hope for a reply very shortly.

  AIR BOARD (SALARIES).
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Prime Minister when a day will be given to discuss the salaries of the members of the Air Board?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The subject could have been discussed on the Vote of Credit, and I hope another opportunity may occur in connection with the next Consolidated Fund Bill, which will be introduced in a week or two.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is there to be no Vote for the Air Board on the Estimates?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think so; but the Estimates will not come till a later period.

  COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked whether the recommendations of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy on the subject of tariff and Imperial reference have been adopted by the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  MINISTERS, DEPARTMENTS, AND COMMITTEES.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of Members and the public, he could give a list showing the controllers appointed by Government from time to time since the outbreak of War, with the nature of their control, their official address, and the names of their private secretaries, if any?
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the convenience of Members of this House, he will give instructions for the issue of a handbook giving the names of all Ministers and sub-Ministers, and the names of all Departments and Committees set up in connection with the War, with the names of the members of the Committee, the functions of the Committee, the official address, and the name of the secretary?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall answer these questions together. The information asked for is, I think, all contained in a statement issued monthly by the Stationery Office, of which I shall have a copy sent to the two hon. Members.

  DARDANELLES EXPEDITION (REPORT OF COMMISSION).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Report on the Dardanelles Expedition; whether the great bulk of the evidence is of a nature that can be published without giving any information of value to the enemy; and, if so, whether he will cause the bulk of the evidence to be published?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give an answer to the first part of the question until the Report has been circulated and I know whether there is any general desire for its discussion. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be circulated?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I expected that it would be circulated now, but I have not made inquiries.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will supplement the Report of the Dardanelles Committee by publishing dispatches and correspondence dealing with the escape of the "Goeben," in view of the fact that the event took place over thirty months ago and brought Turkey into the War; and whether he can follow the practice frequently adopted in this House in past wars of laying the proceedings of the court-martial on Admiral Troubridge upon the Table?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty view remains the same as that expressed in the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on the 31st July last.

  CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the proposal to introduce immediately a Bill, prepared by the Local Government Board, which is to deal with matters also covered by the
  1680
  Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, which received a Second Reading on Monday last, and having regard to the fact that the subject matter of the two Bills can better be considered in Grand Committee, he will ask that the two Bills shall be referred to a Grand Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have discussed this proposal with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we shall be glad to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

  WAR LOAN.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the total amount of the new War Loan, distinguishing between converted and new money?
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total amount subscribed to the War Loan and the number of subscribers in the different classes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am proposing to make a, statement on the subject of the War Loan after Questions.

  LEADER OF THE HOUSE (AUTHORITY).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rarity of the occasions on which the Prime Minister is in attendance in the House, he can give assurances that any statement made by him as Leader of the House engages, without reservation, the responsibility of the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the rate per cent, which it has cost the Treasury to get money under the War Savings Certificates; and how does this figure compare with the rate of commission and other expenses chargeable against War loans?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to state in the form of a percentage the cost of raising money by the sale of War Savings Certificates. Thus, the expenses incurred by the Post Office in connection

  1681
  with the issue cannot be satisfactorily distinguished from general expenditure on Post Office services, and the expenditure of the War Savings Committees must be regarded as having many other purposes besides raising money. Generally speaking, however, I may say that while this method of raising money is naturally more expensive than the raising of a big war loan, the actual cost has been trifling in proportion to the success of the issue.

  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Civil Liabilities Committee will be authorised to issue a maintenance allowance in the case of the dependants of unmarried officers, many of whom have left parents wholly dependant on them in most distressed circumstances?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Unmarried junior officers who have been maintaining a home for their parents are already eligible under the Civil Liabilities scheme for assistance in respect of the obligations, including rent, rates or other obligations, to which that scheme applies, and I do not think that further provision would be justified for cases of this kind.
  Mr. SCOTT: Are not officers already entitled to the same allowances in respect of their wives?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Am I to understand that there is to be no separation allowance made to officers to cover maintenance, but only a contractual liability?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Of course, it refers entirely to dependants, and not to officers.
  Mr. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect he differentiates between wives and mothers, because they are both in the same position as he described just now?

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS).
  Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give facilities for a Motion standing in the names of the
  1682
  hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring and others? [That the Members of this House request the Kitchen Committee to observe in the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors the same restrictions as are imposed upon the general public.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that it may be possible to find time for a discussion of this Motion on Wednesday next.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, and, if so, when, his proposals for the reconstruction of our national system of education will be submitted to Parliament; and whether the House of Commons will be afforded an opportunity of considering and discussing the proposals before they are finally settled?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. A. L. Fisher): I am sure that the hon. Member, who has done so much to advance technical education in this country, will be the first to realise the range and complexity of the task which confronts a new Minister who is called upon to survey the whole field of national education. I hope, however, at an early date to submit to the House proposals which, I venture to think, will be regarded as an important instalment as well as an organic part of a comprehensive plan.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the hardship to teachers through no official statement being made in respect to war bonus; will he make a statement that will enable the local authorities to grant a war bonus by relying for assistance upon the Exchequer?
  Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the several Education Committees nominated by the late Government have agreed as to their Reports; and whether their Reports will be submitted to the House at a date which will permit of their being discussed in connection with the proposed comprehensive scheme of educational reform?
  Mr. FISHER: I understand th Committee of which the Parlia Secretary of the Board is Chair to present its Report next mo

  1683
  Committees on Science and Modern Languages are making good progress, but I cannot say when they will be in a position to report. I imagine that their Reports will relate largely to the curriculum, teaching, and organisation of educational institutions, the development of which (apart from the question of scholarships) depends rather on the influence of well-informed opinion than on regulations, grants, or legislation.

  MUNITIONS.

    DISCHARGE OF CARGOES.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he is aware that the steamship "Alnwick Castle" arrived in London on the 5th February, having on board a large amount of copper required for munitions, and that on the 20th February she was not unloaded; and will he state what is the usual time which elapses between the arrival of ships and the unloading of their cargoes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I am informed by the owners of the "Alnwick Castle" that discharge of the ship was completed at 5 p.m. on Monday, 19th February. There were special difficulties through severe frost, etc.; nevertheless, the work was done in thirteen working days. The amount of copper on board was only 252 tons, out of a total cargo of 8,000 tons, and, as it was, of course, stowed at the bottom of the ship, it was the last to be discharged. The answer to the latter part of the question is that the time which elapses between the arrival of a ship and the unloading of her cargo obviously depends upon the character and description of the cargo carried. For example, in many instances vessels with 6,000 tons of cargo are discharged in three working days, whereas, on the other hand, vessels with coniderably less tonnage may take a fortnight or longer.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Will, then, the hon. Gentleman explain why on the 24th of this month the people who were relying upon the copper had not received it, nor had they received any advice as to its discharge?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA-MONEY: I can only in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that
    1684
    I have had most careful inquiry made in this case, both through the Port Transit and Executive Committee and the owners of the vessel themselves, and they are satisfied that, in view of the extraordinary character of the cargo of the vessel, consisting of about 70,000 different pieces, the discharge was done very favourably indeed.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
  Mr. HACKETTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether a strike for an increase of wages has taken place at the Department's sawmills, Dundrum, county Tipperary, for an increase of wages by way of war bonus at the rate of 5s. per week; whether he can state the rate of wages paid at the sawmills previous to the cessation of work on 7th February last; whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the inconvenience caused by the stoppage of work at the sawmills to the agricultural interest of the district who require timber for fencing purposes in connection with the scheme of the Department for increased tillage, as well as the failure of the mills to meet the requirements of the military authorities for railway sleepers and scantlings for the erection of huts and shelters, he will immediately concede the demands of the employés for a living wage?
  Mr. DUKE: The employés at the sawmill at Dundrum, county Tipperary, applied for an all-round increase in wages of 5s. per week. The maximum increase authorised for the period of the War was offered, but the employés declined to accept the offer and ceased work after notice on the 7th instant. They have now resumed work at the rates offered.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the amount of salary and expenses now being drawn by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; the average number of hours he devotes to his duties daily; the average number of letters dealt with daily by him and his assistants; who supervises letters bearing his name typed with no indication of supervision; who is responsible for such letters sent on the 7th and 10th instant to a Westmeath gentleman, both containing statements contrary to fact and identical

  1685
  word for word, notwithstanding additional information supplied in the interval, forbidding the sale of a fat sow that can breed no more, though the owner desires to replace it by a breeding animal; and why the Department in effect thwarts this?
  Mr. DUKE: The salary of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is £1,800, with travelling expenses, etc., at the rate sanctioned for the post. In addition to official work necessarily performed outside the office the Secretary at present attends the office for from 10 to 12 hours daily. The average number of letters received by the Department daily is approximately 2,300, in addition to various reports, returns, semi-official and personal communications, etc. In cases where the Department find it necessary to issue letters and other communications in circular form with the Secretary's name typed thereon, the chief officer of the branch concerned is responsible for the supervision of such communications. The case of the fat sow was dealt with according to the rules of the Department.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to state the nature of the scheme arrived at between the Treasury and the Local Government Board in regard to the maintenance allowances to be granted to the wives, families, and dependants of officers?
  Mr. HAYES FISHERThe scheme has been submitted to the Treasury, and I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

  REBELLION IN IRELAND.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the leading question 1524 in the evidence before the Royal Commission on the Insurrection in Ireland, whether he will give the House the question 1525, with the answer, omitted from the printed evidence; and, if not, whether he will allow the shorthand note to be read by a Member of this House?
  Mr. DUKE: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why the information is withheld?
  Mr. DUKE: They are the same reasons that have induced the Royal Commission to consider that in the public interest the publication was inconvenient.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is not the real reason that the information would not be creditable to the Government?

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the written agreement of Mr. Shaen Carter to his tenants, near Killucan, when arranging terms of purchase, that on a certain condition, which has since arisen, he would sell any remainder of the estate to the Commissioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903, whether the Commissioners will now require the nonresidential grass farm held by Colonel Purdon Winter on this estate to be dealt with in this manner for the enlargement of the uneconomic holdings and provision of new holding's for the landless on the estate, in the interest of food production; and when the holdings still unvested will be vested and the settlement of the estate completed?
  Mr. DUKE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The estate is not the subject of proceedings for sale to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The owner entered into agreements for direct sale to the tenants at prices agreed upon between the parties, and these agreements do not contain any reference to such an arrangement as that referred to. No purchase agreement has been lodged in respect of the farm held by E. W. Purdon as a judicial tenant, and under the Tillage Regulations he is liable to cultivate the prescribed area of arable land in his occupation. The majority of the holdings on this estate have been vested in th tenants, in accordance with their pur agreements, and those not yet vest be vested as soon as practicable.
  Mr. GINNELL: Arising out clause of the answer of th Gentleman, will he be good en

  1687
  at the document signed by the agent in the sense stated in the first clause of the question?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Gentleman sends it to me, I will look at it.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the O'Beirne estate, Rathduff, Rathconrath, Westmeath, is all evicted land, seventeen families having been evicted from it on one day and the whole kept in grass since; whether he is aware that when recently 10 acres of it were, under compulsion, offered by auction for conacre no one bid, because the uneconomic holders and landless men of the district eager to till it desire to purchase on the usual terms; whether he will give immediate favourable consideration to this desire; and whether Mr. Higgins, the grazier of this estate, has Government authority or sanction for threatening with the Defence of the Realm Act the people who desire to purchase and till this land?
  Mr. DUKE: There is no record of evictions on the estate referred to, which was purchased from the Land Commission about twenty-six years ago by the husband of the present owner. The occupier recently put up for auction 15 acres for letting in conacre, but there was no bid, and the auction was adjourned. It has been reported to me in various cases that biddings at such auctions were withheld in the expectation that by refusing to take land in conacre men would increase their prospect of getting permanent allotments, and that the people of certain localities have been advised to this effect. It should, however, be understood that while the prevention of tillage may reduce the food supply of the country, it does not create a claim for special advantages in respect of distribution of land. Nothing is known of any threat in connection with the Defence of the Realm Act such as is suggested in the question.
  Mr. GINNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer with the fact that seven members of the seventeen families evicted from this land are still living in the neighbourhood?

  MARTIAL LAW (IRELAND).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secre- Ireland whether the Proclamation
  1688
  placing Ireland under martial law has-ever been revoked; whether, until that Proclamation is revoked, martial law remains in force in Ireland; and when it is proposed to put an end to that regime?
  Mr. DUKE: I stated on the 13th of February the facts with regard to the Proclamation of martial law, which was made in April of last year, in regard to a state of insurrection which then existed but which has since come to an end. The existence of a state of martial law does not depend upon Proclamation, and, as I stated before, the only exceptional powers-now in use in Ireland are those of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    ARRESTS IN IRELAND.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what grounds thirty-eight men were arrested in Ireland on Thursday last; whether it is proposed to put these men on trial; and, if not, why this course is not to be taken?
    Mr. LYNCHasked with respect to the arrest of John O'Hurley, in Clare, what were the reasons for this action, under what Statute it was taken, whether he will be tried; and, if so, on what charge and before what tribunal?
    Mr. GINNELL(by Private Notice) asked how many persons have been arrested in Ireland on political grounds within the last few days; how many more are noted for arrest; what is the charge; if there is to be any trial, when, where, and will it be by a judge and jury; and if otherwise, will the President of the United States, as champion of small nations, be invited to have a representative present to watch and report on the cases?
    Mr. DUKE: Twenty-eight persons have been arrested under Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which empowers the police to arrest any person who is reasonably suspected of having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm. It is not proposed to try these men, the competent military authority having decided to issue orders under Regulation 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations prohibiting them from residing in Ireland, which has been done.
    Mr. DILLON: In consequence of the unsatisfactory character of the reply, I beg to give notice that, after questions, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to this subject.

  METROPOLITAN WAR HOSPITAL, WHITCHURCH, CARDIFF.
  Mr. CORYasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Disablement Committee of the War Pensions, etc., Statutory Committee will authorise the Cardiff War Pensions, etc., Local Committee, in conjunction with the Cardiff Technical Education Committee, to provide teachers and otherwise organise the training for disabled soldiers at the Metropolitan War Hospital, Whitchurch, Cardiff, provided the Army Council grant facilities for the use of the admirable workshops, kitchen gardens, and farm which are available at that institution and which the War Office is unable to use for this purpose?
  Mr. CORYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Metropolitan War Hospital at Whitchurch, near Cardiff, is equipped with a, model farm, large kitchen gardens, together with workshops, suitable for training disabled men for agriculture, market gardening, carpentry, bootmaking, weaving, and various engineering trades; and, if so, whether he will consent that the Cardiff technical education authority and the local pensions committee should be afforded facilities for training thereat such disabled soldiers as are detained in the hospital because they are still in need of treatment in a residential institution and such other discharged soldiers as could conveniently attend day by day for the purpose of being trained in the garden, farm, and workshops of the institution?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions as to how the facilities afforded by this establishment may best be utilised to the advantage of disabled men.

  MENTALLY DERANGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the protest
  1690
  of the Lancashire Asylums Board against soldiers and sailors who have served their country abroad and have returned home mentally deranged being discharged from the Navy or Army and sent to the asylums, and their maintenance being charged to boards of guardians as if they were pauper lunatics, and against the families of such patients having in some cases not been left with sufficient to live upon; and if he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I am aware of the representations made by the Lancashire Asylums Board, and, in consultation with the Statutory Committee, I have given the question of the treatment of the unfortunate men to which the representations refer the most careful consideration. Under the provisions of the Draft Royal Warrant and Order in Council governing the administration of disability pensions, which I propose very shortly to submit to the House, I hope to effect an improvement in the existing arrangements for dealing with these cases.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask for a copy of that answer? I could not hear a word.

  LIEUTENANT AND QUARTERMASTER W. A. MARTIN.
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state the circumstances under which Lieutenant and Quartermaster W. A. Martin, 14th reserve battalion London Regiment (London Scottish), was gazetted out of the Army on 7th January, 1917, on account of ill-health; whether this action was taken without the knowledge of his commanding officer and himself; whether the Gazette notice appeared several days before the expiration of a month's leave of absence advised on 13th December, 1916, for the purpose of recovering from a slight illness; whether the action of the authorities implies any reflection on the character and ability of Lieutenant Martin; and whether, in view of the services of this officer, and, in particular, of his recruiting record, both before and during the War, and the business capacity he has shown, the whole circumstances will be revised by the War Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Lieutenant

  1691
  Martin was reported by a medical board to be permanently unfit for general and home service. I am informed that he was advised to undergo an operation, which would probably have rendered him fit to continue in the Army, but that he was unwilling to give his consent. Without the operation he was considered by the medical authorities to be unfit for further military service. There was, therefore, no alternative but to gazette him out as relinquishing his commission on account of ill-health. The action taken implies no reflection whatever on this officer's capacity, efficiency, or integrity. On the contrary, in the notification of the position, the General Officer Commanding was requested to thank him for his good services and to inform him that, if his health improved up to the standard of general service, his reappointment would be reconsidered.
  Mr. BRYCE: Would it not be possible, considering the good character of this gentleman, to utilise his services again in the public interest?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope so. But meanwhile he must get well again.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is the normal course to invalid a man in this manner without communication either with himself or with his commanding officer?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told that his commanding officer was communicated with. I am inquiring into that particular point.

  MEMBERS' SALARIES.

    MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.
    Major NEWMAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given private notice: Whether when a Member elected to this House finds himself unable or neglects to take the oath of allegiance, he is entitled to draw his salary as a Member of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I informed the hon. Member and the House—I think it was a week ago—that there were certain legal questions which had arisen, and I thought it was my duty to consult the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to them. I have now done that, and I have had their opinion. Some doubts arose as to the exact moment of time at which a
    1692
    Member's salary became payable, and the question I asked the Law Officers of the Crown was whether there was any statutory regulation with regard to that, or whether the exact moment was to be fixed administratively. The answer I got was that there was no statutory enactment fixing the exact moment of time at which the salary was to become payable. Therefore I presume it rests with me and becomes part of my duty to fix by instructions to the Department concerned the exact moment when the salary becomes payable. I believe if I fix as that moment the time when an hon. Member qualifies himself to perform his duty as a Member by taking and subscribing the oath, I shall be carrying out the views of the House, and I propose to issue an instruction to the Department to that effect.

    Grants for Agriculture (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), having regard to the fact that agriculture is only one of many indusrties in Great Britain while it is the main industry in Ireland, and to the desire of the Government to encourage it there, if he will state the total amount of his applications on behalf of this industry to the Development Commissioners in the year ending 31st March, 1916; on what Irish authority he rested satisfied with a total grant of £12,570, while a total grant of £134,467 was made for similar purposes in Great Britain; what is the amount of his applications for the current year; and, if that amount be not given, what course he and his consultative authorities propose to-take in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture inform me that the amount applied for from the Development Fund for agricultural purposes in the year 1915–16 was £14,100. The amount approved was £5,600, and a sum of £8,500 was provided in the Parliamentary Vote. The amount applied for in 1916–17 is £6,100, and a sum of £8,000 is to be included specially in the Estimates. In making such applications the Department act with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, and they have no reason to suppose that their applications will be refused.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the

    1693
    explanation of this disparity set out in the question, and if the Department cannot get what they apply for in the our rent year, what course they will adopt?
    Mr. DUKE: I will wait until the contingency becomes a fact, if it does.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he concurs in the decision of the Local Government Board in reducing the old age pension of 5s. a week given since the commencement of the Acts to Christopher Quinn, Coolnagun, Coole pension district, having regard to the fact that this man's family have long been scattered from him and living apart; that he was evicted and left destitute nine years ago; that he, being eighty-four years of age, blind, and having to be fed with a spoon like an infant, a son of his, not bound to support him, has taken him in for this attention; and whether the Acts or the practice under them bars or reduces a pension in these circumstances because the son has some means?
    Mr. DUKE: Under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by a person is to be included as part of such person's means for old age pension purposes. Christopher Quinn is being kept by a son who has a very good farm of 88 acres, which it is estimated should bring in at least £200 a year. In the circumstances the Local Government Board are satisfied that the value of Christopher Quinn's support should be worth well over £31 10s. a year.
    Mr. GINNELL: Who supplied the information to the Local Government Board that this man has property when he has none at all—he is absolutely destitute?
    Mr. DUKE: I think I have answered the question very fully.

  GERMAN RAID ON KENT COAST
  Mr. R. MCNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to give any information to the House with regard to raids by the enemy on coast towns in Kent last night?
  Sir E. CARSON: One of our destroyers on patrol duty in the Channel encountered
  1694
  a force of several enemy destroyers between 11 p.m. and midnight last night. A short engagement ensued, in which our destroyer was not damaged, although under heavy fire from guns and torpedoes. The effect of our fire on the enemy could not be ascertained. The enemy vessels were pursued, but were lost in the darkness. At about the same time another force of enemy destroyers bombarded for about a quarter of an hour the undefended watering-places of Broadstairs and Margate. As soon as the firing was heard our forces in the vicinity were called to the scene. The enemy only remained in the vicinity for a short period, and had already withdrawn before the arrival of our vessels, and in the darkness could not be located. The casualties, so far as I can ascertain them, were one woman and one child killed and two children injured.
  Mr. MCNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information with regard to the damage done to the towns bombarded?
  Sir E. CARSON: So far as I have been able to obtain information, I believe two-houses have been injured.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many enemy vessels were engaged in this raid?
  Sir E. CARSON: I can only say we have knowledge that there were several enemy destroyers.

  MESOPOTAMIAN CAMPAIGN.

    FALL OF KUT-EL-AMARA.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement regarding the military operations in Mesopotamia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Report has been received from the General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia on the operations of 24th February and following dates:
    "(1) The successful passage of the stream at Shumran on 23rd February was rapidly and effectively exploited during the following nights, our patrols pushing forward boldly and maintaining close contact with the enemy. Early on the morning of the 24th the ridge across the neck of the Shumran Peninsula was in our hands and it became evident that the enemy was in full retreat in the direction of Baghailah, twenty-four miles west of Kut-el-Amara.

    1695
    The Turkish depots and stores at many points were in flames, and strong rearguards, supported by artillery, had been disposed to oppose our advance.
    By 8 a.m. a strong force of Cavalry had crossed the Tigris, and at once manœuvered to gain the flank of the Turkish line of retreat.
    Throughout the day both our Cavalry and Infantry were heavily engaged, inflicting severe, but as yet unknown, casualties on the enemy.
    (2) Meantime, our successes at Sanna-i-Yat were further pursued, and our Infantry proceeded to capture and secure in succession the Turkish fifth line of defences, the Nakhailat and the Suwada positions, finally reaching the line Ataba Marshmagasis.
    Throughout the fighting our aeroplane squadrons have co-operated with invaluable results, freely using bombs and machine guns from minimum altitudes.
    In the two days' fighting we have captured 1,730 prisoners, including at least one Turkish regiment commander and four Germans, four field guns, ten machine guns, three mine-throwers and a large quantity of rifles and ammunition.
    As a result of these operations the whole of the enemy's positions from Sanna-i-Yat to Kut-el-Amara have been secured. Kut itself passes automatically into our hands.
    As the fighting has now become of an open character and our forces are disposed on a wide front, it has not yet been possible to ascertain fully the extent of the Turkish losses in men and material."

WAR LOAN.
  TOTAL AMOUNT SUBSCRIBED.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have now received the essential figures which relate to the new money in connection with the Loan, and I am, therefore, in a position to give the result. The House will remember that I made a preliminary statement a week ago. I then said that a large number—200,000 or 300,000—of applications had not been examined. I have since found, as it was not known how large the number was, that estimate was much below the mark. The number has been much greater. In forming an estimate as to the value of subscriptions which had
    1696
    not been examined, that estimate must depend upon the average amount in each application. It was impossible to make even a guess at that, and I am glad to tell the House that the total result reaches a figure which even a week ago I should have considered it altogether impossible to have reached. In that statement I included as new money Treasury bills. I propose to do the same now; and I think perhaps it would be right to explain to the House why I regard them as new money. Treasury bills are for a comparatively short date; the longest is for a year, and the shortest for three months. At the time the Loan was issued the average was about four months. These bills, therefore, represent obligations which will have to be met by the State in a short time, and I think I am right in considering them, to whatever extent they were converted, as in effect equivalent to new money advanced. I shall now give the figures to the House. The applications through the Bank of England amount to £819,586,000. The amount of Treasury bills converted was £130,711,950, and applications through the Post Office amounted to £30,715,000. The amount received during the currency of the applications for the Loan through War Savings' certificates was £19,300,000. This makes a total of £1,000,312,950. Of the amount applied for I may say that only about £22.000,000 was put as tax free Loan, and the rest was in the five per cent. Loan in the ordinary way. In estimating and trying to realise the meaning of such a figure, it is right not only to make comparison with our previous Loans and those of our enemies, but also to consider what the financial position was when the Loan was issued. Through the necessity of keeping up our exchanges, the value of all money on the London market has long been much higher than it would have been. The result of that was that up to the very eve of the issue of the Loan, Exchequer bonds bearing six per cent, were issued and Treasury bills bearing five and a half per cent. In consequence of this high level of money, it was urged upon me by many of those most competent to judge that the rate of the Loan ought to be six per cent., and I was warned, I may say, that it would be a failure if a lower rate was offered. I decided, as I am sure any Chancellor of the Exchequer would have decided in my place, that it would be a less evil to risk comparative failure than to stereotype

    1697
    British credit at such a figure as six per cent. I may say I did not anticipate even a comparative failure.
    Now we must make a comparison with previous Loans. The amount of the new money subscribed to this Loan exceeds the amount of the two previous Loans taken together. The Loan of 1915 I thought at the time was a great success, and I think so still. The amount of money obtained was £616,000,000; but it is an open secret, now known to everyone, that of that amount £200,000,000 was subscribed directly by the banks. I am sure—and no one will feel this more strongly than my right hon. Friend who preceded me, that if it is not necessary, it is undesirable to have these large contributions from the banks, so that the business of the country may be succesfully carried on in other directions. I am quite sure, in the circumstances of 1915, it was right that the banks should make such a contribution. Their deposits had largely increased, and I may say, if the necessity had arisen, that I intended myself to make a similar appeal to the Banks, and the Committee of the Banks had indeed in advance promised me that they would give that support if it were required. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how completely in my belief the Banks, with their agencies all over the country, have done their best to stimulate their customers to subscribe to the Loan even at the expense, of course, of diminishing their own deposits. In addition to the amounts that I have named, we have received gifts from 444 individuals amounting to £60,000, and from eighty-seven other individuals we received loans free of interest amounting to £196,000. These amounts do not go directly into the Loan, but, of course, they are an addition to it, and they amount to a quarter of a million. Besides that, we have received promises to return interest from twenty-five individuals, amounting to £13,000 a year during the War.
    I should like to compare the figures of this Loan with the German Loan. The amount of money raised by the last German Loan was £532,000,000, but their biggest loan, the third, was £608,000,000, which is surpassed, as the House will have noticed, by this Loan to the extent of nearly £400,000,000. It is interesting and instructive to note that the German Loans have successively become smaller, while ours have increased to the extent that the House has already seen.
    1698
    I should like to give the number of applicants to the Loan, because, in my opinion, that is almost as important as the total of the amount subscribed as an indication of the spirit of the peoples where the loans are raised. In 1915 the number of subscribers was 1,100,000, divided almost equally between the Post Office and the Bank of England. The number of applicants to this Loan through the Bank was 1,089,000, but that does not in reality represent all the individuals, because many of these loans were made by firms on behalf of employés, the names of which were not given. Therefore, the total number would in reality be much greater, but, as I have no means of estimating the number, I give the exact applications made to the Bank of England. The number of applicants through the Post Office was 1,000,000. As regards War Savings Certificates, it is not possible to give more than an estimate, for this reason: It is possible that some individuals bought more than one War Savings Certificate. There were, however, 400,000 who took sums of £12 and upwards, and these may be regarded as individual subscribers. The number of 15s. 6d. War Savings Certificates sold was 5,600,000. I think it is a safe assumption, from the point of view I am putting to the House, that this represents an average of two to each individual, which means an additional number of subscribers of 2,800,000, making the total number of subscribers to the Loan 5,289,000. Compare this with the German figures. The subscribers to the fifth German Loan numbered 3,810,000; the fourth 5,280,000, again showing a falling off in the latest loan as compared with the previous loan. But in the German Loan every subscriber of a shilling and upwards was included. In our War Savings Certificates arrangements are made to receive week by week small subscriptions until they reach the amount of 15s. 6d. I am informed that if every applicant of that kind were taken into account the total number of applicants to this Loan would not be less than 8,000,000 people, as against the last German Loan of 3,810,000, while the population of Germany is nearly 50 per cent, greater.
    The next subject to which I would direct the attention of the House is conversions. The Bank of England is unable to give me any figures as to the conversion of the 4½ per cent. Loan, which I am sure will not be a surprise to the House, and indeed I should like to take this opportunity of con-

    1699
    gratulating the Governor and the Bank of England on the great success with which they have carried through the largest financial operation that was ever undertaken in the world. The question of the conversion of the 4½ per cent. Loan is of no interest to me or to the House. If anyone does not choose to convert, it means that; the State will pay a smaller rate of interest on the money than if it had been converted. The only way in which anyone could gain if he did not convert it would be if, at some subsequent stage in the continuance of the War a higher rate of interest were payable on some subsequent loan. That is obviously so against the interest of those who subscribed to the 4½ per cent. Loan that I think we may assume that the great bulk will have been converted. Exchequer Bonds are almost in the same position. I made no appeal to have them converted. There were some at 6 per cent, and some at 5 per cent. If I could have appealed for the 6 per cent. only I should have liked to have done so, but I could not without getting the 5 per cent, converted. The shortest period of any of them is two years eight months, and that applies only to £30,000,000, whereas the great bulk of the Exchequer Bonds are for three years and a longer period. I have, however, received provisional figures of the conversion of Exchequer Bonds. They show that £233,000,000, approximately, had been converted. That enables me to give the House the position of what is called "the floating debt" at the time the Loan was issued. At that time the outstanding Treasury Bills amounted to £1,053,000,000. Some have been paid off; some have been converted; and the amount now is £718,000,000; so that, including the Exchequer Bonds, which are not strictly floating debt, the floating debt at the time the Loan was issued was £1,562,000,000, and is now £994,000,000. It may interest the House to know that during this campaign special care was taken not to encourage withdrawals from the Savings Bank, with the result that the withdrawals, in spite of the immense sum raised by this Loan, were £6,000,000 less than in 1915. Another point which generally interests the House is the cost of raising the Loan. I am glad to say, as indeed is obvious, that the cost does not at all rise in proportion to the amount which is raised. I have had an estimate made, and I find that the cost of the 1915
    1700
    Loan was approximately £60,000 and the cost of this Loan, including the advertising and all the expenses of the War Savings Associations, was £75,000.
    It is impossible that I should attempt to ask the House to recognise the services of all those who had helped in connection with the Loan. To do so would be to recognise the services of nearly the whole country. But I may say that special thanks are due to the local authorities and the heads of them all over the country. This Loan has been run from local centres, which is in itself a proof of the advantage of that method of dealing with subjects of this kind. It is right also to make a special acknowledgment of the services of the Chairmen and others directing the War Savings Committees and Associations. They have done splendid work, and during the period the Loan was before the public more, than six thousand new associations were formed. As I pointed out in answer to a question to-day, the value of the work done by these associations is not merely in raising money; it is in encouraging the people of this country to save and take a direct interest in the State. I am sure I am only expressing the feeling of the whole House when I say we are indebted to the ladies and gentlemen who have run these associations for what they have done, and we hope the stimulus given during the time the Loan was opened will be continued now that the Loan has come to a close. Of course, obligation is also due to volunteer workers all over the country, both men and women. It is due also to the Press, who have served the State splendidly in this matter. I should like also to say that I am indebted to a small committee representing some of the most important advertising firms, who gave their services gratuitously and placed the advertisements with the various newspapers of the country. I think it right also to make one special acknowledgment. After the Loan had been open for some time I sent to my hon Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones) and asked him to help us. He undertook to do so, and I am only expressing the opinion of everybody who had anything to do with the Loan in saying that in the organisation and direction of the campaign he has rendered invaluable service.
    The success of the Loan was in reality due to one cause only—the patriotism of

    1701
    the people of this country. In addition to the gifts to which I have already referred, I received quite a number, mostly from ladies, of gifts of jewellery. As Chancellor of the Exchequer I did not quite know how to deal with them. I supposed I was not entitled to refuse anything that was given to me, but I thought, on the whole, that we were not entitled to take such sacrifices as that at such a time. I sent them back. But two of them came anonymously, and these I have not been able to send back. It may perhaps interest the House if I read the letter accompanying one of these anonymous gifts:
    "It is heartbreaking to read every day a request for money for the War Loan when one has not any to give. As I have no money, I am hoping yon can turn this bracelet into a bullet."
    That is the spirit which accounts for the success of the Loan. The enthusiasm and the widespread nature of the application are an expression of the will of the people of this country to win the War, and the result of the Loan is evidence of the financial ability of this country to see it to a successful issue.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the House will desire to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the unparalleled success of his Loan. My right hon. Friend's statement shows that it has been completely successful in every part. I will say no more than this. The Loan marks once again our superb financial strength and the whole nation's unbreakable resolve to spare nothing in the service of the War.

MOTION FOE ADJOURNMENT.
  ARRESTS IN IRELAND.
  Mr. DILLON,Mr. DILLON, Member for East Mayo, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the arrest and banishment of 38 persons in Ireland, without any charge being made against them, and the declaration of the Government that there is no intention to put them on trial"; and the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past eight o'clock this evening.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry Wilson Fox, Esquire, for the County of Warwick (Northern or Tam-worth Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.—Vote A.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    1. "That 400,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918.'
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to make a few remarks on a subject raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) to regard to what I consider a dangerous intrigue, I might almost call it a hydra-headed intrigue, to bring back Lord Fisher to a responsible position at the Admiralty. This suggestion seems to me to spring up in every sort of way. We even see it promulgated by means of a string of sandwichmen. I do not know what is the pay of those sandwichmen, but I am sure that any naval officer who sees the procession is filled thereby with the deepest shame. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman informed the House that he had read my speech with some regret. I am very unfortunate. I am afraid I have never completely gained the approval of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. On the same Vote last year, in the course of the discussion, I made remarks on this subject which probably equally failed to meet with his approval, and I am rather inclined to think that no speeches ever do meet with complete approval on his part except those made by himself. But the right hon. Gentleman might in all fairness have pointed out that I have never made any attack on Lord Fisher excepting when some one of his indiscreet friends has brought the matter before the public. In this case the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) brought the matter up, and if the House will forgive me, I propose to enter into a somewhat frank explanation. On the day following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which I had not the pleasure of hearing, probably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee also did not hear it—and I have a sort of suspicion
    1714
    that he never takes the trouble to read these speeches, for if he did he would not be so unfair—on the day following the delivery of that speech I made a reply to what I considered the extraordinary—to say the least—injudicious remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton. Travelling down to the port the morning after the speech I had, as usual, all the papers with me, and I noticed that one of them—the "Daily Telegraph"—gave a report of the speech, which set up a very improper comparison between Sir John Jellicoe, Sir Henry Jackson, and Lord Fisher. But I will read the actual words of the speech from the OFFICIAL REPORT—
    "No man has a higher admiration of Sir John Jellicoe than I have, or a higher admiration of Sir Henry Jackson: but to compare either of these two men to Lord Fisher is like comparing Bethmann-Hollweg with Bismarck."
    That was a very improper comparison. Sir John Jellicoe is a man who is now, with the assistance of our splendid new First Lord, endeavouring to cope with the submarines. It was a very long speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I only propose to read those parts on which I commented at a political meeting the same evening. I took the report from the "Daily Telegraph" in my hands, and made comments on it as I went along, because, not being a very good speaker, it is easier for me to have something to go upon in that way. The next sentence I want to quote is:
    "It is said that Lord Fisher's methods were not liked in the Navy, Lord Fisher's methods were the methods of victory. I have been told, too, he is no gentleman. You do not want gentlemen to fight Germans"
    I rather think we do want gentlemen to fight the Germans. We have always won our victories by gentlemanly means. Was not Nelson a gentleman, and Wolfe? Lord Fisher's father was an officer in a gallant Highland regiment. Does not the right hon. Gentleman call the son of a man holding such a position a gentleman1! I really cannot understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, and if we are to have the pleasure of hearing him after I have finished, perhaps he will kindly endeavour to explain. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
    "I know he is not the favourite of fashionable society; fashionable ladies have no power over him."
    I am very surprised to read that statement, because a few years ago, until circumstances arose which made the Noble Lord—Lord Fisher—unpopular, there was no man better received in what they call "fashionable society" than he was. He

    1715
    was asked to every dinner party, and at every dance he might have been seen performing with ladies from dowagers downwards. The fact of the matter is that I actually refuse to treat Lord Fisher as a serious man. Then the right hon. Gentleman also said:
    "The one man to save the situation, the one man who has shown vigour in dealing with it, is Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1916, col. 882.]
    That statement was a deliberate attempt to sow the seed of dissension in this country, and if the Minister for Agriculture were here I am sure he would agree with me that no farmer could hope for a more unpatriotic crop than did the right hon. Gentleman. If the House will allow me to do what I have never done before in my life—and I am over sixty—I would speak a little about myself in a very brief survey of what went on a few years ago, and I will endeavour to show how very wrong it would be to bring back Lord Fisher to the Admiralty. A few years ago—I think it was seven or eight—a good deal of discussion went on in this House, and I believe there was a Debate held on the subject of the Bacon letters. Those Bacon letters were the beginning and cause of all the trouble we have had in the Navy with Lord Fisher. The circumstances were very simple. Captain Bacon in those days was a captain in the Mediterranean, serving, like every other captain, under the Commander-in-Chief and the other admirals. Captain Bacon was a captain of one of the ironclads, Lord Charles Beresford was the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, and I was the Admiral of the Cruiser Squadron. We the admirals, had the misfortune for ourselves to differ with Lord Fisher, then Sir John Fisher, on subjects of policy. Captain Bacon wrote home letters reflecting and reporting on his two senior officers. This letter was published by Sir John Fisher. It was printed by his secret printers, and distributed to his friends. Hon. Members who were then Members of the House will probably remember the difficulty that the First Lord of the Admiralty or his representative had in explaining to and satisfying a bewildered House that it was necessary to have twenty-five copies of this letter for the First Lord's personal information. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a question and answer recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1909. They refer to the letters,
    1716
    and I have to read them to explain what was going on:
    "Mr. Brooke—"
    I do not know who he was—
    "asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the statements alleged to have been quoted from a private letter of three years ago to the First Sea Lord, the Admiralty have ever regarded Vice-Admiral Sir Hedworth Lambton as an agitator in the naval service?"
    "Mr. McKenna: The Admiralty have never regarded Admiral Lambton as an agitator—"
    I am very sorry to have to read this—
    "His record is most distinguished, and the high appreciation in which his services, both in peace and war, held by successive Boards, is shown by his rapid advancement and long succession of important appointments. I may add that no statement in the private letter can be reasonably interpreted as an allegation that Admiral Lambton was an agitatod."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th May, 1909, col. 1621, Vol. IV.]
    Why do you suppose that that fulsome answer was given to the House? The reason is very simple. I was in China at the time as Commander-in-Chief. When I read the Debates on the Bacon letters in this House, in which my name was bandied about very freely as an agitator, I telegraphed home to the Admiralty to ask whether this was true, and I got what I considered to be a rather impertinent answer. So I telegraphed again to the Admiralty saying that my honour had been publicly impugned, and, unless it was publicly set right, I requested to be immediately superseded. What was the result of that? Down went the Admiralty on their knees to me. They telegraphed out. What was my surprise when the newspapers came to see no word about this. What had been done? This promise to publicly rectify me had been got out of by what I considered to be a very mean trick. Instead of the question having been asked, like questions are here, in an open way, it was hidden in the non-oral answers, which I believe nobody studies. I do not suppose that anybody has seen that question before. I was very much annoyed at this. I wrote home letters to the Admiralty, of really rather a violent character, to the First Lord of the Admiralty, to the Second Sea Lord, and to one or two other members of the Cabinet, in which I expressed my disgust at the way in which things were allowed to be carried on in England by the Admiralty, and that espionage should be allowed, and I expressed my determination that if the First Sea Lord, who was then Lord Fisher, did not leave the Admiralty in a short time, I should come home and make it my business to see that he did go. Of course, that

    1717
    would not be very likely to have any effect at all, but the fact remains that Lord Fisher did leave in a very few months. I came home for private reasons, and did not have anything to do with Sir John Fisher. Then, after a year or two, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee became First Lord. I think he will not deny—it is absolutely right—that during the whole time of his administration he was more or less in the pocket of Lord Fisher. He was quite right to consult that distinguished man. It was perfectly well known at the Admiralty. I think the results were extremely unfortunate for the Service and also for the right hon. Gentleman, because apparently he there absorbed Lord Fisher's peculiar ideas as to the proper way in which to treat officers. I say at once that both Lord Fisher and the right hon. Gentleman have two sides to their natures. They are perfectly delightful to people whom they like, and a little bit brusque, to say the least, to those of whom they are not afraid.
    To come shortly to my point. I dare say hon. Members here can remember that the First Lord of the day suddenly got rid of Admiral Bridgeman. There was a good deal of discussion in this House. Everybody admits that one of the peculiar traits of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee is his love for theatrical coups. Unfortunately, they may come off in this country, but they seldom come off abroad. This theatrical coup, this sudden turning out of Admiral Bridgeman, which is all recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, was not quite so innocent an affair as it looked, because it enabled the First Lord to bring in, without any opposition, a man who, obviously from our position in Europe, ought never to have been First Sea Lord—that was Prince Louis of Battenberg. However that was a fait accompli, and it was accepted without a word. Some few years ago there was a curious alteration made in the system of promotion of Admirals of the Fleet, which was never thoroughly explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Of course, he knew nothing about it. There was only one reason why the regulations relating to Admirals of the Fleet were altered—that was, that under the existing regulations then in print it was quite impossible for Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg—I regret to have to mention his name—to become an Admiral of the Fleet unless at least two of the men senior to
    1718
    him were disqualified. Therefore this ridiculous regulation was brought in on the sly.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is absolutely untrue.
    Sir H. MEUX: I hope that the present First Lord Admiralty, with his legal mind, will kindly go into that question before it is too late, because the next batch of promotions of Admirals of the Fleet does not come on until April, and he may save a great injustice being done to one of the most respected and best admirals in the Navy. The next incident that comes to my mind was the proposed massacreing or bombardment of peaceful towns in Ulster. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee has ever been candid enough to say—
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are discussing the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1918. I do not think it is quite possible to spend too much time in reviewing the years that have gone by.
    Sir H. MEUX: I will drop that at once. Perhaps it is the best thing to do. I will now refer to an incident which will show how little justification the right hon. Gentleman had for accusing me of hatred. A month before the War, in July, 1914, I was at a large garden party in this town, full of fashionable people and there I saw Lord Fisher walking about disconsolately. I said, "This is very sad. Here is an admiral who used to be so petted, and there he is walking about and no one taking any notice of him." So I called out to him, "Come here, you wicked old sinner! I must shake hands with you." The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) thanked me a week afterwards—does he remember it?—for having done so, because it enabled him to bring Lord Fisher down to Portsmouth, which he had always refused to do till I made it up. Then the War came on very shortly afterwards, and in duty bound, as Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, I wrote to Lord Fisher and asked him if I might see him. I got a nice telegram back, "Will you lunch with me at Ritz?" I thought it rather an odd place for a First Sea Lord to see his Commander-in-Chief. But I went there, and we had a very excellent lunch. A short time afterwards I was informed that Lord Fisher was going about saying

    1719
    "it was a very odd thing that fellow Meux asking me to lunch." Knowing Lord Fisher, I was not surprised; but I knew that Lord Fisher paid for the lunch. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) said he always had the submarine danger in view. Why, then, did it take three months to get Lieutenant Verney's scheme tried—the scheme which has been carried out, and has had millions of pounds spent on it? This scheme would never have come in at all had it not been for my persistence. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I believe it was a private letter of mine to him that finally got the scheme tried. Does he remember that?
    After this comes what is, in my opinion, a very discreditable affair. That was the manner in which the late Admiral Hood was removed from the Dover command. It shows how these two worked together. One day a retired admiral came to me at my office in Portsmouth in a great state of mind. He was nearer seventy than than sixty. He had just been kicked out of his job. I forget what it was, but it was a small job. A lot of these admirals have taken up unimportant jobs through patriotism. They have been very badly requited. This officer came to my office and said, "I have been disgraced. Without any notice at all, I have been turned out of my job at twelve hours' notice, and all my family will think I have done something wrong. Can you tell me what to do?" I said, "You can do nothing in war. No one will listen to you." He said, "Perhaps you are right. After all, I am not the only one." And he gave me a list of people who were proscribed by the First Sea Lord, and amongst them was the name of Admiral Hood. I said, "Nonsense! Absurd! I only heard from him this morning." His station adjoined mine. He said, "He is; and there are one or two others as well." I wrote to Admiral Hood and said, "I hear rumours that you are having another appointment." Of course, what I had in my view was what we call in the Navy an "appointment on the beach." I got a letter back telling me I was entirely mistaken. He had heard nothing of any sort or kind about going. So there was this officer, one of the most delightful, lovable and loyal officers in the Service, Admiral Hood, and it was known to the small clique that Lord Fisher always had around him that he was going to be turned out, and he was turned out at
    1720
    not more than twenty-four hours' notice. He never knew till the day of his death why he went, and neither did his wife. Is that the proper way for officers to be treated? It is that sort of treatment which has been going on for twelve years under Lord Fisher's regime, which the Navy is determined shall never come back again. What is the meaning of the intrigues which are going on? They are trying to bring back people who have failed in the past, who have been tried and been found wanting. And if there is one way of losing the War, that is the most certain. I will give one further reason why Lord Fisher should not come back. When he and the right hon. Gentleman fell out, and honest men came in, how did Lord Fisher leave his job? Did he wait to be relieved, or to hand over his work to his successor? No. He deserted like a traitor. If he had been a soldier or a sailor he would have been shot. Of course, I do not absolutely know, but I believe the late Prime Minister could give some information on the subject. This is the man that my right hon. Friends below try to bring back, and it is about time it ceased. We have had enough of it in the Navy, and I hope we have had enough of it in the House.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: At any rate, whether you agree with my hon. and gallant Friend or not, he speaks his mind, and I candidly confess that I enjoyed many of his speeches. Lest it be thought that my hon. and gallant Friend is a consistent leader of opinion, I should like to say, that, speaking last year on this subject, he said all was well. We have, in the present Foreign Secretary, thank God, a ruler who does not grate on our nerves, and more than that, we were; to put our trust in Admiral Jackson. The present Foreign Secretary is no longer at the Admiralty, and Admiral Jackson is no longer First Sea Lord. Now we are to trust, says my hon. and gallant Friend, the Admirals Jellicoe and Beatty. He is a little inconsistent. This is what he said of the late Prime Minister on 16th August last:
    "Since I have been in the House there are two subjects which are on the tapis: one is that there is a large body, but, by no means a majority, of Members in this House who think the way to win this War is to get rid of the Solomon at the head of this Government. I say 'Solomon' because I do not think there is any hon. Member who will deny that he is by far the cleverest man in this House. But we must remember, when Solomon left this world, who succeeded him. It was Rehoboam, who broke up the old Hebrew Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1916, col. 1958,. Vol.LXXXV.]

    1721
    I have heard the present Prime Minister called a good many names, but never before Rehoboam. I seem to remember that my hon. and gallant Friend was the Gentleman who seconded the Address in the first Parliament of Rehoboam. But I pass that by. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that the submarine menace was never well in hand. He has said in his speech now, and he said it in his speech at Portsmouth. Here I wish to say, in vindication of my own statement, that we had a Report from Lord Milner, in 1915, from which I will read a word or two:—
    "The Committee in their interim Report were only unanimous in suggesting a guaranteed minimum price for wheat on the hypothesis that there was urgent danger to our imported food supplies owing to the activity of hostile submarines. The Government have come to the conclusion that there is no danger from that quarter of sufficient magnitude to justify the adoption of our recommendations."
    That is not the case to-day. I want the House to realise that Lord Milner in October, 1915, on the advice of the Government of that day, declared that there was no need to fear the depredations of hostile submarines. The Report of Lord Milner recommended that there should be a fixed price of 45s. a quarter on wheat. The position is very different to-day, and I say now to my hon. and gallant Friend that the real reason why the submarine menace was grappled with then was owing to the energetic measures taken by Lord Fisher when he was at the Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend has not mentioned all his speech at Portsmouth. He made another charge then which was absolutely inaccurate. I was rather astonished Curiously enough that portion of his speech did not appear in the London papers. He accused Lord Fisher of being in command at the time that the "Hogue," the "Cressy," and the "Aboukir" were lost.
    Sir H. MEUX: That arose through careless reporting. I was dealing with the submarine menace and said it had never been satisfactorily dealt with. I mentioned that in the early part of the War those three cruisers were sunk and within a few months the "Formidable" was sunk and Lord Fisher was then in command, which was true. I never said he was in command at the time of the sinking of the three cruisers. Everyone at Portsmouth, and I should have thought the whole world, knows who was in command when the three cruisers went down. I will not mention his name.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I withdraw at once. I will leave that portion of my hon. and
    1722
    gallant Friend's argument. There is one thing which I really think he is not quite justified in making this extraordinary statement in his speech at Portsmouth, that the real reason why people dislike Lord Fisher in society is because of his going about boasting of the number of officers he has ruined. I cannot help thinking that is a statement which could hardly be justified by one distinguished admiral speaking of another.
    Sir H. MEUX: Does not the truth justify any statement?
    Mr. LAMBERT: On the 7th March last year my hon. and gallant Friend said, "Lord Fisher and I have been friends more or less for a great many years." I cannot understand that my hon. and gallant Friend would be the friend of a man who was capable of such odious action.
    Sir H. MEUX: More or less.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Now I go away from these things; but I think the Committee will realise that I am not animated in this matter by any personal motives. I have one single object to serve, and that is the good of my country. I have been a Member of this House for twenty-five years. I am not afraid to speak my mind, and I resent with very considerable animus the charge of my hon. and gallant Friend when he accuses me of intrigue. I have no desire but to do the very best for my country at this time, and I do not see why I should be accused of intrigue. When I simply come to this House to tell the House exactly what I think, based upon ten years' experience at the Board of Admiralty, I do think that I might be relieved of the charge of intrigue. I think, from the speech we have heard this afternoon, that we all know what is at the bottom of the hon. and gallant Member's mind. It is personal animus. In the words of the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), we must keep our hatreds for the enemy. So much for that subject; but I do say that when we are at life-and-death grips with Germany we must leave Bacon letters out of the question, and we must leave the impertinent answer to China out of the question. Those really are not matters which concern us now.
    Turning to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I thank him very much for the frank statement he made about the

    1723
    submarine losses. I would like to ask him whether the figures he gave include all submarine losses in regard to merchantmen, merchantmen engaged on Admiralty work, as well as merchantmen engaged in ordinary commercial enterprise. The First Lord did not in any way minimise the submarine menace. It is with us, and, as he said, it is grave, it is serious, and it has not yet been solved. I think the present Prime Minister put the finishing touch upon it when he said that the people of this country must not dwell on the pleasant and ignore the graver and the disquieting aspects of the situation. He stated that
    "our food stocks are low, alarmingly low, lower than they have been within recollection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, col. 1598.]
    That statement was very directly emphasised when we had on Saturday 36,000 tons of Dutch shipping sunk very near the Port of London. It is no advantage to me, and I do not take any credit for saying "I told you so!" Despite what my hon. and gallant Friend behind me has said, the man to cope with this submarine menace is Admiral Lord Fisher. The nation has got to realise that a gigantic effort is necessary if this submarine menace is to be submerged—that is, if the submarines are to be adequately dealt with. It is no use our engaging in the pleasant anticipation that we are bound to win. We have to put forward very exceptional efforts on the part of the Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend said a word about Sir John Jellicoe. No one had a greater admiration for Sir John Jellicoe in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet than I had; and I say here, as my own personal opinion, that I regretted very gravely the withdrawal of Sir John Jellicoe from the Commandership-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. It was like the withdrawal of Nelson a month before Trafalgar. I do not wish to say a word about his successor; I do not know anything, but I do say that where you have an admiral who is doing his work well—and we must not forget that Sir John Jellicoe was adored by the nation, and had the complete confidence of the Grand Fleet—to withdraw him was, in my judgment, a very dubious proceeding.
    I want to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a few questions as to the position he is taking up in regard to the submarine menace. I understand that there has been established at the Admiralty an
    1724
    Anti-Submarine Department, composed of very able men. In addition to that there is a Board of Inventions and Research which is presided over by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher. The First Lord said:
    "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 question of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1917, col. 1360.]
    I would like to ask the First Lord how many times he has consulted Lord Fisher, or how many times the Board of Admiralty have consulted Lord Fisher? I had a conversation some little time ago with one of the distinguished members of this Board, and he was complaining that the Admiralty were not supporting the Board of Inventions and Research. I think the House and country ought to know something about that matter, especially when it is stated that these distinguished gentlemen, Sir J. Thomson, President of the Royal Society, Sir Charles Parsons, and Sir George Beilby, headed by Lord Fisher—whom I regard as the foremost admiral of the day, and who is similarly-regarded by many others—have adequate power of dealing with the German submarine menace. That is absolutely contrary to fact. An article appeared the other day in the "Manchester Guardian." It was dated 19th February, and gave a very admirable survey of the work of this Board of Inventions and Research. The article said:
    "A short time ago a leading article appeared in a London paper asserting that Lord Fisher had unlimited command of means and money, and hinting that if he had plans for the suppression of the U-boats, he could from Victory House control 'the damned crew' without any closer connection with the Admiralty."
    This body has no executive power whatever; it has not the power to order a single ship. It has not power over the design of any single ship, and it cannot order the carrying out of any of the numerous suggestions which it makes to the Admiralty. The article goes on to say:
    "The Committee has no power to give orders for the construction of the necessary machinery to determine the scale of its use or the method in which it shall be used. The greater part of Lord Fisher's supreme qualifications is executive capacity, and his driving power is in this way wholly lost."
    I do say that when we have a body such as this, composed of the most distinguished scientists, and headed by an admiral of the distinction of Lord Fisher, that they should be consulted as to the best means of coping with submarines. I cannot help thinking that there must have been a grave

    1725
    dereliction of duty on the part of the Admiralty in the past that they have not consulted, or have not taken this eminent man (Lord Fisher) into their confidence. That is one of the reasons why the submarine menace has grown to its present tremendous proportions. I want to emphasise the fact that the Zeppelin, the mine, and the submarine have entirely changed naval strategy, and there is no man who has foreseen that to such an extent as Lord Fisher. I have here a memorandum which he wrote six months before the War. It was sent to the Prime Minister somewhere about January, 1914. In that memoradum he says:
    "The submarine is a coming type of war vessel for sea fighting."
    He had to deal with critics like my hon. and gallant Friend, and he goes on to say:
    "An ancient Admiralty Board minute described the introduction of the steam engine as fatal to England's Navy. Another Admiralty Board minute vetoed iron ships, as iron sinks and wood floats—."
    After other similar quotations, he says:
    "What is it that the coming of a submarine really means? It means that the whole foundation of our traditional naval strategy, which served us so well ill the past, has been broken down."
    He prophesies, with extreme minuteness, exactly what a German submarine must do. It cannot take a ship into port; it can only sink it. I do say that when you have such a man, with his imagination, with his vigour, and with his determination, it is really wasting the great energy and abilities of that great man when, as I said the other day, you keep him as chairman of that chemist's shop in Cockspur Street.
    Last year, about this time, the Germans commenced their attack on Verdun; they have now commenced their great push in an endeavour to cut the communications of Britain with the Army in France. I wish simply to reiterate what was said last year, that you cannot have a better opportunity for German submarines to act than in the three great expeditions which are going on at the present time in Salonika, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. We were all gratified at the announcement made to-day by the Leader of the House as to the fall of Kut, but I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether these expeditions are not putting too great a strain upon the naval resources of this country? There must be thousands of tons of transports going from here to Salonika, Egypt, and Basra. All these transports have to be protected by the Navy. They
    1726
    have to be conveyed through the Mediterranean, something like 2,500 miles. There must, therefore, be a great naval force in the Mediterranean. I am told there is something like 400 naval ships of all sorts in the Mediterranean. They have to be coaled and provisioned, and there must be an enormous number of transports engaged to take the necessary provisions, coal, and appliances to them. I ask that this question of our Eastern strategy shall be completely reconsidered.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the subject under discussion. The Vote before the Committee does not admit of a discussion of the whole War policy.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir E. Carson): I have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Surely the Admiralty is consulted when an expedition is going to take place as to whether they can give adequate naval protection for the troops that are to be carried?
    Sir E. CARSON: My right hon. Friend must ask those who entered upon these expeditions.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, but what I ask is whether these expeditions are going on? The very fact that we had a very grave announcement from my right hon. Friend this afternoon about a raid on the East Coast by German destroyers, has a bearing upon this subject. We have a very large force of naval ships in the Mediterranean which could cope with these raids, but they are engaged in convoying transports down the Mediterranean. With great respect, Mr. Whitley, I submit that this is an Admiralty matter, and it is a matter which really is at the foundation of naval strategy, because if the Navy have to protect transports two thousand five hundred miles away they cannot be-here protecting our own coasts. Still further, I think it is required to protect our own coasts, because we have got now a German base within fifty miles of our own shores at Zeebrugge, which is a veritable hornet's nest from which the Germans can send forth to raid our communications as they raided them a few months ago in the Channel or to raid our East Coast as we have heard this afternoon. Therefore, if it is not a question for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, I must be allowed to express

    1727
    my opinion that they are straining the Navy to breaking point, and that the Navy cannot possibly convoy and protect all the transports required for these expeditions all over the world.
    But it is an Admiralty matter in so much that I assume that before any expedition is undertaken or before any expedition is decided on the Admiralty has to be consulted as to whether it is straining its resources or whether it is able to afford ample protection. I do not say these words in any spirit of criticism of the Admiralty. I do not want to criticise in this matter, but after all we have got to look at the thing as a whole. We have got the submarines here and unless they are dealt "with they will put this country into a very serious condition. There is no use minimising it. We had reports—I think it was in the "Daily Telegraph"—that there were something like 200 German submarines at present ready to operate. This is a very serious menace. It has grown up, I agree, through the apathy and inertia which prevailed at the Admiralty for fifteen or eighteen months; but there it is, and though I do not wish to criticise I must point out that unless you do bring home your ships from the Mediterranean, and unless you do put forth a gigantic effort, in which I sincerely trust my right hon. Friend will engage the services of Lord Fisher, this submarine menace will prove to be a very grave peril to this country in future. The last thing I desire is to criticise the Ministry of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We must all recognise that, whatever our political views, with the success of this Government is bound up everything which we hold dear, and I for one shall always give very warm support to the Government of the present Prime Minister, since if he fails it will mean that our country fails, and therefore whenever I criticise it is simply to put forward views which I hope will be considered by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Captain BURGOYNE: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by 100 men.
    I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in the line which he has taken. I have got my name down here for two Motions. One is to reduce Vote A by one hundred men, and another is to reduce Vote 1 by one hundred pounds. My purpose in moving a reduction of these Votes is to raise the question
    1728
    of the Royal Naval Air Service in its administration and its connection with the general air policy of this country. The Committee will remember that just prior to the last reconstruction of the Government a day had been fixed for the Debate of a Resolution that stood on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). Circumstances arose of which we are all aware which prevented that Resolution coming on. Now on the first opportunity that we get for raising this question I find myself restricted in a variety of ways. In the first place, whereas on the former Resolution it had been the intention of those who spoke to deal with the Air Service generally that is to say, the position of the Air Board in its relation not only to the Royal Naval Air Service, but also to the Royal Flying Corps—now I cannot do much more than touch on the subject of the Air Board. I am forced by Resolutions of this House to leave the Royal Flying Corps alone altogether, and I have to devote myself to the Royal Naval Air Service.
    There are two other things make it a little difficult to tackle this question and which cause a natural diffidence in those criticisms which one would naturally like to make in reference to the Royal Naval Air Service. The first is that the Air Board has been reconstituted with closer representation upon it of both the Services, the Navy and the Army, with, in addition to, two representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, and since they have scarcely yet got into the saddle, one would desire to give them every opportunity to show what they can do before levelling criticism at them. The second thing that has happened that makes discussion on the point a little difficult is the appointment, which we all advocated and desired, of an additional Naval Lord, Commodore Godfrey Payne, to represent the Air Board upon the Board of Admiralty. If I may be permitted, I would like to associate myself with what fell from the First Lord in his admirable speech the other day, when he devoted one sentence to this matter of the Royal Naval Air Service. From what one can hear there is the utmost confidence in this new appointment, and the feeling that at last things may go on a little better. But since the pressing urgency for the discussion of the question has been in operation since the outbreak of the War, I certainly think that

    1729
    it is right now that one of the few opportunities presented, when nearly all the time formerly belonging to private Members has been taken by the Government, should not be wasted.
    No one who throws his mind back to a date before the War would recognise in the Navy and Army of that time the huge naval and military forces which we possess now. Great as has been the expansion of the Navy and the Army, I submit that the expansion in the Air Service has in ratio been infinitely greater. When developments are of super-rapid order, when the problems to be discussed are divided among a variety of Departments, and when all these Departments have each their own rooted ideas as to the lines on which things should be worked out, the chances are that you get a series of chaotic cross currents which are likely to be detrimental to the progress of the Service. What I want to prove to-day—and my criticism is entirely friendly; and I may tell the Committee that prior to suggesting getting up in the House I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty—is that undoubtedly before the reconstruction of the Air Board and the construction of the present Government there were certain things taking place in the administration of the Royal Naval Air Service that required most careful looking into. My purpose to-day will be to prove that there was lack of focus in administration which led to loss of public confidence in that administration, and that there were inter-Service jealousies, Departmental frictions, overlapping, and lack of continuous policy. In former Debates, which I followed as closely as I could, I have noticed during the course of this War—it is not easy when one is soldiering to keep in touch with things—that speakers on naval and military subjects when criticising the policy or administration have usually found a difficulty in that they have been twitted with one or two things—that either, with the commendable desire not to convey information to the enemy, they have said so little that they have suggested facts and difficulties which they could not prove, or by their disclosures, they were, it has been suggested, unpatriotic. I may tell the Committee that for my part, rather than leave accusations unproven, I must risk being told that I am telling too much. Only one word more. Obviously I would not say anything in this House that I
    1730
    would not say outside, or go into circumstances which would be of advantage to the enemy, but if there are any seeming indiscretions I would ask the indulgence of the Committee when I tell them that it has all been most carefully calculated in advance.
    First I want to deal with the question of airships. I shall certainly not take the history of the Admiralty in relation to airships up to too late a date, but it will be within the recollection of the Committee that about the year 1909 a Sub-Committee was appointed by the then Prime Minister to look very carefully into the subject of airships and to discover to what extent they were likely to be useful to the naval and military forces of the Crown. The Committee reported in 1909 that the dangers of airships could only be proved by possessing them ourselves, and that they would prove of great value to the Navy for scouting purposes. I would like these two points to be remarked by the Committee. These recommendations were considered so impressive that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Naval Estimates that year, made absolutely no mention of aircraft in his speech, whereas Lord Haldane, in introducing the Army Estimates, said this—it is a curious commentary upon the attitude taken up at that time, when Germany already possessed several extremely effective rigid airships:
    "The whole subject is. I think, very much in its infancy. I am never alarmed when reading of the progress of other nations in this matter. No doubt we are behind. So we were in other matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1910, col. 1186, Vol. XIV.]
    We carry our minds on to 1912 when another Sub-Committee was appointed. That Sub-Committee was referred to in full detail by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division (Brigadier-General Seely) in this House when he introduced his Army Estimates, but at that time he said that the Admiralty were very carefully considering the question regarding the type of airship, and it is of interest to note that one member of the Board of Admiralty, now the First Sea Lord, Admiral Jellicoe—and it is very pleasant to mention it in this connection—was so impressed with what the Zeppelins were doing then that with the permission of the British Admiralty and through the good offices of Captain Watson, our Naval Attaché in Berlin, he managed to take several trips in

    1731
    Zeppelins in Berlin. Then I come to 1913, and I must refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, then First Lord of the Admiralty. He told us first, which is of interest, that the only aircraft possessed by the Navy then were five aeroplanes and four trained pilots, and he made an apology that there should be so few pilots for so many machines. He said:
    "It is evident that the time has arrived when we must develop long range airships of the largest type."
    This was in March, 1913, one and a half years before the War broke out, and he goes on:
    "First, a Naval Airship Section has been established arid live officers and fifty men have, by the courtesy of the War Office, been trained at Farnborough with the military airships. Secondly, two medium-sized non-rigid airships have been purchased for training and experimental purposes. One of these, the 'Astra Torres,' is almost completed, and will shortly be undergoing trials."
    Then he says:
    "We also propose to enlist the services of some great British manufacturing firm in the construction of rigid airships, and negotiations are on foot which will lead to that result,"
    In 1913 the Admiralty at last decided to enlist the services of certain reliable British firms in the construction of rigid airships. He says further:
    "No reproaches are deserved by the Admiralty for any time that has been lost in the development of dirigible airships."
    And he continues:
    "Before these vessels emerge from the experimental stage, before they become, within the restricted limits of their military action, really potent factors, we shall be provided both with the means of using the advantages which they offer and of combating the dangers which they threaten. Meanwhile, I do trust that we are not going to have any silly panic language used about the dangers we are supposed to run. If war breaks out to-morrow, foreign airships no doubt might do a certain amount of mischief and damage before they got smashed up, which would not be very long, but it is foolish to suppose that in their present stage of development, they could produce results which would decisively influence the course of events. The hon. Gentleman opposite made our flesh creep the other night by suggesting the dropping of bombs from airships on the House of Commons. If that event should happen I am confident that the "Members of this House would gladly embrace the opportunity of sharing the perils which the soldiers and the sailors have to meet,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1913, cols. 1775–6, Vol. L.]
    Incidentally I may mention that since I spoke on that occasion an offer was made to me of a trip in the autumn on one of the airships when completed. When the rigids which I referred to were ordered I find that one was to be made at Vickers' and one at Armstrong's. Just before the War the Armstrong rigid was cancelled, and in February, 1915, six months after the War broke out, the order for the Vickers
    1732
    machine was cancelled on the direct instruction of the right hon. Member for Dundee. There was very good reason at that time for cancelling that airship; Messrs. Vickers did not feel disposed, very properly, to deal with an experimental machine at a lime when the whole of their energies were required to turn out things immediately wanted for the purposes of the War. What I do complain of is the delay which took place from 1909 to 1915, when we had not a single airship in the air. Then there came the Zeppelin attacks, and the knowledge that all the movements of our ships at sea were being transmitted by airships to the German Admiralty. Again, the matter was reconsidered in June, 1915, four months later, and a small programme of rigids was decided on, and on the day following that decision Messrs. Vickers recommenced their work on the ship. I do not propose to carry the history any further or I might give something away which would be unfair. I have made a statement as to the delay which existed from 1909 to 1915. In that period we had no airship, but now at least we have crews being trained in rigid airships, and there is a programme which gives something in the way of defence; but it is a misfortune that in the whole of that time there should have been contradiction, reversal, and mutation in the orders given.
    It is a pleasure to turn to non-rigid construction, and I suppose that none of the combatants are so successful in developing small flying ships as the officers of the Royal Naval Air Service. That does not include the development of the rigid type, but they are dealing in a most effective way with a smaller class of vessel. I will now deal with two difficulties that arose between the two Air Services, one being concerned with aeroplanes and the other with seaplanes. A considerable time ago, getting on for a year, the Admiralty ordered a certain large type of bomb carrier which were notoriously slow in use. When they had been in use for a considerable time it was found that this particular type became slower, and so an endeavour was made to improve its speed. A large series of stream-line wires were ordered with a view to giving this particular type an extra speed of four to six miles more—£80 per set—and the total cost was £6,400. No sooner were the wires made than, to use the Admiralty term—I do not know on what theory it is used—the series

    1733
    was deleted, and the £6,400 was thrown away. Some, were handed over to the Royal Flying Corps, who burned the planes and took out the engines. I want to know whether the control which will be vested in the Air Board will apply to such matters as that to which I have referred, and which are not only detrimental to the Service, but costly to the country, which wants every penny it can get for much more vital purposes.
    In the early days of the War a design for heavy gun carriers was put before the Board of Admiralty and was commented upon by a number of critics who had no knowledge of aircraft work. The design was that of a machine intended to carry a heavy but short gun to deal with the submarine menace. The design was criticised, laughed at, torn to pieces, and eventually turned down. At that time there had not been created the weight-carrying seaplanes of the dimensions effectually to deal with submarines. I was one of a large number of Members of the House who visited a certain naval air station, and I went up in one of the big seaplanes. I know that the lift of several machines has gone up to six or seven tons. Here we are to-day suffering from all the inconvenience caused by submarines, but if we had taken two and a half years ago steps to develop the seaplane which we are taking to-day we would have had a machine that would have been most advantageous in finding where the submarines were. Members of this Committee know perfectly well that it is infinitely easier to see objects in the water from a height than it is when you are upon the surface of the water. Anybody who has been in seaplanes knows perfectly well the immense value of the seaplane in looking for submarines.
    Then there is the question of seaplane carriers. A year before the War broke out a well-known firm in the North prepared designs for a large seaplane carrier, and submitted these to the Admiralty, but all these designs were turned down as being absolutely unnecessary. When the War came we found that we had somehow to obtain ships adapted to the carrying of seaplanes, and we have now less than a dozen seaplane carriers in existence. I am not going into the question of the tonnage, which was largely drawn from the cross-Channel service. One of them was the "Campania," which has utterly ceased active sea work, and another the "Are
    1734
    Royal," the laughing stock of the Mediterranean. I do ask whether it is not about time that this matter was attended to, and dealt with on a more practical basis? This question of seaplane carriers is one of vital importance, and is one which should have been taken in hand years ago. Cases of friction arose prior to the establishment of the new Air Board. The Admiralty had recently power to bring under their control all labour and output which were essential for war purposes. In the case of the Flying Service, this power was divided between the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps, and a certain friction arises between these two wings, and it is quite possible to give instances where the Royal Naval Air Service have acted to the detriment of the Royal Flying Corps, and at another time the Royal Flying Corps have secured advantage against the Royal Naval Air Service. There are numbers of examples which could be given of this. While it cannot be suggested that the Rolls-Royce engine is the only good engine, it is certainly one of the best.
    The Rolls-Royce is under the entire control of the Admiralty, and the Admiralty, out of the kindness of their heart, until a short time ago, at all events, used to allow 50 per cent, of the smaller power engines to go to the Royal Flying Corps, and two-sevenths of the higher power engines.
    I would like to give hon. Members a case in which the Rolls-Royce engines were kept waiting for the Royal Naval Air Service, while the Royal Flying Corps was badly wanting engines to fit to aeroplanes which they had ready. I submit that engines should be regarded as for the purposes of the Air Service as a whole. This, then, is an example of which I have personal knowledge. There were orders to two factories to build aeroplanes, one series for the Royal Naval Air Service and the other for the Royal Flying Corps. The factory for the Royal Flying Corps had its planes completed long before the other factory, but could not get the engines. In the case of the Royal Naval Air Service, however, they had the engines ready, but these were piled up and were not being used at the very time that the factory working for the Royal Flying Corps wanted those engines. I should like to know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman considers the Royal Naval Air

    1735
    Service are entitled to retain in this way Rolls-Royce engines. I can quite understand myself keeping certain spare engines in readiness for planes, but the Royal Naval Air Service did not want them at that time, and the Royal Flying Corps was waiting for engines, yet those engines were kept for many weeks waiting to be used for the Royal Naval Air Service. Then comes the case of nuts and bolts ordered for the construction of aeroplanes for the Royal Flying Corps. When the order for these goods was completed they were commandeered by the Admiralty. That is the sort of thing which is going on, and, of course, it must cause friction. Again, orders were given for tool steel, and here again the Admiralty commandeered the lot when ready. I do not say that the Admiralty did not want them or did not use them; I am quite certain they did. But, on the other hand, the matter should be looked at from the point of view of the Royal Flying Corps, and that is the way, I think, the Admiralty should look at it. We are all out for getting command of the air, but if one branch of the Service finds that the other is to take what it requires from it, then it is apparent that there must be an Air Board with powers to settle all questions of that sort. Then there is one other point—that relating to stream-line wires. A certain well-known firm in Scotland has been the only one since the War making stream-line wires, but without the slightest warning the Admiralty took it over, to the detriment of the making of a considerable number of machines for the Flying Corps.
    What association is there now between the Royal Naval Air Service and the Air Board? If we could have had a wide Debate on this subject and a day when the salaries of the members of the Air Board could have been discussed, it would have been infinitely easier to bring in the two branches of the Service representing the flying services of this country as part of the Air Board. I have to reverse the process and get at the Air Board through the Royal Naval Air Service, owing to the fact that we are discussing a Navy Vote. There was a time when, shall we say, the members of the Admiralty and the Air Board did not see quite eye to eye. There was a certain instance I know of where the Admiralty ordered material for aircraft to the extent of a little under three millions of money for general aircraft work. The Committee will realise that you could not place orders in this country
    1736
    for three millions pounds of work without a certain amount of disorganisation going on. Why I mention this is because the Air Board only heard of that accidentally, and the Royal Flying Corps only heard of it through the trade; There was no communication to the makers of aircraft machinery, aeroplanes, etc., and yet they suddenly found that their output must be restricted or congested. My point is that this was done without consultation by the Royal Naval Air Service. Nothing would please me better than to be told now that that is all gone, and that such a thing could not happen in the future, and that the members of the Air Board would be able to prevent such a thing being done, and, in effect, that the representatives of the Navy and of the Army and of the Ministry of Munitions will all be consulted prior to any general upset of the trade.
    We then come to lather more picturesque examples of Admiralty administration. I have got one example at which I was present myself and made inquiries on the spot. Another one was where a Zeppelin hovered over an East Coast town for twenty-five minutes, and nothing in the way of an attack took place. It was discovered afterwards that there were but two pilots there and four "dud" machines, to use a word which is very well understood. The other one, of which I was a witness myself, was where a Zeppelin came to a well-known coast dockyard town, quite unexpectedly it must be added, and did no damage. It was consequently not much reported. It is curious to know that the military officer in charge, who should have been the one to set the wires going for attack on this airship, was never called at all, and the naval officer who took the initiative, perfectly properly under the circumstances, was hauled over the coals for going over the head of his senior. One aeroplane went up, and by that time the Zeppelin was reported seventy miles away. Then we had another instance at Cranwell. It may be asked why I bring up these incidents at all. In the first place, I do so because we have not had a general Debate on this question, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hundreds of people know of these things and that they cannot be kept secret. At Cranwell no warning was given. It was said that bombs were heard exploded and that it was taken to be night gun-practice. Then there was the case of a

    1737
    pilot of the Royal Flying Corps who was sent down from Adastral House to Brook-lands. Going round the sheds there he saw a machine being hurriedly covered up with tarpaulin, and was told it was a new design for the Royal Naval Air Service, and "they were hanged if he would see the stunts they were putting into it." After all, we are out to win this war, and I should have thought that the very first thing the designers of that new machine would have wished would have been to hand over any new idea for incorporation, if worth while, in the machines ordered and designed for the Royal Flying Corps. If you have two flying services criticising one another and running, not on parallel, but on diverging lines, you can scarcely expect that loyalty and intercommunication which is necessary. Two months before Christmas there was a difference of £40 in the fee paid for the training of pilots, between those trained for the Royal Flying Corps and those trained for the Royal Naval Air Service, and that, despite the fact that training in these days leads to many hundred per cent, more smashes than ever it did in the old days, when men largely flew for sport.
    Some of these cases may seem a little petty, but I do not think they are, in the light of the line of criticism adopted. These are only eight or ten of many scores of similar examples which I could have given if I had spoken four or five months ago. We have now got a reconstructed Air Board, and we have got a new Government. We hope much from both. I shall be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how he is going to start his vast new domain. It would be interesting for us to learn whether the whole staff is to be transferred from Adastral House, if the offices are large enough, or is the work too large for the home he has now got. It would be interesting also to know to what extent the staff of the Royal Naval Air Service are being transferred from the Admiralty. If we are to get entirely united services we ought to have them under one roof and under one master. There is no doubt that as far as the Royal Naval Air Service is concerned it was the Cinderella of the Admiralty. They did not like the airship coming in, objected to it, did not believe in it, and said so bluntly. There were men who were perfectly capable of taking charge of the Royal Naval Air Service quite by itself, but they were controlled by senior men who never had anything to do with
    1738
    the air. Men were placed in control who had to change their whole ideas and take charge of something they did not understand. It was a very rare thing to find a man suited for his job, and if you did the chances were that he had been selected because of some entirely unnecessary qualifications he did not possess. If the best man were only twenty-five years of age I would have given him the job. That was not the attitude adopted by the Board of Admiralty.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will find immense relief when the whole of this service is taken out of his hands and placed in charge of the Air Board. It is not the Admiralty's job. Under the now scheme, as far as I have been able to grasp it, it is proposed to divide the experimental and inventions staff, and for some time at least the Admiralty intend to retain the command of the airships. I stand open to correction on that point, but let us see what that means if it is so. The analogy of the submarines is advanced as a very good argument, but I see none whatever. The submarine cannot get out of the water and an airship can go as much over land as over water. I wish to know whether they are prepared to hand over the whole thing—lock, stock, and barrel—so that we may see in the combination of the Royal Flying Corps and of the Royal Naval Air Service the genesis of our central Air Service. There are a number of other points, but I think I have taken the matter far enough, and I do not think that anybody who has taken an interest in this matter will deny that these services have now become so large that they ought to be treated as a new and altogether independent service. We want it to be taken out of the hands of those officers, from whom we cannot expect the same enthusiasm in the new developments of these services as from the younger men, who have a full appreciation of what it means to the country. We are likely to see the expenditure after the War as large upon air services as was spent in pre-war times upon our Navy and upon our Army. It seems a perfectly fatuous thing that we should have that expenditure split up, and that we should have to arrange Debates in this difficult manner, for I can assure the Committee it is not an easy thing to keep within the subject before us. Obviously we must come to the time when the Air Service

    1739
    will stand by itself. The Board of Admiralty have got ample to do in carrying on the sea work of the War. Let them look after their job, and let the Army look after its job, and let the Air Board tackle the Air Service. I do not suggest that the Air Board should dictate in matters of strategy and tactics as to what the Naval share of the Air Service is to do or as to what the Army share of the Air Service is to do. Those are matters for the experts in that particular line. But at least let us concentrate the control, the administration, the early days of education, and the ordering in one department. I feel sure that if we do we shall get more interrelation and combined effort, and a big advance on what has taken place in the past.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think, before we proceed further, it would be as well if I intimated to the Committee how far the subject of the Air Services is relevant to the Navy Votes. I understand that there is to be a separate Vote in the Estimates for next year for the Air Board which was set up by legislation at the end of last year. Therefore that is the occasion for any general discussion of the administrative work of the Air Board. It was, of course, quite in order to ask, as the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Burgoyne) has asked, how far the Navy has handed over, or proposes to hand over, functions which it previously exercised to the Air Board. To that extent only, I think, the Debate on this subject can proceed.
    6.0 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will reply at once to the very interesting and highly-informed speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, as to the tone and temper and spirit of which no possible exception could be taken. As regards the Air Board, apart from the proscription to which you, Mr. Whitley, have called attention, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that the constitution of that Board was set forth by an Order in Council of 6th February, and of course he knows also that in the Press the next day there appeared a statement which gave the personnel of the Board. I was very glad to hear his reference to the Fifth Sea Lord and the confidence which he rightly felt in him. To the Fifth Sea Lord is assigned the general responsibility for the administration of business re-
    1740
    lating to the Air Service, and he represents the Board of Admiralty upon the Air Board, and also undertakes the immediate supervision of the Air Department in his capacity of Director of Air Services. In that capacity he is responsible for the efficient performance of the duties of the Air Department, and as long as he remains with us he follows, of course, the financial and other rules laid down for the conduct of Admiralty business. Either in person or by a deputy, it is his business to arrange visits to the various air stations with a view to taking care that the technical training of the personnel is being carried out as it should be, and that the station is efficiently organised and equipped for thoroughly efficient service. As Director of Air Services, he communicates direct with the Air Board, the Directorate of Military Aeronautics at the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions. In those circumstances, my hon, and gallant Friend will see that in the person of the Fifth Sea Lord and Director of Air Services we have the most complete assurance that there will be all necessary cooperation and co-ordination between claims which otherwise might presumably be competitive. I need not, I think, go into the history of the airships.
    As far as I have listened the hon. And gallant Gentleman reported it quite accurately, I think, and a good deal of it is, of course, past, history. All possible progress is being made, and I think I may fairly say actively made, along the lines which until we come to the end of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, I am quite sure he would wish. My hon. and gallant Friend made a charge of hoarding material on the part of the Admiralty—hoarding engines, nuts, bolts, tools, steel, and so on. Certainly that is not correct to-day, and I am emphatically assured that there is the most complete co-ordination, good will, and co-operation between the two arms of the Service. And so there ought to be. This is no time to be fighting battles on the White hall front. The front is in other directions, and there is full scope——
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Why do you not let the young men leave the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was saying that there is full scope on the other fronts for all possible activity and energy. As regards the last proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend as to handing over to the

    1741
    Air Board the whole question, not only of the supply of material and so forth, but of the personnel, I rather gathered from his comments that he had in mind at any rate a common training from the early stages, and then ultimate specialisation—after the common training of the personnel given under the Air Board—specialisation either by joining the Royal Naval Air Service on the one hand, or the Royal Flying Corps on the other. He called our attention also to the future developments of war in the air, and the place which it may possibly fill in relation to war on land and sea. That is an extremely enticing field even for a person with no very vivid imagination, and undoubtedly it is stimulated by the rapid and striking advances which the last two or three years, and even the last few months, have seen in the matter of aeronautics. It was on the 25th July, 1909, that M. Bleriot startled the world by flying across the English Channel, and that is less than eight years ago. I very well remember how the newspapers were full of it. But already that feat is a commonplace, and does not even command a paragraph in the papers, which fact itself is an illumination of the rapid advances which have been made; while I have no doubt that the possibilities of warfare in this third element are hardly yet realised. As I say, the theme is very enticing. But I say also that what we have to do to-day is to apply ourselves for all we are worth to the successful prosecution of this War.
    To that end we need to set this Service into its right place. My hon. and gallant Friend would hand all training establishments to the Air Board. He had in mind, I think, tile idea of having a common training in the early stages and specialising afterwards. But I think you could not possibly dissect that part of the training establishment of the Royal Naval Air Service, which might fairly be called elementary, even if there were no other reason, and hand that over. It could not be done. It would mean dislocation, and it would be putting the thing into the melting-pot; and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with me that this is not the time to do that. I am not sure that his proposition of specialisation after a common entry and elementary training for the two arms, the Royal Flying Corps and the Naval Air Service, is in this case possible. I will not dogmatise. But for the immediate
    1742
    prosecution of the War, using this warfare in the new element to the utmost advantage and exercising all possible expedition in our development of it, I do not think we can entertain the proposition that the personnel should, either in its early stages or entirely, be handed over at the present time to the Air Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, I very well remember, in a debate on 17th May last year, summed up all our debates and all the many views on the whole matter in a very striking way, if I may say so, in four simple words. They were: Speed up without interruption." That seems to me to be our duty at the present time, and therefore I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal can be entertained. It does not help. It would mean dislocation and interruption, and it does not help the prosecution of the War at the present moment. For the rest, I was very interested to hear his many comments, and I can assure him that he may have the most complete confidence that there is thorough co-ordination and unity of purpose and aim between those responsible for the two arms of this Service at the present time.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I will not intervene for more than a single moment, and I do not propose to continue further the very important subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. But I would like to take advantage of this opportunity of asking for a little further information than has yet been given us with regard to one or two important points connected with the administration of the Navy. I join most cordially with hon. Members who have paid compliments to the present First Lord of the Admiralty for the frank statement which he gave us the other day. There were many things which, were left unsaid, but I think we can say that he took this House and the nation more into the confidence of the Government than any previous First Lord has done. For that we are supremely thankful. But I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he could throw a little more light on one or two subjects which were then touched upon. I would like here to say that I think we ought also to keep in mind that the present First Lord of the Admiralty is not responsible for the administration of the Admiralty previous to the new Government corning into power, and therefore I think he is only called upon to answer for his acts since he assumed office. I would

    1743
    like, therefore, to ask, with regard to his statement the other day on the submarine question, in relation to the forty encounters which we have had with enemy submarines during a specified period, whether that meant that destroyers had had encounters, or did he include in that estimate our merchant ships? I think it will be of some importance for us to know. Did "encounter" mean, for example, that a submarine may have run ashore? Do the forty encounters mean that our destroyers were in direct touch with enemy submarines in forty cases?
    I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, also, if he can offer any explanation to this House as to the delay which has taken place in the arming of our merchant ships? He told us the other day that in eases where our mercantile marine are armed—indeed, we have known it for the last year privately; the Press have been told it all the last year, but this is the first time it has been stated in this House or published in any way that in the case of merchant ships being armed the percentage of losses is very much lower than where the ships are unarmed. I think, so far as I recollect the statement made by the late First Lord many months ago, about 20 per cent, of casualties occurred to those unarmed; therefore that is a very important matter. I want to put a question to my right hon. Friend which I hope he will be able to answer. What the man in the street cannot understand, after all the money which the Admiralty has spent, after all the men voted, after everything that the people of the community has done in response to the appeals of the Government, why it is that, two and a half years after the War commenced all our merchant ships are not armed, or have not been armed some time ago? It would give great satisfaction if we could really have an explanation of this matter.
    I see the reason suggested is that there was an outcry about the Zeppelins, and that therefore all the guns we had to spare were devoted to them. I venture to think that my right hon. Friend will not put that plea forward! What we ask is, why it is that the first Naval Power in the world, two and a half years after the War commenced, are rushing about to get guns for our merchant ships? If there is any explanation to be offered I should like to know it. Or is it a case of pure neglect on the part of somebody? We have had many statements made in
    1744
    the course of debate. I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend can give any information to the House as to why we are not more prepared to-day than we are to deal with enemy submarines? Why is it? We are told to-day that millions are being spent on inventions to deal with enemy submarines—this in connection with inventions which were turned down before the War, and have since been turned down periodically. I assert that the majority of things put before us to-day are things that have been turned down for the last, two and a half years, and I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case—indeed, we know it is the case—that six months previous to the outbreak of the War the Admiralty and the Government were informed on the highest naval authority that not only ships should be armed, but that immediate provision should be made to deal with the whole question of enemy submarines. Is there any explanation why, with all our wealth of resources, we have not been more fully prepared than we have been? Everyone is prepared to make allowance for the first six months or year, and it may be longer, but to say at the present time that the naval men are just beginning seriously to think of this matter—because that is what I understand the statement of the First Lord the other day to mean—sounds strange. I do not say that the subject has not been under consideration by various Boards of Admiralty. My right hon. Friend has, I know, been devoting his time to the matter, and probably he will be able to tell us something. Put we must judge by results!
    What are the results at the present time? That there is a tremendous, a feverish, anxiety to prepare against the submarines. I assert that had the Government and the higher authorities made proper use of the inventions put before them, and the advice given to them, there ought never to have been a submarine difficulty at all, and consequently no food crisis. I want to ask a little information about the Board of Inventions. Lord Fisher is Chairman of that Board. There seems to be a difficulty of understanding whether the Admiralty and the Navy are going to apply to Lord Fisher for his ideas in regard to inventions which may deal with the submarines, and many other important naval matters, or whether Lord Fisher's Committee is to communicate with the Admiralty at Whitehall. I hope

    1745
    there will be no delay, because of the order of their going in this respect. I think the public are getting nearly tired of these personal discussions which are taking place. At the same time, it is getting almost disgusting, I think, in view of the great and important crisis through which we are passing. I have my own views—and they are very strong—in regard to the personal matters which have been raised to-day. For my part, however, I am going to be no party to continuing these personal matters, in view of the graver questions we have to consider. I want to ask, therefore, whether the Board of Inventions presents an annual Report. It seems to me that the Board, which we have set up since the War began to deal with these very important matters, ought to present a Report to Parliament. Has one been prepared? Has the Admiralty had an annual Report? It ought to be a quarterly Report. Will these Reports be available for Members of this House? If they are not I hope my right hon. Friend will give the matter his attention and see if we cannot have some indication of what the Board is doing. As I understand it the Board must be costing a very considerable amount of money. I am not complaining of that. I am speaking in complete ignorance as to the amount spent. I understand the members of the Board are paid. I should like some information upon that point. The House, I think, ought to have been given some kind of information by my right hon. Friend as to how the money is being spent, and as to what may be the result of the operations.
    I do not know whether we might ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can explain the tender manner in which Zeebrugge has been dealt with during the last year; why for many months at a time, naval airmen were prevented from making a general air attack, and what was the cause of the delay? That also would be information valuable to the public. Why also was there no naval attack for twelve or eighteen months on Zeebrugge. My opinion is that our naval men would have been much better employed there than they were in the unfortunate Dardanelles expedition. One of the most important questions we might discuss, so far as policy is concerned, relates to Salonika. We are entitled to ask, when we are voting wages to the men in the Navy, that the representative of the Admiralty should explain as to the extent he proposes to employ the
    1746
    men for whom we are voting salaries in transports for Salonika. This is a matter which is pertinant to the Vote. I would say, as a supporter of the Government, the sooner they take the people of this country more into their confidence than they have in regard to Salonika, and all connected with it, the stronger will be the Government. My right hon. Friend cannot be expected without notice to give any statement on this point, but I beg of him to bring the suggestion before the notice of the proper authority. There is only one point more upon which I should like to a little information. It was suggested to me by the speech of ray right hon. Friend who has just sat down. In it he said that "The War was not being carried on from the Whitehall front." That was a most excellent phrase, for which I thank him. I am glad to think that that is so. But I would ask him to give us any information he can as to the number of young men who are entrenched at the present time not very far away from the Whitehall front. My right hon. Friend will agree that in the Return that we had some time ago the Admiralty and the Treasury were the worst offenders in this respect. I trust he will be able to tell us how many young men, under thirty years of age, are being employed, and how many he hopes to relieve within the next two or three months. So far as I am concerned the First Lord of the Admiralty gave an assurance that he personally was going to look into the whole matter. I was perfectly satisfied with that assurance, because I was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring a fair and just mind to the consideration of the question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) asked a question about the Board of Inventions and Research. I also asked a question the other day about that that Board. What I want to know now is whether the Board of Inventions and Research not only hand over completed inventions to the Anti-Submarine Department, but whether they also hand over inventions which are submitted to them without regard to what the Board of Inventions and Research think about them? From my information the Board of Inventions and Research do not hand over these things until they have perfected them. I think that is very inadvisable, because the young submarine officers who constitute the Anti-Submarine Department are the

    1747
    very best qualified men in the world to deal with anti-submarine warfare, and therefore they ought to have every idea submitted to them at once. What makes one more anxious in regard to the Board of Inventions and Research is the very remarkable reference which the First Lord of the Admiralty made a few days ago. He said that he could not imagine that Lord Fisher had not also given ungrudgingly of his abilities and services in trying to solve a problem at this time which strikes at the very existence of this country. A good many other people are asking that question because it has been industriously put about that Lord Fisher has a plan. It he had a plan he was put upon the Committee as Chairman to devise plans which to a great extent were to lay the submarine menace, and the country would naturally expect him to submit that plan to the Board of Admiralty in order that they might judge whether or not it was a good plan. Otherwise, if a plan is not submitted, it would be a reasonable inference that this secret plan is all humbug. Like the secret of Madame Humbert's safe, it really does not exist!
    I do not wish to refer again to any of the subjects to which I drew attention the other day when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, but I wish to raise a few further questions. The First Lord of the Admiralty is a man, as we all know, of great strength of character, and able to hold his own with the other Departments. He is also accessible and has sympathy, qualities which may go far, and will I am sure go far, towards restoring that comradeship between the Departments which ought to have existed throughout the whole of the War. He has already by his reforms in regard to the administration of the Air Service done much to restore the comradeship between the Naval and Military Air Services. I think he could show towards the Shipping Controller, on the part of the Navy, a very much greater degree of comradeship than there is at present. My own belief is that there are numbers of ships of which the Navy has got hold and which it is retaining simply and solely because they are useful. The Shipping Controller is asking for ships because they are vital to bring supplies to this country. What the First Lord of the Admiralty must ask of his advisers when he looks round is, "Are these ships required for vital purposes or are they not?" If they are required merely for utility purposes,
    1748
    he at once will say, "There is another Department which wants them for the vital purpose of bringing supplies to this country."
    I will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty a concrete instance. There are a number of ships around these Islands which are used as stationary hospital ships—not as transport hospital ships. I am informed on trustworthy authority that there are three in Scapa Flow. If the First Lord of the Admiralty goes to his advisers and asks if these three ships are required for vital purposes, or for nothing more than useful purposes, they could not possibly reply other than in the second sense. The obvious alternative, then, is to build huts on shore, as the military have built huts for hospitals. Straight away, then, you will release the services of those hospital ships for the service I have mentioned. That is one direction in which the Admiralty can show a spirit of comradeship towards another great Department of the State. Now there are directions in which the Treasury are not manifesting proper comradeship towards the Navy. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) made his famous apologia in this House on quitting office, he congratulated himself and Lord Fisher on having been free from Treasury control with regard to the great output of shipbuilding for which they were responsible, and for which in many directions the country is greatly indebted. But Treasury control is still manifested in regard to a much more important thing than material, and that is brains. If the Chief of the Staff or the Director of Naval Intelligence wishes to get the services of some special naval officer, or even a civilian who is temporarily an officer of the Navy, the Admiralty has to go to the Treasury for permission. In these days when sweepstakes are encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I think rightly encouraged—I would be prepared to make any bet that was considered fair that it takes a very long time indeed to get sanction for a naval officer's services from the Treasury.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong there. Immediately war broke out, an Emergency Standing Committee was set up, between ourselves and the Treasury, and official sanction was given to us day by day and hour by hour in the ease of urgent matters. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is

    1749
    referring to the ancient practice of getting Treasury sanction, he is right. But from the beginning of the War we set up a system under which we go to the Treasury hourly, and the delay to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring does not exist.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend. Will he state to the House now that the Chief of the War Staff or the Director of Naval Intelligence has never had to wait during this War, and recently, any length of time if he applied for the services of a naval officer whom he thought useful, while the question is being discussed with the Treasury?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will meet my hon. and gallant Friend quite frankly. I have got, as my right hon. Friend said, a very long experience. I could not complain seriously of the Treasury. If they have not invariably met us at once in every respect, I am bound to say they have shown a desire at all times to be expeditious, and they met us at once with the suggestion that: there should be this Emergency Committee, so that there should not be this delay. Of course, if my hon. and gallant Friend asks me to say whether there has ever been a case when the appointment of a naval officer by the Director of Naval Intelligence or War Staff has never met with a suggestion or comment, I could not say that has not been so. But I do not think it could be said that there has been very serious objection on the part of the Treasury, or waste of time in consequence of their action in these matters.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I am afraid I must stick to what I said. I am afraid the civilian element at the Admiralty pulls in too much with the Treasury. I have not only complaint of the civilian element at the Admiralty on this matter, but also in regard to control over men in the dockyards. I would submit to any reasonable demands in the way of a fine if I were to put in some cases, and it was not found that the delay which occurred is as much as three months. That is my information.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me a case? I will certainly look into it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will have some-cases after this Debate submitted to him,
    1750
    in view of what he has said in speaking for the Admiralty. What I contend is that what the late Lord Salisbury said was perfectly true, namely, that the control of the Treasury regulating the great departments of war is not in the public interest. If that were true in regard to peace, it is a thousand times more true in regard to war. It is inconceivable to me that, when in regard to the brain of the Navy the heads of one of these Departments puts forward a demand for the services of a naval officer, there should be one day's delay. They constitute the brains, and they ought to be able to obtain and regulate the service of every naval officer under them. That is not the only direction in which the Treasury is standing in the way. Tile Treasury insists on a certain list being maintained and not exceeded of admirals and captains. That was the list of peace. How is the Board of Admiralty to encourage able young officers if they are not allowed to promote them beyond the usual list? At the present moment there is something like stagnation in the promotion of naval officers. To have only fifteen commanders promoted in the Inst batch, and only two batches a year, is utterly beneath what is required. I would also venture to make a fresh suggestion, in addition to those I made the other day to my right hon. Friend and the Board of Admiralty, with regard to shipping. I think night to conduct a campaign amongst merchant service officers very much like an American railway conducts the "safety-first" campaign among the staff and among the passengers. Many of these merchant service captains have never been taught what a periscope looks like. Many of them, although they have instructions given in regard to the signals, do not know the signals, and that is not their fault. It is the business of the Admiralty to teach them, and also in regard to their behaviour in convoys, supposing they part through storm from a convoy, and so forth. They have also their complaint that very often they have to pursue a fixed route, as in the Mediterranean, where, I think, the arrangements are bad, which exposes them to very much greater danger, and I hope that question will be looked into and improved. The Mediterranean has never been well run, and I hope it will be better run in the future. I know at the Admiralty they are taking steps, and I hope those steps will result in success.

    1751
    I listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert). If he will allow me to say so, he would do much better, in urging the claims of Lord Fisher, to remember the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, that a man is not canonized until a hundred years after his death. His speech struck me as a speech of faith, hope and charity. He has unbounded faith in Lord Fisher. Unfortunately he has not the same unbounded faith in any other sailor, not even Sir John Jellicoe. He has the hope that ho will pilot us to victory, and he has the charity to forget past mistakes and to forgive all the errors associated with the Dardanelles. He spoke of the energetic efforts of Lord Fisher, and nobody would bother about praise of Lord Fisher if it were not coupled with disparagement of everyone else. He spoke of the apathy and inertia which have existed for the past eighteen months, which corresponds with the period which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton has himself been out of the Admiralty, and he makes a demand, or what is a virtual demand, for the expulsion of the present First Lord of the Admiralty and of Sir John Jellicoe, because it must be obvious that if Lord Fisher is imposed on the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman, who is now First Lord of the Admiralty, will go out as well as Sir John Jellicoe. He would never submit to having Lord Fisher forced upon him by an agitation. I have been at some pains to study what has occurred in the past in reference to this matter, and let me say, in regard to what my light hon. Friend the Member for South Molton said of the gallant Admiral of the Fleet who represents Portsmouth, that there is no man who is less actuated by personal animus. He charges him with personal animus. That I do not believe for one moment. I believe the gallant Admiral of the Fleet, whatever may be thought of what he said, has the best interests of the Service at heart, and has no personal animus whatever.
    I have been struck very much with this: That whenever disaster occur, as disasters must occur in every Navy in war, at once a demand is made for Lord Fisher's services. Is that fair to the Board of Admiralty? There was not one single action into which Lord Nelson went, from St. Vincent to Trafalgar, where he did not have disaster prior to victory. The
    1752
    strength of squadrons resided in his brain. Take Copenhagen, for instance. A quarter of his ships went aground, and were out of action before action commenced, and they never fired a shot, yet he pulled it through to complete success. If, whenever a disaster occurs, the demand is made that the present First Lord and First Sea Lord should be replaced, inevitably you lower their prestige and authority, and inevitably also their capacity for being useful to the country. Now we have a submarine crisis, and the demand is again put forward for Lord Fisher to be placed in charge. I have always recognised that we owe a great deal to Lord Fisher. We owe the introduction of oil fuel to him, and the introduction of turbine engines. He has shone as a ''materialist." On these grounds alone he is entitled to the gratitude of the country. He has also made great mistakes, and we are bound to notice them when a demand is put forward that he should be made First Sea Lord. It is paradoxical enough that his reputation depends upon one of his greatest mistakes, and that was this, that he scrapped a great number of foreign dockyards and he scrapped about 150 ships ill the year 1904. Let me illustrate what I mean when I say that was a great mistake. Of those ships which were nominally scrapped, every single one that had not been broken up, and on which the Board of Admiralty could lay their hands, has been since brought forward, commissioned into the Navy, and has been doing splendid work in different parts of the world. That is thirteen years after they were pronounced to be useless. There is not a single one of the foreign dockyards that were dismantled, there is not a single one of the foreign establishments, there is not a single one of the foreign hospitals that were dismantled which have not been revived in this War. And yet among the great statesmen of the day up to a very recent period Lord Fisher's reputation was of the very highest. His scrapping was described by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as "a masterly stroke of the pen," and that accounts for a good many mistakes made subsequently by Lord Fisher, because the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs so absolutely believed in the judgment of Lord Fisher in regard to material that he backed everything he did. I was wrong when I left the impression on the House—and I freely acknowledge it—that Lord Fisher ordered

    1753
    all those 550 patrol boats. The great bulk of them were ordered subsequently by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But in doing so it was represented to him we were in a sudden submarine crisis. The submarines had suddenly appeared in the Mediterranean just prior to Lord Fisher leaving office, and he had to deal with them, and it was represented to him that these boats had the approval of Lord Fisher. He thereupon gave an order for 500, whereas Lord Fisher's order was only for fifty. But, Sir, the big issue in regard to Lord Fisher is that his five months' term of office was determined over the question of the Dardanelles. I wish to say one or two words in refer-once to that expedition. The discussion about the Dardanelles, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, took place in December. 1914, and about 13th January there was a Cabinet Council, at which the matter was considered. On 25th January Lord Fisher submitted a Memorandum, in which he stated, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, that he objected to the use of ships for bombarding purposes except in conjunction with military operations, and that was sound naval strategy in accordance with historical teaching. On 19th February commenced the great bombardment, and between that and the final bombardment no fewer than three Dreadnoughts the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon" were hazarded in those operations.
    If Lord Fisher meant that Memorandum of 25th January as a vital Memorandum, it was Ins duty to resign. I think even the tight hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee would freely acknowledge that if Lord Fisher had put his foot down the operations could not have taken place. I would draw the attention of the Committee to what Napoleon said to the effect that "every general who undertakes to carry out a plan he thinks bad is a criminal." On 18th March three battleships were lost, and the "Invincible" was badly injured by a mine though she was able to creep back to Malta. Then the Admiralty issued an official statement. They did not publish the naval dispatches, but issued instead one of the most extraordinary documents ever sent out to the public. They said that there was a new danger of drifting mines that would have to be prepared for. The Chinese used
    1754
    drifting mines, and they have constantly been used in the past. There was a three-knot current through the Dardanelles into the Mediterranean, and it was an absolute certainty that drifting mines would be used. But that was not the worst part of this document. The Admiralty stated that ample military forces were on the spot. Why disclose to the enemy five weeks in advance that it was our intention to land men? I think that showed instability of thought. On 25th April the landing took place, exactly three months after Lord Fisher's Memorandum saying that the bombardment should not be undertaken except in conjunction with the military forces. On 13th May the "Goliath" was lost by a Turkish destroyer.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The point now being dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member does not seem to mo to relate to the Estimate before the Committee. It seems to me to be a matter that might take up the whole evening, and it does not seem to have any relation to the proposal which the Admiralty have laid before the Committee.
    Commander BELLAIRS: What I am leading up to is that a new danger came into being just at the time Lord Fisher resigned, and that was the submarine menace. On 14th May Lord Fisher quitted office.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Naval Estimates before the Committee are to be utilised as an opportunity for reviewing all these past events, which happened certainly eighteen months or two years ago, it seems to me that it will be of no practical use laying them before the Committee at all if the time is to be taken up in that way. The hon. and gallant Member must come to subjects of capital interest which affects the proposals of the Admiralty now before the Committee.
    Mr. DILLON: Is not the Vote under discussion one upon which, by long-established custom, the whole policy of the Navy can be discussed? Earlier in this discussion two hon. Members discussed this matter at great length, and they were ruled by the Chairman to be in order on this very question.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss questions of policy that happened eighteen months ago under a previous Administration. If you are going

    1755
    to raise such questions, I do not see how you are going to deal with the matter before us in the Estimate. I do not know what ruling has been given, but that is the ruling I give now.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I wish to point out that just at the moment when Lord Fisher resigned from the Board of Admiralty the only new question which was coming into being was that of the German submarines appearing in the Mediterranean, where they are now, and hardly one had been sunk in that sea. On 14th May Lord Fisher resigned his office, and the only new factor was that of which the Admiralty had had warning in "November, 1914, that German submarines would be sent overland in parts and put together in the Adriatic. On 25th May the ''Triumph" was sunk and on 27th May the ''Majestic" was sunk, and Lord Fisher quitted his office the moment the menace came into being and left others to face a less severe manifestation of the very submarine danger with which my right hon. Friend is now called upon to deal.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that it would be far better to wait for the Report of the, Dardanelles Commission. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you raise the question of Lord Fisher?"]
    Commander BELLAIRS: I will accept the advice of my right hon Friend. Sir John Jellicoe has borne the burden and heat of the day. He has been at the helm; he is now the pilot at the Admiralty, and it is not fair play that we should come forward in this House with proposals to substitute another man for him.
    Mr. WING: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench for sonic guarantee as to the distribution of honours to certain classes who are taking part in the War, and to which they themselves have called special attention. There is no part of the community which does not thoroughly appreciate the eulogium which has been passed upon the minesweepers, the men who have done so much towards clearing the mines in the North Sea, and who also were exceedingly successful in chasing submarines in the North Sea. I rise for the purpose not of criticising or saying anything to the Admiralty in a critical mood but rather to encourage them, because I feel that the Admiralty have quite enough critics, and what they want is a little more encouragement in
    1756
    regard to the great questions they have in hand. I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the men now coming under the rule of the Admiralty will get proper treatment in regard to honours. I know there has been a certain distribution of honours in the way of V.C.'s and other decorations, and whilst the men have had very fair treatment as far as their pay and care of their dependants is concerned, and have very little room for complaint, still there is a feeling amongst the community in regard to what distinguishing mark you are going to grant these men who have not received these various decorations. Are they going back into the community as deep-sea or inshore fishermen without anything to show that they have really taken so important a part in this great War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They get a war medal.
    Mr. WING: Thank you. There is a general feeling that our deep-sea fishermen and lifeboatmen should be better cared for in the future than in the past. In regard to the late Battle of Jutland, Admiral Jellicoe, in his dispatch, made this statement, that every ship that took part in that battle exceeded in speed its past previous record, which means that every fireman was not only at his post but did his duty. I want to ask, are the honours which have been distributed amongst those who took part in that great naval battle being equally distributed, are so many going to one ship, or are there individual ratings receiving so many honours as is thought right? There is a public feeling that requires to know whether these men who have little of the glory of war who hear the giving of orders and feel the recoil of the guns, and have no idea of the scale of operations they are going through, whether they are having an equal share of the honours with those who took part in the great battles. Seeing now that the mercantile marine are so much under the control of the Government, is there any means by which the ordinary able seaman may know in the future that he took part in this great conflict in running the blockade of the U-boats and of standing at his post and doing his duty daily, or is he going to pass into civilian life without any evidence that he took part in this great combat? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to give the general public some information on those three points upon which I can assure him there is a good deal of uneasiness in the public mind. These men

    1757
    are largely out of sight and they may be overlooked. The general public have no desire that they should be overlooked and that they should have all the honours to which they are justly entitled.
    7.0.p.m.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I desire to deal with the question of the men in the Navy who are known as engineer-artificers. Two-thirds of them are drawn from the industrial workshops of the country, and many rise to superior and officer positions. Many of them have served their time to various trades and are thoroughly competent men before they join the Navy. I am anxious to draw attention to one or two points in connection with their pay, which, especially under existing circum stances, merit the attention of the Admiralty. Engine-room artificers start at 5s. 6d. per day, and, after a certain length of service, rise to 7s. 6d. per day. It is as long ago as 1883 that the wages of these men were fixed, and the standard rate then prevailing in London for men of the type of those who were taken into the Navy as artificers was 36s. per week. It is obvious that there has been a great and wide and ever-increasing margin between the rates of wages existing in 1883 and the wages paid since. I believe that the wages paid to-day in London would be more nearly 48s. than 36s. There are, moreover, in the engineering shops of this country an enormous number of highly-skilled men earning very much higher wages than that. Yet these men, possessing exactly the same degree of skill, and many of them probably even higher skill, start at 5s. 6d. and range up to 7s. 6d. per day as chief petty officers. The cost of living, as everybody knows, has appreciated enormously—between 80 and 90 per cent. Many of these men are married and have wives and families to look after, and it is time now that some consideration was given to this question. I am sure in the various naval engagements which have taken place these men have displayed as high a degree of heroism as any section of men in the Navy. One must remember that they are stowed away in the lower parts of the vessels, looking after the engines, the boilers, and all the rest of it, and they have not very much chance of escape if the ship is sunk. They take all these risks quite cheerfully, and they are prepared to do their duty to the best of their
    1758
    ability. They have always displayed the greatest possible loyalty to their King and country, and I have no hesitation in saying, seeing the difficulties that they have to face, that there is really an exceedingly good ease for the Admiralty giving some consideration to the question of their wages.
    There is no need to overstate the case. The mere fact that thirty-four years have gone by since consideration was last given to the question is an indication that there is a good deal of leeway to be made up. The difficulty existing to-day must be obvious to all. A constant appeal Is made to the men in the workshops to join the Navy as artificers. Obviously it is rather a big question to put to a man, and with the wages as they exist to-day, compared with those prevailing in the workshops of the country, he cannot possibly do justice to himself and those dependent upon him. These men have every wish to do their duty to their country, and many of them are anxious to get into the Navy, but it is too much to expect that they should join as willingly as they otherwise would if the conditions in the Navy were such as to appeal to them. I desire to impress as strongly as I can upon the Admiralty the desirability of giving attention to this matter. For a number of years now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) and myself have drawn attention to the question of the introduction of mechanicians into the Navy. These men are stokers to-day, and they are being specially trained to some extent to take the place of artificers. The artificer did not look with pleasure upon this particular move, but the scheme has been in operation now for a good many years, and, instead of continuing their opposition and resentment to the introduction of the scheme, they think if attention were given to the question of their wages that it would to a very large extent meet their particular complaint.
    There is another matter with which I should like to deal, but I do not quite know whether it comes within the scope of this discussion. It is the question of the wages of the workmen in the dockyards. Many men employed in the dockyards to-day have a very keen grievance regarding existing conditions. Shortly after the outbreak of the War there were many industrial disputes in the country, and an appeal was made to the trade

    1759
    unions to close down these disputes and to accept a scheme whereby all these questions of difference might be laid before what is called the Committee on Production. The trade unions almost unanimously closed down all the disputes that were in existence when the War broke out. My own union had no less than twelve different industrial disputes existing at the time, and within a fortnight all of them had been closed down. All the trade unions desired to have no disputes at all, but to have the opportunity of stating their grievances to some impartial tribunal with power to come to some understanding and to give an award which should in some measure cover the question in dispute. Since then the Munitions Act has been passed, and the result, so far as the controlled firms are concerned, is that where any dispute arises between the workpeople on the one hand and the employer on the other there is a proper legal method whereby the case, whether it affects wages, conditions of labour, overtime, or any of the thousand-and-one things which are of interest to the men in the workshop can be argued out before a tribunal composed of three impartial persons appointed by the Government to take notice of and settle these disputes. The Act applies practically to all the principal firms in the country, but so far as I have been able to glean, the Admiralty take up the position that they are exempt.
    I want to deal with the question of the craftsmen. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence on the matter, and the question affects many dockyards in the country. The men complain very strongly about their position. We desire to bring their case before the Committee on Production, but so far the Admiralty have stood in the way, preventing us from having the matter inquired into in a proper and businesslike way and getting a settlement. They are acting as judge and jury in their own case. I am quite prepared to admit that the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty does his best to give fair and reasonable consideration to these matters, and he has shown not only a willingness, but an agreeability to meet me on many of these questions with satisfaction both to the men and I hope to the Admiralty. There are some questions upon which, however, we fail to agree. I want to suggest to him and to the Admiralty
    1760
    that wherever a legitimate difference exists it should be allowed to go before the Committee on Production, to give the men an opportunity of stating their case, and that, after all, is all that they ask. It may be that they will succeed and it may be that they will fail. If it succeeds, all right. If it is a failure, at any rate they will know that everything has been done to state their case in a fair and reasonable manner, and they will have no complaint to lay to the charge of the Admiralty. I have put several questions in the House on this matter, some of them to the late Prime Minister, and I am rather inclined to think his view was that these matters really ought to come before the Committee on Production. I may say, further, that recently a tribunal was set up which we had anticipated would cover the cases of a considerable number of these workmen in the Royal dockyards, but we find that a certain limitation has been imposed; it is only to apply to men in clerical employment.
    If the Munitions Act is not acceptable to the Admiralty, some tribunal should be set up to deal with these cases. At one time there was an arrangement whereby these men were entitled to send in petitions annually. I agree it would be very difficult in these strenuous times to go through the whole business in connection with the hundreds of petitions that are sent to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. It would be too great a strain upon his time for him to inquire into all these matters. If the questions could be sent to the Committee on Production it would save him an enormous amount of work, and at the same time it would afford great satisfaction to the men. It would get rid of an enormous number of what may appear to be trifling complaints, and it certainly would provide a way out of the existing impasse. These men feel that they are labouring under very great difficulties indeed. They keep sending complaints to their respective trade unions. Some of these questions have been banging on for eighteen months or more, but I see no way out of the difficulty so long as the Admiralty prevent them using the Munitions Act to bring them to a settlement.
    After all, it is not quite fair to these men that the Admiralty should take every advantage of the Munitions Act in this sense. Under the Munitions Act a man cannot leave his employment, although

    1761
    many of them could easily get far higher wages in private employ. But they cannot leave their unemployment under the Admiralty unless they are content to remain out of work for six weeks, and even then they might have considerable difficulty in securing re-employment if the employer found out what had transpired. It is not quite the right thing, therefore, that the Admiralty should seize all these advantages conferred by the Munitions Act and at the same time deny to their men in the dockyards the only privilege which the Act would confer upon them, of stating their grievances before a Committee which has been specially appointed by the Government for the purpose. At present the Admiralty has it both ways, whereas it is only right and reasonable that each side should have the same chance when questions affecting wages and conditions of labour arise.
    I think I have said sufficient to indicate there is a very real grievance in this matter, and I trust that the Financial Secretary may be able to give us some assurance that a way will be found out of the difficulty, whether by bringing workmen in the Royal dockyards under the Munitions Act or by creating some special tribunal to which their grievances can be submitted. It matters not which, so long as there is a method whereby men with grievances can secure some kind of remedy. They would appreciate that very highly. No one will deny to-day that these men have, during the whole of this War, worked all possible hours. They have worked without the slightest stoppage of labour, they have worked unending overtime, and they have been a real credit to the nation and to the dockyard. Workmen in private employ have a direct and speedy remedy for their grievances. The men in the Royal dockyards have practically none. I trust, therefore, some attention will be given to this question, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman if a remedy is found he will earn the thanks of the men in the Royal dockyards, who, after all, only desire fair and reasonable treatment.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I do not intend to pass under review the deeds of the Royal Navy, or to criticise the action of the Admiralty, but I wish to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), who pointed out that our fishermen and short-voyage men have done marvellous work during the War. I am confi-
    1762
    dent that, without their aid, the Navy would never have achieved the success which has attended its operations. I hope the Admiralty will see that, in the days to come, these men receive proper recognition of their great services to the country. I often wonder whether or not the Admiralty does take care to see that their men do get proper recognition. One has only to remember the four great sea fights, the one off Heligoland, the battle of the Falkland Islands, the cruiser fight in the North Sea, and the Jutland Bank fight, and one cannot help wondering whether proper recognition has been given to the men who fought those battles. Remember that each ship is a unit in itself; one might describe it as equal to a battalion. Certain honours are given, but are the men's actions properly recognised? Take the Falkland Islands battle. I have a photograph of the "Invincible" steaming into action. What recognition was given to her crew? Or taking the battle of Jutland Bank. What recognition was given to the crew of the "New Zealand"? I put these points to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in the hope that he will give them due consideration and see that proper honours are awarded to these men.
    The second point I want to raise is in regard to the building of standardised ships. I have always been heartily in favour of building these ships, but I want to know are they being provided with proper platforms for guns? Are they being built so that they will be able to defend themselves? Or are you going to leave the provision of defensive arrangements until after the ships have been built? Our merchant ships in the olden times used to be armed, and the captains were always told to defend them. I have statistics showing the number of guns on our ships in the first year for which there is a list given, in 1701. England and Wales then had 3,281 ships, with a tonnage of 261,000 tons, carrying 27,196 men, and 5,660 guns. In those days it was considered the proper thing for our merchant ships to defend themselves if attacked by an enemy. I hope the Admiralty will go on building the ships, taking care that they are fitted for armed defence at once instead of leaving that as a matter of subsequent arrangement. I asked a friend of mine, one of the ablest masters of tramp steamers, what he thought of the standardised ships. He replied, "I have been arguing in favour of that for years, and I

    1763
    made the remark when the Ford cars came out that if we could only standardise our ships it would have the same effect on the tramp carriers of the world as the Ford cars have had on the American motor industry—which they have revolutionised." I hope the Admiralty will build as many standardised ships as they possibly can.
    Mr. HOHLER: It is very difficult indeed to adequately express one's admiration for the conduct of our Navy. We do not know much of what the Admiralty is doing, but we do believe it is doing everything that is needful in this great crisis. I confess, however, I should like to hear more about our Naval Air Service, and as to the nature of the work it does. Is it doing service on land, or is it confined entirely to service at sea? From time to time it breaks out, for instance it has recently made a useful raid on Bruges, but otherwise we hear nothing about it, except that there is considerable expense attached to it. I should like a little information about its proper sphere of action. I know there has been an improvement in regard to certain abuses to which I called attention a year ago, but there are other matters which call for inquiry, and one is as to whether the officers, or the temporary officers, of the Royal Naval Service are carrying on their work in that service at the same time as they are engaged in their other business, and if the country really gets value for the money it is spending? I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to look further into this matter to see if the money is being well spent.
    I wish to say a few words in regard to the men of the Royal Navy, and especially on behalf of those who have been recalled to the Service while enjoying their naval pension. Has the Admiralty yet devised any scheme by which these men are to get additional remuneration? There are two classes of men concerned. There is the class who have completed their period of long service—twenty years—and who have been retained in the Service under existing Acts of Parliament, or by the Act passed in 1915, and then there are the men who have already retired and have been called back. Pension has always been considered part of a man's pay, although it is deferred until the termination of his service. Take the case of a chief petty officer who has retired on a pension of 3s a day. He has been called back to the
    1764
    Service. His pay is 5s. 6d., but if you deduct the pension which he has already earned and which he was enjoying, then he is only getting 2s. 6d. There, I think, he suffers a grievous injustice, and it is rendered the more unjust for this reason: that in the case of men in the Civil Service who have joined the Army or Navy, with the consent of the heads of their Departments or have been called up—you give them the difference between their civil pay and their military or naval pay, as the case may be. Why do we differentiate as against men of our Navy who ought to be drawing pensions? It is obvious that these men are entitled to pensions. In some cases they have earned one of 3s. a day, yet when they are called up that pension is lost to them, although it is money earned. They may lose their lives. They are risking their lives in a magnificent way, for which we are so greatly indebted to them, yet all they get by way of a pension is 2s. 6d. or 3s. That is entirely wrong. The miserable additional pay of 2d. a day, or some ridiculous sum, might have been adequate fifty or a 100 years ago, but it is quite out of proportion today. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty is going to do something for those men who are still serving, although they are entitled to a pension.
    Another class of men about whom I wish to speak are the petty officers. I do not hesitate to say, nobody will deny it, that the potty officers and chief petty officers are really the backbone of the Navy. I brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend some time ago the question whether he could not do something for the petty officers. Under existing conditions it is practically impossible for the majority of the petty officers to rise to the highest rating of chief petty officers; firstly, owing to the limited number of appointments and the very long intervals that must elapse before a man is recommended for a petty officer, and, secondly, because after becoming a petty officer, he has to go through the years of service necessary for the recommendation to chief petty officer. I suggested to my right hon. Friend some time ago that he should create a new grade of chief petty officers called "chief petty officers, second grade." That would improve the prospects and position of these men. I should like to know whether the matter is still under consideration, and whether there is a prospect of some-

    1765
    thing being given to this magnificent body of men. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. C. Duncan) referred to engine room artificers, chief artificers, and artificer engineers. I shall not repeat what he said, because I concur in his remarks. But there is another branch of men in the Navy who deserve some consideration at the hands of the Admiralty, namely, the carpenters. They are really shipwrights, because they are no longer workers in wood but workers in iron, yet because of some obstinacy, for some reason unintelligible to me except that I am told that "carpenter" is the time-honoured name upon which the Admiralty still insist, they will call them carpenters when they ask to be called shipwrights. That small concession the Admiralty do not grant them. I also desire to draw attention to their pay. They receive on entry 5s. a day, and they work up by certain stated rises to 10s. a day. There is one very grave injustice from which they suffer. When they have done fifteen years service as carpenters, they automatically rise to the rank of chief carpenters. What I cannot understand is while those engaged in similar ratings—the gunner and the boatswain, and so on—have a periodical rise at the end of every five years of Is., and when a man comes to the fifteenth year of his service in that position, if in fact he is not promoted, there is still a further rise of one shilling, in the case of the carpenter who, like the others, is automatically promoted, there is no rise for him at the end of his fifteenth year of service. I contend that that is absolutely wrong. The carpenters feel it acutely. A shipwright or carpenter enters the Navy as a skilled man at his trade at 5s. a day; on the other hand, the gunner and boatswain enter at somewhere about 3s. The result of the scheme adopted by the Admiralty is that the gunner and boatswain, although they enter at 3s., ultimately rise to a rate of pay equal to that of a chief carpenter when they attain the rank of chief gunner and chief boatswain. That is an ingenious device for levelling down the carpenter, but it is quite wrong, and some consideration ought to be given to the matter.
    In conclusion, I trust that the Admiralty are now alive to the great need of keeping our dockyards fully employed. It has been a matter of complaint on several occasions, and up to a time we wholly failed to get any improvement. The result was
    1766
    that in some dockyards that one knows the ships and plant were left absolutely unused and idle, whereas if they could have been used as they might have been, and if work done outside could have been done in the dockyards there would have been a considerable body of labour set free for building merchant ships, of which we stand in so much need. There is one matter which creates dissatisfaction in regard to which I have had complaints from various parts of the Empire. It is with regard to the men who have been called up from their dockyards and from various employments, and who, by the promise given, should have entered the establishment in the yards as and when they were recommended for it. Notwithstanding that, there are cases of men within my knowledge who have been recommended, but that promise, which I clearly understood had been made, has not been carried out. It is to be deferred. I hear constant complaints from the men that there is a want of loyalty to the promise given which creates a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest in their minds. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me some assurance and statement on these matters.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the points raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to the forty encounters mentioned by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in his statement on Wednesday. My right hon. Friend said:
    "The fact that we have got to grips with them—
    that is submarines——
    "forty times in eighteen days is an enormous achievement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1917, col. 1370.]
    My right hon. Friend asked whether that only involved destroyers or whether other craft were employed? It involved patrol craft, destroyers and merchant vessels, and was not at all confined to destroyers. Of course, the merchant vessels were acting in self-defence in those cases. My right hon. Friend also asked why the merchant vessels were not all armed long ago. I think he suggested that it was pure neglect on somebody's part. That really will not do. My right hon. Friend knows that the demand for guns on all fronts, for all sorts of purposes, was far more than could be met in such a way as to meet every demand for the quantities required.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: After two years?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I think my right hon. Friend is fully aware of that. To say that somebody has been guilty of neglect is quite beside the mark. With regard to defence against submarine attack, the effect of his comment was that somebody at some time or other had not been active enough in dealing with this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), in dealing with this question on the introduction of the Estimates on Wednesday last, made this comment:
    "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—
    My right hon. Friend must not imagine that the activities of the Admiralty have begun this year——
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was responsible?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is perfectly true. He went on to say:
    "some have been developed in the lime of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, for many valuable lines of inquiry were pursued in his tenure of office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February. 1917, col. 1376.]
    That statement is perfectly true, and to suggest, if not in specific terms by inference, that because an Anti-Submarine Department was not established a year previously, therefore somebody has been wanting in pursuing this matter, is unfounded.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it true that you are now dealing with an invention that was turned down before the War and after the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say. If my hon. Friend will give me notice I will make inquiries. With regard to the Board of Inventions, Lord Fisher is paid for his services and the members of the permanent staff are paid, but the Board of Technical, Scientific, and Expert Advisers, including men like Sir J. Thomson, Sir Charles Parsons, and Sir G. Beilby, are not paid. My right hon. Friend asked whether we could issue a Report of the work upon which they are engaged. That work is partly highly confidential. I gather that he wants a statement for Parliamentary purposes as to their proceedings so far as they can be disclosed, either quarterly or annually. That is a suggestion well worthy of consideration, and
    1768
    consideration will be given to it. I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for calling attention to what is quite inelegantly called "combing-out," particularly in the Department in which I am associated. I want to have a few words with him on that. I understand that he made no criticism, but simply asked a question. I am very much obliged to him for doing so, because it enables me to state the facts. All the. Departments in the Admiralty on 1st November, 1915, were called upon to forward lists of their staff, divided into three classes, those classes were: first, those whose services could be spared on replacement by women' or by men ineligible for military service: second, those whose services were not absolutely indispensable but who could" not be dispensed with without serious inconvenience to the work; and third, those whose services were absolutely indispensable. We got them all classified in those three classes and made arrangements that all those in Class A should be released directly, and many of those in Class B should be also released, and that others should pass into Class A and join the Colours where it could be done, or, if it should prove that they were absolutely indispensable, they should pass down into Class C. As a result of these steps we were able to release. 640 by 1st April, 1916. That is a number equivalent to 42 per cent, of the total pre-war staff of the Admiralty, and the gradual release of men under that system went on throughout 1916 up till October, by which date it had reached 842 men.
    In October, 1916, the Man-Power Distribution Board addressed a circular to all Departments asking for special steps to be taken to release as many men as possible who were fit for general military service, and who were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. On receipt of that letter we appointed a special committee in the Admiralty over which the late Civil Lord, Lord Lytton, presided. Their duty was to review, individually, every case which fell within the area to which the Man-Power Distribution Board called out attention, and to release all who could be spared within the space of three months. The only section of the civil staff which was specially excepted from that operation consisted of trained, constructive and engineering staff, and we considered it impossible, under any circumstances, to spare men belonging to this

    1769
    class for military service, and certain reservations were made as regards members of the special staff handling the secret code arrangements and so on which passed between the Admiralty and the Fleet at Sea. We do not want that to pass through too many hands, and we do not want new men to be taken on to learn it. This review took place, and out of 260 men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five it was found possible to release 135, and these releases have taken place accordingly. The Committee went further. It recommended that, in anticipation of the need to consider the cases of men of thirty and under and unmarried men up to thirty-five, steps should be taken to arrange for medical examination of all men of these ages in order that when it had been ascertained which were fit for military service the question of providing suitable understudies for those for whose release it might appear possible to provide in due time might be continually kept in view, and reports of progress in that direction rendered.
    Then we come to the recent order of the Director-General of National Service for the release of all men between the ages of eighteen, and twenty-two inclusive. That order affects eighty-nine men who, in the opinion of Lord Lytton's Committee, would not be released—at any rate without a considerable interval being allowed to provide for an understudy. However, we are going to do what we can to meet that, though we may have to make representations to the Director-General of National Service in regard to a certain number of men, because of the very specialised character of their work. These are the lines on which the matter has been dealt with, and the result of what has been done, as shown in actual figures, is this If I take the total civil staff, excluding messengers and cleaners, it was 1,502 on the outbreak of the War. It has increased to 5,180 at present. The number of women included in this staff was nil at the outbreak of the War and is now 1,752. The number of men released since the outbreak of the War was 640 up to 1st April, 1916, after the first review. The number was increased to 842 in October last, and after the releases arranged for as the result of Lord Lytton's review it will have reached 1,049. The number of men of military age on the outbreak of the War was 988 out of a total staff of 1,502. On 1st April, 1916, excluding medically rejected men, the number had risen to 1,417 out of a total
    1770
    staff of 3,918. We had reduced it to 1,192 out of a total staff of 4,688 by October, 1916, and we have now brought it down to 993 out of 5,180. We do not want to shelter anybody behind the badge of indispensability, unless he is indispensable, but very important work is done in that office, and we must have some regard to the efficiency of the work, which is highly complicated and technical. For the purely simple work in an office like ours we do our best—I mean work for which experience is not necessory—with women and boys and old men who are not fit for military service.
    Let my right hon. Friend notice this very curious fact. It is suggested that you can get a capable staff quickly by merely going outside and bringing in people outside the military age. Nothing can be further from the truth. Since the War began we have entered as temporary clerks, have partly trained and have then lost the services of 1,484 men and 550 women, some of whom were probably inefficient. Lord Lytton's Committee, consisting of himself, Rear-Admiral Parry and the Assistant-Secretary to the Admiralty, made this final recommendation:
    "That as the sole question of release or retention of men is being and must be dealt with solely with reference to the needs of the Admiralty, and without regard to the wishes of the men concerned, every opportunity should be taken in justice to these men of making the position clear to Parliament, and the public and of shielding them from the unfair attacks and insinuations which have lately been current."
    I strongly concur in that recommendation. We say to a man who is eating his heart out to go, "You cannot go, you must stay here." I do not want to harbour any men of military age who ought to be sent. We say to these young fellows:
    "My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, after careful review of the needs of this Department with the object of releasing all men who can be spared to join the Army, have decided that your services cannot, be dispensed with. It is your duty therefore to remain at your post, at the Admiralty. By command of their Lordships."
    We ought not to say that unless those men are absolutely indispensable, but having said it, is it not a little hard that men anxious to go should be attacked, not here, not by my right hon. Friend, but in the Press as hiding in the funk-holes of Whitehall?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: We were told about six months ago that all the men who could be spared had gone. My right hon. Friend tells us now that a thousand more have been allowed to go. The men are not to blame. It is the Admiralty itself.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I never said six months ago that every man who could be spared had gone. I have said we have to train others to take the places of those who can go, but these people cannot be trained at a moment's notice. Of course, we must not screen these for our own selfish ends or to make life easier for us or for the permanent Civil Service, but having determined that these men are indispensable, I say again it is rather hard lines for a young fellow, who is just as anxious to go as the men who have gone before him and who have this order in their pockets, "You cannot go; you must stop here, to be insulted, as I think, by the suggestion in print and in comic pictures that they are hiding in the funk-holes of Whitehall, and on their behalf I resent it. In order that I might say that which I have felt very strongly for some time, I am deeply obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity. As regards Treasury control, I do not think I could fairly criticise the Treasury for obstructing or causing delay in requests made to them. I explained earlier the system of Emergency Standing Committee, with which my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) is very familiar. That has been of the utmost value to us to secure expedition, and although I do not deny that the Treasury may occasionally have sent to us and said, "Why do you not take action in regard to a particular matter?" or "Why do you not look into this more closely?" I could not, after very long experience of the matter, say that the Treasury had raised any question which involved delay which would otherwise be avoided.
    References have been made to men engaged by the Admiralty on the various Fleet auxiliaries, trawlers, and fishing boats, and I have been asked whether these men will in due season be eligible for whatever decoration is awarded to men of the Fleet for gallant action at sea and whether at the end of the War they would share in the awards which would be made to men of the Navy proper. As regards decorations, these men have in the service of the Admiralty, and whatever is open to men of the Fleet will also be open to these men. As regards war medals or awards, I can only repeat the answer which I gave my hon. Friends (Sir H. Norman and Mr. Peto) a year ago:
    "The Board of Admiralty cordially associates itself with the tribute which my hon. Friends have paid in
    1772
    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 tike this opportunity also of acknowledging their 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, Vol. LXXX.]
    8.0.P.M.
    With regard to the wages of engine-room artificers the pay of the men of the Fleet was increased by £337,657 a year in December, 1912. I am not going to say that they got a lot of that because they did not, but if I remember rightly, they came in for some small consideration, it that time. As regards their wages, the figures I am going to give are exclusive of extra pay, and so on. A chief petty officer of the engine-room artificer Class D gets 5s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. a day, and when he reaches the rank of warrant officer his pay is 8s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. a day. If he reaches the rank of commissioned warrant officer his pay is 11s. 6d. to 13s. 6d. a day. They have opportunities to some extent of reaching these higher commissioned positions. The hon. Member compares these men with men occupying similar posts outside. When he puts these men in juxtaposition with engineers in workshops outside he must remember that these men get rations. They get a first issue of their kits, and they get an allowance towards their kit if promoted to warrant rank. In addition, if they have long service they get a pension, which is a consideration. All these things have to be taken into account before you can compare the pay of the men in outside works tops with the total pay and emoluments of the engine-room artificer men in the Navy. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) referred to tie case of a pensioner who was detained for service during the War under war emergency conditions. I think he is slightly wrong in his facts. If the man has been discharged on pension and is called back to service the pension is not withheld from him, but he continues to enjoy it. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend is wrong. On the other hand, if the man reaches the pensionable age while he is still serving, under legislation which war emergency has made necessary, he is not discharged then, but he continues to work and does not get the pension which would otherwise be due to him at that moment, but he gets 2d. a day detained pay. He will

    1773
    get his pension, if ho lives, at the close of hostilities. In the meantime, he will have enjoyed his full pay.
    Mr. HOHLER: No. Supposing his full pay is 5s. a day and his pension is 3s., he is giving his services for 2s. a day.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I accept that, but he gets his pay increased by 2d. a day, and when the time comes to get his pension the pension will be enhanced because of the service he has given. In the meantime his wife is getting separation allowance. She would not have been getting separation allowance, and he would not have been getting his pay, with 2d. a day added to it, if he had got his pension when his time expired. I do not think there is ground for complaint on the whole. I have looked into the whole matter. It seems to me that as the wife is getting separation allowance, and he is getting increased pay during the time his pension has been deferred, it is not such a bad arrangement after all.
    An HON. MEMBER: Does he get an increased pension?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, in respect of additional service. Further, his pension is secured to him, unless, of course, he commits a very grave offence. It is assured to him for all ordinary purposes.
    Mr. HOHLER: But the increased pension will be very small.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is according to scale, but I do not make very much of it. Coming now to the question of the pay and conditions in the Royal dockyards, particularly of yard craftsmen, I want to pay a tribute of sincere thanks to the men and the women in the Royal dockyards for the loyal and devoted service which they have rendered during the last thirty months. They have met all the demands made upon them with little complaint or question. They have seen set aside, because it is not physically possible to carry it out during the War, the operation of a piece of machinery which is of great importance to them. We have a system, and a very excellent system, under which the men and women can submit their petitions annually to the Board of Admiralty for an annual review of their position in regard to rates of pay, pension contributions, and the rest of it. These things have been set aside because they cannot be carried out during the War, and they have seen them
    1774
    set aside without complaint. I desire, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, to pay a sincere tribute to these men and women for the way they have met us during the strain of the War. Not only have these men and women met us so well in regard to their direct personal efforts, but they have made little fuss about the setting aside of demarcation rules, or about the introduction of dilution and substitution. At the present time we have shipwrights and shipwrights employed together. We have joiners employed with shipwrights doing work which the shipwright formerly claimed as exclusively his own. We have plumbers and shipwrights doing work which the coppersmith previously regarded as comprised within the scope of his trade. In other cases we have shipwrights doing work which ordinarily is carried out by plumbers. As regards dilution, the number of women employed in the Royal dockyards before the War was about 400; to-day it is about 3,300, and we shall want more, in my judgment—many more.
    The hon. Member (Mr. Duncan) seems to think that we repudiate the obligations of the Munitions of War Act. The last thing we should wish to do would be to exploit the patriotic impulse which has led these people to agree to these modifications, extensions, dilutions, and substitutions. We desire as regards the Royal dockyards and naval establishments to carry out fully in the spirit and the letter the undertaking given by the Government, with which all these war emergency changes have been accompanied. Demarcation rules, trade union restrictions, and so forth, have been set aside in order to allow semi-skilled men and women to come forward to help us in the emergency of the War. We are keeping a record of all changes in customs and practice which the emergency of the War has rendered necessary. We have fully accepted the assurances of the original Treasury agreement, and the same are now posted, for the better information of the men and women, in all our yards. As regards yard craft conditions, which is the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. Member (Mr. Duncan), I should be very glad to go through the whole conditions of the yards, I have gone into these matters with him before, with mutual advantage. I would now appeal to the Committee to give us these two Votes.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will the hon. Member receive a deputation in regard to the yard craftsmen?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. I do not want to create the impression that we wish the men to agree to dilution, substitution, etc., and at the same time we are to set aside all sorts of assurances and protection. That is not so.
    Mr. DUNCAN: You do not give them a chance of appearing before the Committee on Production.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They have been before the Committee and they got their war bonus from the Committee. As regards the details of the organisation and conditions of the yards, I shall be very glad to receive a deputation.
    Mr. BOLAND: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to a case which I brought to his notice in regard to the wireless operators on board Admiralty ships. I know of the case of a young fellow who joined at the beginning of the War and he was posted to a ship. Since then he has not been promoted to a shore station, although he has made several applications for it, while men who have joined since he joined have been put to shore stations first. It is only fair in the case of these wireless operators that those who joined at the very beginning of the War should be given an opportunity of getting a position on shore in preference to those who joined at a later date. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the case of these wireless operators. I am particularly interested in the matter because in my own Constituency we have one of the most important wireless colleges in the United Kingdom, where a number of young men are being trained week after week to take up this very arduous and necessary work for the Navy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to agree that men who joined at the beginning of the War should have priority for positions at shore stations.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has communicated with me about this matter with the usual courtesy which characterises him when he has cases for consideration. The naval authorities cannot undertake to say that any man, because he has been so long afloat, shall therefore necessarily go to a shore station. The exigencies of the Service will not permit of that being done. Nevertheless, I shall be very glad if the hon. Member will come with me to the
    1776
    Admiralty and state his case to the naval authorities. We cannot say that sea service shall necessarily qualify for a billet ashore. If the naval authorities say that this case cannot be met in the way the hon. Member suggests, I am quite sure my hon. Friend will be perfectly satisfied with the answer which they feel bound to give.
    Amendment negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COASTGUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.
    Resolved,
    2. "That a Sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

  ARRESTS IN IRELAND.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10,
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  This is not the occasion to discuss the general situation in Ireland. I expect we shall have full opportunity for that next week. I shall endeavour to confine what I say as strictly as possible to the terms of the Resolution on which I am moving the Adjournment of the House—that is to call attention to the arrest and banishment of twenty-eight Irishmen without any charge being made against them and to the declaration of the Government that it is not their intention to put them on their trial. The Government have adopted a most extraordinary course in connection with these arrests in Ireland. I cannot fathom their purpose, for what they are doing is calculated greatly to increase the public conception of the importance and gravity of the situation in that country, because will it be

  1777
  believed that the Censor in this country has issued strong advice to the newspaper Press throughout England not to take any notice of the Irish arrests, and not to comment upon them, and not for the present to discuss the situation in Ireland? A more fatuous and stupid policy could not possibly be projected, because it is calculated, when the facts leak out, as they must, to deepen greatly in the minds of the public their conception of the gravity of the Irish situation. This is on a par with the policy which appears to me to pervade the Government now more than any previous Government we have had in the course of this War, that when a situation becomes critical or serious the true policy is to put an extinguisher over it and then to expect the public to assume that everything is going right.
  The second point, before I come to the main subject of my Motion, to which I want to draw attention is this—the strange coincidence of these arrests. Why is it that the Irish Debate, having been fixed for Wednesday as it originally was, and as it continued up till Friday last, these arrests take place, just to get ready as it were for the Irish Debate? Unhappily we have long memories of similar occasions in this House. We can recollect just on the eve of the Third Reading of 4he perpetual Coercion Act, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) has restored to action, that the Piggot forgeries were trotted out so as to create an atmosphere suitable to the passage of a perpetual Coercion Act for Ireland. We remember that in the month of July last, while the negotiations were pending for an Irish settlement, and when Lord Lansdowne and other members of the Ministry broke faith and induced the then Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister to break faith with us after we had risked our whole political life by recommending a most unpopular settlement in Ireland, Sir John Maxwell's lying dispatch, in which he charged the rebel leaders in Ireland with wholesale cold-blooded murders, after it had been held back for nearly three months, was launched on the public, while these discussions over the July negotiations were pending, to create an atmosphere and prejudice against the Irish people in order to throw a cloak over the Ministry in that scandalous breach of faith which has sunk deeply into the hearts of the Irish people and rendered the task to which our lives have been devoted almost hopeless and
  1778
  impossible. How can we go round to the people—I shall not go further on this line, because I am afraid that I would exceed the limits of order.
  Having dealt with the remarkable coincidence of the period of these arrests, I do not for one moment desire to say that the state of Ireland is not serious. The state of Ireland is extremely serious, and has been so ever since the deplorable and tragic events of last May. The Government of the country is taking good care that is should remain serious. But the great importance of these arrests is this: It is not the mere fact that twenty-eight men have been arrested in Ireland. There is an old saying that "eels get accustomed to skinning," and we have all got accustomed to arrests in Ireland. During my lifetime there have been something like 10,000 political arrests in Ireland. I have been arrested six times myself; so we are not scared by arrests. But what makes me attribute such great importance to this particular outbreak of arrests and what induces me to move the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night, is that these arrests indicate a change of policy in Ireland. Throughout the whole of the autumn, haltingly no doubt and slowly, a policy of, what shall I call it, something of mitigation of coercion was in progress; 1,200 or 1,500 persons were at first released, and then, after a hard struggle, on the eve of Christmas 565 men in Frongoch were released. Some mitigation was introduced into the treatment of the penal servitude prisoners, though they are still treated as penal servitude convicts, and, on the whole, haltingly and deplorably deficient as it was, the progress was in the direction of appeasement, and the release of the 560 men from Frongoch was a decided step in that direction.
  The Prime Minister, while that release was under consideration, declared that in his opinion the question of the settlement of Ireland, and the hope of the settlement of Ireland, was mainly a question of amnesty, and I said that I agreed with the Prime Minister. But here you have got an Act which is a reversal of the policy of the last Government and of the early days of the present Government, a reversal of the policy of the last nine months, and a recommencement of the former policy of provocative arrests. They are provocative because these men are banished from their own country without any reason being assigned. The right hon. Gentleman, when I pointed that out to him, said

  1779
  that they were arrested under Article 54, I think it was, of the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. I was here during some of the Debates which took place under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I venture to say that there was not a single man in this House who ever dreamt that the Defence of the Realm Act would be put to such uses as it has been put in Ireland. It was clearly understood that the Defence of the Realm Act, if used oppressively and without a sense of responsibility, was an intolerable instrument of oppression, and the only ground on which this House could be induced to give such unlimited powers to the Executive Government as the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act was that this House would keep a close eye on what was done, and that the Executive Government, being responsible to this House, could be trusted not to abuse these powers or to employ them in an oppressive and irresponsible way. That is all very well for England, but when you cross to Ireland you are in a different world. The War Cabinet is far too busy to take any account of what happens in Ireland, but the tragedy of the matter is this, that we have been witness, during our political lives, of this tragedy occurring over and over again, and Ireland is punished, nor is she thought of. The Press have now got a new system. The Press have been ordered not to speak about Ireland and to keep silent. It is this sort of thing which naturally causes some bloody explosion or horrible disaster to take place in Ireland, and then you want to know what it is all about, as if it was not universal, where you persist in governing a high mettled, proud, and brave people against their will and in a contemptuous way, that these troubles should arise.
  I ask this question, why were these men arrested? Most of them are from Heading Prison, and most of them were sent home for Christmas. We may take it for granted, therefore, now they are arrested, that it must have been for some very serious offence, seeing that these men were released, after long detention, only six weeks ago. What happened in Ireland to justified these arrests? That is a question to which we are entitled to get an answer. Really so long as we are allowed to speak in this House at all, so long as they do not put a closure upon us for expressing our views here, it is idle to tell Members in this House to take no notice of troubles in Ireland. This House still remains,
  1780
  though, as to its Debates, I am not quite sure that they are privileged now; I believe they may be censored a little; but if they are going beyond what is allowed in the Reichstag—for even in the Reichstag Socialists are able to attack and denounce the Government—and they are reported in the newspapers, I shall be rather curious to see if we are censored tomorrow morning. Have these arrests been made for something which occurred since Christmas? Surely these men have not been arrested for something done before they were released. It must have been for something which has occurred since Christmas; it must have been something very serious, otherwise the Government could not for a single moment attempt in this House to justify such a departure. Unless the Government are prepared to put these men on their trial and to formulate charges against them—and remember that, unlike this country, the Government have taken power by special Proclamation in Ireland, to try eases by court-martial—unless you are prepared to charge these men, I say that you have no right to ask this House for a blank cheque for your purposes in Ireland, and be content to say that Ireland is in a serious condition, and therefore you take the right to arrest anybody you choose. I say that that would be a blank cheque, and our experience in Ireland, during the last two years, certainly has not gone to justify us, so far as our own views in the matter are concerned, to give any such blank cheque to the present Government. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I contend, and I think I shall prove, that we are now in Ireland under martial law—under military rule.
  The recent scenes in Dublin were certainly not of a character to justify the Government in asking for a blank cheque. They have power, even without martial law, to try men by court-martial. What was the cause of the particular occurrence in Dublin the week before last?. It was the first court-martial held but a week or two ago since the horrible courts-martial of last year. Three young men were solemnly summoned before a court-martial for singing certain songs in a private hall—"Easter Week," "Ireland, a nation once again," or songs of that character, which were described as seditious. Can human folly go further? It is like taking a Nasmyth hammer to break a nut to hold a court-martial to try a young fellow for singing a song. Such machinery turns

  1781
  the whole government of Ireland into ridicule, and nothing kills in Ireland sooner than ridicule. Therefore, I say that even on their recent records the Government have no right to ask us for a blank cheque. I come to another aspect of this matter. It has become extremely serious, now that the Government have shown a disposition to enter once more on a policy of coercion, and this is a particularly exasperating form of coercion, by which you will make men martyrs. You cannot get away from that fact. Do you suppose that any Irishman of any party is going to believe, because a certain number of mysterious persons in Dublin, foremost amongst them Major Price, says that those men who were recently released have committed these acts? If you believe that bring forward your evidence. If it were true that these men since their release had embarked on a fresh campaign—some of them have never had any charge preferred against them—even if it were true that they had embarked on a fresh conspiracy, surely the Chief Secretary's proper policy would be to justify the Government's action before the public. Nobody can pretend now that you require to summon courts-martial to administer justice or that there is anything to justify doing so. In a time like this you have to maintain an enormous garrison to keep Ireland in order, and it cannot be delightful to this country to keep a garrison there. You would imagine that the Chief Secretary himself would bring these men before some tribunal and produce his evidence and make his charge, and you could then make your appeal to all that section of the Irish public which is in sympathy with the Government or is for constitutional rule.
  Who is really responsible for the government of Ireland? I do not know, and we have never been able yet to get continuity. The other day I put a question to the Chief Secretary as to whether the Proclamation of martial law in Ireland has been revoked, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly gave me an answer that I did not think was a very candid one. He said that Ireland had been placed under martial law by Proclamation dealing with the rebellion and that with the disappearance of rebellion martial law would disappear. That answer was absolutely inconsistent with three or four successive answers given to me by the late
  1782
  Prime Minister in this House. I asked on two or three occasions whether martial law would be revoked in Ireland, and the reply was that martial law was simply a precautionary measure and that the Government were most anxious to revoke it at the earliest possible moment. Now the right hon. Gentleman says there is no such thing as martial law in Ireland and that it is a delusion. I say, according to my interpretation of the matter, martial law, about which there is a good deal of mystery, once it is applied in a country remains in force until the Proclamation enforcing it is withdrawn. Therefore, I say that martial law is still maintained in Ireland. Martial law is a very serious matter. It has two or three sides to it. Here is what is said by the great constitutional authority, Professor Dicey, on the subject:
  "Martial law in the proper sense of that term, in which it means suspension of ordinary law and the temporary government of a country or parts of it by military tribunals is unknown to the law in England. We have nothing equivalent to what in France is called 'The Declaration of the State of Siege,' under which the authority ordinarily vested in the civil power for the maintenance of order and police passes entirely to the Army."
  He goes on to say that martial law by military tribunals more or less supersedes the jurisdiction of the Courts, and he quotes several passages from the Act in France which deals with a state of siege. One of these passages is:
  "As soon as a state of siege is declared, the forces of the civil authority for the maintenance of order and the police passes entirely into the hands of the military, hut the civil authority continues nevertheless to exercise those powers which the military delegate to it."
  That is my contention as to what the state of law is in Ireland at this moment. Martial law is in force. Sir John Maxwell entirely retained in his own hands full control of the administration of the law in the country. My conviction is that when the late Prime Minister said to me that he would as soon as possible revoke the proclamation of martial law, that he was then in communication with Sir John Maxwell and endeavouring to get his consent to that course. But Sir John. Maxwell was such a tremendous high and mighty gentleman that having his hands on the control of the whole country that he would not consent. Then we were all quite assured that when he retired from Ireland martial law would be revoked. But no; it is still in force. Here is a very remarkable passage from Professor Dicey's book which I recommend seriously

  1783
  to the consideration of the Chief Secretary. It has a very terrible bearing on what occurred:
  "Now, this kind of martial law is entirely unknown to the constitution of England. Soldiers may suppress a riot, as they may resist an invasion, they may fight the rebels—"
  which is the Irish case—
  "just as they may tight foreign enemies, but they have no right under the law to inflict punishment for riot or rebellion."
  Thus Professor Dicey's opinion is that they have no right to inflict punishment for riot or rebellion, and yet in Ireland they inflicted punishment for riot and rebellion by secret court-martial, the most odious form of justice known to mankind.
  "Among the efforts to restore peace rebels may be lawfully killed just as enemies may be lawfully slaughtered in battle, or prisoners may be shot to prevent their escape, but any execution (independently of military law) inflicted by a court-martial is illegal and technically murder."
  That is the constitution of England as laid down by Dicey, who is recognised as one of the highest authorities, and there is no getting away from it. It is categorical and clear. He says that whilst it is legal for the soldiers to fight rebels and shoot them down in the streets that, once a rebellion is suppressed, they have no right, unless they are dealing with men subject to military law—that is, men in the Army to punish the rebels, and if they execute rebels they are guilty of murder. What I want to know is this: Is martial law still in existence in Ireland? I say it is. Here is a most astonishing extract from a speech delivered on the 18th of October last by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary. He said, speaking in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond):
  "Two provisions exist, in Ireland with regard to the maintenance of public order at the present time. The first is the Proclamation of martial law which was made "by the Lord Lieutenant."
  Therefore, on the 18th of October, the right hon. Gentleman himself declared that that was the first provision which existed for the maintenance of public order, and he now stands up at that Box and says that there has been no martial law in Ireland since the cessation of the rebellion. How can he reconcile those two statements? He continued:
  "The second set of provisions is that under the Defence of the Realm Act, with the necessary means under the Amending Acts which permit of the trial, in case of necessity, of offenders by court-martial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1961 col. 603, Vol. LXXXXVL]
  I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is his present opinion
  1784
  since those two opinions are absolutely and flatly contradictory. On the 18th of October he put in the forefront of the provisions which existed in Ireland then for the maintenance of order martial law, and, as I understand him now, he says across that Table that there is no such thing. How has it disappeared? When has it disappeared? His last answer is absolutely at variance with his opinion in October. Let me quote another very important passage, as bearing upon my theory about the power and authority of the military in Ireland. It is a quotation from the famous speech, or, as some people would say, the infamous speech, delivered by Lord Lansdowne in another place in July last. Here is what he said when he was reconciling, or professing to reconcile, his political friends to the settlement of July:
  "I say with a certain amount of confidence that under the system which exists at this moment there ought, not to be much fear of Ireland getting out of hand."
  That is a nice expression to use—more suitable I think to Berlin—that there should not be much danger of Ireland getting out of hand. He continued:
  "General Sir John Maxwell—"
  Observe this—
  "is responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs. I believe he has some 40,000 troops to look after the safety of the country."
  Was Lord Lansdowne telling a falsehood then when he said that Sir John Maxwell was responsible "for the conduct of Irish affairs"? He did not say for the conduct of military affairs, but Irish affairs. I believe Lord Lansdowne was telling the truth, and that at that particular time Sir John Maxwell was the ruler of Ireland. I believe that is the reason—at least it is the only reason I can think of—why the Proclamation of martial law has never been withdrawn, because the military in Ireland are still determined to rule the roost and control the administration of the law. Who is responsible for these arrests? That is a vital question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may say he is responsible. I suppose he will, but I do not accept that. How, in the name of common sense, can he be responsible? I give the right hon. Gentleman every credit for being a friend of Ireland. I believe he is a genuine and a most hearty friend of Ireland. I have come to that conclusion since I have made his acquaintance. But how on earth can a barrister from London, who has spent all his life in the Law Courts here, cross over to deal with the

  1785
  most tangled problem to-day outside the Balkans, and in some respects which is worse than the Balkans, and decide, taking all the circumstances of the country into account, whether these men ought to be arrested or not? No, Sir. He is only the mouthpiece, the instrument, of others. Who are behind the Chief Secretary, who really rules the roost in ordering these arrests? Is it Major Price, who, to the eternal scandal of the War Council, was decorated with the D.S.O. the other day—for what? Chief spy and controller of the secret service of Ireland, he is a successor in the long line of spies that have hatched every kind of horror in that country, and now, instead of having departed with General Sir John Maxwell, he is decorated by the War Office because they approve of his conduct and are delighted that Ireland is in a state of disturbance. Is it Price who has marked out these men for arrest? Is it Sir Bryan Mahon, as was stated in some of the newspapers? I want to know who decided, and I decline to take from the Chief Secretary a statement that he is responsible, because the very facts under which he has come to Ireland, and the short period he has been there, make it absurd to say that he is competent to decide whether, taking all the circumstances into account, it will do more harm or good to arrest these men. I think, therefore, we are entitled to a full answer to the question, "Who recommended the arrest of these men?"
  One of the tragedies of the present situation—and it is full of tragedies, and I am greatly afraid it will be far more full of tragedies before we are very much older—one of the tragedies is this, and make no mistake about it, that there is a considerable section of people in Ireland, and some in this country, who do not want a contented or loyal Ireland, and who are determined to drive the Irish race back into rebellion and hatred of this country. That seems a hard thing to say, but it is God's truth. It has been the policy of these men ever since they stirred up the bloody insurrection of '98, and turned Ireland from being a thoroughly loyal friend to England into for a hundred years her bitterest foe. These men, ever since the formation of the Coalition Government, have wrought ruin in Ireland. They have nearly destroyed the constitutional movement, and they boast now that our party is ruined, and that if we went to the country we would disappear. Would that be a service to England? It may be
  1786
  that a great many of us, or some of us, would lose our seats, but why would we lose our seats? Because we endeavoured to stand between Ireland and England and to make them friends, and because of" the irreconcilable revolutionists in Ireland, who have never ceased to exist, although we had reduced them to a very small handful, until Sir John Maxwell and Major Price came to their rescue and recruited their ranks by tens of thousands.
  I say it with the fullest deliberation and with knowledge, that for the last year and a half the British Government in Ireland have been manufacturing Sinn Feiners by tens of thousands, until they have nearly maddened the country now, and the country will listen to no reason. Where is this going to end? That is the reason why, at the very outset of this new and disastrous change of policy, I thought it my duty to utter a word of warning and move the Adjournment to-night. Where is this thing going to end? Believe me, and I know Ireland well, it is going rapidly from bad to worse. You may, by pursuing the policy you have been pursuing for the last year and a half get rid of our party, or at least of a considerable portion of our party. Is it any wonder? Our party was built up thirty years ago and more by saying to our countrymen, "We will show you a road by which you can trust British people and trust British statesmen." The occurrences of last July have poisoned our people against us, and when we go back to Ireland we are asked by all the young men, "What is the use of your telling us to trust British statesmen? One blast of Carson's horn is worth all your reasoning. And why is it "—and this question is asked of me by hundreds of young men throughout the country—"Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) sits an honoured member of the Government now, after he has boasted in this House that he would be a rebel and defy the King's authority, and had flouted this House?" The answer of all these young men who are joining Sinn Fein by thousands now, is that that is the only argument that British Ministers understand, and they say, "If you had acted like Carson, and if you had hurled insults across the floor of the House at British Ministers, you would be in a very different position now from what you are in."
  We are, and I am not ashamed to admit it, in a sense between the devil and the-

  1787
  deep sea. On the one side we have the Irish revolution and on the other side we have the Castle gang, and the unscrupulous crowd in Ireland who batten on Irish disturbance, on prosecutions and imprisonments, and who are shaping their whole policy with the deliberate purpose of driving the Irish population into the revolutionary ranks. Our task has been for a long while difficult, and you are making it impossible. But I venture to say that the hour is close at hand when you will bitterly repent it. After all, the Castle men who live on this kind of thing may rejoice to see Ireland rendered desperate and revengeful, but can any sensible or responsible statesman in this country look forward with any degree of satisfaction or of hope to such a condition of things as will bring at the close of this War an Ireland bound down and held down by an enormous garrison under military laws? How can you face Europe? How can you face America tomorrow, and pose as the champions of oppressed nationalities? What answer will you have when you are told, as you will be told, at the Peace Conference: "Go home and put your own house in order. How many soldiers have you got in Ireland?" Sir, our complaint is this, that you will neither govern Ireland decently, nor allow her to govern herself.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend. Ireland unquestionably is governed now by martial law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in answer to a question today, did not deny it. He could not deny it, because it is a fact. Why is Ireland governed by martial law? Why are a number of men from Ireland deported to this country without trial, without investigation, without any charge being made against them? It is impossible, except under martial law. Why have we martial law in Ireland? It may be said that martial law is a consequence of the Irish rebellion. The only thing that pays in Ireland, and as it seems to me in this country, is rebellion. Who taught us rebellion in Ireland? Who taught us the lesson of rebellion? The man who taught us rebellion now occupies a place on the Treasury Bench. One of the greatest criminals sitting on that bench to-day is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a fashionable thing in this country to applaud gun-running before the unfortunate incident which occurred in Ireland a
  1788
  year ago. One of the most famous applauders of that now sits quite comfortably upon the Treasury Bench opposite to me. Not only that, but after the beginning of the War, when this country was in a crisis graver than it is at the present time—although the country is threatened by the submarine menace, and although questions of a graver character have arisen than had dawned on the public imagination in the early stages of the war—the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer went over to Belfast and said that before that time he had tentatively approved of the doctrines preached by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. He would, he said, pledge himself and his whole party to go over to Ulster and to support the propaganda of rebellion if the Government of this Government decided to pat into force an Act of Parliament passed by this House and passed through another House; if any Government of this country attempted to put into force what was the law of the land for this country he himself would go over and attempt to help rebellion in Ireland.
  We have a complaint from the Treasury Bench that the state of Ireland is abnormal, that Ireland cannot be governed under the ordinary law, and that extraordinary means must be found to deal with the case of Ireland. What is the reason for it? The foundation of anything abnormal in Ireland at the present time is due to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to his colleague the Member for Trinity College, now First Lord of the Admiralty. We hear a great deal about fighting for small nationalities. There is one small nationality that this country might immediately liberate, and that is Ireland.
  Major NEWMAN: Are you talking of the whole of Ireland?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Of course I am. The hon. Member is not entitled to speak for any part of Ireland. Ireland is a small nation, and Ireland expects from this country the treatment which this country asks for small nationalities. Is not there a fear that if we go on as we are at present in this House of Commons in the present treatment of Ireland that this country will be open to the reflection made by Germany that she is hypocritical when she asks for fair treatment for small nationalities? It is difficult for this country to liberate Poland or to give

  1789
  freedom to Serbia. It is difficult for this country to restore Belgium to her former state or to give her back her possessions. Is it difficult for this country to give freedom to Ireland? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The only small nationality which this country is immediately in a position to deal with is Ireland. The one small nationality that this country never thinks of is Ireland. I am asking the House of Commons, then, to deal fairly with Ireland. Is it a big question? This country has tackled big questions in the past. It may be said, with the state of the country, the state of difficulty in Ireland, of the relationship between the two countries, of the state of dissatisfaction—should this country interfere? What happened to this country whenever it did anything right in a matter of this sort? What did this country do with Canada when it passed the Act which gave freedom to that country? What was the state of Canada at that time? What did this country do in the case of South Africa? This country has always been right when it has given freedom to the peoples within the sphere of influence of the Empire; when it has given them freedom to rule themselves and to regulate their own affairs This country at the present time is living a lie when it forces Ireland under military law and under coercion. Why are men deported from Ireland at the present time? Because we are under a state of martial law. What is the need of it in Ireland? You may answer quite truthfully: because the people of Ireland are dissatisfied with the Government they have. Is any country in the word satisfied with a Government imposed upon them? A Government foreign to the people, foreign to their instincts, foreign to everything that belongs to them. The people of Ireland hate English government. At the beginning of this War everybody in Ireland was in sympathy with this country. At the beginning of this War every body in Ireland believed that this country was truthful in its protestations——
  Mr. GINNELL:No, no!
  Mr. SCANLAN: Of faith in the doctrine of freedom for small nationalities.
  Mr. GINNELL: Not at all!
  Mr. SCANLAN: At the beginning of this War everybody in Ireland helped this country. The response from Ireland at the beginning of the War was greater than could be expected from any country
  1790
  treated as Ireland had been in the past. What response has this country made to the good feeling that Ireland has shown? I am not going into details. When the War started Ireland was under a Government which presumably was friendly to Ireland—a Government under which Home Rule had become an Act of Parliament. After that we had a Coalition Government. When that Government was formed we had a drastic change in the relations of this country to Ireland. I will tell hon. Members what was the first intimation we had of that change. In July of last year Lord Lansdowne, in another place, said, in regard to the way in which the laws are administered in Ireland:
  "Reference has been made to the question of resident magistrates in Ireland. Anybody who knows that country knows that there are many parts of it in which it is idle to look to an ordinary bench of magistrates to do their duty, or, for the matter of that, to an ordinary Irish jury to do its duty. We propose to have recourse to trial before resident magistrates. If the resident magistrates already in the service of the Government are not found sufficient for the work which they will be called upon to perform, we shall be quite ready to ask for permission to increase their number."
  I think, one of the most wanton affronts ever offered to a free and high-minded people is to say that no jury in a country will convict a man if evidence is produced to show he is guilty. But here we have recourse to a system of trial which enables the Government to send down to any part of the country people with instructions to convict, instead of try. That is the meaning of it. Besides, suppose it is true that juries will not convict in any country; what is the meaning of it? I submit that the only underlying meaning is that the country is ill-governed, and if you have bad government, if you have government against the will of the people, you may have such a state of things as that. In the whole circumstances of the present position of Ireland there is nothing more dangerous to law and order than the continuance of martial law, and the system adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of sending resident magistrates to suppress the ordinary civil magistrates, and to secure convictions which he wishes for the Government. I think it is intolerable that this Government, or any Government, should arrogate to itself the right to send Irishmen out of Ireland without an accusation being made against them and without trial. I think that in the face of the protestations which this country is making of its respect for small nationalities, it is a glaring case of hypocrisy for this country, for our Prime Minister, or for

  1791
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that they favour the small nationalities when they treat Ireland in this manner. Until this country begins to realise the elementary propositions of justice in regard to a country with which England can deal readily and at once, she dare not make propositions to the countries opposed to us, and make conditions in regard to peace. Before peace is considered, this country should do justice to Ireland and remove all the criticism, all the stigma which is cast upon this country by treating Ireland in the way she is doing at the present time.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Listening to the speeches with which this Motion has been supported, one would have thought the administration in Ireland had suddenly pounced down in a country where no trouble has been known in our time, or, at any rate, where men were bound together in prosecuting a common object on which the existence of the British Empire depended, and that an oppressive Minister, or some tyrant placed in authority there, had swooped upon twenty-eight men and sent them out of the country. When a Motion of this kind is to be made, or when an attack of this kind is to be launched, hon. Members ignore the facts of the last, twelve months, and the situation of affairs in Ireland. They treat Ireland as a happy land, where the problems, if any problems of difficulty exist, are created by the misconduct of an imbecile administration. They assume it must be the Government that is to blame. I am not going to profess that I stand here with any satisfaction in the deportations. Hon. Members will remember that just before Christmas I stood at this Box, and I said to the House that it was with satisfaction, although not without some misgivings, that I had advised His Majesty's Government to allow the discharge from custody and the return to their homes in Ireland of between 500 and 600 men who were interned. I can assure the House that task was a much more grateful task than this; but, just as I was satisfied that the risks ought to be taken which were involved in those discharges, so I am satisfied that those are risks which ought to be taken which are involved in these removals.
  Many collateral questions of grave consequence have been raised in addition to that of the immediate matter of the
  1792
  arrest, and, as it is called, deportation and banishment of these twenty-eight men. It was said by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that what he regarded as the gravest element in this situation was that there was evidently a change of policy, and he paid me the compliment of saying that he had been satisfied from his observation of my conduct while I had been Chief Secretary, that I was a friend of Ireland. That is a great compliment and a large claim, and I do not intend to descant on that theme. A man must be judged by his conduct, and the matter in question is a piece of conduct which the hon. Member attributes to somebody else, rather, I think, for the purpose of reaching the administration generally, than for the purpose of exculpating the Chief Secretary. But the hon. Member thought there must have been a change of policy. There has been no change of policy. When I accepted the not very easy task which I have to perform, I accepted it with the resolution to do all that one man could do to remove obstacles which stood in the way of a settlement between Great Britain and Ireland—a settlement between classes in Ireland—and I have not ceased to devote myself to that object. But that again is beside this question. These deportations were no part of any policy of repression—of any new policy of repression, and far less were they part of any policy of irritation. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member harking back to very bitter past memories, saying that on every occasion in the affairs of Ireland, when there was some prospect of conciliation, some miserable offender had launched upon the scene a cause of discontent, which defeated the objects of those who desire conciliation. The hon. Member referred to a variety of cases, the last in July, 1916, when he said that a dispatch was published which would prevent a settlement. Anybody who studied the question of the settlement and the difficulties which prevented its being made will know how far-fetched that argument was, for that dispatch had no more to do with the failure of the negotiation than the latest eclipse. That was a lamentable failure, but it arose out of the nature of the case, and perhaps it will be made good—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never!"]—I think the hon. Member would be a better friend to his country if he tried to make it good. We believe that we shall make it good, but we are not helped on that road if, when there are difficulties of administration, those

  1793
  who speak for the great mass of opinion in Ireland, who favour a constitutional settlement of this question, simply because they do not understand the necessities of a particular act, rush to the conclusion that every argument of violence that is used by their own opponents is justified by the conduct of the administration. I confess that one of the greatest difficulties in dealing with the Irish question is, that when a man has broken the law in Ireland, when he has shown himself capable of violence and is brought to account, there are great numbers of people who, in ordinary times are the strongest advocates of constitutional methods, who are found ranged behind that man as apologists if not as advocates. It is a most unfortunate thing and a cause of difficulty so far as any suspicion of a change of policy is concerned, and so far as any idea of readiness to aggravate the situation in Ireland is concerned, those are unfounded charges. I tell hon. Members with the greatest seriousness if it seemed to me that I could better advance the prospects of a settlement in Ireland, and the settlement in the United Kingdom of this question, which is overdue for settlement, by removing from this bench to a bench elsewhere, I would do it to-morrow.
  Mr. GINNELL: Why not give Home Rule?
  Mr. DUKE: There are none of those painful incidents connected with this act, as I trust to be able to satisfy the House. My great difficulty is that we are at war. A large number of the people who have been ordered to reside in this country were people who took up arms against this country while we were at war, and took an active part fin operations against this country. That is a serious factor in the situation. If I could disregard the state of war and speak with frankness and candour of all I know of these matters, I think I should satisfy even the hon. Member himself that what was done here was not the act of an oppressive administration misled by evil advisers in countenancing the misconduct of subordinates in its service, but it was an act resolved upon with regret, and justified by absolute necessity in the circumstances of the case. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us hear the reasons."] If, in answer to a challenge to tell him the facts with regard to these deportations, some of them of men who last April were in open revolt against the Government and acting in complicity with the common enemy, the
  1794
  hon. Member supposes that I am going to unfold the tale in order that the accomplices of these men may know all that i know about the matter, the hon. Member is very much mistaken.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Why not give proof instead of making charges?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member spoke about martial law and the arrests which had been made under martial law. He read a passage from Professor Dicey's work on Constitutional Law, and he quoted the author to emphasise the proposition that martial law does not exist in this country. It is true it does not exist here. The state of siege which is known in continental countries, and the degrees of severity existing in continental countries do not exist in this country. There may be a state of open hostility against the Crown and the constituted authorities of the country, and then a state of martial law arises and comes to the aid of the ordinary law in circumstances where only necessity can direct the measures to be taken. The hon. Member has taunted me with having cited the Viceregal Proclamation of April as one of the instruments for dealing with the present state of things in Ireland, and he quoted a speech which I made in October last in which I said that there were two special provisions at the disposal of the Government, one the Proclamation of martial law and the other the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I think the hon. Member will find I have asserted over and over again since I have been Chief Secretary that no act has been taken which required resort to the Proclamation of martial law to defend it. Something like seven months have elapsed since I became Chief Secretary, and I think I am warranted in saying that during those months there has not been in Ireland what the hon. Member describes "as a state of martial law." The Proclamation did not bring a state of martial law, but it notified to His Majesty's subjects in Ireland that a condition of things existed in which they might be dealt with outside the law. That state of things passed away when the time of the insurrection passed, and I say now that the powers of the Government would not be diminished by a formal Proclamation announcing that martial law was at an end. I will tell the hon. Member that I believe there are a great many lawless people in Ireland who would be misled by that Proclamation to their own hurt and to the hurt of the

  1795
  country, and who would suppose because there was a Proclamation declaring that there was no martial law that they were at liberty to do a great many things which would bring them into conflict with the laws which exist in that country.
  If hon. Members pressed it upon His Majesty's Government as a vital constitutional necessity to issue a new Proclamation which would not alter the state of the law, but which would play into the hands of lawless people, well, no doubt the House would consider the situation. I have always said that I attach no importance to that Proclamation as an authority for the administration in Ireland, and I feel convinced that no man who understands the law would attach importance to it. I have said in the answers that I have made to successive questions by the hon. Member that everything that has been done and is being done in Ireland in restraint of liberty has been done and is being done under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The arrest of these prisoners and the order that they should reside in this country were two acts which were done under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The Defence of the Realm Regulation, No. 55, authorises arrest where there is suspicion, not mere vague opinion, but suspicion supported by facts which are known, of certain classes of conduct which imperils public safety; and Section 14 authorises the competent military authority in any district in the United Kingdom, if he has reason to believe that the conduct of any person within the district has been or is, or is going to be, contrary to the safety of the realm, to order him to reside somewhere else.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who is the competent military authority?
  Mr. DUKE: The competent military authority in Ireland is a very distinguished Irish soldier, Sir Bryan Mahon, who is certainly not a man who would be suspected of an insidious design to destroy his own country, but a man who was selected with unanimous approbation at the time that he was appointed to his post. The Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Act under which they were made are provisions taken for the safety of the realm. The acts which are done are to be justified with regard to those Regulations, and not with regard either to the common law or to the non-existent condition of martial law, or to such a state of siege
  1796
  as may exist in a Continental country or to any other code. If hon. Members refer to the establishment of martial law on the Continent when they challenge the terms of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which have been sanctioned by this House over and over again, I would ask them to reflect whether a man, who persistently for weeks or for months pursued a course of conduct which is known to be to the public danger in any of the Continental countries with which we are at war, would-find himself merely ordered to reside in any district. Why, he would not have any place of residence. Everybody knows it.
  Mr. SCANLAN: If the right hon. Gentleman has such power as he says he has under the Defence of the Realm Act, why is it necessary to still continue martial law in Ireland? We have no martial law in this country.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. and learned Member is a member of the Bar, and of my own Inn of Court, and I am amazed that he should ask that question after the explanation I have given him. If I have not explained it to the hon. Member I am not capable of explaining it, and he must study the elementary text-books. By a Defence Regulation this House has put into the hands of executive officers in Ireland this power:
  "Where a person is suspected of acting or of having acted or of being about to net in a manner prejudicial to public safety, or to the defence of the realm, and it appears to the competent naval or military authority that it is desirable that such person should be prohibited from residing in any locality, the competent naval or military authority may, by Order, prohibit him from residing in or entering in any area or areas which may be specified in the Order."
  That is what is being done in this case. Twenty-eight men have been told that they must reside in England until further orders, and they have been told the reasons to which I will refer. But it is impossible that I should state to the House with detailed particularity the facts within the knowledge of the administration which made these arrests necessary on a particular day of the week. Anybody who looks back and studies the course of events, the threats, the hopes, and, with regard to a rebellious and truculant minority in Ireland, I would even say the expectations as to what might happen, will see why it is impossible I should condescend to details, and tell the people in Ireland, who perhaps have their own ideas as to the meaning of this action, and the people out of Ireland, who knew less of it, why the Government have come to a particular

  1797
  decision with regard to particular men at a particular time. It is asked: Why was it done? The hon. Member for East Mayo almost adopted these twenty-eight people in his own body of constitutional politicians in Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: I was not such a fool. They are bitter enemies of my party, and I claimed and said that the Government were playing their game.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member always has the courage of his opinions, and I agree with him that, they are enemies of his party. I greatly regret that there should be bitter enemies of the constitutional policy in Ireland, for which many hon. Members opposite have sacrificed popularity, prospects, and expectations of political success. But what is a more serious matter to me than their enmity to a political party is their enmity to Great Britain and the Empire, in which every man of them, twenty-eight of them, is a born subject of the Crown.
  Mr. GINNELL: No. Two are American citizens.
  Mr. DUKE: Then I make no excuse for telling them that they shall not reside in Ireland. These gentlemen, some of them, conceal their citizenship when it is convenient. We have their privileges as British subjects trotted out here, and we are to weep over them because they are not allowed to reside in Ireland and plot against the safety of the Kingdom and the Empire. Well, there are two of them with regard to whom I need not justify myself. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his information. With regard to the remaining twenty-six, I should have been thankful and happy if it had been, possible for me to have said, when it became my duty to deal with them, "No, it is safe for them to stay in Ireland." But I could not. Although I have the feeling I have expressed with regard to current political affairs in Ireland, that which the people of the United Kingdom and of the Empire expect of an administrator in Ireland is that he shall take care of the interests of the Empire salus populi suprema est lex. It is on that ground it has been necessary to take action. The hon. Member for East Mayo complained of our action, but does he think that among the twenty-six men in question there was one man capable of taking the oath of allegiance? Is there any member on the Irish Benches who thinks there is one of these twenty-six
  1798
  men capable of taking the oath of allegiance? I will say this for them, I do not believe they would perjure themselves, and I say it with the utmost candour——
  Mr. DEVLIN: That is more than can be said about Pryce?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member throws in an irrelevant observation which does not help us seriously. I have stated the position with regard to these twenty-six men. It is asked, Who are they? Why did you do it? What is your charge? Why don't you bring them to trial? Who are they! The hon. Member for East Mayo has told the House who they are. The majority of them are men who, by a stretch of leniency, were released with harmless men from Frongoch just before Christmas. I am glad to know that on the whole that release justified itself. I do not regret it in the least, and with a knowledge of what has happened, even within the last ten days, I would do it again. I would except these twenty-six or the part of them who were interned. But with regard to the other men—the great majority of them—hon. Members were right when they said they would not engage in any insurrectionary action. They were rushed, with the multitude, into a position which they did not anticipate. I do not say it with confidence, but I have great hopes that, with regard at any rate to five-sixths of these men who have been released, men whom the judges had previously said could not be rightly released, men of whom the judges had said, when examining their cases, it was not possible to say they ought to be at large—as to five-sixths of them, I say it was a very good thing that they should be set at large to start again—to start again; I do rot say without any ebullitions, because one may expect ebullitions under some circumstances. They went back and are carrying on their businesses, and are not engaged in revolutionary actions. If they have opinions which do not square with their duty and loyalty they are keeping them to themselves, and they are not imperilling the safety of the Empire or of the Kingdom. But there is a minority, and with regard to some who were at Frongoch, and a considerable number who were well qualified to be there, but who did not happen to get arrested at the time of the rising—this minority since the end of the Christmas holidays have devoted themselves to an endeavour to revive and set in motion that conspiracy which had such fatal results in Easter week last year.

  1799
  Everybody who has responsibility in Ireland has some knowledge of what is going on. Men have devoted themselves to that action—it has been practically the only employment some of them have had—and that was a state of things which we could not regard with equanimity. Whether you are going to treat a man who is engaged in a criminal conspiracy with contempt or with severity depends on the circumstances in which he is engaged. There is a part of this story I am not able to unfold. Hon. Members who have no responsibility in these matters say, "Tell us an interesting story; it will fill columns in the papers to-morrow." That is not the way in which I interpret my duty. I am responsible for silence as well as for speech. Week by week there are some of these men who, in spite of warnings, have gone on doing forbidden things, reviving, as far as they were able and as far as growing restrictions permitted, those pernicious activities which could only, if brought to a head, result for themselves and for other people, in bloodshed, death, and devastation. Through January, and for a little longer, those who knew what was going on, looked on and took no action. It is asked, what has happened since?
  Mr. GINNELL: You have lost an election.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member seems so obsessed with his recent triumph in North Roscommon against the constitutional party of which he was a member——
  Mr. GINNELL: No, no!
  Mr. DUKE: He is so obsessed with the grandeur of his triumph that he cannot keep North Roscommon election out of this Debate. I assure the House that that election had no more to do with the matter than our victory in France yesterday had to do with it. Just let me remind the House for a moment of the position a week before Easter. Suppose suddenly the Government had been compelled then to arrest some of the large number of persons who had formed themselves into an armed force, had taken possession of the streets of the towns, had marched upon the roads, and had held up the traffic. I do not doubt there would have been a Motion for Adjournment. We would have had a full-dress Debate, and the Government of the day would have been denounced even more bitterly than the Government has been denounced to-
  1800
  day, for its tyrannical action which sought to stem the tide of an unconstitutional movement which would set back the course of true progress. But if we had had a number of judicious arrests made in the week before Easter last year, Easter week would have had no significance, and all that we should have had to deplore would have been that the Minister of the day would have been denounced as an offender against constitutional propriety. That is all, and that would not have mattered. I greatly regret that, without telling the House all the facts, which I cannot do, I am bound to vindicate the action which has been taken, beause I knew it had to be taken. Suppose in an ordinary criminal matter you found night alter night A, B, or C watching at an appointed place, or haunting a usual haunt, and you knew that A, B, or C and his associates had already been involved there in one crime. Are you to wait until he has committed another.
  Mr. LYNCH: What are these mysterious crimes?
  Mr. DUKE: Hon. Members have no responsibility in this respect. The responsibility of the Executive in Ireland is to see that if there are real grave grounds for anticipating sinister action on the part of individuals it shall be prevented in the humanest way possible.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what these cases were? We who have been living in Ireland do not know anything of them.
  Mr. LYNCH: Was there anything besides the songs?
  Mr. DUKE: If I had no knowledge, I should be able to say, "Do not deport," but I have the knowledge. It was my business to have the knowledge.
  Mr. DEVLIN: From where did you get the knowledge?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member supposes that an old hand at this business of cross-examination is to be betrayed into making a statement which he knows it is his public duty not to make, the hon. Member is much mistaken.
  Mr. LYNCH: What were these dark crimes?
  Mr. DUKE: One of my perplexities in dealing with these matters is that Members who know that the majority of the men who are now deported were up to ears in the conspiracy——
  Mr. GINNELL: We deny it!
  Mr. DUKE: Which led to the events of Easter week speak of these twenty-eight persons as if they had no past history.
  Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these men was with the First Lord of the Admiralty in running guns at Larne?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must not expect me to be acquainted with the more innocent pursuits of any one of them, These men are ordered to reside in England. If I were asked to reside in a rural part of England, which docs not strike me as being a horrible thing, I would do it if I could lawfully accept the invitation.
  Mr. LYNCHmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. DUKE: That is the extent of the matter—that these people are ordered to reside in England. The state of Ireland is that which the hon. Member for East Mayo described. He said—I took down his words:—
  "The state of Ireland was serious and has been since May last."
  The hon. Member went on to state that
  "It had become worse."
  That is the condition of the country. The hon. Member also said that people were being recruited to the ranks of the Sinn Feiners in tens of thousands. It is possible to attach even too much seriousness to recruits to the ranks of the Sinn Feiners. There are many honest people who were beguiled into the ranks of the Sinn Feiners.
  Mr. LUNDON: By the pressure of the Government.
  Mr. DUKE: But there are in the ranks of Sinn Fein many people who are, as the hon. Member is aware, enemies of the constitutional movement, enemies of the Union, enemies of the Empire, and enemies of the cause in which we are engaged. That is the position with regard to at any rate, some of these persons who are concerned. With regard to the whole body of them, I wish to say two or three further words. There was no sudden act of any obscure authority upon any report of any police officer. There was no act of any individual upon his own suspicions. Three persons share the responsibility in this matter. In point of fact, I, of course, have full responsibility to the House. The Inspector-
  1802
  General of the Constabulary, General Byrne, a modest, law-abiding, patriotic and generous Irishman—he knows all about it. Sir Bryan Mahon, the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, had the responsibility of deciding whether this ought to be done—he knows all about it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had the responsibility of saying whether the Executive Government, that is, His Majesty's Government, should step in and either prevent or reverse this act. The Chief Secretary believes that he knows grounds which warrant a finding in the affirmative upon the questions of fact which have to, be answered before a decision of this kind can be come to, and, in the state of things of which the hon. Member has spoken, and in the face of an enemy vigilant, ruthless, unscrupulous, who thought he gained a triumph in Ireland in April, who is always ready to countenance any sinister action, the Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that he ought to be ready to stand in the House of Commons and say, "In my judgment this is a transaction in which, although there can be no charge, and although there can be no trial——
  Mr. LYNCH: No charge!
  Mr. FLAVIN: No charge; no trial!
  Mr. DUKE: It is essential for the public well-being that these men should not continue to reside in Ireland while things in Ireland remain us they are.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make a comparison between my forensic abilities and his great powers as a lawyer. I am quite prepared to admit my inferiority in that regard. He says that he is too old and experienced a practitioner in the Courts of this country to be cross-examined by untutored laymen like myself. If he will permit me to say so, there are one or two fundamental things that ordinary common-sense people, and even the commonest minds, cannot understand. The first of them is, what right has the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers, or any series of so-called administrators of the law in Ireland, to arrest men and deport them without a trial? That is a legal question, and it is a question of common justice. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered it. He has made a speech which lasted for nearly an hour, and no doubt most of the statements he made were exceedingly interesting. It is all very well for him, standing at that box, to lay down

  1803
  wide, general academic principles, but there is one thing deep and profound in all our hearts in Ireland, which is that if men are to be taken from their homes and deported to another country we ought to know the reason why. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the safety of the Empire depends upon this act of the Government, and that it is absolutely essential in the interests of the Empire that these twenty-eight men should be deported to this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman joking? Does he mean to assert in this House and before the country that if you remove twenty-eight men from Ireland all your difficulties disappear? If so, I think it is a very sorry compliment to pay to the Empire which is engaged in the War in which we are now engaged, a War of such magnitude, a War that calls forth the greatest military power that the world has ever known, that that Empire is seriously endangered unless twenty-eight men are taken from Ireland and sent over to this country. I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being a great lawyer instead of, like the rest of us, a man of common sense.
  10 P.M.
  I trust that he will not mind me reminding him that when we pointed out and pressed upon the late Prime Minister how vicious and appalling and evil in its results would be the execution of these men, we were told that this act was absolutely essential in the interests of the Empire, and these men were executed. I suppose, in the interests of the Empire. You carried out the executions. You had the vengeance of the law upheld, but what have been the crop of evils which have sprung up in every part of Ireland since? If you were to sit down now coldly, as we asked you to do when these executions commenced in Ireland, and consider the appalling consequences which would come, not only to Ireland, but to you, by that act of justice which the interests of the Empire demanded, do you think you would repeat that appalling political crime for you here, and the appalling crime for every interest in Ireland which was the result of your action at that time under the guidance of the same military authorities who were responsible for the arrest of these men, their deportation without trial, and this outrage upon common justice in the country. I have nothing in common with Sinn Feiners in
  1804
  Ireland. In my judgment, the Sinn Feiners are as much out to destroy this constitutional movement as they are out to fight you, and perhaps more so. It is not my interest to defend them. I have fought them all my life, and when people tell us that the Sinn Feiners are going to sweep us out of existence, that election after election will force the representatives of the people in this Parliament to disappear as the upholders of the constitutional line in the fight for the peoples' freedom, my withers are un-wrung. My only regret is that we have not an opportunity in the form of a General Election to-morrow in which every one of us would be prepared not only to defend our public conduct in this House, the principles we hold in favour of universal freedom, and our full conviction that, if there was sanity in this country as well as in Ireland, you would be able to solve this seemingly insoluble problem of Ireland. Therefore I do not stand here as their advocate. I stand here as the advocate of simple justice. But I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) that while you may drag men to England on suspicion you may get rid of the men, but you poison the whole national life of the country, because you send men out of the country without giving a reason, and no one knows in Ireland who may be the victims to-day when the victims of yesterday have disappeared from the country.
  These men I say, therefore, were entitled, if they were guilty of any offence, to be brought before some tribunal in Ireland. You have plenty of tribunals in Ireland. I do not believe this statement that these men were engaged in another conspiracy. I believe this has been another attempt on the part of officialdom in Ireland to tickle the imagination of the latest English Governor of Ireland. I know the right hon. Gentleman has been friendly to our country. I make public confession that I was prejudiced against him when he went there first. I have watched his public conduct since, and I have seen many manifestations of his desire to be just and kind to Ireland and see freedom restored to her, but if you see the right hon. Gentleman over here, if you put before him, as we have done in the case of the Food Committee, the simplest suggestion in favour of carrying on even such questions as the production of food, the division of land, the raising of larger

  1805
  stores of potatoes, in my opinion a means to successfully carry out the policy of better food production, he goes over to Ireland and comes back and gives a non-possumus to the suggestions we have made, though he has received them perfectly sympathetically. Every time he goes over from this country to Ireland I believe he comes back prejudiced against Ireland. That is my conviction and that is my experience, and therefore I do not believe a word of the story. I do not believe that thirteen men were organising another rebellion. It has been all suspicion from beginning to end. He has not given us a single instance where he can justify his action, and when you get these thirteen men to England will not thirteen more arrive, and when they go will there not be thirteen others. Sir John Maxwell told my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), when he went to violently protest against these executions, "I will put down sedition in Ireland so forcibly and powerfully that it will never raise its head again." Was Sir John Maxwell right or was he wrong? What has been the practical experience of his operations? Would it not have been better for him to take advice from the constitutional leader, whose constitutionalism you are very proud of when it takes the form of helping you, but which you despise when it takes the form of advising you as to what is best for the country he represents?
  I myself believe that there is a sinister influence in Ireland at the bottom of all this, and I think that influence is Major Price. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman why it was that when Sir John Maxwell left Ireland Major Price did not leave Ireland with him? I got a specific promise from the late Prime Minister that Major Price should go with Sir John Maxwell. I got a similar promise from the present Prime Minister, and I say while he is there there will not be suspicion against the Irish people, but there will be suspicion by the Irish people against the administration of justice, and even if you are right the Irish people will refuse to believe that justice is not poisoned in its very wells, and not Sinn Feiners, but the universal mass of the people will incline to believe that justice can be honestly administered while that condition of things goes on. The right hon. Gentleman must really make up his mind whether things are to go on in Ireland as they are or whether there is to be a change. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot come here and
  1806
  talk about constitutionalism in the House of Commons and suspend the Constitution in Ireland. One policy or the other is perfectly clear and definite, and one policy or the other ought to be adopted. You are either to suspend every law or you are to give the country the guidance of its own affairs and the control of its own destinies into its own hands. There is no other policy, and the sooner you make up your mind about it the better. Ireland to-day is pained, disillusioned, angry, and wondering, not knowing where to turn or where she stands, with all these powers of Government and all these repressive measures and all this spirit of discontent scattered over the Island. People who believe in constitutionalism do not know where they are. I believe the vast mass of the people of Ireland, 95 per cent, of them, are passionately anxious to end this state of things. You seem to be the only people who are not anxious to end it. Although you are in the middle of a great war you are not anxious to end it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Sligo on this point: From the beginning of the War on platforms in Ireland there was hardly a county or a town where I did not address meetings, pointing out to the Irish people that this War in which you were engaged was a war on behalf of small nationalities. That aroused their passion. It moved their chivalry. It touched all their belief in great Christian and humane principles, and in the spirit of liberty. But when they had given you their all you betrayed them, and still you talk about small nationalities and the rights of small peoples on the platforms of this country, and you tell that to the peoples of Europe and America.
  I still believe that this was a battle for small nationalities, but I believe this, too, that there are people in this country, and the official classes in Ireland and in Dublin Castle, who inspire the elements in this country, who would rather see the Empire crash to pieces than to see justice done to Ireland. This spirit is so deeply rooted in their very souls that they can see nothing good in Ireland. You talk about your power to guide a great Empire, and you are boasting upon every platform, and rightly boasting, that you have been able to rally to your support and to your flag in this moment of Imperial peril and vicissitudes, the children of the Empire. Who are those children who have gathered round your flag? They are the children who have

  1807
  drunk in the spirit of liberty in South Africa, in New Zealand, in Australia, and in Canada, and the only element in the Empire which you have not got now, but which you had at the commencement of this War, when the heart of Ireland was warm towards you, with the breath of liberty which was stirring the people of that country, is Ireland, the nation that is next door to you; a nation with so many common interests; a nation which could be of countless value, not only in the War, but in every great cause which makes for human progress and public liberty. But she is now rendered angry and sullen, and she occupies a position tragic before all Europe. The heart of America, too, is angered and indignant that this Empire which has solved the great problems that have made it what it is to-day is incapable, not of the statesmanship, not of the wisdom, but of the spirit—for that is all that is needed—to be generous with a beneficent hand, as your predecessors were generous in their concessions in Canada, Australia, and South Africa. If you do that, and you get this question settled, then you would stand an irresistible power before the world.
  Sir J. SIMON: The wider considerations which the hon. Member has just presented with such eloquence to the House are considerations which I think will arise more directly, and in a more convenient form, when we have the Debate which is promised, and is to be raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night is definite and urgent, and relates to an Executive act of His Majesty's Government. With reference to that, I have a few observations to make, in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary. As I understand the Chief Secretary's speech, his convinced view is that he would not be acting in accordance with his duty if he was to state to the House and to the country what is the nature of the suspicion, in any detail, which he and his advisers entertain with regard to these twenty or thirty men. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite plain that in his judgment his duty is not to make that relevation. If that is the Chief Secretary's view, no one could quarrel with him, because, having formed that view, with the knowledge he has, he is acting upon it, and he
  1808
  is in no way to be reproached because, having stated that view, he has, as everybody must realise, presented a very ingenious argument, without revealing that which he was asked to disclose. That is not a criticism of his conduct, because, if he takes the view, on the knowledge which he necessarily possesses, that he cannot properly reveal these matters, then, of course, he would be very wrong to reveal them; but, at the same time, it is no good pretending that his speech is a speech which has disclosed to the House of Commons or to the country what is the ground for the action that has been taken. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will be the first to recognise that those two positions cannot be successfully occupied at the same time.
  I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government a few points for consideration. For my part, I feel bound to say that I believe he is acting in good faith, that he is acting with the most sincere desire to promote the public interests, and that he is speaking with the most genuine feeling, when he says that he would surrender his position here and now if he did not, think that by maintaining it he was serving the cause of the Empire. Accepting all that, is the Government really quite satisfied that the course they are prosecuting is the right one? Are they quite justified in it? It is obvious that the course which the Government is disposed to take is likely to produce at the best an immense amount of misunderstanding, and, it may be, do a great deal to inflame and intensify feeling, when, as an alternative, the knowledge that these persons were going to be exposed to a proper inquiry, through proper channels, would possibly assuage very bitter and very passionate emotions. That is not a matter about which any private Member can form a judgment. We quite recognise that it is for the Government, with their knowledge, to say, but I do wish that it were possible to give us a little more assurance than we have had that the alternative course, the ordinary course, the course which certainly in ordinary times would be taken without any question, is one which really is barred by the very exceptional circumstances of the case.
  But I may point out this, that, as I follow the Chief Secretary, what is now being done is to go further in the direction of denying the ordinary protection of the law to persons, possibly falsely arrested,

  1809
  than has hitherto been the case. He referred to that large body of persons who were detained and brought over to Frongoch. Am I not right in saying that everyone of those persons had his case examined by the Advisory Committee, on which there were, I think, two high judicial authorities, one an English and the other an Irish judge, as well as Members of Parliament? I do not say that that is the same thing as a trial, but it is a great deal better than nothing at all. And I do not quite understand why persons who were, in the first place, arrested and detained, and whose cases were then examined by this advisory committee, exercising, as I know, a very difficult task with the greatest desire to serve their country, if there are any more persons going to be arrested, should not also have their cases tested by a similar process. I know, for instance, that some time ago the Home Office did, and I think it still does, submit such cases, many of them, let me tell hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, English cases, to a body of that sort, and I took the view when I was Home Secretary, and I still take the view, that there are cases in which no better precaution for securing civil liberty, in the circumstances, was possible. But I would urge the Government to consider whether it is not possible to offer, at any rate, that degree of security, that sort of protection, against a thing which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend is as much concerned to avoid the reality of and the suspicion of as anybody in this House.
  I do not draw any distinction between persons who are responsible for the Government and private Members. There is not one of us who does not desire everything to be done which may remove the suspicion that there are not good grounds for what is undoubtedly a very grave executive act. It seems to me that the Government ought to do everything in their power to show that there are good grounds for what they are doing, and that that is the statement of persons who are in no way themselves either the Government or in the service of the Government. May I observe on that, if I understand aright, it has been decided on this question within the last few days by the Courts of this country that persons who have been put on a trial, which no doubt was a trial by a military Court, and was no doubt a trial behind closed doors, but which none the less was a trial, having been convicted by such a tribunal, are well and properly
  1810
  detained. I am not going to say anything in defence of military trials or trials behind closed doors, but do not let us rest content with the suspicion that this is merely part and parcel of a Castle conspiracy, without some process which being used, however imperfect, would go some way, I do not say towards restoring public confidence, but at any rate would show that independent persons not acting under the influence of the administration in Dublin have come to the conclusion that these persons should be detained. That was one of the questions which I wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I believe he is as anxious as anybody, more anxious than anybody else can possibly be, to show that he felt it his duty to take this step, and that is not open to the reproach that it will not stand any form of independent test or examination. The hon. Member for East Mayo, I think, said twice in his speech that orders had been given that the Press were not to comment on these proceedings.
  Mr. DILLON: To be quite accurate, I said the Censor had requested—I did not say ordered—the Press in this country not to comment on the arrests in Ireland, in the situation as it is at present.
  Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of his careful speech, made no reference to that allegation at all. The statement which the hon. Member made, left quite uncontradicted, undoubtedly causes grave concern in many quarters. It goes far beyond anything which I recollect in times past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, so far as I know, it goes far beyond anything done in times past in the Censor's Department, when I was at the head of the Bureau, and I fail altogether to understand how such a statement by the hon. Member for East Mayo could be made and not dealt with, whether by way of denial or by way of explanation on the part of the Government. For my part, I believe it to be absolutely essential to deal with these matters in time of war in a different way from the way in which we should normally and naturally expect them to be dealt with in ordinary times. I think that throws most serious responsibility on the administration of the day, first of all, to explain the necessity of the action they are taking, and, secondly, to seek by every means to prove to the community at large that what they have done is in the circumstances necessary, and, indeed, inevitable. It

  1811
  cannot be denied that however necessary these steps may be they are totally repugnant to our traditions in ordinary times. We must sacrifice some portion of liberty in order to preserve the rest, but I do think that on these two points we should have some rather more definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman And his colleagues than we have had in the course of the speech the right hon. Gentleman has made. For my part, I deliberately postpone the more general considerations raised both by the hon. Member for East Mayo and by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I must say that I desire in this matter, as in others, that when the action, which the Government has thought it right to take, is raised in this way and challenged, it should be defended on its own merits and for its own sake, and it should not be used simply as a measure of raising a wider and more general issue.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Simon) that in view of the opportunity which the Government will afford later for the discussion of the larger issues raised by the hon. Member, this not a suitable occasion to dwell upon them, but even tonight I should like to say that I entirely agree, as far as my knowledge goes, with the suggestion that next to the War itself there is no party which does not desire most strongly that some means should be found by which the long misunderstanding between Great Britain and Ireland should be brought to an end. In that respect we are all at one. There seems to have been during this War a very sad fate touching everything which has been done, but I cannot accept the view—which, of course, is always put from the benches opposite, that the faults are all on one side from beginning to end, that it is altogether the fault of the Government, and that nothing whatever is due to mistakes on the part of those who dwell in the other island. With regard to the points raised by my right hon. Friend, he began by putting the case in what seemed to me exactly the right way. It is really a question of the Executive Government of the day asking the House of Commons to justify the course we have taken on the faith that we are doing it with knowledge, and that it is necessary in the interests of the safety of the Empire. That is our case. My right hon.
  1812
  Friend accepts that, and says that if it is so, he for one will accept the view of the Executive Government. He goes on to make suggestions which I must say rather surprised me. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke) pointed out quite plainly what were the dangers which he anticipated. My right hon. Friend opposite suggests that, at all events, some part of the evil would be removed if those men could be brought to trial. But is it not obvious that at the trial the very motives and facts which the Government and the Executive of the country know would have to be brought to light, and it would be quite as injurious to mention them in the trial as in the House of Commons itself? He suggested that at all events we might have a comparatively independent tribunal such as that which dealt with the men who were at Frongoch. He seems to have forgotten that there is a great difference between the two cases. The men dealt with by that special tribunal were in prison, and it was obviously right that some examination should take place so as to make it plain whether or not they ought to be kept in prison. But this action does not imprison them; it merely lays down the rule that for the present they are not to live in Ireland.
  I think the same thing as I said before applies here. If we are to be justified in this action on the ground of fear that something may happen, then we are justified in not conveying that information to anybody, including the prisoners themselves, by such a course as my right hon. Friend has suggested. It is a question of whether the House as a whole believes that this action is not taken arbitrarily, is not taken on the dictation of officials in Ireland, but is a question of Government action. On that point I do think the record of the Government as a whole and of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary should have some weight. The House remembers that just before Christmas all these men were released. My right hon. Friend came to the Cabinet with a recommendation that they should be released. In making that recommendation he pointed out that there was a certain number of them whom he thought were really dangerous and who would, he feared, if they got the opportunity, stir up trouble, and dangerous trouble, in Ireland. In spite of that fear he recommended us to let them all go free, in the hope that that action would prevent even those who were enemies to

  1813
  this country from taking a course which would be dangerous to the safety of the State. That surely proves, in my opinion, that the Government was actuated by a desire to show the kind of clemency asked for by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The best proof, in my opinion, that there was justification for what my right hon. Friend has done is to be found in the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) himself. He told us, much to the regret of all of us, but I am afraid we know it to be true, that the state of Ireland is bad, and he added that he feared that in two or three weeks we would know how bad the position was. I put it to the House that if that is, in the opinion of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the position of Ireland——
  Mr. DILLON: Owing to your policy.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It may be. Admit that for the sake of argument. If that is the condition of Ireland, and if the hon. Member fears such results as he has indicated, is it not quite plain that whatever else may be the duty of the British Government and of the British people, it is their duty above all, in the interest not only of the subjects of the Empire, but in the interests of the people of Ireland themselves, to prevent another rising similar to that which occurred last year by very means in their power?
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: With the very best intention in the world, I rise for the purpose of protesting against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He will remember that before ever he came to that country we wished him well, and we have watched his career with great interest. I protest, in the first place, against his statement that because of the Motion that is now before the House and because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, we are the apologists and advocates of the people whom he has thought fit to exile from their native land. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was betrayed in the exuberance of his speech into such a statement. As well might he associate himself with any person whom he had defended in his brilliant career. Surely he does not associate himself with the person charged if he defends that person. He as an advocate knows that he does not associate himself with a crime or a criminal if he undertakes the defence. He merely insists upon the
  1814
  forms of justice being exhausted before that accused person is condemned. And surely we are not wrong in insisting that, all the forms of law with which people accused are surrounded by the custom and by the law shall be exhausted before they are condemned. He has said that it might he supposed from this Motion and from the speeches with which it has been supported that Ireland was a happy land. We know well it is not a happy land. We know well that it is very much irritated, that it is a running sore which has been irritated by the action of the Executive. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the Chief Secretary speaks with knowledge. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself is one that might have been delivered any time in this House with regard to Ireland for the past forty or fifty years or even more. It was a speech to which we have listened at any time during our career in this House.
  I remember well when a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary sat in the very place which he now occupies and stated, under almost similar circumstances, that he had under lock and key in Ireland every dissolute ruffian and every maurais sujet in the country. He lived to regret that phrase. He lived to know that he had said what was not a fact, and he made that statement because he was advised to do so by the very people under whose influence the right hon. Gentleman seems to have fallen now. The right hon. Gentleman occupies a position in which it is his inexorable fate to come under the influence of those persons who give such advice. He says that we are advocates and apologists of the views of the deported persons. He knows very well that they are not our friends; that they are our most active enemies; that they, in very recent times, have given proofs of their hostility to us. It is not because they are our friends, or that we are their apologists, defenders, or advocates that we stand here to-night as a matter of public duty to insist that our fellow citizens, no matter how they may have offended, if they are accused, shall be entitled to trial before condemnation, and that before the latter all the forms of justice shall be exhausted. That is our justification for the stand we are taking now. Every effort that has been made to bring discontent here or in Ireland has failed. We can make no objection to the right hon. Gentleman or the Execu-

  1815
  tive defending themselves against attack or hostility if it takes the form of open rebellion. But there is one thing they always fail to suppress by these measures—that is that natural discontent of Ireland. If there is discontent in Ireland, it is—we have asserted it here to-night—their fault. By maladministration of the law they have changed a state of things that we not very long ago regarded as healthy into a state of things that is most unhealthy and irritating.
  Only a short while ago I visited my own Constituency. I met many old friends; many who had supported the constitutional movement for the past thirty or forty years. One morning in a country read I met one of my oldest friends, whom I greeted warmly. He returned my greeting more coldly than ever before. I asked him the cause. He replied, "England is the cause." Further interrogated, he said, "England is no good." We have been supporting you in your constitutional movement for many years, and what is our return? When we are rebels we are taken out into a courtyard, and, if we are invalided by wounds, put into a chair and shot. But," he went on, "there are other rebels, who glorify in their rebellion, and who are taken into the Government. England is no good!" He proceeded, "You have had the cause of Home Rule before Parliament and the country for many years. Its justice has been admitted, and no doubt it may become the law of the land on some near occasion. But whom shall we have to thank for it? The English people or the English nation? The English Parliament? No, we shall have to thank Germany and Germany alone for giving us Home Rule." He said to me very logically, "If our cause is good now, it was good years ago. Why did not we get it through a sense of justice? Now we get it only through a sense of fear, and we shall not have the gratitude we might have had on a past occasion." That is the state of feeling that has grown in Ireland. My friends and myself, as you, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of this House, are well aware, have striven through difficulties in times past to bring about a better state of feeling between the two countries, and we had almost succeeded when—I am sorry to say it—by the maladministration, by the mismanagement of the Executive in Ireland, that state of feeling
  1816
  which we had almost established has been, changed into a feeling of irritation and discontent. Now you are trying to suppress this discontent by what means? By the same old means as in the past, and justified by the same old speeches as in the past. I have listened to the speech of the Chief Secretary. It carried my mind back thirty-two years, when I first entered this House, when I heard his predecessors make the very same class of speech, justifying the very fame class of Act. "We know," they said. "We have knowledge; you have not. We know the motives that actuate us; you do not." That is not good enough. We have heard those speeches too often, and they will have no more effect to-day than they had in the past.
  Let me give an example from the right hon. Gentleman's own course of action. He will remember that when he took office I took occasion from one of these benches to wish him well in his new career. I had reason to know that he had not unkindly feelings towards Ireland. I felt it my duty to give, public expression to it. Not only that, but I took occasion in the Lobby to greet him and bid him welcome and Godspeed in his new work. I thought I knew his heart was in the right direction, as I believe it is. Some little time after that I had occasion to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman and to suggest to him that I wanted to visit my Constituency, that I believed he could help me, and that I was eager to help him. I asked him to release the men of my Constituency who were. I believe, many of them wrongly accused of having sympathy with the disaffected sections in Ireland. None of them had taken part in the armed rebellion. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman stating what my feeling was, knowing and believing, as I have said, that his heart was in the right place, and I asked him to help me to help him. I got back a reply which I might have received from any Chief Secretary in Ireland in the past fifty or sixty years had I been in this place—a non possumus. It could not be done; these men should go down on their knees, these men should beg pardon, these men should offer securities for their future good behaviour. Futile I knew it all to be, I, who had passed through it all; I who knew you could not get an Irishman to bend the knee in that manner; I who had seen thousands of Irishmen in prison all decline to sign similar petitions. You may convert, you

  1817
  may bring them to your side by kindness, but you cannot scourge them into submission, and you cannot get them to sign what they believe to be dishonouring and dishonourable conditions.
  I remember, in my own time, to have seen thousands of men serving various terms of imprisonment in Ireland; I have known a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman submit to 6,000 of us conditions similar to those referred to to-night; and I have seen those 6,000 men all decline to sign the conditions and prefer to go on serving a long term of imprisonment rather than submit to dishonourable conditions. What the right hon. Gentleman put before himself as the means to the end would be futile. I did not reply to the right hon. Gentleman's letter because I knew very well that he was pursuing a course that was old and had been a failure in the past. What happened? After a couple of months the right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House, and he stands up before that box and tells us that ho is now satisfied that this might safely be done, that these men might safely be released without asking them to sign any condition, without imposing upon them anything dishonourable and as they thought dishonouring conditions, and they were all released, repeating the history of the country from one Chief Secretary to another, just as the late W. E. Forster acted, for he retired rather than do the same thing. He was obliged to abandon it, and so was the right hon. Gentleman opposite obliged to abandon this plan of governing Ireland. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman accept what I put before him in the first instance? It took almost a violent agitation upon our part. It took public meetings and public resolutions, and Motion after Motion from these benches to bring home to him a conviction which he might have entertained in the first instance, that the course he had set out upon was the wrong course, and had been tried before and had failed.
  What has the right hon. Gentleman done now? He has gone back to Ireland. He has conferred with those who are in office. We thought that a revolution had taken place in Ireland, and that the atmosphere of Dublin Castle had been changed, but it appears that it cannot be changed, and that a Chief Secretary, no matter how well disposed he may be or how honourable the intentions with which he enters upon
  1818
  his office may be, if he falls under the hereditary influence of the governing circles in Ireland he most assuredly shares the same fate as his predecessors. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken a false step this time, and I trust that this Motion will not be made in vain, but that he will reconsider the step he has taken. I do not know how far the advice offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) will have an effect upon his mind, but I think something is due to the public opinion of Ireland. Enough has been done already and a great deal was done before the right hon. Gentleman took office to irritate the people of Ireland and make our position rather difficult. We do not care much about our position, certainly not individually; what we do care about is the position of the constitutional movement is justice, and is that our people shall, at all events, have the forms of justice meted out to them just as the right hon. Gentleman would insist that all the forms of justice should be used on behalf of those accused whom he might defend. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the wrong course, and the sooner he abandons it the better, if he wishes, as I am sure he docs, when the time comes for him to retire from this most difficult of all Government positions, to be able to say to himself that he was misguided, not by prejudice or by hereditary injustice, but by his own interest, and by his own desire to bring about that state of things between the two countries which we all of us desire.
  Major NEWMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) made some little point of the fact that news from Ireland was being censored in English newspapers. It is perfectly obvious that he did not read his "Daily Mail" this morning, because, if he had done so, he would have seen an account of something in the nature of a gala night the night before last in the city of Cork. He would have read how Sinn Feiners were out in platoons roving the streets in a spirit of high bravado, with girls admiring them, and how crackers went off, but no serious damage was done. He would have read how the commandant of the local Sinn Feiners with another bad been arrested, and how no more trouble was expected in Cork for several months. Two months ago news from Ireland were suppressed, and I have been surprised lately at the amount of news that has been allowed to appear in

  1819
  the English newspapers. If the Debate has done nothing else, it has revealed one of the unseen hands. The unseen hand in Ireland, according to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), is an English officer, Major Price. It is certainly a somewhat sinister thing in my mind that the hon. Member for West Belfast should have told us that he arranged, I imagine it was Christmas time, with the Prime Minister that Major Price should be dismissed from his post. That throws a rather sinister light on the Government of Ireland in some aspects, at any rate. The Chief Secretary dealt rather hardly with the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) when he told him that we obsessed with the recent election in North Roscommon. I think the hon. Member is quite right to be so obsessed. If I had gone against my party and had broken my party in the by-election, and had come back to this House and had founded another party, myself and one other, I should have been a very proud man. The Chief Secretary assured the hon. Member that the re-arrest of the deportees had nothing to do with the result of the by-election in North Roscommon—no more than it had to do with the recent success of General Sir Douglas Haig in the capture of Serre and other towns. Let me read to the Chief Secretary exactly what took place in this by-election at Roscommon. We are told in one of the newspapers that
  "In the polling booth on the election day at the counting of the votes prominent men were there from Dublin, Cork and Limerick, who were only released a few weeks ago from the internment camp in Wales, and as the result Mr. Redmond's election machine went to pieces. It meant that if Mr. Redmond's party joined the sore-heads arid forced an election, they would be swept out of four-fifths of their seats in the same way I as they had from out of North Roscommon."
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Unionists in Roscommon voted for Count Plunkett?
  Major NEWMAN: Yes; and I am afraid if I had been there I should have done the same thing in order to defeat the party machine. Why on earth was this Debate raised at all? Why was the Adjournment of the House moved? It was because the stock of politicians stands very low at this moment. Politicians are at a discount—
  1820
  even the leaders are—and the humble-Member like myself on £400 a year is at a bigger discount still.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What about your Army-pay?
  Major NEWMAN: I do not get any-There are very few Christian virtues supposed to attach to the politician, but I must confess that here Members below the Gangway are enumerating one of the principles laid down in the Sermon on the Mount and are blessing those who despite-fully use them. I should like to refer to the last article written by a gentleman who has been re-arrested and brought back to England in which he speaks of Roger Casement. He says:
  "If one Irish Member had risen to demand the reprieve it would have been granted. Conceive it! Not one question for one man's life to be saved. Yet the whole 80 Members sat silent in their seats or asked questions bout Timbuctoo."
  We know that the ungrateful dog bites the hand that caresses him, and the Irish party seems unwilling to lick the hands of the Sinn Feiners. I have here a magazine called the "Catholic Bulletin." It costs 2d. I know something of the cost of printing and publishing magazines, and, if it costs 2d., unless it has a very big sale, it is run at a big loss. The editor of this, magazine was deported the other day, so I take it that I shall not get any more numbers of it. What was his last article? It was a very long, very able, and extremely bitter article against the hon. Member for East Mayo, criticising a speech he made at Swinford, in which he dealt with a variety of topics—recruiting, and so on. That was one article. The other article——
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND).
    ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND).
    MOTOR-TRACTOR PLOUGHS.
    MOTOR-TRACTOR PLOUGHS.
    SALE OF LAND (KING'S COUNTY).
    SALE OF LAND (KING'S COUNTY).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (BRITISH AND GERMAN).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (BRITISH AND GERMAN).
  MILITARY CAMPS (PREVENTION OF WASTE).
  MILITARY CAMPS (PREVENTION OF WASTE).
  SOLDIERS TRANSFERRED TO RESERVE.
  SOLDIERS TRANSFERRED TO RESERVE.
  DRAPERY EMPLOYES' MEETING (POLICE RAID).
  DRAPERY EMPLOYES' MEETING (POLICE RAID).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SOLDIERS' SPARE-TIME EMPLOYMENT.
  SOLDIERS' SPARE-TIME EMPLOYMENT.
  GERMANS NATURALISED.
  GERMANS NATURALISED.
  SHOPS EARLIER CLOSING ORDER (BOOKSTALLS).
  SHOPS EARLIER CLOSING ORDER (BOOKSTALLS).
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.
  IRISH CATTLE TRADE (TRANSIT).
  IRISH CATTLE TRADE (TRANSIT).
  DIAMOND EXPORT COMMITTEE.
  DIAMOND EXPORT COMMITTEE.
  Income Tax (Gratuities).
  Income Tax (Gratuities).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Stewart Estate (County Donegal).
  Stewart Estate (County Donegal).
  King v. M'Loughlin (Expenses).
  King v. M'Loughlin (Expenses).
  Trained School Teachers (Ireland).
  Trained School Teachers (Ireland).
  Waterford Model National Schools.
  Waterford Model National Schools.