Sitting of 9 July 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Water Bill,
Cork Improvement Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MUNITIONS (HEALTH OF MUNITION WORKERS).
Copy presented of Memorandum, No. 18 (Appendix to Memorandum No. 5 (Hours of Work), by the Health of Munition Workers Committee (Further Statistical Information concerning Output in relation to Hours of Work, with special reference to the influence of Sunday Labour) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1915. Vol. IV., Part II. Returns of Produce of Crops in Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AERONAUTICS.
Copy presented of Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the year 1916–17 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TAXES (ENGLAND AND WALES, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st June; Mr. Ginnell] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 107.]
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
Copy presented of Draft of a Royal Warrant for the Retired Pay of Officers disabled and for the Pensions of Families and Relatives of Officers deceased, and for the Pensions of Nurses disabled in consequence of the present war [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 5th July; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      EXPORT or FOODSTUFFS.
      Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if the steamship "Gowrie" was recently taken over by the Government, loaded with a consignment, and dispatched to Rotterdam; if so, for what country this food was intended; and whether, in view of the shortage of food and ships, he will consider the advisability of stopping any further supplies of foodstuffs being shipped out of the country?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I regret that I am not in a position to explain publicly the circumstances attending the shipment to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have given him the information privately.

      FOXES.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether

      1575
      he is satisfied in all cases with the steps taken by the masters of foxhounds to keep down foxes in war-time; if so, what are the reasons which account for the continued destruction of poultry by foxes in many parts of the country; and whether he will call in the services of the county agricultural committees to secure the destruction of foxes?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board are satisfied with the steps which are being taken by the masters of foxhounds in response to their request to them to keep down foxes. Some destruction of poultry is certain to occur, but the complaints which the Board receive do not show that it is considerable. Existing arrangements provide for complaints being promptly taken up with the hunts concerned, and the Board at present see no reason to alter them to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member, especially as the work of the county agricultural committees is already very heavy. If the hon. Member will bring any specific cases to the Board's notice, they shall be promptly investigated.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I did bring important cases to his notice recently, and have heard nothing since?
      Sir R. WINFREY: They have been dealt with.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: May I have the answer in regard to it?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I shall send my hon. Friend the answer.

      AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what were the total number of agricultural workers before the War upon which the estimate has been based that between 300,000 and 350,000 have been lost to agriculture since the War; how many men have been lent to agriculture from the Army recently which are not included in the above figures; and at what date these latter men are due to return to the Army?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The number of agricultural workers in England and Wales before the War was approximately 1,000,000. Twenty-two thousand soldiers lent by the Army have been on the land since March last, and a further 12,000
      1576
      have been lent for the hay harvest. None of these men are to be withdrawn until further notice. It is not possible to say how many of these 34,000 soldiers are men who have not had previous experience in agriculture, nor can the number of persons, male and female, be estimated who have voluntarily returned to the industry since the outbreak of war, or taken it up as work of national importance.

      SUGAR BEET.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that a Grant of £125,000 has been given to enable sugar beet manufacture in England; whether he is aware that the beet grown in Ireland gives a greater yield of saccharine than in most other countries; and whether, under those circumstances, he will apply for monetary assistance to start the industry in Ireland?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I understand that no Grant has been made as suggested, but that a sum of £125,000 has been lent from the Development Fund to the British Beet Growers' Society for the purchase of an estate and the establishment of the sugar beet industry as soon as circumstances permit. I believe the sugar beet grown on experimental plots in Ireland compares favourably in yield and quality with that grown in other countries. The Department of Agriculture have not applied for any Grant or loan for a sugar beet project; but they intend to keep in touch with the British Beet Growers' Society's work, as they have done with regard to previous similar projects.
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether this country at the outbreak of hostilities was practically dependent upon Germany and Austria for its supply of beet sugar; whether the British Dominions could with encouragement produce as much cane sugar as was previously imported by the enemies of the Empire; and what steps have been taken to encourage the developments of this potential supply in the interests of British consumers and Empire development?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): The United Kingdom undoubtedly drew a large portion of its supplies of sugar from Germany and Austria prior to the outbreak of war; how far the British Empire could produce

      1577
      all the sugar which it needs depends on various considerations, and not least on the capital available and the supply of labour in the localities where sugar can be grown. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the last question is at present surrounded by special difficulties which are now under discussion. I may add that steps are being taken in certain Colonies to increase the output of sugar by the erection of improved factories.
      General CROFT: Is it not a fact that if the Government in 1914 had encouraged these Protectorates to produce sugar there would have been no famine at the present moment? May I also ask whether any steps are being taken now to deal with this question on a large scale, so that there need not be any sugar famine next year?
      Mr. LONG: Everything is being done that can be done.
      General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware with regard to the labour difficulty that labour is actually leaving the British Islands and going to Cuba and other United States possessions?
      Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend knows what the difficulties are. It is not only the labour difficulty. The main difficulty is the question of tonnage.

      TEA.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, having regard to the scarcity ruling and high prices fixed for tea sold in London and the accumulation of stocks in Colombo and Calcutta, he can undertake to arrange that teas shall be carried from those ports to London at ¾d./1d., the rates which the Government state it costs them to carry teas for the Army, so as to effect a corresponding reduction in the wholesale and retail prices of distributors to the public?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The important point raised by my right hon. Friend's question is receiving very careful attention. In the meantime, I may say that the tea from Calcutta, which is roughly about two-thirds of the entire supply received from India and Ceylon, is already carried under pre-war freight contracts of about ¾d. per 1b., which is less than Blue Book rate, whereas tea from Colombo is carried at a freight of nearly
      1578
      3d. per 1b. Unfortunately, however, the lower freight enjoyed by the greater part of the tea supply does not appear to be reflected in London market prices, and to this point we are specially directing the attention of the Food Controller.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price in London is fixed by the Government, and will he undertake to consider, in conjunction with the Food Controller, whether the freight from Colombo cannot be reduced and the benefit secured to the public by fixing lower retail and wholesale prices?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sure my right hon. Friend will not expect me to trespass upon the difficult ground which is the province of the Food Controller, but the answer I have just given did state that I am bringing that particular point to the attention of my Noble Friend.

      BACON.
      Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in an East End borough during one week bacon to the approximate value of £60,000 has been condemned; whether this was due to the delay in dealing with it on arrival and to the prices demanded; and, if so, what action is contemplated to put a stop to this waste?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given last Monday on behalf of the Food Controller to the hon. Member for Derby.
      Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the weight of bacon which was condemned by the Metropolitan borough councils during May and part of June as unfit for human consumption amounted to nearly 9,000 cwt.; and has his Department taken any steps to prevent a repetition of this loss of meat by taking over or extending the cold storage accommodation available?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The circumstances leading to the condemnation of the bacon in question have already been explained in an answer given to the hon. Member for Derby on 2nd July. The whole of the bacon in question was either Danish or Dutch, and the fact that both these varieties are mild-cured, renders

      1579
      them unsuitable for cold storage. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. HOLTasked whether there have been any cages recently of bacon or similar foodstuffs going bad owing to inability to find proper storage or them; and, if so, whether private persons who have suitable storage will be encouraged to lay in stocks of such articles of food, thereby enabling the stocks of food held in this country to be increased?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware that any bacon or similar foodstuffs have recently gone bad for lack of proper storage. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

      MILK.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, on the 15th of May last, called the attention of the Ministry of Food to the fact that certain farmers in the neighbourhood of Glasgow were charging 9d. per gallon for milk in excess of the corresponding price before the War instead of an excess of 6½d. per gallon as permitted by the Price of Milk Order; whether the matter was handed over to the milk section of the Ministry to deal with; and whether any action has been taken or is proposed to be taken?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is now in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that mean that legal proceedings are being taken?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member knows what the duties and functions of the Procurator Fiscal are.

      SHOOTING GAME (CARTRIDGES).
      Colonel SANDERSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Food Controller has requested landlords to shoot as many pheasants, rabbits, etc., as possible while the Minister of Munitions refuses to allow them to purchase cartridges to do so; and whether he will take steps to see that the purchase of cartridges for the shooting of game is no longer obstructed?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): Under the terms of the Order issued by competent military authorities, licences for the purchase of sporting cartridges may be issued where the War County Agricultural Committee is satisfied that they are required for destroying vermin or preserving crops. The policy embodied in the Order was adopted largely at the instance of the Food Production Department of the Board of Agriculture. I am not prepared to take the steps suggested in the last part of the question.
      Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last two seasons over 30,000 head of game have been dispatched by one organisation to the London hospitals, and is the distribution of cartridges now to be exclusively confined to farmers, and none issued to any other persons for the destruction of game?
      Dr. ADDISON: I take it the other persons would be able to obtain them if they satisfied the War Agricultural Committee that they would be thereby preserving crops. The reason for the Order is the shortage of lead.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take into consideration the question of the provision of food? Has he nothing to do with the provision of food?
      Dr. ADDISON: That is not within the province of the Minister of Munitions. So far as the Order is concerned, we are about to cut short many essential industries owing to the shortage of lead. This is one of the directions in which we have to stop the use of lead.
      Mr. HOLT: How much do you expect to save?
      Dr. ADDISON: A large number of tons.
      Mr. HOLT: Ten tons?
      Dr. ADDISON: I will answer that question if the hon. Member gives me notice.

      PRICES AND PROFITEERING.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can see his way clear to fix an early day for a Debate on food control prices and profiteering'; and whether, under these circumstances, he will arrange for the Debate to be opened by an official statement; and (2) whether,

      1581
      in view of profits from shareholdings in private and public companies which have been shown to be possible under present legislation and in view of the fact that this House is responsible for creating that legislation, he will now see his way clear to introduce further legislation to prevent such holdings by Members of this House?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to these questions is still in the negative.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any official information with regard to profiteering in the United Kingdom; and, if so, what steps, if any, the Government are taking to check and prevent it as far as possible?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for North-West Stafford on 27th June.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committees are refusing transit facilities for potatoes at Holbeach, Lincolnshire, consigned to Kew Bridge Station, London; and whether, having regard to the prices obtaining for this article of food as for many others, partly the result of railway obstructions and delays in transit, he will cause unnecessary obstructions to be removed immediately?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I am not aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I will make inquiries and let him know the result.

    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade what method is adopted by the Petrol Control Committee for the purpose of ascertaining the necessary requirements of persons to whom petrol licences are granted; and whether he is aware of the number of cases in which licences are held by persons who do not now use their own cars, thus creating opportunities for an abuse of the petrol regulations?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Applicants for petrol licences are required to fill in a form
    1582
    of application giving particulars of the motor vehicle used, the purposes for which it is used, the amount of petrol in stock, and the quantity required per month. I am not aware of the number of cases in which licences are held by persons who do not now use their own cars, but it is not the practice of the Petrol Control Department to grant licences to those to whom cars have been transferred unless the licences of the original holders have been surrendered.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the petrol consumed by the Army abroad is first imported to this country or sent direct to France and the other fronts?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Almost the whole of the petrol consumed by the Armies abroad is shipped direct and does not come to this country at all.
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Home Secretary how many able-bodied men are employed by the Metropolitan police to trap motorists, in view of the fact that the Petrol Committee refuse to grant petrol to persons whose cars are not used for war work?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): No members of the Force are exclusively allocated to enforcing the provisions of the Motor Car Act; qualified men are employed on this duty from time to time as the necessity arises.

    SHALE OIL.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the production of shale petrol in Scotland is now larger than ever; and whether there is sufficient storage for the output?
    Dr. ADDISON: As a result of the steps which have been taken, there has been an increase in the production of shale oil in Scotland, but it is hoped that a still further increase may be obtained in the near future. I am informed that ample storage accommodation is available.

    NATURALISATION ACT.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how

    1583
    many members of the firm of Suter, Hartman, and Rahtjens, Limited, are naturalised British subjects of German nationality; how many of these have forfeited their rights to German nationality; and whether the Government will consider the question of extending the provisions of the Naturalisation Act so as not to allow naturalised German subjects the full privileges regarding Government contracts and the holding of shares, etc., that are enjoyed by British subjects of British parentage?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Three naturalised British subjects of German origin, two of whom were naturalised in 1877 and the other in 1883, hold shares in the company referred to. Two of these shareholders obtained denaturalisation certificates with regard to their German nationality and I am informed that the third did not consider such a certificate necessary because he was born before 1848. I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with regard to any question of amending the naturalisation law.

    MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir William Meyer, the finance member of the Governor-General's Council, made any and, if so, what report or gave any and, if so, what advice in respect of the construction of a transport railway in Mesopotamia demanded by General Nixon for strategic reasons which were not endorsed by General Sir Beauchamp Duff, then Commander-in-Chief in India?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to reserve what I have to say on this subject till Thursday's Debate.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of Lord Hardinge's statement in his letter dated 21st July, 1916, to Sir George Buchanan respecting Bratiano, he will state whether this refers to M. Bratiano, Prime Minister of Roumania; and, if so, whether Lord Hardinge has been, or will be, asked to apologise to the Roumanian Minister in London for this indiscretion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member on the 28th ultimo.
    Mr. KING: Are we to understand them that humble people may make an indiscretion and suffer severely, while a great man and distinguished official makes an indiscretion nothing is to happen and no notice is to be taken of it?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know to what humble individual the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the provision in Section 6 of the Special Commissions Act, 1916, enacting that any Report shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament; will he say on what day the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission was received; and, seeing that the Report was signed on 17th May and was on 14th June laid upon the Table of this House, why was so much time allowed to elapse between these two dates?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Report was received by the Government on 17th May, and as I have already explained, we thought it necessary that it should be considered by the Government before it was presented to the House of Commons.
    Mr. KINGIs there anything in the Act of Parliament which justifies the Government an keeping it back when there is an express provision that it should be presented to this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have answered the same question many times.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, following the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, any changes in the Cabinet can be announced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the Government a sort of limited liability company for the preservation of titled incompetence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not. That question can best be discussed in debate.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in view of the advisability of proceeding to appropriate sanctions in regard to Meso-

    1585
    potamia, and considering also that the Government acts as a kind of Court of final appeal in the matter, he will announce the resignation from office of all members of the Government implicated and of all officials whose administration has been censured but who are in a position to influence the Government by advice?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: How can the Government be a judge in this matter when so many of its members are people in the position of being implicated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In that case the House of Commons must determine, and they will be in a better position to form a judgment after the Debate.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in order that the matter may be sifted, he will give two days for the Debate on the Mesopotamia question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated, if it is found there is a desire to continue the discussion the Government will at once agree to do so.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the situation will be obviated by a number of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench getting up and speaking while those hon. Members who are really in earnest will be excluded?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to suppose that Members of the two Front Benches are less in earnest than other hon. Members with the exception of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir J. D. REESasked on what Motion the Debate on the Mesopotamia Commission will be taken; and whether full opportunity will be given for the discussion of such Amendments as hon. Members may desire to move?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to take the same course as in the case of the Dardanelles Report, and the Debate will take place on the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister (1) with reference to the Report of the Commission, appointed by Act of Parliament to inquire into the operations of war in Mesopotamia, at page 102 that a large number of telegrams sent from here to the Viceroy about the
    1586
    advance on Bagdad are marked private, and that one of the most important of these private telegrams conveying new and serious information as to the possible concentration of 60,000 Turkish troops near Bagdad was, in consequence of it being marked private, not filed in the military department, and was not transmitted to Sir John Nixon in Mesopotamia, if he can state the date of this telegram, the names and offices of the officials who caused it to be sent, whether it ever reached India, and what became of it; and (2) with reference to the reflections contained in the Mesopotamia Commission Report on the procedure by private telegrams and private letters from the Secretary of State for India in matters of importance to the Mesopotamia Expedition, whether the Law Officers of the Crown or the counsel at the India Office have been consulted as to the limitations arising from the provisions of the Act of Parliament that business shall be conducted by the Council or India at weekly meetings?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will deal with these questions in Debate on Thursday. I think I ought to say at once that the telegram referred to in question 71 was sent by me personally.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue as a White Paper the agreements arrived at on all points concerning prisoners of war at the recent Conference at The Hague?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): There is no objection on the part of the Prisoners of War Department to such a Paper being issued, but the matter is one for the War Cabinet, if and when the agreement is ratified.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the War Cabinet that from the very nature of the question it necessarily means that a number of people in this country are eagerly awaiting news of what has been settled to the advantage of our prisoners, and will he press upon them that a public statement should be made at the earliest possible date in the form I suggest?
    Mr. HOPE: I think they are quite alive to it without any necessity to press the matter.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement by the Member for Barnard Castle that the position of the Allies in relation to Russian democracy can be cleared only by a conference of representatives of the Allied Governments, including the United States, and that no ordinary meeting of diplomats would satisfy the Russians; whether the Governments of the Allies are taking immediate steps to summon such a conference; and, if so, whether they are proposing that representatives shall be sent from the various countries who are outside the narrow circle of official diplomatists?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have seen a report of the nature alluded to in the first part of the question, but it would be premature for His Majesty's Government to take any action before receiving the considered views of the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle. The date and composition of the conference is under consideration by the Allied Governments.

    MEXICO (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the constitution of the United States of Mexico promulgated in 1917, under which power is given to the executive to compel any British subject whose presence is judged inconvenient to leave Mexican territory forthwith and without the necessity of previous notice; and whether the British Government is taking any, and, if so, what steps for the protection of British subjects and to prevent the confiscation of their property?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have under careful consideration the various questions affecting British interests in Mexico which have been raised by the Constitution of 1917, and they have lodged protests and reserved claims on behalf of any British subjects and companies prejudicially affected. The particular provision to which the hon. Member refers seems to embody the right of all sovereign Governments to expel from national territory persons whose presence they have reason to consider objectionable. Should the right be used in the case of any
    1588
    British subject without sufficiently good cause it would be open to His Majesty's Government to make such representations to the Mexican Government as the circumstances might require.

    SPAIN (GERMAN FALSEHOODS).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that during the past few weeks German agents in Spain have been spreading reports that His Majesty's Government is working to produce revolutionary disturbances in that country; and what steps are being taken to deny and to counteract these falsehoods?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. I have information from Madrid and elsewhere which confirms the purport of my hon. Friend's question. German propaganda in such matters follows quite simple lines. In Russia, where autocracy has been abolished, it declares that we are secretly fostering reaction. In Spain, where there is a Constitutional monarchy, it proclaims that we are aiming at revolution. Both statements are untrue; both are absurd; both are inconsistent with the often expressed policy of His Majesty's Government, which is to leave other countries to manage their own domestic affairs in the manner they think best.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to deny these false statements?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have just this instant taken the best step in my power.

    CHINA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any news regarding the political situation in China, and particularly whether British residents in Pekin are in danger in consequence of the attempted usurpation on the part of the Imperialists?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The reports that have appeared in the Press as to the political situation in China are confirmed by His Majesty's representative at Pekin. No danger to foreigners is anticipated, but all possible precautions are being taken and the Foreign Legations have warned the

    1589
    Pekin Government that communications between the capital and the sea must be kept open.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Emperor has abdicated?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have not received any information to that effect.

    SHOT-GUN AMMUNITION.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has approved the contemplated prohibition by the Munitions Department of the sale of shot-gun ammunition except to Farmers for the protection of crops; and whether ho can state what steps his Department Intend to take to secure the utilisation of the season's crop of grouse, Mack game, pheasants, and partridges as human food, and to prevent over-stocking and consequent damage to crops if no facilities for killing them are afforded?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board have been in communication for some time past with the Ministry of Munitions and the Army Council on the subject of the restrictions which it has been found necessary to impose on the use of lead in cartridges. At the request of those Departments the Board agreed that the Agricultural Executive Committtees should act as the authorities for the issue of licences for the purchase of cartridges required for the destruction of vermin and the preservation of crops. It does not appear to the Board that the issue of licences for the purchase of cartridges for shooting game, except so far as this is necessary for the protection of crops, is a matter which comes within the functions of the Board or of the Agricultural Executive Committees. Any action which may be necessary from the point of view of providing food is a matter for the Food Controller.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSSES).
    Mr. HOLTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to British steam vessels of 1,600 tons gross tonnage and upwards lost through war perils within 200 miles of the West, North-West, and South-West coasts of Ireland, the number of vessels so lost in each of the months of February, March, April, May, and June, 1917; the number of such vessels which
    1590
    were so lost whilst in sight of a British warship or of a British patrol vessel; the number of such vessels from which the crews were taken off by British warships or British patrol vessels; and the number of such vessels from which the crews were saved in the vessels' own boats?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend the First Lord is advised that the public interest would not be served by publishing the proportion of losses occurring in any particular area. Further, so far as can be seen, the statistical information asked for would not afford any advantage commensurate with the expenditure of time and labour required for its collection.
    Mr. HOLT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the losses of merchant ships in the areas indicated in the question is very serious, and is he aware that great alarm is now arising amongst ship-owners and shipmasters by finding their ships marshalled by the Admiralty in areas where there are German submarines; and will he make some statement indicating that the Admiralty policy has been altered, or otherwise restore confidence in what is being done?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should certainly regret if confidence wore in any way undermined. I say this without at all accepting my hon. Friend's statement. If my hon. Friend, however, has any views on the matter let him state them to me and I will transmit them to the War Staff, or, if he likes, I shall be glad to help him to transmit those views to the War Staff himself.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary for (Scotland on what grounds the Board of Agriculture applied for exemption for a conscientious objector; if the duties of the said person are organising boys' camps; and if he will explain why a person who will not fight for his country or work for it except in his own way becomes a subject for the solicitude of the Scottish Board?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not aware of any such case. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with the name and designation of the man to whom he refers, I will make inquiry.

      AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that, although it has been distinctly stated that no more men should be taken off the land except with the approval of the Board of Agriculture and the local county agricultural committee, the recruiting officer at Kirk-wall stated to the tribunal that he had received instructions from the War Office to pay no attention to this agreement and that men are being taken from the land without any reference to the Board of Agriculture; and if he will see what can be done to settle the question?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It will be necessary to make inquiry in this case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

      MUSICIANS IN TRAINING.
      Mr. YEOasked the Prime Minister if he has received a motion from the British Music Trades Convention requesting that in cases where lads have left professional training schools to serve the Colours, and their parents will be unable, after the War, to pay for their reinstatement in these schools, the State will come to the financial aid of the parents; and, if so, whether he will give this recommendation his support?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Prime Minister has not received the motion referred to.
      Mr. YEO: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that if the Prime Minister does receive it he will give it consideration?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure he will give it consideration, but, as my hon. Friend must realise, there are many other similar cases.

      WIDOW'S REMAINING SON.
      Mr. KILEYasked the Under-secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Bonner, who, since the death of her husband eight years ago, has continued the business of her late husband as butcher and provision dealer at Wanton Street, East, and despite the fact that her two sons, George and Harry, have joined His Majesty's Forces, her remaining son, Frederick, was ordered by the local tribunal to join up on 19th June and received
      1592
      orders to join the forces on 19th July, which means that this widow, who is in. bad health, will be unable to carry on this old-established business, thus entailing hardship on the widow and her remaining three young children; and, in view of the statement made by the late Prime Minister that it would be a crime to take a widow's remaining son, is he prepared to consider the advisability of suspending the call-up paper until an efficient substitute is found to carry on the business in question?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry is being made into this case, but it has not so far been possible to trace the address given in the question. Perhaps my hon. Friend would furnish me with further particulars. I would remind him, however, that the case has apparently been settled by a tribunal.

      BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, when men over military age are called up for examination, they are compelled to produce their birth certificates, the expense of obtaining which is 3s. 16.; and whether the military authorities will obtain a man's birth certificate in such a case or, alternatively, have provision made whereby a man can obtain a copy of his birth certificate for this purpose at less expense?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think public funds can be expected to bear the expense involved in enabling men to establish their claims to exemption. I may add that birth certificates issued by registrars in connection with the National Insurance Act are accepted by recruiting officers as evidence of age in questions arising under the Military Service Acts.

      MANIPULATIVE SURGEONS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has yet obtained the promised opinion of the Law Officers as to the employment of manipulative surgeons and osteopoths; and, if so, what is such opinion?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The Law Officers find themselves generally in agreement with the opinion of the right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), and the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr.

      1593
      Pollock), and are of opinion that, subject to conditions, the War Office may lawfully take certain action. They have advised, however, that the opinion of the General Medical Council should be taken before orders are given with a view to that action.
      Mr. PETO: If the Vote for the Medical Service of the War Office is put down for an early date, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to inform the House as to the final decision arrived at and whether the Medical Council are going to place an embargo upon the employment of these manipulative surgeons for the relief of our wounded soldiers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will consider the question.

      NON-COMBATANT CORPS (TRANSFERS).
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, before transferring to combatant corps men who voluntarily enlisted in non-combatant corps and who, although objectors to taking life, were prepared to render service in face of danger, he will give instructions that these men shall have the right of appeal to a tribunal?
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether a wholesale transfer of men who have hitherto been serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps is now taking place into the Infantry; whether he is aware that many of these men enlisted early in the War voluntarily in the Royal Army Medical Corps and have served up to the present date, but that some of them have from the first had objection to combatant service; and whether any men who so object are to be forced to take service as combatants in the Infantry with no chance even of claiming exemption as objectors such as they would have had if they had not voluntarily enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If these men are not in possession of a tribunal exemption from combatant service, their cases will be investigated at the War Office and dealt with on their merits. The War Office has no desire to force those with genuine conscientious objections against taking life into combatant corps. Men who hold tribunal exemptions from combatant service, if found in the Royal Army Medical Corps, will be transferred to the Non-Combatant corps.
      The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. TREVELYAN:
      95. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the transfer of men serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps to the Infantry, he will explain under what authority a man who was granted exemption from combatant service by his tribunal in 1916 is transferred to a combatant regiment; and whether he will give instructions that care shall be taken to retain such men in the Royal Army Medical Corps or other non-combatant service?
      Mr. TREVELYAN: The case on which this question was founded has been settled.

    NEW TONNAGE
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions, in regard to the supply of new tonnage from Canada, whether an experienced firm of shipbuilders in British Columbia, who are capable of supplying a large number of wooden ships of approved design, and are willing at their own expense to enlarge their resources for production of tonnage and to build and deliver vessels on terms already approved, have not been given an opportunity of contracting; whether the Imperial Government are taking any, and what, steps to utilise to the full the shipbuilding resources of British Columbia; and whether all firms capable of producing tonnage are permitted to tender and allowed to contract for the delivery of ships?
    The HON. MEMBERhad given notice of a similar question (No. 25) to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply, and I will at the same time answer Question No. 25. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 30th April to the hon. Member for St. Pancras. As I then indicated, we are endeavouring to avail ourselves of every opportunity of obtaining new tonnage of suitable type, and if my hon. Friend can let me have the name of any shipbuilding firm that appears to have been overlooked I 'will see that inquiries are at once made.
    Mr. SCOTT: I will send my hon. Friend particulars.
    Mr. FELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if, in the event of the loss of a merchant ship and the consequent payment of the insurance money to the owners, any and, if so, what terms or conditions are made that the insurance money on the ship, apart from the cargo and freight, must be laid out or put aside to be laid out in the construction of shipping so soon as such is practicable?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No terms or conditions of the nature indicated in my hon. friend's question were attached to the Government scheme of war risk insurance. I may add that the important point to which my hon. Friend's question is directed, namely, the maintenance and increase of the Mercantile Marine, is engaging the serious attention of his Majesty's Government.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not possible to alter these conditions and make them such as suggested in the question?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The point has not been lost sight of. I can only say that it was very carefully considered by the Board of Trade before the Ministry of Shipping was established.
    Mr. HOLT: Is the right bon. Gentleman aware that shipowners are most anxious to be allowed to spend this money on new shipping?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My hon. Friend, I think, knows that, so far as we are concerned, the Ministry of Shipping are doing all they possibly can to see that every slip in the United Kingdom is occupied.
    Mr. HOLT: Not by shipowners!

    PEACE ADVOCACY.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment of Mrs. Skinner for three months and Mrs. Hayes for one month, and the fining of another woman, for the distribution of leaflets demanding that the Government should at once start negotiations to conclude the War; whether the advocacy of peace by negotiation is a crime; and, if not, whether he will take steps to mitigate the sentences imposed on these women?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have seen a report of the evidence in this case. The leaflets in question were being distributed to soldiers, and the evidence appears to ha\e justified the magistrates in holding that they were both intended and likely to prejudice discipline. I see no ground for interfering with the sentences.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the principal leaflets that was being distributed in this case was one which contained exclusively quotations from the manifesto, "To the peoples of all countries," by the council to the Workmen s and Soldiers' Delegates of Russia: is it criminal for the people of this country to distribute that?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen all the leaflets, but I have seen some, and certainly those I have seen ought not to be distributed amongst soldiers.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether it is assumed that under Clause 3 of the Representation of the People Bill a person residing in a house belonging to a local authority, such as, for instance, a caretaker of a council school, will be entitled to the local government vote?
    Sir G. CAVE: Something would no doubt depend upon the actual conditions of the occupation, but, speaking generally, a person occupying by virtue of any office, service or employment would not seem to be entitled to the local government franchise.

    "INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD."
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether emissaries from the Industrial Workers of the World from the United States were allowed to land in the United Kingdom during the War; whether any of them are still over here; and whether any communications have been entered into with the Government of Australia as to emissaries from the same organisation not being allowed to land in Australia?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware that any such persons have landed in the United

    1597
    Kingdom during the War and I understand that there have been no communications with the Government of Australia in the matter
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest in Scranton, Pennsylvania, of an organiser of the Industrial Workers of the World on a charge of being a spy; and whether he will inquire as to the belief of the Federal authorities as to the connection between the German Government and the organisers and leaders of the Industrial Workers of the World with a view to concerted action?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part I will make inquiry.

    GERMAN PARENTAGE.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked how many persons having a German parentage are in this country, specifying respectively interned, uninterned, of military age, and under military age?
    Sir G. CAVE: With regard to alien enemies I would refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division on the 4th inst. As regards persons who are British subjects, though of German parentage, I am not in possession of the information asked for.

    PETER PETROFF.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Peter Petroff is still interned at Cornwallis Institute, Islington; and whether his state of health is satisfactory?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that on the Estimates I will call attention to this case.

    VIVISECTION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the scheme for establishing a public health laboratory, recommended by a joint committee of the senate of the University College of Bangor and of local medical men, involves any contribution from rates or taxes towards its main-
    1598
    tenance; whether living animals are to be used for experimental research in this institution; and whether, if so, he will withhold his approval of any subsidy out of public moneys which are compulsorily provided in part by those who disapprove of vivisection?
    Mr. FISHER: None of the local authorities have submitted to the Local Government Board any scheme of the nature indicated.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service how many volunteers have been placed in employment by the substitution officers appointed by the National Service Department since 1st May, the date when his Department took over the work from the Labour Exchanges?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Between 1st May and 30th June, 7,174 applications were received from employers. The Department submitted the names of 7,424 volunteers, and of these 3,483 were placed in employment. During the week ending 30th June, 624 volunteers were placed in employment by the National Service Department.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer refer to men?
    Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend asks about men, and my answer applies to men.

    BRITISH PRISONERS AT CREFELD.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he has yet any information from the Dutch Government as to the punishments inflicted by the Germans on our officer prisoners at Crefeld; where the prisoners at Crefeld have been moved to; and whether he is aware that no letters have come through from such prisoners for approximately two months?
    Mr. HOPE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. We are informed by the Netherland Minister at Berlin that the camps to which the officers from Crefeld have been transferred are Claustal, Schwarmstedt, and Siroecken. We have inquired by telegraph whether any officers have been

    1599
    sent to other camps. With regard to the last part of the question, postcards have certainly come through, but I have no information as to letters. Telegraphic inquiries have been made as to whether there are any special restrictions on the correspondence of the officers in question. If the punishments have been inflicted for attempts at escape, I have reason to hope that the position of these officers will be favourably affected should the provisional agreement concluded at The Hague be ratified.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Prime Minister what advice was tendered by Field-Marshal Lord Kitchener as to the advantage or otherwise of an advance from Kut-el-Amara to Bagdad?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The proceedings of the Cabinet have always been secret, and I regret that I cannot give the information asked for.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether in any circumstances whatever any decision or recommendation of the Irish Convention will be submitted to a referendum of the Irish people?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer such a hypothetical question.

    SECOND CHAMBER (PROPOSED CONFERENCE).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister if, before instituting anything in the nature of a conference upon the constitution and powers of a Second Chamber, he will have regard to the fact that a considerable body of opinion in the country is opposed to further conferences of this nature during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The considerations referred to in the question were taken into account by the Government before we decided to arrange for this conference.

    ALTERNATE VOTE.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to study a system of voting at elections
    1600
    known in the oversea Dominions as the preferential vote and on the Continent as the second ballot, and which the Government have inserted in the Representation of the People Bill as the alternative vote; and is it intended to follow the course adopted in the case of the transferable vote and allow the House to decide by a free vote for or against this system of election?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The proposal for an alternative vote in single-member constituencies was recommended by a majority only of the Speaker's Conference, and the Government propose to leave this question for the free decision of the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the vote taken the other day has not finished all these fads once and for all?

    PRISONERS OF WAR (AGREEMENT WITH GERMANY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a small Parliamentary Committee to consider Lord Newton's agreement with Germany regarding prisoners of war before the same is approved by the Cabinet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    WAR CABINET (OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1915).
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Prime Minister who were the members of the War Cabinet during the months of October and November, 1915?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Committee of the Cabinet which, during October, 1915, was known as the Dardanelles Committee, and was attended by

    Mr. Asquith,

    Mr. Lloyd George,

    Mr. Balfour,

    Sir E. Grey,

    Lord Kitchener,

    Lord Curzon,

    Lord Crewe,

    Lord Lansdowne,

    Mr. Churchill,

    Lord Selborne, and Myself.

    1601
    At the beginning of November, 1915, the Dardanelles Committee was superseded by the War Committee, which was composed of

    Mr. Asquith,

    Mr. McKenna,

    Mr. Lloyd George,

    Lord Kitchener,

    Mr. Balfour, and Myself.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

      DEFENCES.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any diplomatic representations by the French Government with reference to the initiation of a sustained air offensive over Germany; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
      The following question also stood on the Paper in the name of the HON. MEMBER:
      64. To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Lord Montagu in another place that the City of London was a legitimate objective for the German airmen; and, if so, whether he will now state if, in the view of the Government, air raids on London and/or other big munition centres are considered as acts of war or as outrages?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS(by Private Notice) to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that in the recent aeroplane raids on this country culminating in that of Saturday last the raiders returned home with practical immunity so far as destruction in this country was concerned, he is of opinion that our defences are satisfactory; whether he is now prepared to appoint a small Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the causes of our failure to cope effectively with the raiders; and whether the War Cabinet is now prepared to direct the carrying of the Air War into the enemy's territory by definite raids of a punitive character on some or one of the German military and munition towns on the Rhine?
      Mr. PETO(by Private Notice) to ask the Prime Minister whether he will now see that adequate retribution by air attack is inflicted on a city in German territory.
      1602
      to be selected by the Air Service and Army Council, for the enemy air raids on London of the 13th June and 7th July?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to move the Adjournment this evening in order that there may be a Private Sitting to discuss the subject of air defences. This and other questions of which I have received private notice will, I think, best be answered by the Prime Minister, who hopes to deal with the matter.
      Mr. BILLING: Should I be in order in asking leave to move the Adjournment at the end of questions, so that we may have an opportunity of a public Debate, and then, if we find it necessary to go into Secret Session, we can do so? The feeling in the country is very intense.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not advance matters in that way, because it will still be open to anybody to espy strangers.
      Mr. LOUGH: Does my right hon. Friend intend to move the Adjournment immediately after questions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to take that course about 8.30 this evening. It is obvious that it is not possible to give information in public which alone would enable the House of Commons to understand what is the situation.
      Mr. McKENNA: Will the discussion be opened with a statement by the Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not discussed this question with the Prime Minister, but I take it for granted that he himself will make the first statement.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have a confidential record taken of what passes in the Secret Session, and will he consider whether it may not be possible afterwards, by arrangement between the parties and the authorities concerned, to give an expurgated account of what has taken place in order that as much knowledge as possible may be given to the public without detriment to the public interest?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that there is a great deal of force in what my light hon. Friend says, but there are two considerations that must govern the matter. One is public opinion outside

      1603
      and the other is opinion in the House of Commons. We consider that it is our duty first of all to satisfy the House of Commons as to what is being done, and this can best be done only by a Private Session. As to the public, I am not sure that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend can be adopted, but I shall consider it and discuss the matter with the Prime Minister.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the public is not represented by this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be pretty obvious to the House that the public cannot be influenced by statements which they have not had an opportunity of hearing.
      Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Government came to the decision to hold a Secret Session, they took into consideration the fact that the public are entitled to know who are guilty of culpable negligence in regard to this matter? I give notice now that I shall oppose the Secret Session to-night.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Might I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there are two quite separate considerations. We think that our first duty is to satisfy the House of Commons if we can. If, after the Debate to-night, my right hon. Friend still thinks that there should be a public discussion we shall throw no obstacles in the way.
      Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a. Secret Session will satisfy the relatives of the people who have lost their lives by these German air raids?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure that if people only knew what it will be possible to tell the House they would not agree that a case exists for the course we suggest, but at any rate surely it is wise that the House of Commons should hear what we have to say first.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to ask a question about the suspension of the Rule.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Rule cannot be suspended without notice.
      Mr. BILLING: Again may I ask if I shall be in order in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be in order, but he will not gain anything, the Government themselves having undertaken to move the Adjournment.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War at what time last Wednesday the first intimation was received of the approach of enemy aircraft to our coasts; at what time were the first orders given for our machines to take the air for purposes of defence; and at what time the anti-aircraft batteries on the coast were given the Field-Marshal's air-action order?
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any maps or charts used by enemy airmen in air raids over this country have come into the possession of the War Office or any other authority; whether these charts not only gave the positions of our latest anti-aircraft gun emplacements but also indicated the position of prospective antiaircraft gun emplacements; and whether they have any knowledge of how this secret information as to the latest decisions of the War Council came into the possession of the enemy?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is obviously undesirable from every point of view to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.
      Mr. BILLING: May we take it that for the Debate which it is proposed shall take place the hon. Gentleman will put himself in possession of the actual facts, so that we may have an answer to this question in Secret Session if not in Open Session?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend should put that question to the Leader of the House.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have an answer in Secret Session to such questions as to whether any maps or charts used by enemy airmen have come into the possession of the War Office?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give no answer to a question which I have had no opportunity of examining.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the representatives of the War Office and of the Admiralty be here, and will all the information that Members may wish to have be available if we are in Secret Session?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The representatives of the two Services will be here, but I cannot promise that all the information will be given.
      Mr. BILLING: What is the use of going into Secret Session if we are not to get the information we want?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling a long way from the question on the Paper.

    CONSULAR SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Prime Minister whether a decision has now been arrived at as to the publication of the Report and the minority Report of Lord Faringdon's Committee on Trade Conditions?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if he will direct the publication of the majority and minority Reports of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the consular service and commercial intelligence in order that the business interests affected may have an opportunity of considering and expressing their opinions on the recommendations of the Committee before Departmental action in regard thereto is taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is a confidential Report submitted to the Government, and we do not think it desirable to make it public.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS FALLEN IN THE WAR).
    Mr. CHURCHILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, without prejudice to any more important or conspicuous memorial to Members of this House who have fallen in the field during the present War, he will consider the desirability of engraving the names of such members on the small brass plate at the back of the seats which they were accustomed to occupy or are held most usually to have occupied when in attendance upon the House, in order that the House may preserve their memory in this simple, intimate, and at the same time unprecedented manner?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am personally attracted by the suggestion of my right
    1606
    hon. Friend, but it is, I think, a question rather for the Members of the House than for the Government.

    IRISHMEN (MILITARY SERVICE).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to see that Irishmen who arc compelled to leave home to take employment in Great Britain will not be interfered with by the military authorities; if Irishmen who were supplied with their fares by their friends in order to travel to Great Britain when on larding were informed that they were liable to conscription if they remained for fourteen days, and were refused employment or exemption cards by the Labour Exchanges, the reasons given being that they paid their own fares and were not sent by the Labour Exchange; and if he is aware of the trouble given to Irishmen at Kilmarnock and South Wales?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the hon. Member's question, but if he will supply particulars of specific cases, I will have inquiries made. In any case of refusal of employment or exemption cards by the Employment Exchanges, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would be pleased to investigate the matter. I must refer tie hon. Member to the answer which I gave, to him on the 7th March, and remind him that where an Irishman already in "Great Britain is engaged in one of the employments specified in the arrangement between the War Office and the Board of Trade, he may, if continuing in such employment or if placed by an Employment Exchange in similar employment, be furnished with a card as evidence that he is excepted from the liability to military service if the Employment Exchange has ascertained that he is ordinarily resident in Ireland, and it is not, therefore, understood why any difficulty such as that referred to in the hon. Member's question should have occurred.

    IRISH REBELLION (REMAINS OF EXECUTED MEN).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the remains of the men executed in consequence of the rebellion in Dublin will now be delivered to their relatives, so that they may be buried in consecrated ground?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for North Westmeath on the 22nd June.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question, seeing that the request is not a great one, and that the matter is important in regard to the deep-seated piety of the Irish people?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I have said.

    GABLE CENSORS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether there are censors now serving in the cable censorship who, previous to their appointment had held Commissions in the Regular and Territorial Forces and who have not been gazetted to their present appointments, and whether there are other censors who, having commissions in the auxiliary or Territorial Forces only, have been gazetted to their previous rank; whether this means that censors not gazetted arc deprived of the following privileges and emoluments: ration allowance, travelling voucher, gratuity on termination of war or incapacitation after twelve months' service, and permission to wear uniform; and will the War Office take measures to rectify this state of affairs?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Cable censorship includes both officers and civilians. The former are eligible for the privileges enumerated, the latter are not. Since December, 1915, commissions have been refused except where the individual concerned is likely to be in close contact with troops. Censors appointed subsequent to that date who, previous to their appointment, had hold commissions in Regular, Territorial or auxiliary-forces, but who were not at the time of their resignation or retirement authorised to retain their rank or wear uniform, are classified as civilians receiving salaries as such, and are not gazetted to commissions.

    GREECE.

      EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether ex-King Constantine holds any rank, honorary or otherwise, in the British Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

    EX-EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the ex-Tzar of Russia holds honorary rank in the British Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He is Colonel-in-Chief of the "Greys," and holds the rank of Field-Marshal.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will he continue to hold that rank?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This question is under consideration.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Nicholas II. never was Tzar of Russia. He was Emperor of Russia and Tzar of Poland.
    Mr. LYNCH: Thank you.

    ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT (PRIVATE H. HARDY).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether Private Harold Hardy, late of the 2/6th Royal Sussex Regiment, was illegally awarded the punishment of 25 days' C.B. on the way to India by Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson, for refusing inoculation; that a Government inquiry was promised and asserted to have been made, which actually was never made; "that Private Hardy brought a civil action against Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson at Bangalore and withdrew it on that officer's promise to transfer him and his comrade, Private Latham, whom he had illegally punished at the same time, either to the Mechanical Transport or the Royal Flying Corps, and to pay damages and the expenses incurred in the action; that Hardy was instead transferred to the 18th Rifle Brigade, Burma Division, and left to pay the expenses of the litigation without any compensation; whether, wishing to bring this breach of faith before the recognised and proper authority, Private Hardy wrote to General Rate, who commands the Burma Division, requesting that the promises of Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson should be carried out and that General Rate thereupon threatened him with court-martial if any further complaints.

    1609
    were made; whether a complaint made in accordance with Ay Regulations is now allowed to be treated as a crime; and if the Government will now at last take action, seeing that the whole record of this case has been one of broken pledges and false assurances concerning an alleged inquiry?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the then Undersecretary had any intention of making more than the inquiries which are usual when a question cannot be answered from the material available. My hon. Friend is therefore under a misapprehension in referring to broken pledges and false assurances. There is no information as to a civil action brought against Colonel Johnson, but reference has been made to India on this point. The action taken by Colonel Johnson was the subject of a very full inquiry by the authorities in India, and the matter was disposed of by them.

    AIR SERVICE.

      CASUALTIES (INQUESTS).
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether courts of inquiry are still held on the deaths of airmen which occur while flying in this country?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; in all cases of accident, but not necessarily when the casualty occurs on active service.
      Mr. BILLING: Was the attention of the hon. Gentleman called to the reply given to this question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board in which he directly contradicted that and said that it was impossible?
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the bon. Gentleman say why the next of kin are forbidden to be present at these Courts of Inquiry?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that, but I will have inquiries made.

    ARMY STORES DEPOT. DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made respecting the acquisition
    1610
    of premises to temporarily accommodate the examining and receiving depot in Dublin?
    Mr. FORSTER: We are in communication with the military authorities in Ireland on the subject, and I hope I may be able to say something definite on Thursday next if my hon. Friend will put down a question.

    TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES (PRICES).
    Colonel HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order that the Government may set a good example to private tobacco traders, he will issue instructions to the Navy and Army Canteen Board that the increase in price of all tobacco and cigarettes sold to sailors and soldiers, which was imposed by the Board in consequence of the Finance Bill, 1917, be reduced by one-half as from 17th July, inclusive, the date on which the Board will benefit by the Government Amendment in Committee to Clause 4 of the Finance Bill, 1917?
    Mr. FORSTER: Immediatly following the passing of the Government Amendment in Committee to Clause 4 of Finance Bill, 1917, the Navy and Army Canteen Board decided to reduce the price of tobacco and cigarettes sold to sailors and soldiers in accordance with the terms of the Amendment. This reduction will come into force as soon as the official Schedule is published by the Tobacco Control Board.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the (Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when Driver Payne, 100th Field Company, Royal Engineers, forfeited twenty-eight days' pay, twenty-eight days' allotment, at Is. a day, was deducted from Mrs. Payne's allowance, though she has six children and she is herself weak and unfit for work; and, if so, will he say whether it is the regular practice to make these deductions in similar circumstances and under the authority of which Army Order are they made?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given on 20th June to the hon. Member for Bolton, which gives the rules governing such a case as Driver Payne's.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      Postal Service (West Cork).
      Mr. O'LEARYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has completed his inquiries into the postal service throughout West Cork; and whether he proposes to give an earlier and improved service for the Castletown Bere district?
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have been in communication with the railway companies concerned, and I find that the use of the railway for the conveyance of mails in West Cork would involve a large increase of expenditure, for which there is no justification. I hope to arrange an improved service in the Castletown Bere district by means of a motor vehicle for the conveyance of mails between Drimoleague and Castletown Bere.

      National Health Insurance Joint Committee.
      Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister if he will put down the vote for the National Health Insurance Joint Committee for an early day?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that it will not be possible to allot a supply day for this discussion.

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALLOTMENTS AND LAND CULTIVATION) (IRELAND) BILL.—"to enable local authorities in Ireland to provide allotments "and otherwise promote the cultivation of land; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. DUKE; supported by Sir Thomas Russell; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
    PUBLTC HEALTH (PREVENTION AXD TREATMENT OP DISEASE) (IRELAND) Biix,—"to amend Section one hundred and forty-eight of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as respects the prevention and treatment of disease in Ireland," presented by Mr. DUKE; supported by Sir Thomas Russell; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. If the Government move the Adjournment of the House at 8.30 this evening, will that enable the day given for Supply to be counted as an allotted day; or, in accordance with the Standing Order—that no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before eleven o'clock—will it not be necessary that this should be excluded for computation as an allotted day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: A Motion for the Adjournment of the House is not technically "other business" which would invalidate the appropriation of the day.
  Mr. KING: Is it not rather a quibble of words, in view of this being most important business in reality, that the Government should be allowed to take it as an allotted day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must form his own judgment as to what is or is not a quibble. I believe the matter has very often occurred previously, and it has always been so ruled.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: May I ask whether it is proposed to extend the time for the Debate to-night, because two hours and a half seems to some of us rather short?
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, what action a private Member of this House can take who rises at the end of Questions before you have spoken on another matter, and if you fail to see him? Can he go on addressing the House, or must he wait until you see him?
  Mr. SPEAKER: He must wait until he is called.
  Mr. BILLING: Before you rose, Sir, at the end of Questions, I rose for the purpose of asking leave. Am I out of order in calling your attention to the fact that I was standing, and that you turned your head away and refused to see me?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can speak for himself as to what he was doing, but I cannot accept his version as to what occurred and as to what I was doing. The
  1626
  hon. Member never gave me notice that he was going to move the Adjournment. The Government have given notice that they are going to do it, and therefore I assumed the hon. Member would not wish to imperil the chances of there being such a Motion.
  Mr. BILLING: Half an hour ago I gave the House and yourself notice that I proposed to move the Adjournment to call attention to Saturday's air raid, and at that time you said there was no occasion for my doing it, because the Government were going to do it. The position I take-up is that we are anxious that this House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether it wishes the matter to be taken in Secret Session or in Public Session. That is the only opportunity we shall have of going into the-Lobby.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is mistaken. He will have an opportunity of doing that when the Motion is made that strangers be ordered to withdraw.
  Mr. BILLING: May I give notice that I shall oppose the Motion that strangers be ordered to withdraw?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: At an earlier stage in the proceedings I desired to ask a question of the Government about the suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule to-night, and you, Sir, ruled that that would require notice. On that matter I now ask whether a member of the Government is not entitled to move the suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule, without notice, in cases where notice is-dispensed with by the general concurrence of the House. Paragraph 115 of the "Manual of Procedure" of the House says:
  "As a general rule every Motion proposed in the House requires notice, unless it falls within one of the following excepted cases."
  Among the excepted cases is one mentioned in paragraph (7):
  "Cases where notice is dispensed with by the general concurrence of the House."
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not apply to the Standing Order. If it is desired to suspend the Standing Order, that must be done by formal notice handed in the day before so that the House may know what is proposed.
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Should I be in order in moving the Adjournment of the House upon the subject, or should I have to give notice?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is going to do it himself.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Is there any means by which we can have a public discussion instead of a secret discussion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can oppose the Motion that strangers do withdraw.
  Mr. BILLING: If a private Member's view is not the same view as that of the Prime Minister on any subject, is a private Member to have no opportunity of expressing his view?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member takes plenty of opportunities.
  Mr. MACMASTER Mr. MACMASTER rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There must be a limit to this. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

  SUPPLY.— [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.— [Progress.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.— [Progress.]

      HOME OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£143,784, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."— [NOTE.—£110,000 has been voted on account.]
      Sir H. DALZIEL: It is opportune to take advantage of this Vote to ask the Home Secretary whether he still holds the opinion which he did with respect to warnings to the inhabitants of London in regard to air raids? Some little time ago the right hon. Gentleman, in defending his Department, stated that he had arrived at the conclusion that it was safer, in the interests of the public, that no warning should be given. At that time he indicated that hi1 had an open mind on the subject. The Committee generally will recognise that there is a good deal to be said on both sides. I think it would be to the advantage of the Government and the Home Secretary
      1628
      if he would inform us as to the particular class of institutions and the particular persons who are at present favoured in this respect. It is notorious that as early as 7 o'clock last Saturday morning at a large number of offices warning was given that this raid was taking place. My right hon. Friend doubts it. I have that on the best authority. If that is not the correct hour, perhaps he will tell us exactly when certain institutions were so favoured in regard to warning. Was it one hour, two hours, or three hours before the raiders actually appeared? There is a strong feeling in favour of sirens, or something of that kind, being used in regard to air raids. I see the difficulty of threatened air raids probably taking place every other day and probably only coming to the coast, and in that way business would be greatly disturbed and interfered with, but I think the occasion is opportune for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what has been the result of his deliberations since last we had a Debate. Is he still opposed to any extension of the warning which is at present being given? Is it possible for him to add other institutions to those already included within the category? I hope he will give ns considerable information as to the attitude of the Government on the subject.
      I gave notice to the Home Office that I intended to ask another question closely associated with this matter. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should issue orders at once to the police of London to report as to the number of unexploded shells at present in police stations. I suggest that he should issue that order in order to collect the number of unexploded shells, mostly British, I fear, which were picked up throughout London on Saturday and yesterday, and that he should tell the House, to-day if he can, how many unexploded shells have been collected by the police authorities of London. I am not going into the question of percentages. I have hoard it stated that over 50 per cent, did not explode. That is not a matter for him. He is only concerned with the work of his officers and of the police. But it would be very useful if he could tell us, because that is the only means by which we can get reliable information, what foundation there is for the rumour of this enormous number of unexploded shells. It is a fact that a large number did not explode, and are unexploded at present.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Do you mean British shells?
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes. Here is one that came through my office on Saturday morning. It came through the roof and through two floors into the corner of my office, and it is not exploded at the present moment. It becomes rather a domestic matter under the circumstances. I think there is no doubt it is a British shell. I invite Gentlemen who are interested, seeing the number of floors it has penetrated through, to come and tell us. This is only one of a large number of British shells which were collected on Saturday and yesterday. I ask my right hon. Friend if he will ask the police to give a return of the number which have been collected in the police offices throughout London, and if he will give notice to the Secretary of State for War? I shall invite him at the proper time to make a full statement on the subject.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the question of giving warning. I raised this question on the last raid. My suggestion was not received with very much sympathy by the Government, who said the only result would be that people would leave their work and rush into the streets, and the danger would be increased. The object of giving warning is to allow sensible people either to remain in their houses or to go into other houses if they happen to be in the streets at the time a raid is taking place. If there are foolish people who, out of curiosity or for any other reason, insist upon going into the street, the responsibility is upon them alone, and that is no reason why the Government should not give warning in order that more sensible people may remain in their houses. Some members of my family on Saturday were out in the Park. If warning had been given they would have been in their house. I believe the small number of casualties which occurred on Saturday is due to the fact that a large number of people were sensible enough to take refuge in houses when they knew a raid was taking place, either by going into shops or ringing the bell and asking anyone who happened to be in an adjoining house whether they might come in. If there is a military reason why warning should not be given, I am quite certain the vast bulk of Englishmen and women would
      1630
      do nothing to inconvenience the military authorities, but they are not content merely to take as an answer a statement from the Government that in their opinion it would be wiser not to do it. What we want to know is why is it wiser not to do it? From all the evidence one can see, that is absolutely the reverse of the fact. Surely it is wiser to let people know that something is going to take place. This was known at least three-quarters of an hour before the enemy came. Supposing there is a false alarm, what harm does it do? Supposing a few people stay in their houses or offices longer than they would in ordinary circumstances, why should they not do so? As the Government is rather fond of telling us, we are at war and must put up with certain inconveniences. This is not the first time this request has been made. Neither is it the first time that warning has been given. Many months ago it was arranged at Swindon that if aeroplanes came over the hooter at the Great Western Works should sound. That hooter is heard about six or seven miles off. No aeroplanes have ever come over, but if that can be done in one place, it can be done in another. I ask the Government to consider seriously whether it would not be possible to give people warning. It would be entirely within their own power then to take notice of it or not, as they thought right, and if the Government knows that raids are going to take place, it should, in common sense, unless there is some strong military reason to the contrary, give, people an opportunity of remaining in their houses.
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. BILLING: I should like to point out to the Home Secretary the number of deputations which have been sent to the Home Office in this connection. The feeling of people in this country, especially in London, is quite decided, and they are entitled to receive some more satisfactory reply from the Home Office than the statements which are made, and which I have received on many occasions, simply that they do not intend to do anything. The idea of the Government that people win run into the street was surely disproved on Saturday, when, despite the fact that there was no warning, directly they ceased cheering the German aeroplanes, having discovered possibly by their formation that they were enemy aeroplanes and not our own, they took cover. Many

      1631
      hundreds of lives were saved in consequence, and we had an excellent demonstration of how an official system of warning will save life. I do not know exactly how the Home Office works with the military authorities, but surely it might; represent to them what is the feeling in this House, and unless the military authorities can make representations to the Home Office a great deal stronger than the Home Office has yet made to this House, I quite fail to see why some reasoned and systematic warning should not be introduced. I would beg the Home Office, when they give this matter their serious consideration, not to be satisfied with the telephonic system of warning or with some means of simply blowing a steam whistle here and ringing a bell there. There is nothing more dangerous or more likely to cause panic and dismay than false alarms of that description. When you have false alarms and when there is a genuine alarm people will say, 'Oh, it is another false alarm!" and they will not take proper precautions. Therefore, I suggest that whatever you do by way of giving warning be sure that the warning will convey the same thing to all minds at the same time, and not be construed by one man as his lunch whistle blowing five minutes before it is time, and by another man as an underground train or something blowing off a whistle.
      A system to accomplish what is necessary is quite simple. I would point out to the Home Secretary that if he could work in conjunction with the military in this matter he might employ police or special constables, and there might be situated over every part of the City a small hydrogen captive balloon. I say "hydrogen" preferably, because any-other type would have to be situated near gasometers, and that would be dangerous, for they would be a target for the raiding airmen. My suggestion is that we should have these balloons 1,500 feet up. They would be small captive balloons and would carry an electric syren of six horse-power connected by cable to the ground, and whenever there was news of an air raid a warning of it would be sent out all along, and thus every person in the City would be able to hear. The fact that aeroplanes might be expected over this City or any other large city might thus be conveyed. If the system of warn-
      1632
      ing was complete, there would be no need for taking shelter for at least thirty minutes or perhaps fifteen minutes, because we are quite aware in this country —or at least the authorities are—when a raid is expected. At five minutes past eight on Saturday they knew at the Hotel Cecil that a raid was expected, and the Home Office could also have been aware of it had they required; at least I know that Hendon got warning at twenty minutes past eight. I would point out that it is essential that the system must be instantaneous and complete and must convey the same thing to everybody at the same time. I suggest that such a warning as that would enable people in the City to take any reasonable precautions they liked. If the War Office, or the person in command of the air defences, gave warning to the Home Office that the raiding airmen were fifteen miles off, the Home Office would know quite well that it would be ten minutes before they could possibly be dropping their bombs here. Under those circumstances all a man would have to do would be to press a button, and within a minute twenty or thirty syrens, which would be distributed all over London and the suburbs, would send out one long or two long or three short blasts, as the case may be. If a small red streamer were attached to the balloon it could be released electrically when the syren was sounded a second time, and that would indicate that the airmen were actually concentrating on the City, and that it was necessary to take shelter.
      The whole of that system of warning could be introduced at very small cost. The expense, indeed, would be absolutely out of all comparison with the amount of distress and excitement that it would relieve. There is no reason why that system should not be gradually spread throughout the whole country. I remember when I was in the Service myself someone would ring up on the telephone and say they were a special constable belonging to the Home Office, and they would say that an airship or an aeroplane was coming in some direction, but before you could find out where the constable was speaking from you would be cut off on the telephone. That system is impossible. There is no reason why, at the present time, the hundreds of balloon? which the Naval Air Service is using, chiefly for joy rides over London which are of no military use whatever, should not be detailed off to the Home Office or

      1633
      the military or naval authorities for the purpose of enabling them at least to give the City of London warning. I feel keenly about the matter and the people of the City feel keenly. They point out that if you cannot protect them, at least you might give them warning. It is not the business of the Home Office to protect them, but I think the Home Office will be doing an act which will be thoroughly appreciated and approved by the people of this country if they adopt this suggestion and give warning. The Leader of the House said this afternoon it is not a question of the people, but a question of the House of Commons. I used to think before I came to this place that the House of Commons were the representatives and the servants of the masses of the people, and I would like hon. Members to take that matter into consideration. If the feeling of the public is intense on this matter, it is their duty to press it on the Government, even if that does stand in the way of their getting anything which they might otherwise expect if they did not attack the Government. I would suggest that a man would be a more honourable man if he used his position in this House of Commons to press upon the Home Office now and the Government the necessity of warning the people.
      Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: There is another side which is not a military one, and that is the effect upon the nerves of the population by constant warning. The question was raised during the Zeppelin attacks, and it was decided then not to warn. If London had been warned every time the Zeppelins came we should have seven, or eight, or nine alarms probably. I know the East End of London as well as most people in this House, and I am extremely anxious about the effect of constant warnings upon our working-class population. I have lived in a district which is very exposed to raids, and I know myself the extremely nervous effect of having Zeppelin whistles blown night after night, and not knowing where they were coming from. Quite apart from the disturbance of business, which would be enormous, I am sure the effect of a warning in London every time hostile aircraft had left the coast of Belgium would be extremely serious. If we decided to do this, the Germans, who axe sensible people and are very anxious to create a state of
      1634
      panic, would increase the number of raids. If I were managing Germany and I knew London was going to sound syrens and explode balloons every time hostile aircraft left the shores of Belgium I should send aeroplanes three times a week, and in a fortnight I should have London in such an extreme state of excitement that it would have disastrous effects. I am not convinced that warning has any great effect upon loss of life and injury to limb, and before the Home Secretary decides I hope he will carefully weigh, first of all, how much the warning decreases the loss of life and the injury to limb, and, on the other hand, he will consider how serious the effect upon London's nerves would be if, day after day, everybody was told to expect an air raid, and nine times out of ten it did not eventuate.
      Mr. TENNANT: I do not know what attitude the Government will adopt upon this subject of giving warning. I think there is much good sense in what has fallen from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. It is highly desirable in the event of any system of warning being adopted that it should be one and only one authoritative warning from the Government itself loud enough to be heard all over London. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but in any case, I am informed, where systems of warnings in provincial towns have been adopted, they have been found to be so destructive of the peace of mind of the citizens of the town that they have had to be abandoned very largely owing to the causes stated by my hon. Friend (Sir William Pearce), that there have been warnings given for an anticipated air raid which never eventuated. I want to draw the attention of the House to another aspect of this subject if I should be in order. It is not to exaggerate, if possible, the menace which is levelled at the population of this great Metropolis by the enemy in these air raids. I would ask the House to remember what the enemy has in view when he sends aeroplanes over here in the manner which he has done lately.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but it is not possible for the War Office to reply in Committee upon that. They would not have anticipated a Debate on that aspect of the subject. The Debate coming on later is rather the place for that. The only part of this subject that

      1635
      is pertinent to this Debate is the question of warnings of air raids raised by the hon. Member for Kirkealdy.
      Mr. STANTON: Is not this entirely linked up with the other question? It is so awkward for Members to have to listen to one side now and not be able to say anything on the other side. It is in order to speak about warnings, whether necessary or not, and I suppose it would be out of order for another Gentleman to suggest that the best notice of warning to the Germans would be by sending our aircraft over there? That will come on later, but I should like to ask is it out of order or not now?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes; it is out, of order now. It will come on when the Adjournment is moved later.
      Mr. TENNANT: I really was not asking or expecting any reply from the War Office. All I was wanting to do was to convey a general notion of what the enemy desire to do by sending hostile aircraft to this country. I did not anticipate or desire any reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I should like to use my argument in relation to the subject of warning.
      The CHAIRMAN: I confess it would be difficult to do that. It really would be better to keep the rest of this question to the Debate coming on later to-day. The only matter to which the Home Secretary is open to reply now is solely the question of warning.
      Mr. BILLING: Shall I be in order in asking the Home Secretary to be good enough to reply before the Debate is mixed up with other matters?
      The CHAIRMAN: That will be in the discretion of the Home Secretary.
      Mr. TENNANT: I am most anxious to carry out not only the letter but the spirit of your ruling. That being the case, I had better reserve myself for the later stage.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Home Secretary if he will be so good as to reply?
      Mr. GILBERT: Speaking as a London Member. I do hope we shall have some authoritative statement from the Home Secretary as regards this question of warning. There is a very strong feeling
      1636
      in London that the Government should do something in this matter of warning, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary that the position has changed very much since the first raid of 13th June and the raid of last Saturday. I think that a great many people in London are now strongly in favour of the Government doing something that they were not prepared to do three weeks ago. It is all very well to say that warnings are of use, but I believe the unofficial warning which London obtained on Saturday last was of very great value as regards the saving of life in London. You cannot have the warning to the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance men, and the special constables in London, without a number of other persons knowing those unofficial warnings also. I would suggest to the Homo Secretary, in view of the probability of there being more raids like those on Saturday, that he should reconsider the position, and consider whether it is not advisable that some, kind of official warning should be given in order that people, may get under shelter, even in a greater degree than they did on Saturday last. I do not bind myself as to what form the warning should take, but I am quite convinced that the position has. changed, and that the Government must look at the matter from the new point of view of the great majority of the people of London, who are anxiously waiting to know what the Government are going to do.
      Mr. LOUGH: I think it absolutely necessary to avoid the difficulty which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse, that we must not be disturbed as we were on the day after the raid last month, when we had three or four warnings which did nor, mature at all. To that extent I agree with my hon. Friend. We must take care to avoid warnings of raids which may not mature. Yet I do think that the experience gained on Saturday shows that warnings of a very useful character may be given if it is quite clear that aeroplanes are going to reach London. I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether the Home Office itself did not issue certain warnings a few minutes before the raid on Saturday morning. I understand that they stopped a bus which was opposite the Home Office and that everybody in the bus took refuge in the basement of the Home Office. There is a splendid organisation under the

      1637
      control of my right hon. Friend throughout London—the Metropolitan Police. They have most accurate information, and I think that perhaps a fifteen or twenty minutes' warning by them might be extremely useful. From what I have heard, and from what I have read in this morning's paper, there is a consensus of opinion to the effect that there was no panic in the City, and also that a great dual of life was saved by people taking shelter instead of remaining in the streets. I do think, as the people behaved so splendidly, that it may go far to defeat the machinations of the enemy if we had, with the aid of the excellent organisation at the disposal of the Home Secretary, a system of short warnings given by the Metropolitan Police. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think, in view of the experience gained on Saturday, that such a system would be useful in saving life?
      Mr. WILES: I would like the Home Secretary to tell us who is responsible in London, when a raid takes place, for the official warnings which are given in certain cases. I believe that a system of warnings has been arranged. When the raid took place about three weeks ago—I do not remember the date, though I was within about 30 yards of a bomb which fell—I understand that warnings which had been arranged through the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, or through some official Department, were not in some cases given. For instance, in the telegraph office the warning, I understand, was not given, and therefore there was a great deal of fright among the women telegraphists working in that place. Then, I understand, that the railway managers should have been communicated with, and if that had been done I believe that at Liverpool Street, for instance, the loss of life might have been avoided. The feeling in London is that there is a lack of co-ordination about the warnings which have been given. I understand that originally the aircraft were in charge of the Navy, and then of the War Office, and now I understand that the giving of warnings is under the management, of the Home Secretary. We London Members, now that we have had this second raid at our own doors, would ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to confer with his colleagues in the War Office and the Admiralty, if necessary, and see that, if it is thought wise, there should be a system of warning. I myself do not
      1638
      know whether it is or not. I want to hear about it. If it is considered wise, then let us have the warnings given, and if anybody is responsible for not giving the warnings that is a matter which ought to receive very severe punishment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House who is responsible for official warnings when raids take place.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: I believe that it is usual in most cases to give some kind of warning to the heads of various munition works in connection with expected air-raids. I would like to know whether on Saturday that warning was given to all, the works inside the Metropolitan area. I am told—I do not pledge myself to the facts of the case—that in at least, one very big establishment the mass of the people did not get this notice. The result is that they are very much perturbed because-they did not get the notice that was given in other cases. I am not pledging myself to any special system of warning, but I do think that consideration should be given by the Home Secretary to the question whether, in certain cases at least, this warning ought not to be given. On Saturday when going over one of the areas that were very severely handled, I was. astounded, comparing things with the conditions of the 13th of June, at the number of casualties being so few as they were, considering the material damage that was done. But on inquiry I found that the Specials of the locality had had warning, and that these had got round and that the people had sought cover in a way in which they did not on 13th June. The same applies to the whole City of London and those areas without it. I would like the Home Secretary to reply as to the giving of warning to the employés in munition works, and if there was any neglect—I can tell him the name of the place privately—whether he will see that it does not occur again.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): In reply to the statements which have been made I hope that the Committee will understand the present position under which warnings are given, not by the Home Office or the police authorities, but by the Home Forces. A warning of a possible air raid—it is no more than that—comes to the general headquarters of the Home Forces in London. They issue warnings by telephone or otherwise to certain places and to certain institutions, being places where immediate action

      1639
      should be taken for the purposes of the public safety—such places, for instance, as the naval and military establishments, the police, the fire brigades, the hospitals, and I do not say all the munition factories, but certain factories where immediate action is thought to be necessary if there is even the possibility of an air raid. For instance, it is obvious to the Committee that if there is a munition factory where an explosion may occur in the case of a hit by a bomb, it is exceedingly important that those in charge of the factory should know that there is even the bare possibility of an air raid, so that precautions may be taken in lime. The present position is that warnings do not come under me at all. The warnings actually given are given by the military authority, and the Home Office only comes into it as taking a very great interest in the safety of the population of London, and being, therefore, desirous of having the utmost precautions taken for the safety of the population. With regard to those private warnings, warnings by telephone, I want to say most distinctly that hon. Members are in error in thinking that certain persons knew of this air raid at seven o'clock in the morning, and—
      Mr. BILLING: Half-past eight!
      Sir G. CAVE: One hon. Member said seven o'clock, and another says half-past eight. That is quite a mistake. Nobody in London knew of the possibility of an air raid until long after that time—considerably after nine o'clock. The point to-day is the same as on previous occasions—is it desirable, in addition to these private warnings, to give public warnings that an air raid is impending? I do not think, with all respect to my hon. Friend who suggested it. that a promise for further private warnings to be given by the police will be sufficient, because it is impossible for the police, who have only very short notice before the enemy arrives, in the time at their disposal to give adequate warnings even to buildings of importance in their districts such as schools. It is only by some system of warnings that reach everybody that this could be done. Take the case of schools alone. There are 2,400 of them in London, and it would be quite impossible in the time, which is sometimes not more than from ten to fifteen minutes, which elapses between the warning being received and
      1640
      the arrival of the enemy, to carry out a system of giving special notice to all places of that kind.
      Mr. BOWERMAN: May I point out that on Saturday the schools were closed, and that the children were at home in their own places?
      Sir G. CAVE: I had, of course, in mind the days when the schools would be open and the children actually there. I pass then to the question about giving a general public warning of impending air raids. The decision which was announced by me was a decision of the Government, and the reasons which moved the Government to that decision and which have been given in this House and in another place, still hold good. Nothing, I think, has occurred to throw doubt on those reasons, though of course it is a question which the House has to consider. For instance, it still remains true that the warnings which we receive now are warnings from the coast. Those are dispatched at the moment when an enemy aeroplane is seen off the coast, and there is a possibility of invasion, of the enemy coming over, and they are dispersed over a large area. We had a week or two ago four warnings of air raids in London, and only one air raid, and last week we had another case of a warning and no air raid at all. Therefore the House will recognise that to give a general warning in every case is a very serious responsibility, because it means the general stoppage of work, often for some hours, in some cases for the whole day. Where a great factory is warned of a possible air raid it is quite natural that some of the men should desire to go home to see if their own families are safe, and they do not return to work on that day. That is human nature, and you cannot alter that. It is not only a question of loss of time and inconvenience, but it is also a serious loss in munition factories, where work for the War is going on and where the loss of a day's work or half a day's work is a very serious matter indeed. Then we have to consider the serious public loss. It is undesirable to cause general public alarm unless there is some real cause for it. Take the case of an alarm given at a school. The natural tendency is for the children to go home, and the stronger tendency is for the parents to go to the school for their children. There have been cases where the school authorities have begged the police to prevent the parents from coming to the school when an air raid has

      1641
      been rumoured. That, of course, means danger, not only for the children but for the parents also, who collect outside the school, adding to the confusion, and to the danger to parents and children alike. Then it is the nature of our people not to run indoors, but to run out of doors to see what it is all about.
      Next there is the serious consideration that if you give an alarm whenever there is the possibility of an air raid, many of which prove to be false alarms, the effect in time would be to defeat the very object of giving warning, and you would often find people saying, "It is only one of the usual warnings," and they might not pay attention to a warning of actual danger. These are reasons which still hold good, and they are reasons which are to be borne in mind on one side of the question. On the other side, I quite agree that there are very serious and real considerations, and I am quite sure that the Committee realise that they will receive the attention of the Government in coming to a decision. They have no object in view except to ascertain the best possible way of securing the safety of the public. The points which appeal to me and to hon. Members are these: The first is that if there is a raid coming it does appear fair that those people who are sensible and prudent people should have such information as the public authorities possess, so that they may take cover if they are wise enough. The second point is this, and it is also a strong one, that if you can give a general warning of a raid, it is open to big institutions, and to the owners of buildings where there are large staffs, to put into operation this provisional programme of raid drills, which have been prepared in so many of these places, and to get the people into safety in the basements. These are, I quite agree, considerations of great force, and some light has been thrown on the question by the experience of Saturday. As to the conduct of the people oil that day, I cannot speak too strongly of their perfect steadiness during and after the raid. There was curiosity, a certain amount of rashness, people coming out to see what was going on, but there was nothing like panic in any part of London; and it is, I believe, true that in those parts of London where the raid was actually taking effect there was a greater disposition to take cover and to exercise proper caution than there was on previ-
      1642
      vious occasions. I think the habit of caution is growing, and it is right to take that into account. There is this further consideration. In several places where bombs were dropped precautions had already been taken. I find that in more than one case the moment the guns were heard, and it was realised that the raid was coming over London, the precautionary drill, that had already been prepared, was put into operation, and the staffs were got down into the basement, and it is quite possible that by these means many lives were saved.
      Mr. BILLING: If that is the general idea of the bombardments, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that warnings are not so necessary to-day as they will be in the immediate future, when the magnitude of the raids increases.
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman rather misapprehends the tendency of what I was saying. The point of my remarks was that in these large buildings precautions were taken. I know that, in one instance, before ten o'clock action was taken, and the drill was put in operation, with the result that when the raiders arrived the whole of the staff were on the lower floors of the building—in that case the ground floor; it was a substantial building. The bomb that was dropped upon it did not reach the lower floors, which were protected by concrete ceilings, and, as a matter of fact, when the raiders dropped a heavy bomb on that building it only penetrated to the floor of the uppermost story of the building. It happened to be a concrete floor, and the thing went no further. The result was that not a single person was killed in the building, which contained hundreds. There were injuries suffered by two men who were slightly cut by glass that was broken by the shock. That was the only injury sustained in that building, although a man just outside in the street was killed. I think that illustrates very strongly the advantage of taking steps inside buildings when a warning occurs. I must say that what occurred on Saturday has deepened in my mind the impression that preparation of that kind, in the event of raids, may result in saving lived.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Would warning save lives in that case?
      Sir G. CAVE: I make this statement perfectly frankly, that if knowledge reaches the authorities in. those buildings that a raid is coining the steps which they may take may have the effect of saving life. This experience deepens in my mind the impression I have always had, that in buildings of this kind warning is necessary. Experience is gained from the raids which occur, and, of course, we are bound to keep a watch on events, to take note of them, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them. Having regard to the experience of Saturday, I think it is quite right to say that tile matter must be reconsidered, and that we must have regard to the new facts. I think the Committee may take it that all these considerations will certainly not be lost sight of, and that they will be discussed again. I do not intend to go into detail as to what might be done. I think there is one consideration in the minds of the Committee, and it has been in my mind, I must say, for some weeks past, whether it would not be possible, not to issue a public warning of a distant event on the coast, but to find some system under which we might give a shorter notice of the immediate impendency of a raid. If we know that the raid is actually approaching us, and if the raid is almost certainly coming for London, then I think there will be less objection to convoying that information to the public. To give public notice of a raid that may or may not occur, as my hon. Friend has said, helps the enemy, and it is exactly what they would like to have—one of the things which they would like to see us do; but when there is really a question of a raid coming it is, I agree, a different thing. I may say I have discussed this matter with the military authorities. There are serious difficulties in the way, but difficulties are made to be got over. I do not know whether it will be possible to get over the obstacles which now stand in the way of this course, but, certainly the Government will bear in mind the considerations which have been brought forward in this House, and take steps to secure the public safety. It would not be right for me not to add this, that the public authorities in London have been good enough to consult us on this question, and they loyally accepted the Government's decision on the question of warnings being given. Those who disagreed, as well as those who agreed, have
      1644
      loyally accepted our decision, and if we think it right to institute a system of warnings for this purpose, I am sure they will be the first to give us their assistance.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the Committee has heard with satisfaction the statement of my right hon. Friend that the Government are going to reconsider this question of warning, not only in principle, but in method. Everyone who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman must see the delicate and difficult character of the position to be taken by the warning authorities, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's judgment that warning should be given, if possible, only when the raid is absolutely imminent, ought, in principle, to be the guide by which the Government and the warning authorities might avoid danger of false alarm on one hand or on the other. There is a great deal of difference between Zeppelin raids which occur in the night and these daylight aeroplane raids, and I can quite understand that a prejudice has arisen against warnings because these warnings have been studied in relation to night alarms The principal object of a warning is to induce people first of all to go into their houses and to clear the stre in the vicinity of the attack. When they are in the streets people arc liable to be injured not merely by bombs but by the blast of a bomb, which would not hurt them if they were in a house, by splinters of masonry, and to a considerable extent-by falling splinters of our own shrapnel shell, or of exploding shrapnel shell. The principle which I think will become more. established as the year advances and which prompts people to go inside a dwelling place when an aeroplane raid is in progress is thoroughly sound, and should be encouraged and facilitated, and if necessary compelled and actuated, by the Government. At night people are not in the street, but are asleep in their dwelling-houses, and I can quite understand that in some of these towns where people have been repeatedly awakened up and disturbed needlessly by night alarms it has been found unsatisfactory. By day, however, the streets are crowded and a warning ought to be given, especially if it can be given at ten or fifteen minutes' notice, for people to leave the streets and go into their houses.
      There ought to be a clear instruction from the Government as to what people are to do when an air raid takes place.

      1645
      I have no doubt a great many Members have been guilty of the foolish conduct of going out on balconies, or into the streets or open places, to see what is going on, and I dare say some will be foolish enough to do so again; but there ought to be perfectly clear guidance given by the Government and the authorities that when an air raid takes place it is the duty of every person to go into his house, or any available building, and to seek such accommodation in the lower parts of those buildings as is convenient. I certainly think that householders in the neighbourhood of an air raid ought, as no doubt they will be perfectly ready to do, to make sure that their front door is open in case passers-by in the street wish to take refuge. I am quite certain that if the Government persevere, which is a very necessary thing, alone the line which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated this afternoon, they will find a way by which our streets and the top parts of buildings can be cleared as if by magic at very short notice only when an air raid is actually imminent, and that that will certainly be the means of preventing a great deal of loss of life. Do let us remember that the main object of the Germans in these raids is probably to inflict casualties on life. I do not know whether it is true, but I have heard it said that some of their bombs arc shrapnel bombs. If that is so, it is clear that the enemies' object is not the destruction of buildings or matériel, but the infliction of casualties on the civilian population. It is, therefore, our duty, and the duty of the Government, to do everything by which this effort may be frustrated defensively— I do not speak of other methods which are very important—and the streets and top parts of buildings cleared as expeditionary as possible. I do not think the Government need be ashamed of changing their mind or of modifying their policy. We are all in this business together, and the important point is to find out what is the host thing to do. I am quite satisfied by what the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the matter is being considered on lines which will enable us increasingly to approach a right solution of this difficulty, which is by no means an insoluble problem.
      Mr. KILEY: I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the Homo Secretary for the statement he has made. Ho has referred to two matters, the first that there is some division of opinion among
      1646
      the mayors of London on the subject of warnings. Last year I formed part of a deputation that waited on the authorities in this connection, and this peculiar position was then discovered: that the boroughs that had been raided were in favour of warnings and the boroughs which had not been punished were not at all so keen on getting notice. As representing one of the boroughs that was largely interested at that time, and which has never failed to have a visit when aircraft has come to London and damage has been done, I am on behalf of that borough very keen that warning should be given: If one wanted any justification for that attitude surely the statement of the Home Secretary supplies it very forcibly, the statement regarding the building where all the people were able to get into safety, and although there was a bomb on the building itself there was not a single life lost. With regard to warnings, I understand there are two, one given from thirty to sixty minutes from the coast—that is a considerable time—and another about seven minutes before the aircraft reach London. That, I understand, is the general practice. If that is so, I do not foresee any difficulty in a reasonable amount of warning being given to large factories and institutions, and I think also to policemen on point duty.
      Sir G. CAVE: There are not two warnings given now.
      Mr. KILEY: In any case, there is no serious difficulty in giving warning to men on point duty. For instance, in my own firm on Saturday at ten o'clock we got calls Oil certain of our men staff to report themselves for service. We had information, and the result was that the staff got down to the basement; but when I went into the street before closing I found that panic had reached the street because the Artillery had begun to fire. There was a taxicab where the driver had left his engine running in the middle of the street. That will show the danger that will occur to street traffic if there is not some notice given so that taxicabs can be put out of the way and stopped. From every point of view I urge the Government to consider, and with all sympathy, the desire that has been expressed this afternoon that warnings should be given.
      Mr. BOWERMAN: With reference to the schools being closed on Saturday, I only want to mention that the experience

      1647
      in the North of London amounts to this. There were hundreds of youngsters in an open space, and in consequence of no warning being given they had to be driven into the huts which the gunners use and closed in, the result being that when firing commenced the mothers were leaving the houses to look after the youngsters who were in a terrified condition. There seemed to be plenty of time on Saturday morning to give a warning of some kind, and I wish to point out what happened in this case.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
      I desire to bring before the Committee, and especially to the attention of the Home Secretary, the question of the treatment of those people who are in prison for reasons of conscientious objection. I am aware that in raising this question in this Chamber at the present time I do so in unfavourable circumstances. I do so at a time when it is especially difficult for the case of these men to be considered without passion and without prejudice. If only for that reason, I desire especially to appeal to the Committee for their forbearance while I endeavour to put—I hope tree from exaggeration and prejudice—the case for these men. The Committee may or may not be aware that at the present time there are some hundreds of prisoners under the charge of the Home Secretary who are in prison because they could not conscientiously accept any form of military or substituted service, and who, though the genuineness of their objections has never been questioned, have failed to secure exemption under the Military Service Acts. I want to give definite samples. At the present time, Mr. Clifford Allen is in prison for the third time, and is undergoing a sentence of two years' hard labour. Mr. Stephen Hobhouse is in prison for the second or third time, and is undergoing a sentence of hard labour. The question is the more difficult to put in this Chamber because it is closely allied with the military question. The Home Secretary has not entirely a free hand in this matter, and there are certain aspects of it with which I cannot deal because they can only be dealt with on a War Office or an analogous Vote. It is pertinent, however, for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the characters of Mr. Clifford Allen and Mr. Stephen Hob-
      1648
      house and why they are for the moment inmates of prisons of which he has charge.
      Although I single out Mr. Clifford Allen and Mr. Stephen Hobhouse, I do not wish to state that their cases are more important than those of the several hundreds of persons who are in prison for the same reason, but as they are less distinguished men or men whose public career is not so well known to the public. Not at all. I only take these two men as examples, and I wish expressly to state that, of course, the same reasons and the same principles hold good in the case of these other hundreds of persons. It is, I say, pertinent for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of why these two, and others, are inmates of the prison. There can be no doubt whatever—I do not think either the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary for the Home Department will for a moment dispute my statement—that when the House was passing the Military Service Acts the people they had in their minds to protect under the conscientious exemption clause were men like Mr. Clifford Allen and Mr. Stephen Hobhouse whose conscientious objections to war were beyond any question whatever, and it is only because the Acts were somewhat loosely drawn and because the intentions of the Government were not carried out by the tribunals that these men are in prison at all. I believe that is common ground. Other men have received absolute exemptions and no problem has arisen in their case. The men who have received absolute exemptions were not more sincere than these of whom I am speaking. Mr. Clifford Allen's career is known, I think, to almost all in this House. He has had a very distinguished career of unselfish service for the public good, and my right hon. Friend who sits on the Labour Bench (Mr. Bowerman) does not need me to remind him of the service Mr. Clifford Allen rendered to the movement with which he is particularly associated before the outbreak of this War, while it is known that by reason of these public services which Mr. Allen performed in the slums of Manchester and other cities he contracted a serious disease, and was, indeed, already of a very frail physique.
      5.0 P.M.
      If the Under-Secretary of State will allow me to say so, the answer which he gave to me in the House a few days ago was not an adequate answer on this matter, and, indeed, was not sufficiently candid, and I will try and show him why. He

      1649
      admitted that Mr. Allen was frail physically, and that his illness and condition might have had a tuberculous origin, but he went on to say that he was not at the time suffering from tuberculosis. I think that was not quite adequate. He will know, if he has had a full report, that Mr. Allen has always declined to allow his physical condition to be put forward as a ground for special treatment, he has taken his stand always on principle, but he will know that he contracted tubercular complaint of the spine, and that his present condition is due, therefore, to tuberculosis. It is merely a pedantic point to say that at the actual moment he is not suffering from an active form of that disease. My right hon. Friend's case is that he is very frail physically and suffering from a condition which had its origin in tuberculosis, and that he is very ill indeed. There is another respect in which his reply was not satisfactory and which admitted a meaning which was not the truth; it was capable of an interpretation which does not give us the truth. What are the facts? Mr. Allen announced, before his third sentence of imprisonment, that he could no longer obey prison orders.
      He set forth in a pamphlet or letter, which I think is a moving document and is a tribute to the genuineness of his convictions and a tribute to his character, the masons why he could no longer obey orders in prison and do prison work. As a result of that disobedience he has been sentenced several times to punishment during his present imprisonment. That punishment has taken the form of a low diet, bread and water, solitary confinement, and the other forms of punishment which are perfectly legal under the administration of the prison, and which comply with the various rules laid down. As a result of that treatment, solitary confinement, low diet, hard labour and all the rigours of hard labour, the health of this delicate man has broken down. I think I put a question about his physical condition last Wednesday and on Thursday, the day following, the Home Office authorised the removal of Mr. Allen from his cell to hospital, but the question that was answered, and the reply which was given, stated that his physical condition showed no deterioration as a result of imprisonment. What did that mean? Here is this man suffering from illness who is frail physically, a condition to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention; he is sentenced to these succeeding
      1650
      forms of punishment, he breaks down under it and is removed ultimately to hospital in a very serious physical state, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) rises in this House and says his physical condition shows no deterioration owing to his imprisonment. To what is it due? It is obviously due to the rigour of his punishment and the general conditions of his imprisonment.
      What has been the conception in our public life with regard to the punishment of hard labour? Before war broke out two years' imprisonment with hard labour was a punishment which was reserved for some of the most ardent criminals. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Cave) and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) do not need me to remind them of the kind of criminals, and the kind of crimes, for which the punishment of two years' hard labour is inflicted. It is a more rigorous form of punishment than penal servitude, for it is not legal to impose a sentence of more than two years' imprisonment, without transferring it to penal servitude, because it is of so arduous a form that it would not be possible, without danger to life, for a longer term to be imposed. That form of punishment, reserved for some of the most ardent and lowest criminals in the community, is the punishment that is now being inflicted upon gentlemen with the record, a public record, of the highest, character and of undoubted religious convictions, like Mr. Stephen Hobhouse or Mr. Clifford Allen. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me, quite truly, that he is not responsible for his sentence; lie may tell me that he is not responsible for any failure of the tribunal which has led to this result, and that he is not responsible for the clumsiness of the wording of the original Military Service Act. I know that is true, but the right hon. Gentleman occupies a peculiar position in the Constitution of our country, and a very great position. In the office which he holds he has, among other things, expressly to redress miscarriages of justice like this; he is there to review matters of this kind. He may tell me that these men are members of the Army, are military prisoners, and that he cannot act without the assent of the military authorities. I say, without any hesitation, that, having regard to the peculiar functions which have always been associated with his office, if he cannot act without the

      1651
      military authorities, he should use his influence with the military authorities to secure the release of these men. I will not dwell upon, that point further, because I believe this is a case in which he has got to get the permission of the War Office, or that may be held to be the view, but surely he can do this immediately; he can say that Mr. Allen and Mr. Hobhouse, and the hundreds of less distinguished men who are imprisoned on precisely the same grounds, should be at least placed in the first division, and that a modification of their treatment shall take place. On the ground of humanity alone this should be immediately done in the case of a delicate man suffering from a long illness of the nature that Mr. Clifford Allen is suffering from, and I should say, too, that it should be done on the grounds of humanity in the case of the whole of these men, who have committed no crime, and who only in a pedantic sense are called in this House and elsewhere criminals.
      The right hon. Gentleman may refuse, and he may say that men who will not obey military orders must take the consequences. If he says that he will receive some cheers in this House; he will receive, it may be, the plaudits of some outside and the support of a certain kind of newspaper outside; but I believe he will not take this course, because he has a far nobler view of what his functions as Home Secretary are, and because he realises that he holds that office in order to redress these injustices; because he realises, too, in the middle of all this passion and prejudice, passion and prejudice which must always accompany a War like this, and the conditions under which we live, that it is above all things necessary that justice and mercy shall be observed to these distinguished citizens, to whom I, at least, desire to pay my tribute for their sincerity, for the greatness of their character, and for the devoted public services they have rendered long before this War, services which the whole nation has benefited from. On all these grounds I believe the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that the case of such men must, be met, apart from this atmosphere of prejudice and passion. I believe he realises that, and I sincerely trust he will be able to take steps to put an end to a state of affairs which is outraging the consciences of greatnumbers of people, which becomes a greater scandal every moment it is allowed to go on. I
      1652
      believe there will be an increasing demand amongst all circles in this country that this form of persecution shall be discontinued. I hope I have been able to place this matter before the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary without undue feeling. It is a matter on which I feel very strongly, so strongly, indeed, that I can hardly trust myself to speak upon it. If I have spoken with great feeling it is because I feel strongly, because I feel that the good name of the country is at stake, because I feel, too, that the many pledges given by the Government are at stake, and that the character of the Government is at stake. I see before me the predecessor of the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Herbert Samuel), and I should like to ask him if he is going to intervene in this Debate; whether the cases of these men are not precisely the cases he had in mind when he was assisting to pilot through this House the first Military Service Bill, and I feel sure that he will be able to add his voice to mine that this error of justice which has taken place, and failure to give the protection which the House intended to give to these men, is a matter which should be attended to and put right by administrative actions. For these reasons I lay the matter before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Cave), and 1 beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
      Mr. KING: A few weeks ago I put a notice on the Paper to reduce this Estimate by £100, but that of my hon. Friend has been moved before me. I am rather sorry, as I always like to let the Front Bench down as easily as possible, that I had not the opportunity of moving this reduction. For some time I have been anxious to see this Vote put down. Last Thursday I asked the Prime. Minister whether we could have this Vote at an early date and lie replied that it would not be possible until several other Votes had been moved. A quarter of an hour after that answer lie announced after questions that on this day the Home Office Vote would be taken. It appears, therefore, that it was only at the last moment the Government changed its mind and decided to put the Vote down. The minds, intentions, needs, and actions of all Governments are wonderful to me, but I am sure nothing has surprised or pleased me more than the intention of the Government on a quarter of an hour's notice to put down

      1653
      this Vote. I thank them very much, especially because it means bringing the Home Secretary here for another day. I am sure the whole House recognises if there is any member of the Front Bench who deserves a rest it is the Home Secretary. He is always courteous, always present, and recently, in connection with the Representation of the People Bill, has been very much in evidence. I therefore thank him for his attendance. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has drawn attention to what I think he must have convinced the House is a wasteful, cruel and futile policy with regard to the absolutist conscientious objectors. I do not intend to pursue that theme, which I think my hon. Friend followed out very well indeed, more than to say that I entirely agree with him, and I specially wish to endorse what he said about Mr. Stephen Hobhouse, who is the son of perhaps the most distinguished Somerset man living at the present time. I refer to the right hon. Henry Hobhouse, who was for many years an honoured and prominent Member of this House. Mr. Stephen Hobhouse has devoted his whole life in the most self-denying way to work amongst the people. I feel sure, especially in view of the actual war work which Stephen Hobhouse was doing when he was summoned to appear before a tribunal, that it is nothing less than vindictive and futile to persecute him in such a way.
      I had a question upon the Paper to-day about the case of Mr. Petroff. He is a man for whom I have a very great deal of respect, though I differ from him fundamentally in a great many of his principles and practices. His case at the present time has assumed a new importance. Mr. Petroff, as I informed the Committee a year ago, was a Socialist who went to speak in the Clyde area in Scotland. He was associated with Mr. John Maclean, an eminent Socialist educationist, who has just been liberated by the Government. I am going to ask the Home Secretary definitely this question: Will he let Petroff, who was a friend and fellow-worker with John Maclean, now out of prison? There is a great deal more reason to, let Petroff out than to let Maclean. In a court of law Maclean was convicted. In a court of law Petroff was summoned and actually fined. He appealed, and his conviction was quashed, and he got, I think, ten guineas damage for the false conviction. Immediately he came out, cleared by the court of law, he was put into prison, or interned, I suppose we must call it, under
      1654
      Regulation 14 B, and for about two years he has been interned without legal trial. Just recently the case of Petroff, who is, of course, very well known to the Russian Revolution and who is personally a friend of men in power there, came up in Russia, and one of the British Government agents was asked about him, and he gave this answer—that Petroff was in prison as the result of a trial. You might think from that that Petroff had been tried and condemned. He is certainly in prison as the result of a trial, but he is not there from any legal sentence, and anything more calculated to show up the quibbling meanness of the Home Office than the reply for Russian consumption, I cannot imagine. But it is not only this question of Petroff being interned and his harsh treatment that is causing anxiety to his many friends at the present time. It is the increasing severity with which he has been treated since the Russian Revolution.
      Petroff was now at the Cornwallis Institute, Islington. I want to say at once that I have no fault to find with General Halliday, the commandant and head of that institution. General Halliday, in my opinion, is certainly an excellent officer and a kindly man, and I have nothing but respect for the way in which he carries out the very arduous and difficult duties. The remarks I have to make about the treatment of Petroff are certainly in no sense to be taken as condemnatory of General Halliday. The manner in which Petroff has been treated may be exemplified in various ways. When I asked first in this House why he had been interned it was very difficult to get a clear answer. Eventually they found out that Petroff was married to a German woman and had gone through no form or ceremony which could be considered in this country as a legally binding marriage. The ground for his internment has, therefore, been given that he was in association with enemy aliens, meaning his wife. That I may not minimise the matter, let me state that I feel very sorely about the way in which the wife has been treated. She was at first left entirely alone as if she were his legal wife, but when he was interned they found out that she was perhaps technically a German subject, and they put her into Aylesbury Prison, where she is at present, and while she has been there she has been suffering from increasingly severe treatment. Only last week I received information from two different quarters which

      1655
      they had taken every means to stop coming out. It is this: that Mrs. Petroff is now made to consort with German women of an infamous kind, and that German prostitutes suffering from venereal diseases are put along with her, and she is now compelled to take baths, not only to ask when she wants one, but compelled, as part of the prison discipline, in the same bath just immediately following after women of this character. As I dare say my right hon. Friend knows, the fact has become such public property, a resolution has been passed by one of the labour representation committees and trades councils, with which Petroff is well acquainted, protesting against this.
      I should hardly believe that such things were the case, and I should not mention them here, though they have been brought to me by two distinct witnesses who arc totally dissociated from one another, were it not for the further fact that during the last three weeks Petroff has been prevented from corresponding with his wife. I say to his credit that from the early days of their internment Petroff was always more anxious about corresponding with his wife than about anything else, and he has kept up a constant correspondence with his wife up to the last three weeks. I ask as a second question of the Home Secretary, Why has the correspondence between Petroff and his wife been stopped, and why are they both being treated in a way more severe than formerly 1 I am going to give to my right hon. Friend what I believe is the real explanation of the continued incarceration and increased cruelty of treatment meted out to this poor man. It is this: That Petroff, being a Russian subject in close association with leading members of the Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates in Petrograd, representations have come from thorn to our Government to let him go brick to Russia, which he ardently desires to do. I see that the Home Secretary shakes his head at that statement. I am quite sure that if they did not come through him they did come in certain quarters, and that the Russian Embassy knows about the proposals that have been made for taking Petroff back to Russia. The fact is that since it was brought to the notice of Petroff that he might be allowed to go back to Russia he said, "I will not go without my wife; I would sooner stay here in prison than go without my wife." When it was pointed out, his
      1656
      wife being technically a German subject, that there were grave difficulties, and that ho could not expect to take a German woman back to Russia, he replied quite frankly, "I am willing to be married to this woman who has been my constant associate and friend for ten years, and with whom, as a refugee, I left Russia first from the Czar's tyranny, and with whom, as a refugee, I left Germany from the Kaiser's tyranny, and with whom I have lived here for many years. I am willing to go through your marriage rite with her." Application, I believe, has actually been made with that object. Certainly I am sure that Petroff had admitted his readiness to marry this woman according to English law.
      I ask my right hon. and learned Friend this third question: Why cannot this poor man be allowed to marry this woman to whom he has been faithful so many years, and why cannot the two be allowed to go away as Russian man and wife to Russia? I hope the right hon. and learned Gentlemen will do me the honour of answering that question. I have got some more facts which I wish to lay before the Committee. I am almost sorry to have to bring them, but I do so because I think they so entirely bear out the stories I am telling, and so amply help to prove what I contend, that the Government, handling of this case, and similar cases, is clumsy, cruel, and futile, and only causes friction and injustice; also that greater generosity, a little confidence, and a little openness might set things so easily and quickly right. Here are other facts about Petroff. He was in the habit of seeing—I am speaking now of several months ago—a number of Russian gentlemen who were allowed under the ordinary regulations which attach to an internment camp. Suddenly a certain number of persons were put upon a list as not to be allowed to visit that man any longer, and the reason, I am given to understand, was that these had all discussed with him his legal position and were desirous of a case being cited for a writ of habeas corpus which would bring the whole of the facts of the man before the country. As a result these persons who were discussing this matter with him were refused further admission to see him. Let me point out that this case of Petroff—which I am making at some length—
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Hear, hear!
      Mr. KING: Is important for this reason, that it is symptomatic of the attitude taken up by our Government towards the Russian Revolution. If you knew that a man before the Revolution was a revolutionary in sympathy, and was an enemy of the Tzar's Government, and was, therefore, in your judgment, hampering the War by his unwillingness to submit to the Tzar's Government, well and good; you were entitled to say so, and entitled possibly to put the man under restraint, or certainly under observation and restriction. Now, however, when we have to rely upon a good understanding with Russia, to put increased restrictions and injustices on these men is nothing less than foolish and futile. I protest as an Englishman, not only as one who loves justice, but on grounds of high policy, against this cruelty towards a really eminent and intellectual Russian. I will reinforce my point by another fact that occurred only on Saturday. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make some inquiry into the facts which I am now going to state. There is in the Adelphi district, near the Strand, an office which is used by certain agents of the Russian Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates. These, as everybody knows who has followed the Russian Revolution, have obtained from the Provisional Government, and from our Government, the right to send their representatives on various intelligence and other work to this country, and certain delegates—call them representatives if you like—come to this country, and some of them have been occupying offices an the Adelphi. Oil Saturday last Scotland Yard detectives went to that office and asked to see the landlord. Though they found that the" rent was paid, they asked the landlord, on behalf of Scotland Yard, to turn out those Russian representatives. Those Russian representatives have had a week's notice to quit as a result of Scotland Yards interference. What does it mean? Do you think a fact like that is not going to cause friction and suspicion? If you object to the men that are there, why not go in a straightforward way and tell them what are your objections? Why do you send your detectives in plain clothes to go behind people's backs and ask their landlords to give them notice to quit? Anything more mean and more foolish, and, I would add, more contemptible than this sort of action I cannot conceive. This is not an unusual or a single case.
      1658
      I turn to another set of questions altogether. Even though feeling at the present time is, I think, very embittered and irritated against enemy aliens, I am going to say a word or two on behalf of those enemy aliens who are suffering very severely from internment. I have in my mind the cases of some dozen or more of matured men who have been here perhaps twenty or thirty years in this land, who have married English wives, who have had sons born and bred here who are now in the British Army; yet, because the fathers are technically German citizens they have been imprisoned now for something like two years. I wonder whether the Committee realises that the total number of prisoners in the various belligerent countries is at present about 6,000,000. These are waiting till the end of the War to be released. I sometimes think that such men are entitled to as much sympathy as the soldiers at the Front. Very often they are ruined men, not only in estate but in body and mind. I am told by a mental specialist that he know many cases of men who have been mentally deranged by prison, and that the mental and nervous weakening which must be imposed on nearly all of these 6,000,000 men means, after the War, a probable great increase in lunacy. However, I make no sort of excuse for my plea on behalf of interned enemy aliens against whom there is nothing but the fact of nationality. Take the case of a woman I saw to-day, and with whom I had a conversation. Her husband came over to this country as a boy of five. He has never been in Germany since. He is now about fifty years of age. He married this Englishwoman, who had never been in Germany, and does not know a word of German, but who, of course, by her marriage is technically a German subject. They have two sons fighting in our Army. One of them has been wounded; another is now in the trenches. Yet her husband is treated as if he were a spy, and she herself, when the other day she came down to my neighbourhood in the country had to go and beg at one police office after another for a permit. I am informed that when she does come down to the country she is treated as dirt by the police whom she has to ask for permission to travel on the railway more than five miles. This is an Englishwoman, as much so as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an Englishman.

      1659
      She has got perhaps, what the right hon. Gentleman has not, and certainly what I have not got—two sons fighting in the British Army. Yet she is treated in this way, and her husband is a prisoner. There are many eases of interned men who might safely be let out of internment at the present time; men who for years and years have had no association with Germany; men who possibly have sons in the British Army; men who will give some undertaking that they will stay here after the War and be naturalised; men who can get dozens of people to affirm as to their bona fides. I have one case here where the wife came to me—indeed, I have known the woman since she was a girl. She told me she could get at least twenty city men to give guarantees for £1,000 each for her husband's good behaviour if he were allowed to come out of the internment camp and was placed under only the ordinary restrictions. That is an individual case, but such cases might be multiplied by the hundred. These men are costing us something like £5 per week out of the taxes. Let them out, and they will add to the economic and industrial strength of the country. Yet the Home Secretary has not the courage, let alone the good feeling and humanity, to consider any policy like this at all.
      I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy present, because I would appeal to him, and would point out that I am enforcing my argument by reference to what actually has been done in Scotland. He was for a short period, I believe, a member of the Advisory Committee on cases of internment in Scotland. When I was in Glasgow last month I had a conversation with a gentleman of foreign descent but of British birth and nationality. He was the secretary of a society which had been the means of obtaining the release from internment of about 150 men in Scotland. I presume, as my right hon. Friend was one of the Advisory Committee, he approved of these cases. At any rate, I could give my right hon. and learned Friend the details of a number of these cases in Scotland. I will not, for obvious reasons, particularise the districts, or go into any of the circumstances. In Scotland, however, these men have been let out on their own personal bond to be of good behaviour, and they had in each case given a guarantee that they would observe these rules. Though these men had been out, and going about
      1660
      in society, and pursuing their ordinary avocations for a couple of years, I am told that there has not been any objection raised in Scotland, and there has not been one single case of offence alleged against any one of these men. What has been the result? Instead of this large number of men being a burden upon the public they are doing their duty in the ordinary course of their lives.
      Sir G. CAVE: What was their nationality? Were they not friendly aliens?
      Mr. KING: Oh, no, certainly not; they were enemy aliens. I will give my right hon. Friend privately afterwards the facts before he replies.
      Sir G. CAVE: Why not now?
      Mr. KING: I will say this—that they were Jews. A certain number of them were Austrians. I will not say how many were Germans, but certainly several were Austrians, and I believe the large majority of them were Jews. It does not matter what they were. They were enemy aliens. They were not friendly aliens. There are other cases which I would willingly take up. There is the case of a young man— I have brought the case once or twice before the Committee—who does not talk German at all. He was born in Germany, and lived there for the first six weeks of his life. He is a very skilled mechanic, and at the beginning of the War had just completed a course in an engineering school, and I am told can design and make a gas engine, or an elaborate electrical plant. That man was summoned in a. Court of law for not being registered. His nationality was so doubtful that the Brentford bench of magistrates discharged him. He was arrested by detectives from Scotland Yard as he carne out of Court, and he has been in custody ever since. This young man of twenty-one, who several years before had actually changed his name to an English name because he desired, as soon as he could save money enough, to be naturalised, who does not talk German except with the greatest difficulty, and only lived six weeks in Germany when a baby, might now be making munitions, and is absolutely devoted to this country, yet you keep him in prison at a cost of£5 a week, and possibly breaking his health and sanity. I could, of course, multiply cases like this. I will put a definite question

      1661
      to my right hon. Friend. Will he now consider whether some of these men in internment might not, under guarantees of friends and bonds for good behaviour, or some similar process, be allowed to come out and take their part in doing work of national importance to this country, instead of being a burden to the community? Seeing that we are constantly taking more and more prisoners at the front, and the difficulty there is of finding accommodation for them, it would be a good beginning to let 100 or 200 enemy aliens out of internment camps in this connection. It might be safely done, and, as we hope and believe that the end of the War is approaching, it would make these men, instead of brooding over a sense of injustice, espouse our cause.
      I see on the Treasury Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and that induces me to appeal to him on behalf of the conscientious objectors—not those who are suffering in prison, the so-called Absolutists, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse) made so moving an appeal; but I want to appeal on behalf of those men who have accepted the Home Office scheme. On the one hand, the Absolutists say, "We will not submit to a militarist Government at this time"; but the case of the men who have accepted the Home Office scheme is totally different. First of all, they have been before the Central Tribunal, and have been held by the Central Tribunal to be genuine, You cannot, therefore, get at them on the ground that they are not genuine conscientious objectors. The Central Tribunal has said that these men are genuine. It will not do for the Treasury Bench to turn round and say that they are not genuine cases. The very tribunal which you have put up, including such militarists on it as the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, admit that these men are genuine, and by accepting the Home Office scheme these men intimate that they arc ready to do work of national importance. I have had many talks with my hon. Friend on the subject, and he has made some candid remarks to me about them which I will not repeat, but which led me to think that there is one point in connection with the treatment of these men that is really very serious, namely, that you say they are genuine, you offer them a scheme in which they will do work of national importance, but as soon as you get them to work you do not give them
      1662
      work which they can fairly and reasonably be expected to do. That is my point. Take the whole case of the quarries near Aberdeen, where men died through exposure, where the very gravest irregularities were discovered, and where the Government practically put an end, in a very short space of time, to the attempt to put conscientious objectors who were weak and unskilled upon hard and difficult work which wanted a certain amount of experience, and which was doomed to failure.
      Nearly all the work that you offer to these men, after they prove their genuineness, and say that they are ready to do work of national importance, is such work is they are inexperienced in and cannot do well. That is a condition that you make. If a man has been a schoolmaster, you say that whatever lie docs he must not do any more teaching. If a man has been a railway clerk—I know cases of this kind—you say that, though you want railway clerks or railway accountants at the present time, if they sire conscientious objectors they must do something else, and you put them on a farm. If a man has been working on a farm, and can go back to work on it, you try if you possibly can to give him some other work for which he is unsuitable, and, instead of getting work clone which is of national importance, you get all sorts of friction, difficulty, and failure, and you are absolutely wasting the national resources. These principles on which you act—very bad principles, as I think them—are exemplified by what is going on at Dartmoor. If there is anything that is necessary at the present time it is to cultivate the land, and you send something like 900 to 1,000 men out to a moor where they cannot possibly do any good agricultural work. I know it is said that sooner or later there will be a farm there for them, or there is a farm there for them, but you put something like four men on the acre, and the work that you give them to do is such that it is bound to be unproductive. Let me give you an instance of what I mean. You have got horses that you could take out on the land to plough and to take such manure as there is on the land. Instead of letting the horses do it, in order to find some work for the gangs of men superfluously there, you compel the men to take barrows and carts ridiculously heavy, harnessing together six or a dozen men to a vehicle. The result is that the utilisation of human strength that is going

      1663
      on in respect of 1,000 men of military age, who are willing to do work of national importance, is about as wasteful as anything that the Government has ever done. And just because a certain number of papers and extreme militarist Members of Parliament have entirely obscured the facts and misrepresented the real state of things, the Home Office is afraid to do anything to rectify a most wasteful and discreditable state of affairs.
      6.0 P.M.
      There is one more question to which I will briefly call attention, to which I have already alluded incidentally—I mean the police methods of the Government which are now being used. People have come to me—and I will say now openly that people in the service of the Government have come to me—and expressed their shame and sorrow at the things that they have had to do under the direction of the Home Office and Scotland Yard. What I mean is this. Take the case which is probably well known to the right hon. Gentleman of an American lady, an authoress, with strong labour sympathies, a woman of wealth, refinement and culture, who, because of her sympathy with Ireland's national ideals and with Socialism, has been driven from one hotel to another in London. She has been made the subject of blackmail. She has been violently abused by officials of Scotland Yard when she has called there, and if it were not for her very tender attachment to this country I believe she would have left long ago, but she has personal as well as financial ties of long standing in this country. Oases like this which I have gone into personally with some trouble have convinced me that there is an amount of cruel, ruthless employment of the exceptional powers of the Government at this time which ought to be curbed. The Home Office, the police, the military authorities and the general government of the country are at this time conducted under exceptional power. We are willing that they should have those powers, but we do ask that they should use them with judgment and humanity, without cruelty, and consistently, not changing from day to day.
      I have seen many cases of this kind, and I have expressed my readiness to go into several of them personally and make investigation, and this has naturally led to other cases. I say advisedly that I am more justified after my investigation in
      1664
      repeating my statement that the exceptional powers in the hands of the Home Office are used now with unnecessary harshness, and I would even say with a brutality which ought to be curbed. I have spoken on one or two matters personally to my right hon. Friend or his predecessor and other officials at the Home Office, and I am more and more convinced that this is a very serious matter, and if the right non. Gentleman were to pay a little more attention himself to these cases he would be able to restrain some of the really unauthorised actions of his subordinates. I will give one fact to bear out what I say. I have heard the Home Secretary say that he never signs a deportation order without personal knowledge of the case and without going through the papers. I do not know whether that is the rule which the right hon. Gentleman observes, but I know it was the rule of his predecessor. If he adopts that rule, I would like to know how were certain deportation orders signed and acted upon at the very time when the right hon. Gentleman was so ill that he was not able to see his private secretary, and I am told that for some time he absolutely saw nobody. During that time certain deportation orders were signed purporting to be signed by the right hon. Gentleman and were acted upon when he could not possibly have signed them.
      Sir G. CAVE: When I was not well I signed certain deportation and other orders, but never without going through the papers. When I was unable to sign anything the Secretary of State for India signed for me.
      Mr. KING: The explanation it not very satisfactory, because the right hon. Gentleman is a national asset, and he ought to have looked through the papers. In regard to these exceptional powers, I ask with the greatest assurance that I am asking a right and proper thing that exceptional care should be taken that these great powers are not unjustly or cruelly administered.
      Captain S. GWYNN: The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) raised the question of certain conscientious objectors called absolutists. I am not going to speak on any ground of principle, but I am going to make an appeal absolutely on the ground of expediency. The hon. Member put his case in the interests of the men themselves. I do not know these

      1665
      men, and without any knowledge of them I should think it impertinence on my part to do so. I should no more deprecate hardship, or in the last resort death, in the case of these men than I should other men who go into the trenches, because they are taking the risk and they know what they are doing. What I say is that you ought to take care that they do not beat you, and I beg of the Home Office, in the interests of duty, to be very careful of the treatment of these men. I would also say to the Home Office, do not allow your-selves to be shackled by any pedantic respect for what is called the letter of the law. It is very important that these men should not die in prison. It is not a question of making martyrs, for here you are up against something a good deal more serious. As far as I understand it, there is a great and growing disrespect and disregard for the law, and if these men die in prison or if their health suffers, a great proportion of the community will simply say, "They are only conscientious objectors, and we have no objection to their dying." There will, however, be a considerable body of men in ordinary society, and in the Army, who will not understand the principle of justice on which you are proceeding, and they will not understand the fine technicalities by which these men have somehow or another come under the stroke of the law. They simply know that Parliament created a statutory right for people to be exempted from military service if they could prove that they were conscientious objectors. In the case of these particular instances I cannot myself in the least understand how they got into prison. If anybody has the right to be conscientious objectors I think these men have, and I put it that if these men come by misfortune into prison you create throughout the country a widespread sense of injustice. You do not want thinking people in this country to feel that it is impossible for justice to prevail where you have a great military organisation. There is always a great temptation where there is a great military organisation, especially in time of war, for justice to go by the board.
      I beg of the Home Office to look carefully into the case of these men, and consider after all the inherent difficulty of the subject, because we cannot discuss the matter fully in this House. Three separate Votes are involved. We cannot discuss the sentences because that involves courts-martial, and that is a War Office
      1666
      affair. There is the question of the tribunal, but that is a local government affair. Here, however, we can discuss the question of their treatment on this Vote, and the mere fact that that is so indicates that their cases can be raised in a variety of ways. It is much more important that the case should be raised fully and conclusively and dealt with face to face with the Minister who is really in charge. These people are the product of an extraordinary condition of affairs, and of a very extraordinary law which created the legal status of conscientious objectors. As a matter of fact there is nothing like it in Europe, and they are only criminals in a highly technical sense. When you have people like that to deal with I beg of the Home Office not to be bound by the niceties of the law, but to submit these men to treatment appropriate to some particular technical offence, and deal with them in the light of common sense for your own sake, because you will find afterwards, if these men die in prison or if their health suffers, it will be a lasting disgrace to the administration, and if they die in prison you would do nothing to help the War, and you would be sure to injure your national military efforts.
      Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not rise to support the case of the conscientious objector which has been brought forward, because I have not the slightest sympathy with the ordinary conscientious objector—in fact, I share nearly all the popular prejudices against these people. At the same time, I must say that there are conscientious objectors who by their willingness to go to prison several times have proved their sincerity and courage. I confess that I am not at all easy as to the treatment of this class of conscientious objectors, and they have unquestionably by their courage lured the Government into rather a false position. Although I have not much sympathy with the conscientious objector, I have great concern for the good name of His Majesty's Government, and I do not think it is in the interests of the Government that these people should be treated in a manner not in conformity with the law as it stands, and the spirit of our legal administration. It is not humane, and it is not consistent with the laws of humanity that these men should be punished several times for the same offence, and undergo each time the penal part of their punishment. I hope the

      1667
      right hon. Gentleman, when he makes his reply upon this subject, will give some indication that the treatment of this class of conscientious objector is going to be altered in the future.
      The question of factory administration, I am afraid, does not excite very much interest in the House of Commons, but, nevertheless, very great improvements have been effected owing to criticism on these sleepy July afternoons; in fact, the great improvement in the health of the pottery lead workers is directly due to this kind of criticism. One cannot expect any great striking improvement in our factory administration during a time of war, but one can protest against the tendency which I detect on the part of the Home Office to surrender its functions and minimise its activities during war time. I think good proof of that is furnished by the miserable proportions of the factory report itself. I also detect a tendency to minimise their activities in a great reduction of the factory staff. I protest most strongly against this reduction in the factory inspectors' staff. No number of supervisers or of officials paid by the Ministry of Munitions can in any way compensate for the absence of these trained administrators. The officials of the Ministry of Munitions are all very well, but to a large extent they are without experience, whereas the Home Office officials have all been specially trained for the purpose. I also protest against the cutting down of the factory report. It is most disrespectful to this House that we are not told, for instance, what is the number of accidents during last year—a year of great activity. It is a matter of very great importance and of interest to the House. We ought also to have been told whether or not there has been an increase in any industrial disease. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me ultra suspicious, but I cannot help thinking that there is an intimate connection between the absence of the Accidents Report and the reduction in the number of inspectors, because the duty of the factory inspectors' staff is to safeguard the workers against the risks of dangerous machinery. I cannot help thinking that the absence of factory inspectors has led to a very large increase in the number of accidents, and that the Home Office does not like to say so.
      If there is no tendency on the part of the Home Office to surrender its functions,
      1668
      there is, at all events, no special anxiety to extend its activities. Last year a moat useful measure was passed, namely, the Police, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) BPL. That Act gave the Home Secretary power, where he considered the conditions of employment were such as to require it, to make an Order that welfare provision should be made in those factories. It gave him power to say that mess-rooms, cloakrooms, washing accommodation, and canteens should be provided in the factories. As far as I have been able to make out, not one single Order has been made, although that Act has been in operation for nearly a year. I should like to press my hon. Friend to tell us why. Does he mean to say that there are no trades outside the munitions of war trades that are in need of welfare provision? Does he mean to say that no firms or factories in any of the trades are in need of welfare provision? Of course, he knows perfectly well that there are plenty of trades. The cotton trade, for instance, is notoriously behind all other trades in welfare. The comfortless conditions in that trade are a by-word. I am told that what is good enough for their father and grandfathers is good enough for the-present generation.
      Sir F. BANBURY: A very good idea, too.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am told that because their grandfathers and fathers before them have eaten their meals mixed up with the machinery the present generation of workers do not want canteens. This is rather a more important point than appears upon the surface, because there is already a scarcity of workers in the cotton trade, and there is great difficulty in inducing-workpeople to come into them. This is going to be a very important point when the question of reconstruction comes on. One of the methods of successfully combating the difficult problem of reconstruction after the War will be to get back into their original trades a large number of workers who have left peaceable employment to go into warlike employment, and if, owing to the inactivity of the Home Office, the cotton trade, for instance, is behind the times in a matter of welfare, there will be an indisposition on the part of the workers to go back into that trade. If that should be so, the Home Office will have incurred a great responsibility. I

      1669
      hope, if welfare is extended to these trades, that it will be in the spirit of the Whitley Report, The Whitley Report, as lion. Members know, is a regular landmark in our industrial history, for it establishes the principle that if we are to get the greatest amount of production we must recognise the humanity of the worker. We have very nearly mastered material power. Our machines every day are capable of a greater output, but we have not solved the problem of the human element yet, and, if we are going to solve that problem, we must recognise that our workers are not machines, but human beings. The Whitley Report recommends that committees of workmen should be set up to have a voice in many matters affecting their welfare, such as the fixing of wages and the fixing of piece rates when any new process is brought into a trade. There is no reason why that principle should not be extended to welfare. The Ministry of Munitions has displayed very creditable activity with regard to this matter, and there is no doubt that they have done their very best to cope with the duty of providing for the welfare of the vast army of men and women who have been attracted to the munitions trade, but there is a feeling that their welfare work is not as successful as it might be. There b a feeling among the workers that it is a thing brought in from above, and not, as it were, generated amongst themselves. I cannot help thinking, if the workers themselves were associated with the work of welfare, that this feeling would vanish. Welfare as at present understood is all very well, and where there is a good employer the presence of the welfare supervisers no doubt does good, but where there is a backward employer, callous about the welfare of his men and women workers, then it is no good.
      Reading the Factory Inspectors' Report, one would imagine that there is very little to complain of in the length of hours which workers have been working during the last year. It says that they have been very little above the normal. I remember reading only the other day a most interesting article in that eminently fair and common-sense paper the "Manchester Guardian" upon recent industrial unrest, and the correspondent attributed the unrest to a very large extent to the tiredness, the irritability, and the lassitude of the workers. That tiredness to a very large extent was owing to, the terribly long hours which they were still working. He
      1670
      said that in some districts they were working up to seventy, eighty, and even ninety hours per week. I cannot help thinking that these long hours are not only destructive of the health of the workers, but that they are a gross waste of public money as well. There is no doubt about it that these long hours are not compensated by any corresponding increase in output, taking the output over a certain period. There has been a most interesting report of one of the welfare of munitions workers' committees, based on an investigation made by Dr. Vernon upon the relative output to hours of labour. After a long investigation he came to the conclusion that men engaged in heavy work should never work more than fifty-six hours per week; that men engaged in moderately heavy work should never work more than sixty hours; that men engaged in light work should never work more than seventy hours; that women engaged in moderately heavy work should never work more than fifty-six hours, or even, less; and that women engaged in light-work should never work more than seventy hours. They stand that fairly well, if their output is no greater than if they had worked sixty-four hours. These are the maximum hours which ought to be worked: even in war-time. He says:
      "It is to be borne in mind that all of the times mentioned are the maximum hours of actual work, supposing a maximum output is required regardless of cost of production. They necessarily impose a great, strain on the operatives, and there can be no doubt that in many instances the strain was too great to be borne, und that the operatives had to drop out altogether. That is to say, the data quoted relate to the fittest who were strong enough to survive in the struggle and not to the general mass of workers of all classes who tried their hands at munition work. It is almost impossible-to discover the extent of this weeding-out, but it is inevitably considerable. Hence the best hours of work, suited for peace times, are in every case considerably shorter than those mentioned, though the principle of graduating the number of hours of labour to the type of work performed still holds with undiminished force."
      That means that the hours of work I have mentioned are injurious to the health of the great mass of the workers, and, beyond that, that it is a pure waste of money. I would strongly urge upon the Home Office the desirability of using every influence they possibly can to reduce to the level of the Factory Acts the hours of labour of the working classes in this country. The Factory Acts were passed not without a good purpose. They embodied the common sense and experience of several generations of industrial workers. If we depart from them, we do it at a very great risk of injury to the health of the workers, and, in addition, it involves

      1671
      a great waste of money. Another point I wish to raise is the hours of night-work of boys and girls. There is a tendency—of course, it is an inevitable tendency in wartime—to go back to the bad days of the industrial revolution, but now things are settled down and we have got into our stride we ought to cut down this tendency as much as possible. The Factory Acts forbid the night employment of boys and girls. So does the Munitions Act, generally speaking. It is only allowed on special urgent occasions. The point I want to make is that there is a great number of firms in this country still working boys and girls on night shifts, although there are other firms doing exactly the same work where night work by boys and girls is not allowed and is not practised. I want to know why this special allowance is made to certain firms? There is an important firm at Erith where boys and girls are working night shifts. I make a special point of this, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will make a special note of it. It ought to stop at once. It is very prejudicial to the health of these boys and girls, and is quite unnecessary at the present time. The present tendency is to dismiss boys from munition work. Thousands of boys have been and are still being dismissed from it. It would be perfectly easy to arrange matters so that these boys and girls should not be forced to work long hours at night. It is a very serious matter. I have a report here from one of these excellent health of munition workers' committees on the question of juvenile employment. It says:
      "A social worker who has had considerable experience of boys employed in munition works stated that, so far as he knew, there had been no general breakdown … He suggested, however, that the boys are drawing on their strength, and pointed to the fact that boys fall asleep in trains and trams, and often travel on beyond their stations. They have no leisure, no recreation, no pleasure, and no classes, and he was very anxious as to what would become of the boys after the War. He suggested that too big a price was being paid for output."
      That is borne out by my own experience, as I happen to be on the committee of the welfare workers at Woolwich. The other day we had a conference at Woolwich as to whether there ought to be more provision for clubs for the boys at Woolwich. They told us it was of very little use to have such clubs, because the hours were so long and the work at night so prevalent that the boys were too tired to worry about clubs or any recreation whatsoever. I hope my hon. Friend will
      1672
      exercise the full influence of the Home Office in order to bring this bad practice to an end.
      Sir RICHARD COOPER: The subject of factory control, to which my Noble Friend has just referred, is one of great importance at the present time. As most hon. Members of the Committee know, many progressive ideas have been put into practice in a large number of factories throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is equally well known that a number of these experiments have proved highly beneficial, both to the production of the factory and to the welfare of the workpeople concerned. I understand, from the information which has been given to me, that, generally speaking, this work is regarded as being a great success. That being the case, I want to submit to the Home Secretary the great importance of the Home Office being in advance in this matter and leading the country and the people. I say that for the reason that labour itself will, in any case, demand that what has proved to be good and beneficial in a certain number of factories shall be applied generally to the whole of the factories of this country. Everyone will recognise how much more valuable it is, first, that these benefits should be conferred as fully as is reasonably possible, and, secondly, that the administration, that is, the State, should lead the people, rather than that they should wait for pressure to come from behind. There is another reason why I particularly want to press this general point. There is no member of this Committee who is not concerned as to what is going to be the position of labour not only at the end of the War but during the War. Anyone who has studied closely the fundamental facts of the labour situation for the last few months will agree with me that, generally speaking, the labour trouble in this country has very little relation to wages. It is primarily and generally a question of the conditions under which the people of this country have been working. We all know that in many parts they have been working very long hours and very arduously in their splendid attempts to try to turn out all the munitions possible. It is a question of conditions rather than of wages which is at the back of the general complaints, so far as they are complaints, at the present time on the part of labour.
      That being so, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Home

      1673
      Office will not lose any opportunity of benefiting from this work that has been performed and from the results which have proved in practice to be so advantageous. If they take this step, it is true that many of the less educated and less progressive employers may at once begin to complain that additional burdens are being thrust upon them. I am quite certain, and in this matter I speak from no little personal experience, that if the Home Office, in any regulations they bring in regarding factories generally, are careful, they will be able to take advantage of a great many of those benefits, not only without loss to the employers concerned; but positively with advantage to them. Speaking from memory, I believe there are Government reports, particularly dealing with the Ministry of Munitions, in which there are definite facts showing that the better conditions which have been brought about recently have resulted in much greater production, and I believe they go so far as to state that there is cheaper production. From my own experience, not only in this country, but in the United States and South America, of factory work and production, I can say that a great many of these results that have been obtained can be applied with absolute advantage to the employers concerned.
      I particularly desire this afternoon to take advantage of this Vote to ask my right hon. Friend if he can tell the Committee that from his experience, since he has been at the Home Office, he is satisfied that everything is being done, and has recently been done, in the direction of eradicating German influence and the power of what we used to speak of as German peaceful penetration. My right hon. Friend may remind me that a part of this subject, at any rate, lies particularly under the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, but primarily the Home Office is responsible in this matter, because the Board of Trade has to depend, in the first instance, for information from the Home Office regarding certain people who from time to time may be under question. I want my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee quite frankly if he is satisfied from his experience that the Home Office is doing everything that it reasonably and properly can to obliterate from this country that power which the Germans possessed before the War, and that power which, I am satisfied, they have to no small extent enjoyed
      1674
      during the prosecution of the War. What has been done so thoroughly in the great Dominion of Australia surely ought to be possible here. I do not think my right hon. Friend will be able to suggest in reply that there is not a wide concensus of opinion that more is required at the present time. Unfortunately, I have not been able to be present in the House very much during the last few months, but I have noticed that quite a large number of questions have been put almost every day which carried with them the suggestion that in the minds of the questioner there was something still left undone on the part of the Home Office and the Government. This question is one of vital importance not only to the complete prosecution of the War in favour of the Allies, but also to the commercial position of Great Britain after the War has been concluded. I will not attempt to give definite cases. Every Member knows how extremely difficult it is for anyone to get not merely information about a certain matter, but to get such complete facts as will enable one to say that such a thing is so and there is no question about it. It is extremely difficult to prove all these matters up to the hilt. The power really lies only with the Home Office and with Scotland Yard to do this, and all we can do in this House is, when we think it necessary, to keep on appealing to the Government to see that the powers that they possess are used to their fullest. We have had in the past a great deal of agitation in favour of the internment of all enemy aliens. I feel that a great deal of the activity which I and others took oh this matter a year, eighteen months, and two years ago has largely been shown to have been well founded by the large number of people who we now know have recently, in the last twelve months, been taken under charge.
      I think we may take it for certain that the views of the hon. Member (Mr. King) do not usually prevail. We may take it that no one in this country is interned without the very surest evidence that it is necessary in the interests of the country. I am sure that is the view of a very considerable number of Members and of many who take no action whatever to express their opinions. They feel that it is one of those subjects which are so difficult to handle that they must leave them alone. I appeal to my right hon. Friend first of all to tell us, as far as he is able,

      1675
      whether everything is being done, and, secondly, I would ask him never to relax his efforts or those of his colleagues or of his staff generally to see if something more cannot yet be done to get rid of every vestige of German influence in this country that is possible. I know there is a great number of Members who have strong feelings on the subject, but what is much more important, there can be no doubt that quite a large proportion of the public are still fully convinced that more ought to be done and could be done for the general interests of this country. I hope my right hon. Friend will leave no stone unturned and will be prepared to go much further than anyone has yet gone to take this opportunity while he can. After the War it will be extremely difficult to take action which you are perfectly free to take to-day if you can only see that it is necessary and desirable. I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend, and I hope and believe that he will from now onwards be unrelenting in his watchfulness and care in seeing that everything possible is done in this direction.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I hope I am not out of order in asking a few questions about these accounts. I am under the impression that we are called here to discuss the Estimate for £253,784. There are certain amounts which are the same this year as they were last year. Home Office, C, Special Services, £3,000 this year and £3,000 last year. E, Travelling Expanses, this year £15,100, last year £15,100, Travelling Expenses, Inspection of Mines, £17,190—£17,190. Cost of Inquiry, £3,200, and £3,200. No details of any kind are given. This must mean a, certain Grant given for this item and that, and that is divided amongst the officials and no account is submitted. Otherwise you could not have the same amount exactly every year. How are we in a few hours time to go through all the details of these items? We cannot do it, and so we get questions of policy—conscientious objectors and so forth. Not one single item of this kind is challenged and asked to be accounted for at all. There are any number of them. There are C, E, M, N, O, S, all of them replicas from last year. They show, if they show anything, that they are round sums which are given and no accounts are given in detail. It cannot be right unless there is
      1676
      so much allotted to one man and go much to another and the same amount is allotted every year.
      Sir G. CAVE: It is a comparison of the Estimate for last year with the Estimate for this year. They are not accounts.
      Mr. HENDERSON: It only emphasises what happened on Friday, and the sooner we have a Committee to investigate these Estimates before they are submitted the better. It is impossible in Committee to go into these questions, and therefore it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to have any accounts which are worth looking at, that they should go before some Committee which has plenty of time to examine them. I see the date on them is March. A Committee could easily have examined them in the intervening months. I can quite understand the Minister welcoming discussions on what he did here or what he did there, all of which he could meet easily, but not a single word has been said about that. It is altogether wrong, and I hope it will be put right.
      Mr. STANTON: My only excuse for intervening is that as I came in I overheard one of our good friends on the other side speaking of his great feeling of sympathy with the Home Secretary in regard to his conduct towards conscientious objectors. I sincerely trust I am not wrong in saying we have heard enough about conscientious objectors in this House. Hardly a day passes without questions being asked about them, and hon. Members opposite to me, in more ways than one, on almost every occasion, endeavour to back up conscientious objectors in the face of the enemy when they read in their papers every day of hundreds of our poor boys dying in the trenches. These men are conscientious objectors too—conscientious objectors to Germany, with its Prussianism, dominating this country. They are conscientious objectors in the right way. They are risking all they have for this country. Great complaint is being made against the Home Office for its tolerance. It has been too kindly; it has coddled these people who have too much of their own way, and we have been laughed at as a nation. Their friends outside are having the laugh of us. On more than one occasion I have pointed out where these people have been allowed to go out, instead of being in prison, as they should

      1677
      be, and set to work at good, hard tasks, and allowed to hold meetings at street corners in certain places and to convert what ought to be penal servitude into a picnic. Yet there are people who stand up for them. I will allow the Committee to judge of the kind of people when you look at your picture paper and see the idiotic faces of these people portrayed there, and in the other corner pictures of the poor wounded. If they wish to be martyrs, why do they squeal because they are put to hard labour? They are coddled and looked after, they have shelters — bomb-proof, unfortunately — over their heads, while other poor people have to see their sons go abroad. I wonder what this country is going to come to if you are going to canoodle these people and back them up, and allow the intelligence of this House to be insulted by the remarks which you hear from time to time from so-called hon. Members. I am thoroughly disgusted when I see the wounded Tommies who come back to visit their homes. Nearly every one has made some sacrifice. Now, when the nation is in danger, is not the time for these people to squeal about the troubles and woes of the "poor conscientious objector." If we were in any way to test their consciences and set them free, we should find them at street corners, backing up every pro-German spouter they possibly could. That is what they are doing. They have had greater freedom than they should have. Letters and communications of all kinds have come out, and we can well understand the German agencies at work in this and other countries when we discover some of the questions which are put in this House from time to time. Hon. Members, who receive £100 for rendering not even doubtful services to their country, come here to ask questions, to be-little and to belie and do all they can to hamper and retard the successful operations of this War. If they want to apply their consciences, let them remember the boys who go out to sea—Havelock Wilson's men, the men who stood up, as I am proud to say they did, and blocked the game of some of the pro-German peace-mongers who wanted to go to Russia.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether these remarks with reference to the seamen's action in stopping the
      1678
      departure of the hon. Members in question has any relevance to the Home Office Vote?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickinson): I think the hon. Member's remarks are somewhat out of order, but not having had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member who has just objected I do not know how far they are irrelevant.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. STANTON: Perhaps I was side-tracked a little. However, I have said that, and what I mean, is that the conscientious objector is not only a conscientious objector against war, but he is anti-British, he is pro-German to the hilt, and I have no sympathy with him. If I had my way I would also place the people who gave them the power to become conscientious objectors in gaol. Con-sciousless cowards I call them, sheltering themselves here whilst others go to war and die for their country. I do hope the Home Office will not relax any rigour which they may apply to these people; they are having already more than they deserve. They deserve nothing. The very food which they eat they are not entitled to. Other men risk their lives to bring it across the seas and others are out in France to make it possible for their wives and sisters and sweethearts—if they have any; they do not deserve them—to stay at home in safety. The Home Secretary must be humane, I know, but I hope he will be as little humane as he possibly can in dealing with people whose conscience is so elastic that they forget their duty and leave others to make the great sacrifices for them in the trenches of France or Gallipoli or elsewhere. I am as much opposed to war as any man. My views have been as extreme as those of any of these people, but my conscience awoke when the War came and my country was in trouble. I wonder where the consciences of these people are? My boys are at the front as your boys are. We hope to see them back again. On the other hand, we may not see them back. Am I, then, to sit here passively and allow the conscientious objectors to increase and multiply? Is my boy, or the boys of other people, to die while they remain here pampered and coddled? If the conscientious objector cannot live on what he is getting, then let him die. He deserves to die. In the old days the martyrs died in the arena. We can understand that,

      1679
      but I do not understand a man with a spark of human feeling in him refusing to take up arms to defend his mother or his father or his chlidren or sweetheart. These are the very people who glory in the raids that are taking place to-day. They are the very men who have no sympathy with the poor children slaughtered and the suffering parents in the East End. These are the people who cry out because you pinch them a little bit. Pinch them more; they deserve it. They deny that this country is worth fighting for; then why should they be housed or fed by this country? They should be cast adrift. Let them go over to the enemy, where they are long overdue, or let them die.
      There is no room surely for going out of our way to grant to them more than is fair play, more than is really just. Why should we do that to a set of cowardly cravens who, behind the concealment of strong bars, that to them do not a prison make, are squealing because of their treatment? I know these people. I have worked and lived among them. They were a bad lot in the old days. They are a bad lot now. They are out for a cheap martrydom, and there happens to be a set of hon. Members in this House who, I suppose, would back them up, asking questions at all times, showing they are not out to win the War, but that they are out just for their own, wretched, paltry gain. England can go to the devil so far as they are concerned, but the cowardly conscientious objector must be saved. I suppose they want in the future to build up and maintain this great Empire of ours with a stock composed of the progeny of the conscientious objector. I am thinking not. Wait till the boys come back from the trenches. Already the whole country is seething with discontent because of the one weakness after another of this Government. I do not think it will be necessary to warn, the Home Secretary, at any rate, as to how he should treat these people. He has already been well warned, and everybody expects him to be, able to make it impossible that there should be conscientious cowards in this country. When this country is in trouble, it is then the duty of every man to be loyal to his country and to make sacrifices for it. When the War is over, then, if you like, you can go in for international peace aims, but now lei us whip our enemies. How dare Members come to the House whining about these conscientious objectors, these
      1680
      cowards, when they know behind it all is hatred of this country! These men desire that their false prophecies may find fulfilment, and I marvel, when these defenders of the conscientious objectors speak here, that other Members do not get up and go for them like the devil. I hope to have another opportunity of saying more on this subject when some of our Friends are present, because they are an inspiration to me to go for them as is a rat to a rat-dog.
      Sir H. DALZIEL:I only rise to mention a single subject which I hope my right hon. Friend will allude to in the course of his reply. I would invite him to tell the House, especially as we have not had some Debate on the subject for some time, whether he is satisfied he has complete control of German agents in this country. As far as my private information goes, it points to an increase in the activity of German agents in this country for some considerable time, more especially since America came into the War. I would like him to tell us, also, if he can, how many spies have been shot since the commencement of the War, if that is a Home Office matter. I thought it was necessary for the Home Secretary to give his authority to such proceedings. If that is not so, I cannot ask him for the information, but I should like to know if the Home Office is satisfied that everything is being done that can be done to prevent important information going to the enemy. I suppose there is not the slightest doubt that information went from German agents in this country to the enemy in respect to the recent air raid. The day was chosen—must have been chosen—as the result of information that went from German agents in this country. Nothing else could have explained the particular time and circumstances of the raid. Take Harwich, for example. No doubt they had information from an enemy in this country about Harwich. It shows they chose that day for the movement. There is no doubt in the least about it. That particular day was so favourable to the enemy, more favourable than any, possibly, which they could have selected for months. It is the same with the raid on Saturday. It was selected because of important information that went from German agents in this country. My right hon. Friend knows what I am alluding to; I need not go into details. These days were selected because of information that was sent to the enemy as to the favourable

      1681
      position on those days for attack. How is that information going? It is going in many different ways, it is going from this country from these German agents, in some cases by courier; it is going by letter, code, and, it may be, even by telegram. I am not quite sure, but I think code telegrams are still allowed. I know they were allowed at the beginning of the War, and some important information was sent to the enemy by that means. There is no doubt about that.
      I called the attention of this House to information going to the enemy by means of newspapers. That was stopped afterwards. No periodicals are now allowed to be sent to neutral countries or to enemy countries unless they are sent from the office of the newspaper, which makes itself responsible. Previous to that, as I explained in the House at the time, every spy had his number and a page in certain periodicals corresponding to his number. That was allowed to go on for over a year. Finally the authorities woke up to the fact that information was going in that way, and happily it was stopped. I maintain, and I say it on my own responsibility, that important information must be going from this country at the present time. More especially is that confirmed with regard to the particular time chosen for the recent raid. Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied there is no wireless in this country being used by an enemy agent? I should like him to give a full and complete assurance on that point. It would be a relief to some people if he were able to give it. Is there any wireless suspected as being used by an enemy agent in this country, or can he give a complete denial to any suggestion of that kind? I invite my right hon. Friend to give all the information he can, because everything seems to point to the ingenuity with which they are obtaining their information and I think it would be interesting to know who is responsible for it. I understand certain eminent ladies have recently been arrested—I do not know whether it is true—and that as much as £30,000 in British gold was in their possession. We hear nothing of these things; the trials are in secret. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us as complete a statement on that matter as he can consistent with his duty in the public interests.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Stanton)
      1682
      took the opportunity of leaving the House as soon as he had finished his speech, because I should have liked the opportunity of telling him to his face that his speech was marked with the same brutality and illegality which have always marked all his proceedings both in the old days when he was on the side of anarchy in this country and now when he is on the side of violent militarism. He suggested that those who dared to say a word with regard to the treatment of conscientious objectors were filled with a desire to retard and hamper the operations of our troops. I think when a statement of that sort is made I should be a coward if I did not rise to repudiate it and to say what I think about the treatment of the conscientious objectors in this country. I have said very little about it all through this War, although I have felt deeply about it, because I feel that in war-time one has to submit to a very great deal which one believes to be wholly wrong rather than introduce any element of strife. But there comes a point when it is impossible to submit quietly to brutality such as we have heard this afternoon. There are, of course, sham conscientious objectors in this country, but with them I have not the slightest atom of sympathy; but there are also many real conscientious objectors, though I regret very much that there should be such. I regret intensely that there should be any man in this country whose conscience will not allow him to do what I believe to be necessary, and what I would do if my age allowed me, take up arms against the brutality of German militarism. Still the fact remains that there are still such conscientious objectors, men of whom it is an absolute slander to say, as the Member for Merthyr said, that they were willing England should go to the devil an her own way. I know men in the Army who are Quakers, whose families have been Quakers for two hundred years, and to say that they are pro-Germans is an infamous lie. There are many others besides the Quakers. There was one gentleman who was a candidate. He was seized when he was a candidate, giving a suspicion that it had something to do with the inconvenience of having a hostile candidate at that tune. There is Mr. Stephen Hobhouse, who we all know as one of the most earnest philanthropic workers in this country. There is Mr. Clifford Allen, a man of the greatest possible intelligence

      1683
      and activity in what he considers his own "way of benefiting his country. I do not -agree with him.
      I differ from him very deeply in his opinions; but I say it is a disgrace to this country, when we have passed a law giving exemptions to men who conscientiously find themselves unable to bear arms, that they should nevertheless be sent into the Army by the tribunals, and when they are sent into the Army, and when the Home Office knows perfectly well they are improperly sent into the Army, that nevertheless they should be treated like the commonest criminals, and sent to endure hard labour and the worst kind of punishment—a punishment that breaks men down wholesale. I say that if these men had then rights they would be allowed to have the exemption which the law intended for them, and then, if they did anything contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, they could be punished legally under that Act. We are told we must do everything for the cause of our country, but the cause of our country is intimately wrapped up with the honour of our country, and the honour of our country is violated when these men are treated like this instead of being given the exemption which the law intends for them. After all it is folly to think that you can deal with conscientious men of this sort by mere brute force. Our ancestors recognised that long ago in dealing with Quakers. Parliament recognised it, but the military authorities will not carry it out. Therefore, not to pursue this further, I simply say that these men are being treated with injustice and inhumanity. I am convinced that this will react upon those who are responsible for this treatment. It will not help us to win the War, but will hinder us. It will react in a still worse manner upon the future of our country. I have faith enough in principles to believe that it is by justice and humanity that we shall win this War, and establish our country and the principles for which our country stands. They will give us the best results in the long run, and I hope sincerely that the Home Secretary will turn his back upon the brutality which he has been advised to follow this afternoon, and will give us a just and humane treatment of these men.
      Sir G. CAVE: I think that the Home Office has reason to be satisfied with the Debate this afternoon, because though some points have been made in reference
      1684
      to one or two of the more modern activities of the Home Office, no kind of criticisms have been addressed to us in reference to the great bulk of our work. A word has been said about factories by my Noble Friend, which will be replied to by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is specially conversant with those matters, but on such subjects as explosives, workmen's compensation—as to which I am glad to say that during the last week or two we have made some progress in considering the question of an increase of compensation to meet the increased cost of living—prisons, except so far as they touch a special class of prisoners, reformatories, industrial schools, police, criminal jurisdiction and censorship; there has been no comment, and no desire has been expressed to me prior to this Debate to have any debate upon any of these most important subjects.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is only right to point out that many of the subjects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman are not included in this Vote.
      Mr. KING: May I say I suggested that to the Chief Whip myself.
      Sir G. CAVE: At all events, I think that on the whole we have been subjected to no severe criticism, and, except on the special points with which I am going to deal, the Committee appears to be fairly well satisfied with the work of the Home Office. With one point raised to-day I cannot deal, as it does not relate to my office at all, that is the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy. We do not deal with spies or with cable censorship.
      Sir H. DALZ1EL: Suspected persons are under your charge.
      Sir G. CAVE: We do deal to some extent with suspected persons, if they are aliens of any kind, under a special law, and if British subjects, under a regulation. I can only say that I have found the military authorities and the police authorities who have charge of those matters extremely accurate, and time after time I have brought before me evidence of the greatest possible care in watching the activities of persons, not merely alien enemy subjects, but very often neutrals, and I am afraid sometimes British subjects, who are suspected of acting adversely towards this country; and I can assure my right lion. Friend, so far as I know the facts, that every care

      1685
      is taken to bring those people to book. On the aliens question we have not heard very much to-day. One point was raised by the lion. Member for Walsall, but, as the House knows that is a matter for the Board of Trade. We have taken within the last three months one important step in connection with the treatment of alien enemies. That is in reference to the scheme initiated and carried through by the Home Office of seeing that alien enemies who are not interned shall do useful national work. Every one of these men has been asked whether he is able and willing to do useful national work. We have not yet covered every one of these cases, but nearly every one. Of those who have been interrogated we found that 1,684 were satisfactory cases—that is either they were ready to do useful work or they were unfit to do any work at all— and 5,919 have filled up forms offering to engage in national work. Those figures have been forwarded to the National Service Department, who have already commenced to find work for some of these men. I think that the effect has been, and will be, to transfer those enemy aliens who are in control of businesses of their own in which they might compete with British traders to positions in which they will be merely acting as servants, and will be doing useful work for the country.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How many of these men have been put to work by the National Service Department? You gave us these figures some time ago, I think.
      Sir G. CAVE: No; I gave the figures of the men who have been referred to the National Service Department. Any questions as to the result must be addressed to that Department, but I am told that already they have found work for many of these men. In some cases the enemy alien, though exempt from internment and allowed to remain in this country, has declined the invitation to do work useful to this country. In those cases I have taken such steps as I thought right, and have made a number of orders for internment on that ground, and I propose strictly to enforce that condition. The hon. Member for North Somerset referred to one or two points and to an individual case—that of Peter Petroff, a Russian who was interned some time ago under Regulation 14 (b).
      Mr. KING: May I point out that I made special appeal that these men now
      1686
      interned who do National Service work might be released under guarantees and restrictions?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not forgotten that. I will deal with it later. I will first deal with Peter Petroff. He is a Russian who was convicted of a breach of the Aliens' Restriction Order. He was also convicted of another offence, but that conviction was quashed. In addition, he was proved to have enemy associations of various kinds. He was, as the hon. Member said, living with a German woman. He was a very active member of a well-known German club in London. Though that club changed its German name to a name in the English language immediately after the War began, it was an active centre of pro-German intrigue for months after the beginning of the War. We had to deal with a number of members of that club and to intern them. Petroff was an active member, and was exceedingly hostile to this country. He showed by his letters and his conversation that he was not only against the Government of Russia, but against the Government of this country, and favourable to the Government of Germany. On that ground, and no other ground whatever, he was ordered for internment. It is not a fact that either the Russian Embassy or the Russian Government or the Council of Workmen and Soldiers asked for the release of this man. I do not say that if the request were made we should grant it, but in fact no such request has been made. The letters from this man, and from those to whom he writes, continue in the main in such terms as to show that he is to-day as hostile as he was before, and I can see no reason on the facts known to me, or on those to which the hon. Member referred, to recommend that at present at all events this man should be released from internment. The hon. Member states that some severity has been shown to the woman. There is no foundation for that, so far as my information goes, and I regret that he repeated the charge which has been often denied in this House. I think that the only other point which the hon. Member made about Petroff was that some of his friends were refused admission to see him. That is true. They were friends of his or members of this club who, we had very good reason to think, should not be allowed to meet Petroff and converse with him about these matters. So

      1687
      far as I know the facts—and I think that I know more about them than the hon. Gentleman, because I get my information from a very reliable source—I can see no reason whatever why this man should be released.
      Then the hon. Member tells some story of a house whose landlord has been asked by the police to turn out certain tenants. That is completely contrary to the practice of the police. They never do it, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member has been made the victim, in this case and some others, of information that cannot be relied on. Then he referred in quite general terms to methods employed by the police. Really I cannot deal with general charges of that kind. If he will give me the name of this lady who gave him the information, if he will give me any distinct cases where the police are said to have used methods with which he quarrels, I will have them carefully investigated and looked into, and let him know the result. In the meantime, I hope the Committee will receive with, I will not say with very great mistrust, but very grave doubt, the charges which have been made in rather vehement but perfectly vague terms, and I am quite sure, from what I know of the police, that the charges will be disproved and found to be entirely without foundation. The hon. Member lastly referred to the case of some aliens released in Scotland. On my asking for some details it appeared perfectly clear that these men were Polish Jews, members of a race which we regard as a. friendly race, and who had been vouched for by the Jewish Committee. There are cases where members of friendly races, Poles, Czechs, and so on have been released on the voucher of a committee of this kind, and we find that these committees are quite reliable and that their word may be accepted. That is quite a different case from the case of the Germans and Austrians, to whom the hon. Member was referring, and whom he desired to be treated in the same way. The treatment of friendly aliens is to be carefully distinguished from the case of those who are by no means friendly aliens. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to release these enemy aliens. Generally I have found appeal to be the other way. I cannot accede to the appeal of the lion. Gentleman to make some general release of enemy aliens. He refers to the case of
      1688
      a man who has been several years in this country, and who has two sons in the Army.
      Mr. KING: There are many such cases. I can give the name of a man who has four sons fighting in the Army.
      Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member gives me one such case I shall have it looked into. I think he will find that there is very good reason for detaining these persons.
      I want to deal with the point as to conscientious objectors. Let us consider what the case of these men is. The Act of Parliament provides machinery under which any man who had conscientious objection to military service had the right to apply to a tribunal for exemption—a local tribunal composed of persons to whom he would be likely to be known. These men either have made no such applition, or, having applied and alleged that they had a conscientious objection, were not believed by the local tribunal, and that is the position of all the men to whom the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I can give the right hon. Gentleman a dozen cases in which that is not true. There is the case of Mr. Allen, who was found to be a conscientious objector.
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not know whether Mr. Allen applied to the local tribunal for exemption or not. Either he did not apply or he applied and the case was refused.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Conditions were attached to the exemption.
      Sir G. CAVE: It was conditional exemption?
      Mr. E. HARVEY: The tribunal granted exemption conditionally.
      Sir G. CAVE: These men would not work, and they were guilty of breaches of military discipline.
      Captain GWYNN: Did the Act provide that there was to be conditional exemption? Was that understood in this House, or was it simply exemption from combatant service, subject to the obligation to take some other service?
      Sir G. CAVE: It may be either absolute exemption or exemption from combatant service. Of course, only the tribunal can say what is to be the kind of exemption.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Was it not understood that applicants to the tribunal who proved that they had conscientious objection were to be exempted?
      Sir G. CAVE: That is not so.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: When the Bill was was going through, was not speech after speech made on behalf of the Government, and particularly by the representative of the Government in the House of Lords, declaring in express terms that the Government contemplated that people who had a conscientious objection to all forms of warfare or to giving any assistance in it were to be absolutely exempted?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say about that, but in some of the cases where these men have been exempted from combatant service they have refused to do their duty and have committed breaches of military discipline, for which they were sent to prison. Some of them served their sentence, and when they got back they committed another breach of military discipline, and they were sent to prison again. That is the kind of man about whom you are speaking to-day. Let us consider what is the position. If these men had not had exemption at all they would have had to fight for their country. If they had not had a special advantage, when they committed breaches of military discipline they would, in the ordinary course, have been subject to military treatment in the same way as any ordinary soldier. But the Government decided that they should not be punished under military law, and in that way they have the special privilege of being treated as civil offenders and sent to civil prisons. They go to the prisons of their choice; and again a special indulgence is shown to them, for they have the opportunity without serving their time in prison, to come out and be set to work of a non-military character. Again these men refuse. These men decline to do even ordinary prison work under ordinary prison rules. I ask the House whether the Government have not shown these men indulgence far beyond what they have shown to any other class of men? They have declined to do work, and they will not fight. Soldiers have had to be sent out to the trenches three or four times to fight for these very men, their wives and children, because they will not bear their share. And they come to us for further indulgence.
      Captain GWYNN: I especially guarded myself by saying that I spoke on behalf of
      1690
      those men who, so far as I understand, were putting their case from the point of view of justice.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am coming to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member, which is quite a different one. I am now dealing with the point put by the hon. Member.
      Mr. KING: Do not misrepresent us.
      Sir G. CAVE: What is it that is suggested? Is it to release these men?
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes.
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not see how that is possible. If we were to give them a further indulgence, what a tremendous encouragement it would give to all the others who might be tempted to take the same course as these men have taken! It is not for me to say what is the division under which these men should be sent; it is for the Court to decide that in the sentence.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: You could advise.
      Sir G. CAVE: As a matter of fact, I do not think I can. But if I could, just see what it means. These men who have committed these offences would be treated with special indulgence and special comforts, but why should there be this special consideration for men who, in my view, have committed one of the greatest offences.
      Captain GWYNN: What is the offence?
      Sir G. CAVE: Breaches of discipline and military law.
      Captain GWYNN: You have authorised them.
      Sir G. CAVE: We have not authorized anything for which they have been punished. To give these men further indulgence would be to encourage others to follow the same course, believing that they would receive comparatively lenient treatment for their offences, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be the last man in the House to desire that. I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, that these men are trying to put the Government in a difficulty. They are doing their best to do so; they are trying to make military punishment impossible for them, and to make civil punishment impossible too. We are not going to be defeated in that way. After all, we are here to enforce the law. Knowing that these men have had it in their own power at any time

      1691
      they liked to do the reasonable and fair thing, and one wholly consistent with the conscience of any right-minded man, to undertake work to which no one in this world could have any conscientious objection—
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I have two cases where they are being refused that after offering.
      Sir G. CAVE: Then they must either be men who were held not to be conscientious objectors or men who, when the offer was made to them, originally refused.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Yes, originally.
      Sir G. CAVE: They have offered since. Whether they should be allowed to change their mind is a different matter. I will not say that I will not have such cases reconsidered; I do not want to bar that out; but if there are such cases they must be cases of the kind to which I have referred. I have one last observation to make, and that is with regard to the particular men —Mr. Allen and Mr. Hobhouse—to whom the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. White-house) made special reference. With most of his pleas I do not agree in the least. I do not think that because a man is an educated man he ought to be allowed to break the law, but I say most distinctly that if the health of these men, or of anybody, is suffering because of his imprisonment, it is the invariable practice in our prisons to have regard to that fact, and to give them all the care which they need. I am as reluctant as anyone that men should suffer seriously in health by reason of their imprisonment. Every precaution is taken to prevent that, and there is no want of humanity in the treatment of these men. The most anxious care is taken that their health should not permanently suffer, even by their own fault. Subject to that, I think it my duty to maintain the practice hitherto pursued and that until the law is altered in some way—with which, of course, I am not concerned—it is my duty, or the duty of the Prison Commissioners who are under my control, to enforce the law and carry it out in the ordinary way with all regard to the considerations of humanity. That is a short and, I hope, clear statement of the position I take with regard to this question. I do not think that a special case has been made out to this House to-day.
      There is, I think, only one other subject which was touched upon, and that related
      1692
      to the objectors who, having accepted the offer of the Home Office, are engaged in work at Dartmoor and elsewhere. The complaint there was that the work was not remunerative. I am not sure that it is not. The work at Dartmoor, at all events, consists of farming and the reclamation of land. I believe that although some of the men are not the best workers yet on the whole they are doing work which is necessary, and which will be useful to the country, There have been some work centres where work has been extremely unsatisfactory. One by one they have been closed; the rules have been tightened up; closer watch has been kept on these men. We have now an inspector at work to report to the Home Office, and whatever may have been the case twelve months ago, when the system was started, to-day, at all events, it cannot be said that the work is unremunerative or a waste of time.
      Captain GWYNN: In view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is deliberately using human labour for draught in preference to horse labour?
      Sir G. CAVE: No.
      Mr. KING: Yes, you are.
      Sir G. CAVE: I know of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It happens that there is land there which is shallow soil with rock underneath, and it is impossible on that particular part of the land to use horse labour for the plough. It would break the plough, arid, following the ancient custom of the district, men are employed to draw the plough in this particular parcel of land. That is the sole ground for the story to which the hon. Member has given such a very ready ear.
      Captain GWYNN: Why do you use them in ploughing? In Connemara we do this quite freely, but we do not use men on the plough.
      Sir G. CAVE: It is a very light plough. In any case, it is only a small detail, a case where it is impossible to use horse labour and where, whoever the workman might be, human labour would have to be used. I cannot hope to have convinced hon. Gentlemen who take a different view, but for myself I cannot see that we could have taken any other course than that we have adopted. So far as I am concerned,

      1693
      much as I regret the sufferings to which these men put themselves, it is my bounden duty to maintain the law.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think the Home Secretary is well entitled' to feel the satisfaction he expressed in his opening observations at the way in which the Committee has received this Vote, and the fewness and moderation, in the main, of the criticisms that have been directed at the Home Office. The Department, as those of us who have been closely connected with it know, is one of remarkable efficiency, and I think the House of Commons is always ready to pay tribute to its successful administration, and to express its great appreciation of the work which it does for the State. Some of the topics which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned would, perhaps, have been made the subject of discussion to-day if they had been in order on this Vote. I know, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington (Mr. Wiles) was very anxious to speak on questions relating to the Metropolitan Police, but that Vote has not been put down to-day. Hitherto, it has been the custom when the Home Office Vote has been discussed for the prison Vote, the reformatory Vote, and the police Vote to be put down in immediate sequence, so that, if the Committee desires, it could pass from one to another. That practice has been departed from on this occasion, I have no doubt quite by accident.
      Mr. KING: Quite deliberately.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am told that the prison Vote is never put down on the same day.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that it is, but certainly the police Vote has been discussed on previous occasions. I have not looked it up, but I hope an opportunity will be given to hon. Members who wish to speak on that and other Voles to do so. With respect to the question of alien enemies, which has necessarily occupied so much attention of the Home Office during the War, my right hon. Friend has made an important statement to-day that those who have not been interned are being effectively called upon now to do some work of national importance. He has told us that about 6,000 names have been sent to the National Service Department of persons who have expressed their willingness—under some pressure, no doubt—to undertake this work of national importance. I think the House will await
      1694
      with interest the results of that step. The National Service Department has yet to justify itself to Parliament. Hitherto all the statistics that have been given us are of very large figures of persons whose names have been collected by the Department and of very small figures of persons who have actually been put into work. It remains to be seen how many of the 6,000 will, in fact, be found employment by that Department. With regard to the number of aliens interned, the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary has been subjected to less criticism than his predecessor, although his policy has been apparently precisely the same. A year ago, when I introduced the Home Office Vote, I stated that the number of alien enemies who were interned was in round figures 32,000, and that the number who had not been interned was 22,000. Of these 10,000 were women, 4,000 were technically alien enemies, but of friendly races, Czechs, Poles, Alsatians and so on, and the remainder were persons of a special class who had been exempted by the Committee which goes into these matters, exempted on their recommendation or in pursuance of the policy they laid down. My right hon. Friend and successor in February last said he proposed to have all these eases reviewed by the Home Office individually, and to see whether these exemptions could properly be maintained. Two or three days ago he gave the present figures of the number who were interned and the numbers exempted. The number who were interned a year ago, and at the time when I left office when the figure was substantially the same, was 32,000. The numbers interned now are 30,000. I presume that 2,000 have been released in order to carry on agricultural and other work.
      Sir G. CAVE: Some have been repatriated.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Some have been repatriated, but the number who remained at large, exempted, was, when I addressed the House, 22,000, and is now, after my right hon. Friend's review of the whole situation, 22,000. So that it appears that the policy of the present Government in this regard is precisely the same as the policy of the late Government, that whereas I was subjected to fairly frequent criticism by the hon. Member for the Brentford Division (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), by the right hon. Gentleman the-Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), and by a number of the newspapers

      1695
      throughout the country who were continually calling for different policy and a more complete internment of enemy aliens, my right hon. Friend does not find himself exposed to any of these criticisms. Circumstances alter cases, and a policy which in the eyes of some people was wrong when it was pursued by the Home Secretary and the late Government is right in all particulars when, although precisely the same, it is pursued by the Home Secretary in the present Government. With regard to the conscientious objectors, the impression is left in the minds of some hon. Members, and in the minds of many persons outside, that conscientious objectors to military service for the most part find themselves in prison now. That, of course, is not so. The vast majority of those who conscientiously objected to military service were, in accordance with the intentions of Parliament, exempted by the tribunals either absolutely or, as a rule, on condition that they undertook non-combatant military service. Very large numbers accepted exemption on those terms, and did undertake non-combatant military service either in the Non-Combatant Corps in France or else in various life-saving activities, doing work, perhaps, on mine-sweepers, for the Red Cross, and in other ways attempting to save life during this War. With respect to a certain number the tribunals ordered them to undertake non-combatant service, although they knew that they would not undertake such service. I think that in many of these cases the tribunals were wrong. Under the influence of the public opinion about them they came to decisions which were not really in accordance with the intentions of the Statute, because the Statute did intend that in proper cases absolute exemption should be granted, and in Borne cases absolute exemption was refused, although it is clear that the men were of that type of opinion for whom the complete exemption would have been proper.
      For my own part, I feel a complete want of sympathy with the intellectual standpoint of these men. I consider that they are failing to fulfil what is a clear duty to mankind. The duty to fight in this War for liberty, and for the overthrow of that system of militarism which is in our age the chief curse of the world. I do not think that any person ought to have a conscience which should lead him to refuse to do his
      1696
      duty. That is my own view, but it is not their view, and one has to recognise the fact. Therefore, when I was at the Home Office I found a very considerable number of men in prison who were probably, many of them, genuine conscientious objectors, who had refused to do the non-combatant service which they were required to do as a condition of their exemption. I established what was known as the Home Office Scheme, under the administration of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Brace), who is still, I am happy to think, the Under-Secretary for that Department. The scheme was this, that the case of all these men should be reviewed by a Central Tribunal, and if the Central Tribunal found that they were genuine conscientious objectors they should come out of prison on condition that they should undertake some work of national importance. These cases were all reviewed in that way, and the vast majority of them were held by the Central Tribunal to be not shirkers or cowards, but genuine conscientious objectors, and the great bulk of them did come out of prison and were set to work of national importance and utility. Therefore, the conscientious objectors to military services might be divided into three classes—two large classes, first, of men who were exempted by the tribunals on condition of their doing non-combatant service, and who are now doing non-combatant service, whose cases have been satisfactorily dealt with; secondly, another very large class of men who refused to do non-combatant service, who went into prison and who were afterwards released on condition of doing work of national importance, not under the War Office at all. These are the two large classes whose cases have also been dealt with more or less satisfactorily. There is a third very small class, compared with the others, who will remain in prison because they refuse to do work of any kind as a condition of exemption. These men, as my right hon. Friend has said, can come out of prison at any moment, not on condition that they fight in the War, not even on condition that they should do non-combatant service under the War Office, but on condition that they should do work on the land, or undertake some other kind of employment which should be of utility for the nation. Let it be clearly understood that if they remain in prison it is because they remain there of their own determination, not because they were called upon to take life or to take part in the military machine,

      1697
      but because they were willing to do no sort of national work as a condition of exemption from the Military Service Act.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: They are there on conscientious grounds.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not so. They are men who have offered to do national service, and have been refused.
      Sir G. CAVE: I said we were willing to listen to their applications.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse an application of this kind. No one wants to keep these men in prison.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: I do not think it is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman. The point is that the Central Tribunal have refused to allow these men, once they refused to go before them, to have a second chance. I have brought that specifically before the Central Tribunal, and I have been told that they were unable to alter their minds, and they will not allow them a second shot.
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it is their duty to examine the same men twice, but I do not think that applies to me.
      Mr. HARVEY: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand me. These are men who have refused to have their cases examined by the Central Tribunal early on when they had the opportunity. They were warned by the Central Tribunal that this was the only chance they would get. After six months or a year in prison they changed their minds, and were anxious to work under the Home Office scheme, but the Central Tribunal says, "You were once given your chance, and we cannot give it to you again."
      Mr. SAMUEL: If there are such cases, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would consider them. It appears to me very desirable that they should be considered, and perhaps if representations were made to the Central Tribunal they might review their decision in that respect, if the facts are as stated. I do not wish to see anyone in prison who is willing to undertake work of national service and is a genuine conscientious objector, and if some question of procedure stands in the way of their coming out, I think it is desirable that it should be considered whether that procedure cannot be reviewed.
      Captain GWYNN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Did the Act say that the real conscientious objector must do work of national importance?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, if the local tribunal exempts him; but if the local tribunal does not exempt him, the Statute does not give him any privileges at all, and he is required to serve in the Army. What I have done, and what my right hon. Friend has done with a view to meet these people is extra statutory, and it is in addition to the provisions made by Parliament for dealing with these cases. For the rest, I quite agree that the present position is far from satisfactory in many respects, but not being able to propose any specific plan for the alteration of it, I am not in a position to criticise the course that has been taken by the Home Office. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham rendered, I think, very useful service in bringing to the attention of the Committee some points of detail and Some points of considerable substance relating to the administration of the Factory Acts. Particularly he has inquired to-day whether steps cannot be taken to put into effect the Welfare Clause of the little Bill that was passed by the Home Office last year. We should be very glad to hear from the Under-Secretary on these specific points, and I am sure the Committee would desire that he should have time to give his observations on this subject before we turn to other business.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has made just the kind of speech that we should have expected from him as the late Home Secretary, and as a man who has done so much in helping us to make the Home Office what he rightly says it is, a very efficient Department. I have been amazed, listening to this Debate all day, by the claims put forward on behalf of the conscientious objectors by my hon. Friends, who apparently forgets that while individuals have rights the State has the some rights too. In dealing with the conscientious objection problem, the Home Office has been called upon to deal with one of the most difficult problems that I, at least, have ever had to handle, either inside Parliament or outside. Among them there are a number of men of very fine spirit and very fine soul, but I have to say that that is not my experience or the experience of

      1699
      my Committee as regards the majority of them. It is true, as the Home Secretary said, that they will neither fight nor work, and in dealing with this problem we have endeavoured not only to be just to the conscientious objector, but we have endeavoured to be just to the State as well.
      I have risen really and specially to say a word in reply to the criticism directed by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham. May I be allowed to say that I always welcome the Noble Lord's interposition in debate, because he has stood out as one of the Members of Parliament who has been prepared to give his co-operation to any Home Secretary or to any Government for the social advancement of the masses of the people of this country. When he complained about the reduction in size of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector I would ask him to remember that this is part of a policy that has been brought into operation during the War, not only, indeed, for the saving of expenditure, but for the saving of labour as well. Immediately the War is through we shall be very glad indeed to revert back to these very full reports, which give in detail a very complete survey of the work of the Home Office, as far as factories, mines, and other industries ore concerned. In his protest against the reduction of the inspectorate I should like to assure the Noble Lord and the House that the Home Office was compelled to be a party to the reduction in the inspectorate because of the prior claims which the War had upon the Department. We are endeavouring to use the inspectorate for the best possible service for the nation in these days, and although some of the inspectorate have gone into munitions and other Departments of State, and and some of them are in the Army, I would have the Noble Lord to believe that they are rendering a great service, and while we would have been only too glad to have had thenr co-operation as inspectors we do feel that, during the period of this War, the other Departments who appealed for them had a prior claim on them.
      We are doing the best we can with the staff at our disposal as regards the Police, Factories, etc., and (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. May I be allowed to explain to the House that this Act was passed not as a war measure, but as a measure of social reform and social welfare; and in
      1700
      putting into operation schemes under this measure it has been necessary for the Home Office to make a careful survey of the whole problem with a view to commencing a scheme with a hope of great success? I can assure the Noble Lord that we are upon the eve of issuing some draft schemes, but the activity of the Home Office in this direction is bound to be reduced, because some substantial structural alterations will be necessary in a number of factories to enable us to put into operation the draft scheme we have in mind. But we do propose, as a Department, to introduce, as far as possible, the schemes necessary to give to our people, who are working in the interests of this country, a more reasonable chance for a larger measure of joy, and hope, and happiness than they have had under the old system. This Police Provisions Act is a real enabling measure, and the Home Office Department intends that it should be so; and if we have to express regret at all, it is because the War has prevented us bringing the draft schemes to that full fruition which was the intention of the Department when it asked the House to pass this Act as an enabling and reforming measure of law.
      I will only say one word about the employment of boys and girls at night. No one would desire to employ the young life of this nation, whether it be young boys or girls at night, if it could possibly be avoided, and at least it will not be charged against me that when I make myself a party to the employment of the young boys and young girls at night it is because of the demands which are necessary for the War and to meet the shift difficulty. The House may feel a little reassurance by the fact that as a general rule no young girl is allowed to work at night under eighteen years of age and no boy under sixteen, and where they are employed on the night shift it is under most careful conditions. Full provisions have to be made for proper feeding and proper washing arrangements, and in the ease of young girls that they shall have proper female supervision so as to make the amenities in the factories as helpful as possible. The reason why we have made ourselves a party under very strict regulations to the employment of young boys and girls on the night shift is to give to our soldiers the largest output of production that is necessary to give them on the front a fighting chance for their lives. I hope, therefore,

      1701
      that the House of Commons in general, and my Noble Friend in particular, will not think at all that the Home Office treat these matters affecting life and health lightly at all, and when they have to make a departure from, the Factory Acts they are, in fact, compelled under a sense of duty to meet the special circumstances the nation has been called upon to pass through during this War.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Hope]—put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  SECRET SESSION.

    STRANGERS ORDERED TO WITHDRAW.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are Strangers present.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Sir, as to procedure? It would be of advantage to many Members of the House if you would inform the House whether it would be possible to discuss the second Motion, "That the House sit in private," after this has been disposed of.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw," cannot be discussed. The next Motion that I shall have to put presumably, namely, "That the remainder of this Sitting be a Secret Sitting," is open to discussion.
    The PRIME MINISTER: May I ask whether it would be possible for me to state in two or three sentences, before Strangers are ordered to withdraw, why I am making this Motion? I think, with the consent of the House, I might do so. I can quite understand that the second Motion will be debated afterwards.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to put the Question without debate. The second Question may, of course, be debated.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Could not the situation be regularised by withdrawing this Motion, and first moving the Adjournment?
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Debate to take place on the next Motion will be private or not?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If Strangers have with drawn, when that Motion arises, it will be privates.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that Members of this House will be bound to secrecy before the House expresses its opinion whether they are or are not to sit in private?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House will have expressed its opinion if Strangers are ordered to withdraw.
    Mr. BILLING: Does that automatically put this House into Secret Session or must there be a second Motion to make the proceedings from that time secret?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to make a statement by leave of the House?
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the House have the opportunity of saying whether they wish to discuss this subject in Public or Secret Session?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order gives the House the opportunity of deciding whether it will sit in Secret Session or not.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is it not possible in any way for the Prime Minister to say why he desires a Secret Session on this matter?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether there is anything in the Rule to prevent the Prime Minister, with the consent of the House, giving a reason without any Debate why he is moving this Motion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, if the House will agree to allow the Prime Minister to do so.
    The PRIME MINISTER:I think it would be an advantage to the House to know why it would be impossible for me to make my statement in full at a public sitting. If the House wishes full information it will be impossible for me to give it except in Secret Session. There are certain facts which I propose to give to the House and certain figures which it would not be not only undesirable but positively dangerous for me to give except on the honour of Members that they will not be conveyed to the public afterwards. I could make a statement, but it would be a truncated and an incomplete statement if it were made in Public Session. I should not be able to

    1703
    give the reasons why we have taken- a certain course unless I was permitted to do it under conditions where no publicity would be given to the facts and figures I desire to state.
    Mr. BILLING: Would it be in order to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity for open Debate after the Secret Debate has taken place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier to-day that if, after hearing my statement, the House desires a public discussion, he would be ready to give it, but the Government could not take the responsibility of giving the public figures which it would not be in the public interest to give.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order," and "Sit down !"]—may I ask the Prime Minister if he will in the Secret Session answer any questions put to him by lion. Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Strangers withdraw.
    [In pursuance of the Resolution of the House this day, the remainder of the Sitting was a Secret Session.]
    The following Report of the proceedings of the Secret Session was issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker:
    The PRIME MINISTERsaid that it was better, first of all, to give, briefly, a summary of what actually happened. Twenty-two German machines, of the Gotha bombing type, carrying about 800 pounds of explosives apiece, came over London. Of these, three were destroyed, one by the machines actually protecting London. Besides this, out of the protecting squadrons which the Germans had organised in order to assist the return of the raiding squadron, six machines were destroyed and one injured. The attack, in fact, had not been made with impunity. He wished to point out that the first fact which the House should get into its mind was that complete protection in the air could never be secured. At the Front our machines were every day crossing over the German lines, and, in spite of the most terrible anti-aircraft fire and very powerful German air squadrons,
    1704
    they were yet able regularly to bomb stations and headquarters behind the German lines. If that could be done in a region where the German aeroplanes and anti-aircraft strength were most closely concentrated, and could be done daily, then the House would realise that no measures that we could take would give complete immunity. The nearest approach to immunity lay in making their visits so costly that they would not become worth the Germans' while. He wished to point out also that during the last four or five months our naval bombing aeroplanes had dropped over 70 tons of explosives on the German aerodromes in Northern Belgium, and had dropped 6 tons on those very aerodromes oh the night before the raid, whereas the total amount dropped by the Germans here was only some 2 tons.
    The first consideration before the Government was to see that the Army in France was sufficiently supplied with aeroplanes. A sufficiency of aeroplanes meant everything to that Army. They were the eyes of the Army, which could not advance without them. By their means the Army discovered the enemy's trenches, guns, and machine-gun emplacements. To photograph these required air supremacy, and without that air supremacy it was sheer murder to allow troops to advance. The twenty-eight fatal casualties which had been suffered by the civilian population in the last raid were very regrettable, but, unless our troops at the Front were supplied with aeroplanes in sufficient number to secure a proper knowledge of the German trenches and positions to guide the Artillery barrage, their losses might easily be not twenty-eight, but twenty-eight thousand. The slightest deficiency in the aeroplane work, a single machine-gun emplacement overlooked, might in a few minutes mean the loss of thousands of gallant lives. The first duty of the country was to protect these men. The Germans realised the importance of this question quite as much as we do, and in order to check our air supremacy at the Front they had been driven in the first place to withdraw aeroplanes from the Eastern Front, with the result of actually losing the supremacy of the air at several vital places on that Front, a fact which has no doubt contributed materially to the Russian successes which have" recently been achieved.

    1705
    The second means by which they were attempting to diminish our superiority was by trying to force us to withdraw our machines from France in order to protect our own towns. If the Germans knew that by bombing English towns they could force us to withdraw fighting squadrons from France there could be nothing which would encourage them more. Nothing could be more disastrous to the conduct of military operations than anything which encouraged the Germans to believe that by these raids they could excite such a clamour in this country that the Government could not resist the demand for the withdrawal of aeroplanes from the Front. If the aeroplanes could be provided both for the Front and for our defence against raids that would, of course, be done. If not, the Army must come first and it was vitally important that the Germans should know it He feared that some of the articles which had appeared in the Press might prevent the Germans knowing it. He had seen something of the people in the district which had suffered from the raid a few hours afterwards. He had never seen people face disaster with greater cheerfulness and constancy. He saw no signs anywhere of panic. That was the impression left not only on his mind, but on all who were with him. He was certain that if the people of this country realised that for the moment all our strength had to be put into establishing supremacy in the air in order to win victory at the front they would be prepared to take risks which, after all, were not comparable to the risks run by our soldiers. The Germans were just as alive to the importance of supremacy in the air as we were. They had put forth prodigious efforts in the last twelve months. But the very fact that they were withdrawing machines from the Eastern Front showed that they had reached the margin of their power of production. We had not. In the last six months we had enormously increased our capacity for turning out machines. We had extended existing works and built new ones, we had added over 23,000 men to the number of employés in those works, we had quickened production by improved methods of organisation, and had enormously improved the type of machines. The Government's information was that the German capacity of production was not adequate to compete with the provision which they had made. Hither-to, however, the increase had only been
    1706
    gradual, as the measures taken at an earlier date by the Air Board and the Ministry of Munitions had not yet had time to reach their full fruition, but our production was now going up by leaps and bounds. We should, indeed, have been far better off at this moment but for the strike in April last, which lost us between 150 and 200 machines. The Government now hoped soon to reach a state of things where it was possible not only to meet what must always be the first charge upon it, namely, the requirements of the Army in France, but also to provide sufficient aeroplanes to make it impossible for the Germans to come over here without losses which would persuade them that it was not worth while to do so. It was: a very easy matter to go to poor people who had suffered and suggest that a raid like this was due to the negligence and carelessness of the Government, but he believed if those people were told what, the situation was they were capable of rising to a great appeal. If they were told that it was necessary to run some risks for a short time for the sake of the gallant fellows in France, they would do so cheerfully. It was only for a very short time, and he was confident that we could then not only secure supremacy in France, but also equip Lord French in such a, fashion that if the Germans came over again they would deem it the part of wisdom not to repeat the attempt.
    The Prime Minister concluded by moving "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSsuggested that if it was good business for the Germans to spare machines to bomb us and strike at the centre of our fighting forces, it might be good business for us to spare machines in order to do the same. He suggested that more labour might be spared for the making of aircraft from other branches of munition work. He criticised the actual measures taken to cope with the raid, and asked for an inquiry.
    Sir H. DALZIELalso criticised the actual steps taken on Saturday, supporting the demand for an inquiry, and elicited the information that none of the raiders had come over London at a lower altitude than 13,000 feet. It was due to the great size of the machines that they appeared to be lower. He insisted that the expansion in our output of aeroplanes should have been secured earlier.
    Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSpointed out that while it was possible to secure effective command of the air in the battle zone it was impossible to secure a general command of the air. Even in the battle zone it was impossible to prevent enemy aeroplanes coming over our lines. He gave his own experiences confirming the vital point that we maintained our supremacy at the front.
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked for more cohesion between our air and land defences.
    Sir W. PEARCEexpressed the view that the Government ought to take further steps for the defence of London.
    Lord HUGH CECILpointed out that London was far more accessible to the Germans than any large German centres were to us. We could bombard Brussels if we chose, but that would only injure a friendly population. The air problem was a purely military problem, and the judgment of the military experts ought to prevail.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law), answering questions put by Mr. Lambert, said that in the opinion of our experts our types of machines were as good as the Germans. He profoundly disagreed with the view expressed in the Debate that the Prime Minister's speech
    1708
    might have been made in public, as the most vital, though not the longest, passages in it were essentially of a secret character. He pointed out that the French section of the Allied front was much nearer to important German cities than ours, and that it was, therefore, natural that the French should play a larger part in offensive operations against the cities, as, indeed, they had done with great success and remarkable immunity during the last few days, eighty-four machines having heavily bombed six German towns with only two casualties. He certainly did not treat these raids on London as of no importance, but it was the balance of military advantage that had to be considered, and if a choice had to be made the Army must come first. When people demanded the instant production of vast numbers of aeroplanes, they were apt to forget the inherent limits to the extent and rate of such an increase, and the imperative demands of other Services.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGcontinued the discussion.
    The Motion for the Adjournment was talked out, and
    On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House being again proposed, Mr. Pemberton Billing was speaking, when attention was called to the absence of a quorum, and the House was counted out.
    The House adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  INCOME TAX (REGISTERED STOCK).
  INCOME TAX (REGISTERED STOCK).
  MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSION.
  MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSION.
  BREWING RESTRICTIONS.
  BREWING RESTRICTIONS.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (DUBLIN).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (DUBLIN).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  OSBORNE (HEALTH OF CADETS).
  OSBORNE (HEALTH OF CADETS).
  RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS (RANK).
  RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS (RANK).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  RE-EXAMINATION.
  RE-EXAMINATION.
  IRISH STUDENTS, ROME.
  IRISH STUDENTS, ROME.
  HAY (1917 CROP).
  HAY (1917 CROP).
AIR SERVICES.
  AMERICAN CONSTUUCTION.
  AMERICAN CONSTUUCTION.
  Prisons Service (Ireland).
  Prisons Service (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Grand Canal Lock-keepers (Ireland).
  Grand Canal Lock-keepers (Ireland).
  Medical Service (Grenada).
  Medical Service (Grenada).
  Catholic Schools, Glasgow (Salaries).
  Catholic Schools, Glasgow (Salaries).