Sitting of 5 March 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of the Bread Order, 1917, dated 26th February, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
Copy presented of the Sixty-sixth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Copy presented of the Sixty-ninth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DARDANELLES SPECIAL COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Report of the Special Commissioners appointed to inquire into the origin, inception, and conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 42.]
ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1916–17).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 43.]

COUNTY COURT RULES.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Rules, dated 19th February, 1917 [by Act.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      OFFER OF WAR DEBT CONTRIBUTION.
      Mr. DENNISSasked the Secretary of State for India whether the imposition of an increased Import Duty of 3½ to 7½per cent. on cotton, goods contemplated by the Indian Government with no corresponding increase in the Excise Duty on the products of Indian cotton factories is contrary to the established practice and understanding between the two Governments; whether, at a time when the price of raw cotton in this country is higher than at any period since the American Civil War and coal and other materials are at unprecedented prices, such extra import duties are bound to cause serious injury to the English cotton export trade to India; and whether he intends to take any, and what, action in the matter?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): When last year it became necessary to raise fresh taxation in India, the Government of India proposed as one source of increased revenue an increase of the Customs Duties on cotton goods. At that time the revenue was required for purely Indian purposes, and it was contemplated that any share which India might take in the cost of the War should be settled only when the War was concluded. Accordingly His Majesty's Government authorised an announcement by the then Viceroy in the following terms:
      "His Majesty's Government feel that the fiscal relationship of all parts of the Empire and the rest of the world must be reconsidered after the War, and they desire to leave the questions raised by the Cotton Duties to be considered at the same time in connection with the general fiscal policy of the Empire and with the share, military and financial, taken by India in the struggle."
      In consequence of this decision the Cotton Duties were left untouched, and the Government of India made up their revenue by imposing export duties on tea and jute.
      4
      Since that time the financial conditions of India have undergone a great improvement, and it has become possible for the Government of India to propose in accordance with a widely-expressed-wish an immediate contribution. They offered accordingly to raise or to bear the charges of £100,000,000 of War debt, but for this purpose they required a further addition to their resources, which they proposed to secure, first, by a Super-tax on income; secondly, by the increase of the Cotton Duties; and, thirdly, by some minor changes.
      I laid these proposals before His Majesty's Government, by whom the offer of the Indian Government was gratefully accepted; and the financial share of India in the War being thus settled and its military contribution, whether in men or in other ways, being also determined, His Majesty's present advisers, in pursuance of the conditions laid down by the late Cabinet, and, as I conceive, in full accordance with the spirit of their declaration, authorised the proposal contained in the Indian Budget. I am not unmindful of the controversies which this question has raised in past times and under different circumstances, but I trust that in these days of strain and stress and common Imperial effort I may appeal with confidence to those in this country who are more immediately interested not to raise objections to a measure which is necessary if India is to render to the Empire the help which it is her desire to give.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Has the increase in the Import Duty already taken effect, and was any proposal for a corresponding Excise Duty considered by the Indian Government?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the in creased Import Duty has already taken effect. My right hon. Friend knows that the Indian Government has considered the Excise Duties ever since they were first suggested, and there is no subject upon which Indian opinion is more unanimous than in reprobationary excise duties; to have insisted that the rise in the Customs Duty should have been accompanied by a corresponding rise in the Excise would have made it impossible to secure the Grant from India which, I believe, is now-being given with the good will of all her people.
      Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £100,000,000 Grant is a loan or a free gift on the part of India? I did not catch the answer.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A free gift, Sir. It rather goes beyond the original question, but I think I ought to make it clear that it is not contemplated that the whole of such a sum as that can be raised in India. The largest amount raised on a single occasion has been £6,000,000, so far as I remember—at all events in recent times. The offer of the Indian Government is to raise whatever money they can in India, and then to make up the balance of the £100,000,000 by bearing the charges of the British Loan to that amount.

      PERSIA.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bushire-Shiraz route has yet been reopened to traffic as a result of General Sir Percy Skyes's operations?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer is in the negative.

      ENEMY PROPERTY.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if his attention has been called to the judgment of the President of the Prize Court in the "Progresso" case, delivered in October, 1916, when Sir Samuel Evans declared that the words enemy property must have crept into Article 3 of the Order in Council of the 11th March, 1915, by mistake; can he explain who is responsible for that mistake; what steps have been taken to remedy it; and (2) whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government, as ordered by the Order in Council of 11th March, 1915, and subsequent Orders relating thereto, that the proceeds of enemy property condemned in the Prize Court shall be restored to the enemy owner, and that if sold the proceeds shall be retained in Court and the proceeds restored to the enemy owner at the end of the War; and is it proposed to maintain this procedure throughout the War?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of BLOCKADE (Commander Leverton Harris): The intention of the Order in Council of 11th March, 1915, was to subject goods seized in
      6
      accordance with its provisions to the jurisdiction of the Prize Court, and to invest the Prize Court with a discretion as to the treatment to be meted out to them. If my hon. Friend will read the Order he will see that in every case, whether the goods are goods of enemy origin, of enemy destination, or of enemy ownership, the action taken is to be in accordance with such terms as the Court may in the circumstances deem to be just. His Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering with the discretion of the Prize Court in these cases, nor are they prepared to admit that the words "enemy property" in Article 3 were inserted by mistake.

      SERBIA.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has refused to permit food to enter Serbia for distribution by a relief committee amongst the distressed population; if so, on what grounds; whether this action on the part of the Foreign Office in any way differs from their action under similar conditions in the case of the Belgian population; and whether he will without further delay give all the facilities necessary to enable food to enter Serbia so that it may be distributed amongst the starving population by the Serbian Relief Committee or by any neutral or other Serbian relief agency disposed to help in this way?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The position of His Majesty's Government in the matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman has, I believe, been often stated to the House. We are quite willing to consider the importation of foodstuffs into Serbia, provided that a practical scheme, guaranteeing the neutral control of their distribution and other essential precautions, can be advised. No such scheme, however, has as yet been presented to us, and the attitude of the Austrian authorities forbids much hope that matters will improve in the future.
      Mr. LYNCH: As this matter is of such vital importance to Serbia, will the right hon. Gentleman promise to have a practical scheme set on foot?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I should be very glad to consider any practical scheme, but I am not aware how such a scheme is to be devised. If the hon. Gentleman has such a scheme, I hope he will communicate it.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    WOODEN TOOL HANDLES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been decided to prohibit the import of all wooden tool handles; and whether he has considered the effect of such a prohibition upon munitions, agriculture, and other essential industries for which there is an urgent demand for tools which the Home supply of handles is inadequate to meet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): Tool handles are already prohibited as wood manufactures, but tool handles of ash and hickory are at present being admitted under general licence. I can assure my hon. Friend that before any change is made all relevant considerations will be taken into account.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the confusion that exists between the handles which may be used for domestic purposes, such as brooms, and other handles used for mechanical tools?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes. I have observed that some confusion does exist.

    TOMATOES.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to restrict the import of tomatoes from the Channel Islands; and whether he is aware that this is one of the principal industries of the Channel Islands, and that, unless ships conveying food to the Channel Islands return with tomatoes they will in many cases have to return in ballast?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The practice is to admit under general licence prohibited goods the produce or manufacture of the Channel Islands, provided that the importation of the same classes of goods into the Channel Islands is prohibited.

  BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether it is with the assent of the Board of Trade that the British Petroleum Company, Limited, a German-owned concern, have entered into an agreement with the English branch of the Standard Oil Company of America to distribute petrol in this country for account of the American com-
  8
  pany upon a commission basis, being bound to sell at the same prices as the Standard Company; and what advantage there is to the British public in such arrangement?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The shares of the British Petroleum Company and of its allied companies were some months ago vested in the Public Trustee and the companies are controlled by directors nominated by the Board of Trade. The shares were previously registered in the name of the Europaishe Petroleum Company, a German company, but of whose shares the Russians, French, and Belgians claimed to own 49½ per cent. His Majesty's Government consider that it is to the national advantage that the organisation of the British Petroleum Company should be kept alive, and that it should remain permanently under British control, and they have taken steps to ensure this object. The arrangement with the Anglo-American Company was made with the knowledge of the Board of Trade, the reason being that only by such an arrangement could the British Petroleum Company preserve its valuable petrol distributing good will until such a time as the company could erect its own petrol distributing installations.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are these-shares to be retained or sold; if they are retained will they not be handed back to the German owners after the War?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that they are being held with a view to their sale.

  RAILWAY TRAVELLING (FACILITIES).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether consideration has been given to the representations made to the Board that a half-hourly service of trains should be available at South Bermondsey station between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.; and, if so, will he state the result of such consideration?
  Mr. ROBERTS: These representations have been very carefully considered. Any extension of the present arrangements for the opening of the station to holders of workmen's tickets in the mornings and evenings would lead to serious inconvenience and delay in dealing with important

  9
  Government traffic, and in the circumstances I do not see that further action can be taken in the matter.
  Mr. REESasked the President of Board of Trade whether arrangements are being made for reduced railway fares to and from holiday resorts during Easter, having especial regard to the fact that health is of national importance?
  Mr. ROBERTS: In view of the present conditions, I am afraid that it would be impracticable to make any such arrangements as those suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent the inclusion by the Director of National Service amongst non-essential trades of the manufactures which the exhibition promoted by his Department at the Victoria and Albert Museum is designed to encourage?
  Mr. ROBERTS: All firms exhibiting at the British Industries Fair were expressly warned that allotment of space could not be held to imply any guarantee that the firm concerned would be able to keep their labour should it be required for national purposes. The Board of Trade are in close touch with the Director-General of National Service as regards the preparation of lists of non-essential trades.
  Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the restriction of the imports of timber and the commandeering of home-grown soft timber, as well as the restriction of paper, cardboard, tin lead, etc., special facilities will be given to the manufacturers taking orders at the exhibition held under the auspices of the Board of Trade at the Imperial Institute to obtain supplies of material; or, if not, will the Department consider applications for the return of a proportion of the charge which he has made for space to exhibitors whose difficulties in executing orders arise from the above restrictions?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  SUGAR BEET (HOME PRODUCTION).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture
  10
  whether his attention has been called to the fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary imported into this country in the year 1913 26,000,000 cwts. of sugar of the value, approximately, of £15,000,000; whether he is aware that this sugar was bounty-fed; and whether he has any Reports showing that the soil in many parts of England is eminently suitable for the production of sugar beet?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is that it has been proved by trials, of which the Board possesses Reports, that beet with a high sugar content, and giving yields equal to those obtained on the Continent, can be grown in many districts in this country. I shall be happy to show the hon. and gallant Member the evidence which the Board possesses on the subject.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the uncertainty which exists at the Board of Agriculture as to whether sugar beet can be conveniently manufactured into sugar at a profit in normal times in this country, the Board of Agriculture can see its way to guarantee immediately private enterprise against loss of the first few years in order that this field of industry may not be denied to British agriculturists, builders, bricklayers, bricklayers' labourers, and all those indirectly affected; and whether his attention has been called to the part that this industry would play in absorbing labour on demobilisation?
  Mr. PROTHERO: It has not yet been proved that sugar can be manufactured at a profit from home-grown beet after paying an adequate price to the grower. The experiment is impossible out of the Development Funds, because the Act only allows associations which do not trade for profit to obtain advances. The Board believes that the establishment of the industry would promote agricultural progress, create a valuable rural industry, and increase employment after the War, and is endeavouring to secure the means of making the experiment.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Having regard to the fact that the Board are of opinion that the growth of sugar in this country is possible, will the right hon. Gentleman use all his influence to endeavour

  11
  to obtain some such Grant, owing to the fact that unless some such experiment is made now it will be too late?
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tobacco growing in Ireland has been a success, and why not sugar growing also?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! We are dealing with the growing of sugar beet in England now, not with tobacco growing in Ireland.
  Mr. LOUGH: May I ask whether experiments made in the East of England have been abandoned?
  Mr. PROTHERO: The experiment in the East of England has been abandoned only for the time being, owing to the fact that they cannot obtain the seed from Holland. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, we are using our best efforts to attempt the experiment, but, unfortunately, the war conditions preclude the buildings and machinery which will be necessary to carry it out.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    AGRICULTURE (MINIMUM WAGE).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the effect upon agricultural production of the present state of uncertainty, he can indicate an approximate date when the proposed minimum wage for agriculture will be operative; whether he can state whether the minimum wage will include the rental value of any cottage occupied and any other free allowances; and, if so, what allowances wall be reckoned as part of wages; and what authority will settle the value of the cottages and other free allowances?
    Mr. PROTHERO: A Bill giving effect to the Government's intention with regard to the institution of a minimum wage of 25s. a week, including allowances, for able-bodied male agricultural workers is in preparation and will be laid before the House shortly. In reply to the remainder, I can only say that the method of adjusting allowances is under consideration.

    FOXES ON SOUTHDOWN HILLS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received any complaints from the Southdown district as to the destruction of
    12
    young lambs by foxes and of great worrying of in-lamb ewes and ewes with young lambs by the presence of foxes in large numbers on the Southdown hills; whether, if a small reward is offered in the Brighton and Eastbourne districts, plenty of persons will embark on a campaign of extermination; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I have no confirmation of the alleged destruction of young lambs by foxes in the Southdown district, and a Report for which I asked is to the effect that there are no complaints. I shall be pleased to follow up any information on the point which the hon. Member can furnish, and, if the case is established, to take any steps that may be called for to-reduce the number of foxes in the district.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether an inspector was sent by Lord Devonport to the Liverpool area to investigate the allegaton that farmers are withholding supplies of potatoes from the market in the hope of extorting higher prices than those officially fixed; whether the inspector has full power to deal with the situation, including the power to requisition stocks, if necessary; whether any report has been received from the inspector and if he can state what action is likely to be taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The inspector sent to Liverpool has reported that he found the local situation to be as follows: That a considerable proportion of the stock in the neighbourhood had already been requisitioned for the Army; that a further part is being reserved for seed; and that the remaining supply is short of requirements. He found but little evidence, consequently, of unreasonable withholding of supplies.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman told me the other day that prices had been so arranged and graduated as to give an inducement to farmers not to withhold potatoes from consumption during the next few months?
    Captain BATHURST: I did not say that. The expression I used was "unreasonably with held"
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a deep-seated impression among wage earners that farmers are withholding potatoes with a view to getting the rise of £l per ton in April?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the difference between reasonably and unreasonably withholding that the farmers are going to get £1 more?
    Captain BATHURST: It so happens that in those districts there are very few potatoes available for anyone. It is only right to mention, and it should be realised by this House, that there is an almost unprecedented scarcity of potatoes not merely in the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. At the present rate of consumption it is unlikely that there will be potatoes available for anyone during the later spring and the earlier summer months, and those who can afford substitutes would be well-advised to discontinue or reduce their consumption of potatoes and so prolong the period for which they will be available for poorer persons.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it proposed to introduce potato rations?
    Mr. THORNE: Is it possible to regulate the sale of potatoes in the various towns and see that the ordinary working classes get their fair share?
    Captain BATHURST: Every effort is being made in the interests of the classes for which the hon. Member appeals.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. James Holland, of Whitegate, county Galway, general grocer, has been refused a supply of sugar from the firms who usually supply him; that Mr. Holland purchased his business premises in 1915, but did not commence business until 1st October, 1916, when necessary alterations and repairs were completed; and, having regard to the sum which Mr. Holland has paid for the premises and their improvement, whether the Ministry of Food on being assured of the facts stated will permit a continuance of supplies to him?
    Captain BATHURST: If the hon. Member will furnish me with the names of the firms which previously supplied sugar to Mr. James Holland, and to his predecessor, inquiries will be made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether the supplies of sugar necessary to keep bee stocks alive over the spring are being supplied to bee keepers at a price of 11d. per lb.; whether this represents an increase of about 100 per cent. upon the retail price of sugar; whether he is aware that the price is prohibitive to many of the poorer bee-keepers and will probably result in the destruction of bee stocks; and whether he can say to whom the Department has handed over this increase of 100 per cent in price?
    Captain BATHURST: As I have explained in a previous answer, I am aware that the price of medicated candy, if bought in small quantities, is about twice the retail price of sugar. The price of this candy was fixed according to the estimated cost of manufacture. I have been in communication with Messrs. Pascall, and find that in the light of further experience they can now produce and sell it retail at 10d. per lb., in place of 11d. per lb., and this they are prepared to do. It is estimated that there will be no margin of profit on the transaction. In any case as previously stipulated by Messrs. Pascall, any profit which may result goes to a war charity selected by the Board of Agriculture. I cannot agree with the hon. Member in attributing any destruction of bee stocks which may be, occurring to the sale of bee candy at approximately cost price.

    HUNTING HORSES (OAT RATIONS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of his prohibiton of oatmeal for hounds, he has also considered that each time a horse is used for hunting increased oat rations, amounting to half a bushel a week, have to be given; that there are 203 hunts in the United Kingdom; that if only twenty subscribers still remain active in each of these there is thereby consumed an excess of 2,030 bushels of oats weekly beyond needful and normal consumption requisite to keep the animal in average working condition; that oatmeal has gone up 150 per cent. among the poor of East London and in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where it is a staple food of the population; and what steps he proposes whereby to stop this extravagance?
    Captain BATHURST: Any undue consumption of oats by horses of this description is to be deprecated. As a matter of

    15
    fact, merely the nucleus of the various hunts is kept in being; the majority of the hunt servants have already joined the Army, and the few followers consist of those ineligible for military service. Consequently, the number of horses kept for hunting has been very greatly reduced. At the close of the hunting season, which is now approaching, a large number of these horses will be utilised in work of greater national importance.
    Mr. THORNE: Is he aware that many hunts have been arranged for the month of March and can the hon. Gentleman see his way to prohibit them altogether during the War period?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. I cannot believe that such a course would be in the best interests of the Army.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that these horses are going to be used for Army work, why not use them during the hunting season?
    Captain BATHURST: It is recognised that hunting keeps these horses in condition, and they are kept available to supply a reserve of horses for the Army.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the horses referred to have been rejected by the Army authorities?
    Captain BATHURST: I believe that is so.

    FOOD RATIONS (CORK).
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been directed to the food rations of the officers of the Cork Union, some of which include 10 lbs. of meat, 12 lbs. of bread, 21 lbs. of potatoes, 14 pints of milk, and seven eggs, besides tea, sugar, and butter; and if he will take steps to stop such disregard of his Order?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Local Government Board for Ireland have issued a circular to boards of guardians stating that it is essential that the guardians should make every endeavour to comply with the requirements of the Food Controller, and that the Board were satisfied that the rations at present allowed to officers of unions admit of considerable reductions. A committee of the Cork
    16
    guardians recommended that the master's rations should remain unchanged, and that other officers should get a sum of 12s. 2d. per week in lieu of rations. The guardians will consider the matter on the l5th inst., when they will have under consideration a notice of motion to reduce the rations.
    Mr. LUNDON: If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on these boards carrying out his orders would it not be a good example to the public to obey Lord Devon-port's Order?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not aware that there is any cause for that reproach upon the officers of the Local Government Board in Ireland.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman say what good purpose is served by doubling the price of sugar for keeping alive these stocks. Would that not kill off the bee stocks?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already replied to that, and I took the opportunity of saying that I thought it was a very good national investment.

    SPIRITS (MATERIALS USED IN MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he can state the amount of barley and grain and other food materials required for the manufacture of the monthly output of 250,000 proof gallons of spirits still allowed to be produced by the patent-still distilleries in the United Kingdom for potable purposes, and also for the manufacture of the 8,500,000 proof gallons of spirits still allowed to be produced under licence during the present season by the Scottish and Irish pot-still distilleries; and whether, having regard to the present shortage of food materials in the country, steps will be at once taken to prevent the further manufacture of spirits in the United Kingdom for potable purposes?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply to this question. The amount of grain required to produce 250,000 proof gallons per month from the patent-still distilleries is equal to 9,600 quarters. Of the 8,500,000 proof gallons which the pot-still distilleries are licensed to make this season only about 3,000,000 proof gallons have still to be produced, requiring

    17
    approximately 150,000 quarters of grain, a considerable proportion of which is already malted.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I ask whether any representations have been made to prevent the further manufacture of spirits for potable purposes, having regard to the fact that all the spirits manufactured go into bond and cannot be used for three years hence at least?
    Dr. ADDISON'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

    URBAN PLOTS (RATES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that several assessors in Scotland are assessing for rates the plots of ground in populous areas that have been dug up by voluntary effort in order to increase the output of potatoes and vegetables as food for the people; will he say whether this action has the sanction of the Scottish Local Government Board; and whether he proposes to take action regarding it?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received a communication on this subject from Glasgow, and I am making inquiries into the matter and will inform my hon. and learned friend of the result.

    INCREASED TILLAGE SCHEME (QUEEN'S COUNTY).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will now publish a list of all people in Queen's County who have applied for exemption from the increased tillage scheme, together with a statement as to whether such exemptions have been granted or not?
    Mr. DUKE: The necessity has not yet arisen for any reconsideration of the answer I gave on this subject last week.

  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS OF WOMEN).
  Sir ERNEST LAMBasked the Minister of Munitions, as representing the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the figures of convictions for drunkenness, relating to female offenders only, for the years 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The numbers of convictions of women for drunkenness in England and Wales in the years specified were 35,765, 37,311, 33,211, and 21,244. The last figure is subject to correction.

  LABOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions what is the composition of the Labour Advisory Committee; what are its duties; and whether it is now transferred to the Ministry of Labour or remains attached to the Ministry of Munitions?
  Mr. ADDISON: The members of the National Labour Advisory Committee are:
  Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, Right Hon. C. W. Bowerman, and Alex. Wilkie (Members of Parliament); John Hill, F. Smith, J. T. Brownlie, William Mosses (Secretary).
  The primary duty of the Committee is to give advice to the Minister of Munitions on questions arising in the administration of the Munitions of War Acts, such as the keeping of records under the Second Schedule of the Act of 1915, the extension of the provisions of the Acts as to Leaving Certificates, and questions of discipline and timekeeping. They advise also on questions arising out of the management of controlled establishments.
  They have established for their assistance in a number of places and work through local advisory boards. The Committee remains attached to the Ministry of Munitions.

  LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increasing number of fatal accidents within the London area due to the insufficient lighting of the streets, he will consider the necessity, in the interests of the public safety, of consulting the responsible authorities in order that street lighting may be materially increased?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot agree with the suggestion that the increase in the number of fatal accidents is wholly or mainly due to the darkening of the streets. The number of such accidents occurring in daylight has increased in almost exactly the same proportion as

  19
  those occurring at night. I did a short tune ago, after taking the advice of experts on the subject of the lighting of the streets in war-time, have a consultation on the matter with the military authorities and with representatives of the local authorities in London, with the result that alterations have been or are being made in the method of obscuring the public lamps which will, I hope, considerably improve the diffusion of light in the streets.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increase of accidents by daylight is not due to the absence of periodical tests of eyesight of drivers of vehicles?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will inquire into that. I imagine it must be due to inexperience and too rapid driving.

  CAB FARES.
  Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he has been able to come to a decision relative to the request of cab-owners that they may be allowed to increase their fares as an offset to the in creased prices of rubber, oil, and labour?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am in communication with representatives of the cab-owners and cab-drivers on this subject.

  INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE (CORK CORPORATION).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the postal censor has stopped in transit or altered the resolution which the Cork Corporation adopted on 12th January last, and of which they sent copies through the post to His Holiness the Pope, the President of the United States, and the Ambassadors of the belligerent Governments in Washington, demanding admittance to the forthcoming international Peace Conference for representatives of Ireland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The chief postal censor did stop four identical communications signed by the town clerk of Cork and addressed to the four enemy Embassies and Legations
  20
  at Washington. These communications announced a resolution passed by the Cork Corporation to the effect that Ireland demanded admittance to the Peace Conference on the ground that "the indestructibility of Ireland's nationality, which has baffled the psychology of British statesmen for seven centuries, merits her resurrection in the new era of small nationalities." The copies sent to His Holiness the Pope and the President of the United States of America were not stopped.
  Mr. GINNELL: Were any others stopped?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Not that I know of.

  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if he will explain why those Irish political convicts at Lewes who were promised facilities for pursuing their literary work, are still denied such facilities, and allowed only the books in the prison library except on the condition of forfeiting them; since this amounts to an absolute bar in the case of rare and expensive books in the Irish language, whether the rule will be modified in such cases; and, having regard to the trivial value of sacks or carpets that a few literary men can make, whether they will be allowed to devote all their time to their literary pursuits?
  Sir G. CAVE: In no case have facilities for literary work been refused. The ordinary rule is that books sent for the use of an individual prisoner afterwards become part of the prison library; but exceptions will be made to this rule in the case of rare or expensive books. I cannot modify the prison rules so as to relieve Trish prisoners from prison work.

  DEPORTATION OF IRISHMEN.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a printed document now in free circulation in this country which states that, irrespective of former Governmental action, it is hereby made known to all men everywhere that no Government which after due protest persists in casting free men into bondage can any longer be regarded by liberty-loving Americans as

  21
  having a place in the family of civilised nations; and, having regard to the deportation of Irishmen without charge or trial and the consequent danger to this country of the doctrine quoted, what action he proposes to take with reference to it?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen any such document, but if the hon. Member describes its contents correctly I am unable to detect in it any danger to this country.

  CIRO'S CLUB.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether any licence has been granted to Ciro's for the purpose of carrying on a supper club at the premises lately closed down by a decision in Court; if so, whether the fact that the promoters are spending £3,000 for this purpose was mentioned when the licence was applied for; whether regard was paid to the necessity for national economy when such licence was granted; whether the programme of artists has been submitted to the licensing authorities; and can any explanation be given as to why this supper club was permitted to open in the circumstances that the country finds itself to-day?
  Sir G. CAVE: No such licence has been granted, and no licence is required, so long as the premises are not used for the supply of intoxicating liquor. The other points in the question, therefore, do not arise.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of an affair which took place there last Saturday night, and does he for a moment imagine that dinners are served there without intoxicating drink?
  Sir G. CAVE: If the least evidence is brought to my notice that intoxicating liquors are served in this place I shall certainly take action.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is he aware that the membership of this club is absolutely bogus? Is he aware that the issue of tickets for the full year's membership centres round the possibility of them having previously visited this particular restaurant and that therefore they are not members and the club is a bogus one?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that such orgies as have been described in the papers do not occur again?
  Sir G. CAVE: So long as the law is not broken it is not a matter for me to deal with.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a hint to the Commissioner of Works that it would be suitable to commandeer these premises for the Government instead of taking hotels?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (NATURALISATION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the terms on which naturalisation will be granted during and after the war to such Russian subjects who may under the agreement with Russia take service in the British Army; whether at the present time applications have been received, but not yet granted to Russians, for naturalization here; if so, in how many cases; and whether such applications, if complying with the existing law, will be forthwith granted to Russian subjects who, being of military age, are ready to accept service in the British Army?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Government intend to propose legislation on this subject, and it is undesirable to discuss the details of the proposed legislation before a Bill is introduced.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the recent decision of the military authorities to withdraw a further number of teachers from our schools, he can state the steps which are being taken to maintain the educational efficiency of the country so far as the teaching staff are concerned?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): It is open to local education authorities and governing bodies of schools to appeal to local tribunals against the calling up of teachers, and if they desire assistance in placing the educational considerations before the tribunal I am prepared to place the services of the Board's officers at their disposal as far as possible. The Army Council have agreed to release, wherever practicable, teachers serving in the Forces in this country who are in medical categories below B l on condition that they return to the teaching profession.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment the Army authorities are calling up teachers from their work who are in category C3?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of it.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether there are 60,000 uncertificated teachers in this country; whether he is aware that the remuneration of these teachers, despite the character of their work and the cost of living, is altogether inadequate; and what steps it is proposed to take in this matter?
    Mr. FISHER: There are about 41,500 uncertificated teachers in public elementary schools in England and Wales. As I have already stated, I fully appreciate the importance of securing a permanent improvement in the remuneration of the teaching profession, and I have not overlooked the position of this class of teacher.

  CADETS CORPS STUDENTS.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked why students in Cadet Corps are to be denied the privilege accorded to students in Officers' Training Corps of continuing their studies until they are eighteen and a half; whether he is aware that this differential treatment in favour of rich people is resented as tending to make commissions a monopoly of the wealthy; and whether he will take steps either to put both classes on the same level or to grant the preference to the members of the Cadet Corps?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Commissions are in no way a monopoly of the wealthy, as by far the greater proportion of cadets accepted for Officer Cadet Units are serving soldiers who are recommended by their commanding officers. The privilege of remaining in their Cadet Unit until the age of eighteen and a half is only given to those who are recommended and accepted on attaining the age of eighteen for direct admission to an Officer Cadet Unit, and is given solely on the grounds of military requirements. It is not done with the object of granting special facilities for the continuance of ordinary education after the age of eighteen.
  I would remind my hon. Friend that Officers' Training Corps are under the direct supervision of the War Office, and their training is supervised by the General Staff. This does not apply to Cadet Corps, where no standard of efficiency can be
  24
  ensured. There are special battalions for boys under eighteen years and eight months, and boys who have been in school cadet corps should quickly qualify for an Officer Cadet Unit, if they have the necessary gift of leadership.

  COURTS-MARTIAL (IRELAND).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the pledge given by the late Prime Minister, on the 24th October, 1916, that he would arrange to have the proceedings of the Dublin courts-martial now published; and whether he will see that this promise is carried into effect without further delay?
  Mr. GINNELL: Before this question is answered, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the repeated promise of the late Prime Minister applied to all the courts-martial at that time in Ireland, especially to that in county Cork, and whether his answer will cover that?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): This subject has been carefully considered by the Government, who have come to the conclusion that in present circumstances it would be most detrimental to the public interest to publish these Reports.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was not carefully considered in October last by the Government, which consisted mainly of the same men, and that then they gave a pledge in the House to publish these Reports? What has occurred since October to induce them to change their mind?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman will desire to carry that view, but the other day he himself in this House, in the course of the Debate, used a sentence describing the situation in Ireland which showed the gravity of that situation, and which, I should think, is a sufficient answer to the question he now asks.
  Mr. DILLON: On the contrary, the situation in Ireland has been greatly exaggerated by the recent course of proceedings which have been adopted.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Cabinet when it was decided to publish these Reports,

  25
  and was not the pledge given on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman as well as the others?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I was a member of the Cabinet, but surely the view is not held that if a Minister in answer to a question states what course the Government intend to pursue, then no matter what might be the effect of circumstances and no matter to what extent, on further examination, circumstances are seen to have changed, a member of that Government should not alter his opinion!
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the purpose in asking this question was not to secure this information which would prove that these men were innocent; and that we want to know on what evidence these innocent men were sentenced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that is the object in putting the question. The Government have definitely come to the conclusion that in present circumstances to publish these Reports would be to reopen memories of the rebellion and would do nothing but harm.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the promise was made that these Reports should be published certain Ministers have referred to the contents of these documents and used arguments founded upon them and alluded to the heinous nature of some of the offences said to have been committed.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told that that has been most carefully avoided by every Minister.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prisoners and their friends are denied the right of taking legal proceedings in connection with evidence which is absolutely untrue and upon which they were convicted?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to take this as an additional reason why we cannot believe in promises made by the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that would be a very wrong deduction to make. It seems to me that this whole view is wrong. The House of Commons and the Government are not two independent powers in this matter, making treaties with each other. The House of Commons is the master, and if it chooses to insist upon publication it can do so; if it does not so insist it may be assumed that it acquiesces in the decision of the Government.
  Mr. DILLON: I give notice that, in view of that statement, I shall take the earliest opportunity of moving in this House that the proceedings of the Irish courts-martial shall be published.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I give further notice that I shall move, at the earliest possible date, that the first function of a Minister is to-keep his promise.

  STATE-OWNED MOTOR CARS (USER).
  Mr. WATTasked how many State-owned motor cars are at the disposal of Lord Curzon; and whether the chaffeur of any of these cars is on the Army pay list?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: While Lord Curzon was President of the Air Board, he had the use of a car which was placed at the disposal of the Board. Under the arrangement that now prevails a certain number of cars belonging to the Government are at the disposal of Government officials engaged in the discharge of their duties, and any member of the War Cabinet is at liberty to indent upon this reserve for the use of a car when required for official purposes only.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Air Board's car is not now at their disposal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that. The answer I have given has been given after consultation with the War Office.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many other members have State-owned motor cars at their disposal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have stated that no Minister has a State car really at his disposal. All he has the right to—and it seems to me a proper one—is that when he requires a car for purely Government purposes he can have one of the cars at the disposal of the War Office.

  ARMY SERVICE (WOMEN).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the scheme inviting women to volunteer for service with the Army; whether that scheme was published with the consent of the Director of National

  27
  Service; and whether its publication at this time had the sanction of the War Cabinet?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The War Office announcement to which the hon. Member refers was not an invitation to volunteer for service with the Army in France, but a statement of the terms and conditions of that service. The statement was published with the consent of the Director-General of National Service.
  Mr. DILLON: Do I understand from the statement that though women have the right to volunteer they have not been approached by the War Office to do so?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told not yet.

  NATIONAL SERVICE REGULATIONS.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, before issuing any drastic regulations affecting individual trades, the Director-General of National Service will give an opportunity to the various trades concerned to consider his proposals and to make suggestions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Director-General of National Service endeavours to keep in close touch with any trades likely to be affected by any action of his Department. His officers have already received numerous deputations and are arranging others. Written communications, also, are constantly received and have full consideration.

  PRESS CENSOR (RULES).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister at what date, if any, Parliament empowered the Press Censor to issue confidential rules never submitted to Parliament and bearing no reference to the statutory authority, if any, on which they are based; if he will state the authority for the rule that nothing shall appear in any part of the published portion of a censored article or other Press matter to indicate that words or passages have been cut out or otherwise censored; and, if this rule is in accordance with law, why has it been issued confidentially?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Press Censor's duty is to enforce, so far as he is able, those
  28
  Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act which deal with publications in the Press. In pursuance of that duty he from time to time issues requests and instructions to the Press for their guidance and protection. These requests and instructions are issued confidentially because that course is in the national interest and tends to make the censorship more effective.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Home Secretary has omitted the specific Act under which this was done.
  Sir G. CAVE: It is done for the reason I have given in the answer.
  Mr. GINNELL: But the Statute under which it is done?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is no Statute, and none is required.
  Mr. GINNELL: Then they are acting without the law.

  WILD ANIMALS (IMPORTATION).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on or about this date a ship is expected to reach England having on board two elephants, one large pigtail ape, one tiger, 400 monkeys (some extra size), five pythons, and 100 Indian shamar; that at a later date a consignment is expected of thirty-one pythons (10 feet to 20 feet), one tiger, eight pandas (very rare), 220 monkeys, and so forth; that a further consignment is expected later of sea-lions from San Francisco, and a zebra from South Africa; whether these imports will be placed on the prohibited list; and who is the official responsible for having allowed these consignments to be shipped to this country at the present time?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Prior to seeing the question I had no knowledge of the shipments referred to. I will consider the advisability of prohibiting the importation of wild animals for show purposes. Apart from such prohibition no official sanction is required for the shipment of a particular consignment on a vessel whose general employment has been licensed.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask if the serpents come from the professed site of the Garden of Eden in Mesopotamia?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are they going to be put on proper rations?
  Mr. WATT: Will they be handed over to the Kitchen Committee?

  NATURALISATION (CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will at an early opportunity introduce a Bill empowering the Secretary of State, in proper cases, to cancel certificates of naturalisation, as recommended by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of taking power to cancel certificates of naturalisation has for some time been under consideration of the Reconstruction Committee, and the Government will make a proposal on the subject, but no more definite announcement can be made until after the meeting of the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will bring in proposals for this purpose?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Proposals will first of all be submitted to representatives of the overseas Dominions.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the cancellation of these trade certificates which have been granted in this country does not require the consent of the Imperial Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman act in the matter promptly?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure my hon. Friend is correct in his view, but, in any case, I think it would be only right to consult the Dominion Premiers.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the increased expenditure of the Metropolitan Water Board; is he aware that the precepts of some local authorities for their share of the deficiency to the water fund, as compared with the previous years' represents an extra 1d. rate; and can he make any inquiry whether every reason-
  30
  able economy is being effected by the Metropolitan Water Board in the interest of the ratepayers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am informed on inquiry that the deficiency in the revenue account of the Water Board for 1915–16, in respect of which precepts have recently been issued to the local authorities, is £129,280 in excess of the deficiency for the previous year, and that this is more than covered by the increases in wages, cost of coal, and interest on loans. This excess is equivalent to a rate of 1d. in the £ over the whole area liable to be charged. I understand that the business of the Water Board is now being carried on with sixty officers less than before the War, after taking into account the temporary assistants engaged owing to the War, but any saving on the salary of the staff is more than absorbed by the payments to officers who are on military service. I may add that the expenditure of the Water Board is kept under continuous review by the Local Government Board's auditor.

  AIRCRAFT INSURANCE (PREMIUMS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the decision to allow a discount of 50 per cent. on the premiums for insurance against aircraft and bombardment risks as from 17th February operates to the manifest disadvantage of those in whose case insurances effected after the air raid of January, 1916, fell to be renewed in the early part of the current month; and whether he will arrange that a rebate shall be allowed of 50 per cent. on the unexpired portion, as from the 17th instant, of all such premiums paid prior to that date?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 27th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, of which I am sending him a copy. I am sorry that it is not possible to make the concession he desires.

  INCOME TAX.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is now prepared to consider the whole question of double Income Tax

  31
  charged to Dominion citizens resident in this country; and, if so, whether it is intended to introduce proposals in the coming Budget?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in accordance with the invariable rule it is not possible for me to anticipate the proposals in the coming Budget.

  MOTOR LICENCES.
  Mr. DORISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of owners of private motor-cars who are unable to use them owing to the restrictions in petrol supplies; and whether he will favourably consider the refund of the amounts paid by them for motor licences in respect of such cars during the present year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have considered this question in the light of the recent announcement of the Petrol Control Committee that the supply of motor spirit will shortly be further restricted and in some cases altogether cut off, and I have come to the conclusion that the situation calls for exceptional treatment. I have accordingly decided to introduce a Clause in the Finance Bill providing that where the owner of a private car is unable to use it owing to the restriction of the supply of motor spirit, he shall, if he surrenders his motor-car licence before the 30th June, be entitled to repayment of one-half of the duty which he paid on taking it up.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the claim for maintenance allowances for the wives and parents of junior officers who were dependent upon such officers and who through in firmity or age are incapable of maintaining themselves; and whether it is proposed to sanction any allowance in such cases?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In cases of serious hardship junior officers, whether married or unmarried, are already eligible for grants from the Civil Liabilities Committee up to a maxi-
  32
  mum of £104 per annum. It is now proposed to give additional allowances where there are children to be supported. No representations have been made to me that such additional allowances are necessary where there are no children, but if my hon. Friend will send me the particulars of any cases which he has in mind I will give them my most careful consideration.
  Mr. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman require to have particulars sent to him to know that the dependent mother of an officer who is incapable of working is dependent on that officer, and unable to live unless she gets an allowance?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Committee which has to decide these cases has no evidence whatever that there is any hardship in any of these cases. I have before asked the hon. Member to send me any particulars, without which I cannot possibly put forward any case.
  Mr. SCOTT: In what respect does the right hon. Gentleman need particulars to know that the wholly dependent mother of a junior officer who is incapable of working herself requires a grant?

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division), if he is now in a position to state the exact rations in respect of meat, bread, and sugar given to the civilian and military German prisoners of war in this country?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The weekly ration for both military and civilian prisoners is 63 ozs. bread, 30 ozs. meat, and 7 ozs. sugar. For those doing hard work there is an extra daily allowance of 4 ozs. bread, but no extra allowance of meat or sugar. The new scale including the allowance has been approved by the Food Controller.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the money advanced to the needy British prisoners at Ruhleben is given on condition that it will be repaid at the earliest opportunity; whether the money spent in the medical treatment of needy invalids at Dr. Weiler's sanatorium in Berlin is also advanced on condition of its repayment; and, if the Government

  33
  attaches military importance to the continued detention of the civilians at Ruhleben, whether it will in future make unconditional advances for the aforementioned purposes?
  Mr. HOPE: Needy British prisoners are not required to repay funds advanced to them by His Majesty's Government. The whole question of the repayment of such advances is being considered.
  Mr. HARDY: With reference to the last paragraph, may I ask whether the Government really attach military importance to the condition of the civilians there?
  Mr. HOPE: The Government certainly does not desire nor do they attach military importance, to the detention of civilians at Ruhleben for its own sake, but they have been unwilling to comply with the impossible conditions which hitherto the German Government have attached to any suggestions for their release.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask with which member of the Government does the decision really rest, the Foreign Office or the War Office?
  Mr. HOPE: The decision in all such matters rests ultimately with the Cabinet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The War Cabinet?
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether, in view of the absence of proof that misappropriation of articles sent to prisoners in Germany prevails to a considerable degree, he will take steps to remove the prohibition of such necessary articles as blankets and sleeping suits, which prohibition inflicts hardship upon British prisoners, both civilian and military?
  Mr. HOPE: This matter has lately been reconsidered by the War Office, but they regret that they cannot see their way to alter the decision already come to. The question of sleeping suits for civilian prisoners has, however, arisen afresh and is being considered.

  SUNDAY MAIL (NEWBURGH, FIFESHIRE).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General for what reasons the burgh of Newburgh, Fifeshire, has been
  34
  deprived of its Sunday mail; whether ho is aware that many of the residents availed themselves of the facilities for receiving the Sunday mail by calling at the post office, and that much inconvenience will be caused by the stoppage of the mail; and whether he proposes to stop all Sunday delivery of letters in England?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The contract for the Sunday mail cart service between Ladybank and Strathsiglo (on which the service to Newburgh depended) came to an end recently as a result of the death of the contractor, and as the cost of the Sunday service was out of proportion to the number of letters delivered my right hon. Friend could not, especially in present circumstances, continue it. In similar circumstances similar towns in England either have lost or would lose Sunday deliveries. On a recent Sunday fifty-three persons called at Newburgh Post Office, and eighteen letters were delivered to fourteen of them.

  HULL POST OFFICE (BOY MESSENGERS).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Post master-General whether he is aware that several boy messengers at Hull are being employed as sorting clerks and telegraphists; whether these boys will come under the recent concession to learners; and, if not, whether he will consider the hardship of employing these boys as sorting clerks and telegraphists when there is no intention to offer them appointments as such?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: There are three boy messengers employed on the duties of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Hull. They are paid as sorting clerks and telegraphists in the same way as learners employed on full duties.

  PRISON REGULATIONS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Scottish prison rules and regulations provide that prisoners convicted on certain charges, as, for instance, debt to the Crown or violation of the Vaccination Acts, may be treated in prison as untried prisoners and receive privileges usually accorded to prisoners awaiting trial; whether he is aware of the case of a Dane

  35
  who was convicted under the Defence of the Realm Acts for trading with the enemy and sent to prison in default of paying a fine, and is now being treated as an untried prisoner; and whether he can see his way to apply this treatment generally to persons convicted of offences under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
  Mr. MUNRO: It is the case that civil prisoners in Scottish prisons are accorded special privileges. I am not aware of any case in which a person who is undergoing imprisonment in consequence of a conviction under the Defence of the Realm Regulations is being treated in the manner stated, and I think my hon. Friend must be misinformed as to the facts. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  CENTRAL MEDICAL BENEFIT FUND.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the total sum paid into the pool representing the Central Medical Benefit Fund is arrived at according to the contribution cards surrendered or according to the actual number of stamps sold?
  The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The total sum paid into the General Medical Benefit Fund is based upon the number of stamped contribution cards surrendered to the Commissioners by approved societies.

  PANEL DOCTORS (METHOD OF PAYMENT).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that certain insurance committees decline to pay the balances due to practitioners in respect of the year 1915 unless a special form of receipt and discharge is signed; and whether, as these moneys are payable unconditionally, he will take steps to see that the doctors concerned should receive equitable treatment and thus, by assuaging irritation, lighten their burdens during the pressure of work consequent upon the depletion of their numbers through enlistment?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: No particular form of receipt has been prescribed by the Commissioners, but I shall be glad to consider, in any particular eases which my hon. Friend has in mind, any proposals in this direction calculated to remove irritation or lighten the pressure of work falling upon doctors, especially in view of the depletion of their numbers.

  ADMIRALTY MESSENGERS (WAGES).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an application was made in November, 1916, on behalf of the messengers employed at the Admiralty, Whitehall, for an increase in wages; if so, could he state whether any recommendation has been sent to the Treasury in favour of the men's request?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No special application can be traced as having been received in November, 1916, but I have been in frequent communication with my hon. Friend and others, in regard both to the War bonus, which has been granted to the pensioner messengers, and to matters affecting their pay; and various changes have been made in consequence to the advantage of the men. The actual rates of pay of pensioner messengers are fixed by the Treasury for the Government Departments generally, and the present rates were based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service.

  ADMIRALTY OFFICE (TIME-RECORDING CLOCK).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a Bundy time-recording clock is being introduced into the Admiralty Office at Whitehall; and whether it is intended that the whole of the staff employed there shall be clocked in and out in the future?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A time-recording clock is being introduced for recording the attendance of the messenger staff with the object of facilitating the work of checking and calculating claims for overtime attendance. The clock will be used in all cases, except a few in which it could; not conveniently be used.

  TRAMWAY WORKERS (ABERDEEN).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Labour if he has received a request to arbitrate in a dispute between the Aberdeen City Council and the women tramway workers; if the cause of the dispute is the breaking of a pledge given by the city council that women who took the places of men in the tramway service should be paid at the same rate as the men; and if his Department has any power to insist that such a bargain should be kept by the city council?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Hodge): The Chief Industrial Commissioner has received from the Amalgamated Association of Tramway and Vehicle Workers a request for arbitration in a dispute which has arisen between the Aberdeen Town Council and their employés in the Tramway Department, the alleged cause being that mentioned by the hon. Member, and he is in communication with the corporation on the subject.

  BRITISH WEST INDIES (TRADE AND LABOUR UNIONS).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if. In December last a law was passed by the Legislative Council of St. Christopher and Nevis, British West Indies, and approved by the Governor, prohibiting the formation of trade and labour unions during the War; whether he is aware of the feeling which has been aroused in the island as a result of the passing of such Ordinance, and whether the action of the Governor and Legislative Council has the sanction of the Home Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): I have received reports from the Acting-Governor to the effect that this emergency legislation was necessary to prevent serious disturbances due to a movement in which a pro-German was implicated. It has not yet been brought into force, and will not be unless circumstances require its operation. I am not aware that there is any feeling in the Islands against the Ordinance, which in the special circumstances has my approval. I may add that the Acting-Governor has recently arranged with the employers of labour for a general 25 per cent. increase of wages, and that the labouring population are satisfied with the concessions made to them.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the members of the trade unions have protested to the American Federation of Labour, to which they are affiliated, and that the American Federation of Labour feel very sore at the action taken by the Governor without, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman himself being consulted?
  Mr. LONG: The facts, no doubt, are as stated, but the circumstances are such as to make it necessary and essential that the action of the Governor should be supported. These are not times when we have to deal with questions in the ordinary way, and nothing would induce me to weaken the authority of the Governor, who is dealing in an admirable manner with an extremely difficult situation
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that a copy of this law will be placed in the Library?
  Mr. LONG: I do not know. I shall have to consider that.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if John Butler and Margaret Butler, of Raheen, Mountrath, Queen's County, old age pensioners, applied for the weekly increase of 2s. 6d. each; and, seeing that they were only granted 2s. and 1s. 6d. respectively, will he have inquiries made into this case with a view to having the full amount paid?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): Inquiries are being made into the matter, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with education in Ireland at the same time as the Bill promised by the President of the Board of Education for England?
  Mr. DUKE: As the hon. Member is aware, the machinery of the system of education in Ireland differs fundamentally from that in England. No Bill has been drafted, and having regard to the compromises on matters of religious difference which are represented by the constitution of the several authorities which deal with

  39
  education in Ireland, I think very careful inquiry would be necessary as a preliminary to any legislative project.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it proposed by the Irish Government to do nothing for Irish education when a great and comprehensive Bill improving the status and pay of all English teachers is going to be introduced this Session?
  Mr. DUKE: When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education produces his Bill we shall very carefully consider it with regard to the effect it has upon the situation in Ireland. As to a general educational measure in regard to Ireland, it would be almost impossible, without precedent inquiry, to ascertain what would meet the wishes of the various interests concerned.
  Mr. LYNCH: Quite apart from elementary education, would it not be possible to introduce a scheme, similar to that for England, greatly to develop and foster scientific education in the higher grade's in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: Undoubtedly very great improvements might be made if you could deal with the whole matter comprehensively. The difficulty I find in an attempt to deal with it without precedent inquiry is the difficulty I mentioned in my first answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).

  ROYAL FLYING CORPS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
  Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary representative of the Air Board whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience and expense entailed on candidates in Scotland for service in the Air Department, in that they have to come to London to be interviewed and medically examined, which practice puts Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom situated far from London at a disadvantage as compared with the Home counties; and will he make or suggest some arrangement whereby the examining medical man will go to such candidates at stated intervals?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: A special medical examination is necessary for candidates for the Royal Flying Corps in view of the special circumstances of that arm. This has been held hitherto before a candidate was accepted; but it has now been decided
  40
  to accept candidates passed fit for general service and to hold the special medical examination during their cadet course. Candidates will therefore be interviewed in other places than London.

  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of acres of untenanted land the Estates Commissioners have distributed in Queen's County; the number of acres purchased but not distributed; and the number of acres for which they are in treaty?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Estates Commissioners have purchased 10,834 acres of untenanted land which has been distributed, and they are in treaty for the purchase of 430 acres.

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—[Mr. Eugene Wason.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Alden and Mr. Rupert Gwynne; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bliss and Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.
  Sir DANIEL GODDARD further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Member (in respect of the Criminal Law-Amendment Bill): Mr. Snowden.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 5,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: I desire to made a few suggestions to the Government with regard to the withdrawal of such a large number of men from agriculture. In doing so I would not for one moment suggest that the representatives of the War Office here have not treated us with the most admirable courtesy and given us as much information as they can. So far as my information goes, the War Office have withdrawn so many men from agriculture that it is bound to result in a very serious diminution in the food production of this country. I observe that the Government; have established Directors-General of various Departments. There is a Director-General of National Service and a Director-General of Food Production. All these Directors-General, all their staffs, and all their officials will not produce anything like so much food as would he produced by the 10,000 men whom the War Office have recently called up from agriculture. I want to impress upon the Government and the War Office the fact that orators and officials will not produce a single grain of wheat or a single pint of milk. You must have the labour.
    Mr. TICKLER: And the seasons.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Of course, the seasons vary. Whatever the season may be, it cannot produce crops without labour. The Secretary of State for War, in another place a few days ago, said that there were at the present moment 300,000 men of military age employed on or about the farms, and that they were only taking some 30,000, or that the tribunals had allowed them these 30,000 men.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): They have only taken 9,500.
    Mr. LAMBERT: In fact, the tribunals have allowed them 60,000. The instructions to the tribunals were that the need for men in the Army was paramount to every other consideration, and that there was nothing to stand between the Army and the men who were fit for general service. If you went before a tribunal, and I had that experience myself, you found that there were no questions asked asked but "Is this man fit for general service in the Army?" If that were so, the farmer or other employer would have very great difficulty indeed in retaining him. We saw in the newspapers the other day the statement that there was a strike of farmers against food production. Nothing could be further from the case. If food production is stopped, it is due entirely to the War Office withdrawing labour. The farmer wants to produce food. He has never had such good prices, and therefore, on the whole, he is induced to produce as much as possible.
    I have here three cases which appeared in the "Times" newspaper on 27th February. The first is a farm of 216 acres, 30 acres arable, 75 cows, 14 horses, 75 ewes, 2 store pigs, 7 miles from a station. The farmer had a son, who was rejected. He has now been re-examined and accepted. The farmer had three men, and if this young fellow is taken, as I understand he is to be, the farmer will be left with himself, who has a broken arm, and a daughter aged seventeen. The thing has only to be mentioned here to be riddled. You have taken away his men? What can he do? I will take the next case. A widow over seventy-two years of age farms 72 acres, 27 cows, 3 horses, 16 sheep. One man has been with her for seven years, and he does everything. This man has been taken. The military claimed him and offered a substitute, who turns out to be an artist and journalist. Here is another case: A widower, well over sixty, with chronic asthma and unable to fodder cattle, owns and farms 80 acres. He has one son, who does all the work, and no other labour. The military claimed him and refused a substitute. It is no use talking of a strike of farmers. The War Office is entirely responsible. It is the uncertainty that is killing agricultural enterprise. No man can attempt to cultivate his land if he

    67
    does not know what labour he is going to have. It has been taken away on every hand, and it is taken away very suddenly.
    I will give my own case. I had to appeal before a local tribunal for a ploughman. The local tribunal granted me exemption. Immediately the military representative said, "I shall appeal." He took me to the county town—Exeter —and I again got my man off simply and solely as a ploughman. That is all his work. Now I am between heaven and earth as to whether I am to have a substitute, and what sort of substitute. This man is working a pair of horses worth anything from £150 to £200. Can you expect me to accept a substitute who does not know anything about horses? We will do our best to cultivate the land, and we will plough an increased acreage, but if you do not let us have competent men it is quite impossible that any farmer would entrust valuable horses to them. If you bring in a pair of horses and they are too hot and drink a lot of cold water, the result will be colic and all sorts of epidemics. You will not trust a valuable pair of horses to an inexperienced man. Lord Derby says, "We are picking out some ploughmen to send back to the farmers. We are endeavouring to find out cowmen and horsemen," and the only character they could give him would be that they had said they were ploughmen before they joined the Colours. Two thousand four hundred of these men, according to Lord Derby, have been sent to the fanners, but I understand that they are always to be ready to return to their units, if necessity arises, at twenty-four hours' notice. What is the good of a substitute like that? The men who deal with these things at the War Office cannot understand agriculture. I do not want to criticise, except when I see crass stupidity such as this. We are told also that we are to have agricultural companies of 15,000 men. You cannot farm land with companies of men. The farmer will have to learn the new drill book—"Form fours! Plough!" or something like that. The thing is absurd. Then I do not understand War Office arithmetic in these matters. Lord Derby told us that he had only taken 180,000 men from agriculture. But we were told last year by the then Under-Secretary for Agriculture:
    "Gravely depleted before the War, agriculture employed under 1,000,000 men. including the farmer?. From 250.000 to 300.000 have gone."
    68
    How can the Department reconcile these figures?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: A great many are in other employment. They were offered higher wages by your Government.
    Mr. LAMBERT: If they are in munition works they cannot be available for producing food. I am on the question of food.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): You are blaming the War Office.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am inclined to think if these figures were examined it would be found that few of these men have gone into munition works. The great bulk of them were taken into the Army. At any rate, the real point is that the food production of the country is being greatly decreased, and it was said last year by my hon. Friend (Mr. Acland):—
    "Making every allowance, the danger point of gravely decreased production is already readied."
    Here is Lord Selborne, in the House of Lords, of whom the hon. Member (Sir G. Younger) ought to take some notice I believe he is one of his leaders:—
    "Agriculture has given more than its full share to the Army, and unless the tribunals are extremely careful, the food production of the country will be seriously impaired."
    Lord Selborne says agriculture has given more than its full share to the Army—not to munition works.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: So have lots of other people.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am pointing out that if you take these men away you will not have food. You have the result at the present moment. The representative of the Food Control Department said a few minutes ago in answer to a question that there will not be any potatoes in the country in two months' time. If we go on as we are, there will not be any milk in the country. There are other articles of food far more important than potatoes which will be difficult to get, certainly at anything like ordinary prices. I can well understand that Lord Derby has been a very persuasive politician, but I do not fancy that he understands much about agriculture. I remember very well that during the South African War, when he was Financial Secretary to the War Office, he had a tremendous bout with a certain gentleman named Mr. Julius

    69
    Weil over the supply of cold storage for the Army. Mr. Julius Weil retired from the fray a multi-millionaire. A very sensible suggestion was made in the House of Lords by my late leader on this bench, Lord Chaplin. He suggested that the House of Lords should pass a Resolution that in the case of men being called up by the War Office it should be within the power of the Board of Agriculture to say whether or not he is indispensable. I think that is an admirable suggestion. Let the Board of Agriculture have the power to badge a man. But Lord Derby said, "I cannot possibly accept that." Of course not. The one man in the Government who understands the business is the President of the Board of Agriculture, but he is not to be allowed to badge a man as to whether he is necessary for agriculture or not. I think the War Office treat the Board of Agriculture almost with contumely and contempt. Lord Derby made this remark in the House of Lords:
    "I am now arranging with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, that, before the issue of any of our Orders which are likely in any way to inconvenience him, he shall see them."
    What an extraordinary act of condescension to say that the head of the Board of Agriculture shall see any Regulations which may inconvenience him before they are issued. Lord Derby appeared almost as if he were talking to his bailiff and saying that he would talk over matters with him before any order was issued. I am not here for one instant to haggle about prices. I am only interested in production. When men are doing their duty, as they are doing it amid such risks and amid such discomfort over in France; and when we read of ships being topedoed in the night, and woman and children having to take to boats, I am not here to haggle with the Government over one shilling or two shillings per quarter on wheat, or £1 or £2 per ton on potatoes. It is a matter of production. Unless you have production—and the War Office is gravely imperilling production—you cannot have the food for the people of this country to eat. I would like to make a suggestion to the War Office with regard to their dealings with tribunals. You cannot do it from London.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We do not issue instructions to the tribunals.
    Mr. LAMBERT: At any rate your military representatives dominate the tribunals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!": You may tell me what you like, but I say that the military representative dominates the tribunals. More than that, if he is defeated at the local tribunal, he threatens to appeal to the Central Tribunal.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He has instructions to do that.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Of course he has instructions. I was going to make a suggestion, but probably it is a little out of order. Therefore, I will not pursue it. There are, however, one or two other questions I want to ask in relation to the Army. We were told, I think on Thursday last, in the very charming speech made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Forster), that the medical arrangements of the Army were admirable, and certainly the figures he gave about enteric fever were wonderful. The Medical Department deserve every credit for that. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us about the health of the troops in Salonika and in Mesopotamia. Is there any undue amount of disease in Salonika and Mesopotamia?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I gave the figures.
    Mr. LAMBERT: But I understood they were only for enteric. I understood that there is a great deal of dysentery in those two countries. I shall be very glad if I am mistaken. It does seem to me that the War Office might give us a little more information as to what is going on in Salonika. We rejoiced to hear of the victory of General Maude at Kut. What is going on at Salonika to-day? I was talking just now about the War Office withdrawing ten thousand men from agriculture. Why not withdraw ten thousand men from Salonika? There you have men fully trained. One thing which really does alarm me is the Resolution which has been read from the Chair that the War Office is to have control of five million men. Do they use them to the best advantage? Are they using them to the best advantage to-day? We heard from the hon. Member for the Ealing Division (Mr. Nield) a most interesting speech the other day, which showed how the War Office or the medical boards pass everybody into the Army, and when

    71
    they have got them there, they will not let them away again. It would appear that the most valuable soldier is a man with half a lung and seven children, for they stick to him like leeches. I suggest that all these men should be released They are of no use to the Army. The Under-Secretary (Mr. Macpherson) when replying, like a canny Scot, took refuge in the dug-out of averages. We want the War Office to realise that it is their duty to make the very best advantage of the material at their disposal. John Bull's pocket is a very long one, but six millions a day will reach its bottom some time. I suggest that in these matters the War Office must consider shipping. Shipping is almost as important, if not as important, as agriculture. I read on Saturday, I think, that the Controller of Shipping complained very much that the War Office would not return men to the shipbuilding yards in order to build the ships that are urgently required for bringing food and produce to this country. You must remember that every soldier who is enlisted in this country if he is sent out of the country must have a bit of a ship. He must be taken abroad on a ship, and he must be fed by means of ships. Therefore, I ask the War Office not to be so lavish in their expeditions which involve such an enormous amount of shipping. This is a very important matter. I do not want to labour it because it is a question of high strategy; but I am certain that it is one of the most important questions that can be brought before Parliament. I have emphasised these two points—shipping and the production of food. I do it with a real sense of responsibility, for I am perfectly certain that if things go on as they are now, if labour is withdrawn from agriculture and food production, if ships are used for these distinct expeditions,: you will find that in this country famine will stalk through the land during the course of a few months.
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend, than whom I think nobody is better qualified to speak on the question of agriculture and the production of food. I have a great interest in the production of food. I am a farmer myself, and at the present time I am satisfied that if my ploughshares are ploughing up my park with the object of increasing the production of cereals, I
    72
    can think of more important things. What is much more important than ploughshares is the question of bayonets. Bayonets demand men. The question of the moment to my mind is the supply of man-power to keep the Army going if we are to carry this War through to the victory we all desire. I think every hon. Member who has done me the honour of listening to me will agree that I have never approached this question of man-power simply from the point of view of military requirements alone. What I have always maintained from the day the War began—and it is as true to-day as then, and even more patent —that the whole man-power of the country has got to be directed to the carrying through of this War in some way or other. That is to say that the man-power of the country must be scientifically applied for that purpose, some being allotted to the Army, others to the production of food, and others for the subsidiary services which are necessary in order that the Army may live and be able to defeat the enemy. Have we now, after nearly three years of war, really realised such an ideal as the scientific application of the man-power of the country. I fear we have not. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his very interesting speech on Thursday said that the German effort can only be met by a corresponding determination on the part of the British Empire and its Allies. That determination exists, there is no doubt whatever about that; but is it being utilised to the full? Is it being applied in a practical and scientific manner? Those are questions to which I should like to have an answer, and upon which I hope to hear something satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman further went on to say that under the Military Service Acts
    "the numbers obtained have fluctuated considerably from time to time. For the first period there was a satisfactory flow, which fell off, however, as 1916 drew to its close."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March. 1917. col. 2181, Vol. XC]
    I would like to know, and I hope it may be possible for one of the hon. Gentlemen to enlighten me, what are the causes of that decline and what are the measures that are being taken to remedy it; I fully realise that there are questions with which we have to deal, such as the numbers of men coming into the Army who do not become effective, which cannot be discussed in public, but an excellent precedent has been set by which the highest authorities of the War Office and of the Admiralty have on different occasions met a Committee of this House and discussed

    73
    questions of this kind confidentially with them. Why should there not be a further development of that precedent? If these matters cannot be fully discussed on the floor of this House why should not my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War meet certain Committees of this House upstairs and explain to us exactly what is being done and get, that which he would certainly have in the fullest way, the most complete co-operation which he can wish for? But unless we know we can do nothing. Everybody is only anxious to help. There should at this time be an end of that unfortunate absence of confidence which was so prominent in the activities of the late Government.
    All of us can form opinions of our own as to the causes why the Military Service Acts have not produced that even flow of recruits for the Army which was expected. Anyone who has thought on the subject who knows anything about it and keeps his ears and eyes open can form a very fair opinion. We have not, of course, got the full knowledge which is possessed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on these benches. One of the great difficulties which prevent the smooth operation of these Acts, and prevent the full benefit being derived from them, is an inherent fault in the Acts themselves. The Acts do not apply to the whole population of this country, but only to a section of it. They only recognise a duty devolving upon a very small percentage of the male population, that is to say those of a certain age, and those of that age who are physically fit. But they ignore the fact that the whole of the rest of the male population of this country is quite as capable of doing something to carry on the general work of the nation, and of the War, and there is no obligation imposed upon them to do it. Therefore, competition arises for the best material out of the general male population of the country. We are all competing for the men who are most capable, most physically fit, and of the best age, and we ignore the residuum. I have said, in this House, I think, and certainly many times outside, that the only logical basis on which compulsion can be allowed at all, is that it should be applied equally, and based upon the identical principle which requires a duty from every citizen to be performed towards the State, and gives to the State the right of requiring that that duty shall be performed. Our Military Service Acts never recogised that. The late Government allowed itself to be ter-
    74
    rorised by a minority who held up the bogey of what they called industrial conscription, or some phrase of that kind. I am not—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend is trenching on the ground of legislation.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: I was merely arguing this point of the inherent weakness of the Military Service Acts. If I allowed myself to be carried a little beyond the four corners of those Acts, I will not pursue that subject any further. I think that I am within your ruling in asserting the principle upon which I have always urged that the Army should be recruited, that is, on the principle of demanding from every man in this country a certain duty, and requiring those who are fit for military duty to be taken for that duty while the others are relegated to civil and other work. I do not wish to skate upon thin ice. I wish to keep entirely within your ruling. It is obvious that, say, the youth of nineteen, and the strong and capable and skilled workman of thirty-five, assuming that they are the men of the best physical capacity, are those who are the most suited, and for whom, therefore, competition is set up. The only way of ensuring the regular supply that is indispensable for an army in the field, and whose necessity increases in proportion to the vast increase in the numbers of the Army, is by doing away with that competition for the most fit, as it at present exists. There can be no doubt that the demands during the last year have exceeded the estimate of the War Office, made, shall I say, three years ago. The circumstances of war vary, and cannot always be justly estimated, but I should like to remind hon. Members that some nine months ago I spoke of the necessity for estimating the supply of men required for 1917–18. When I uttered those words there were in some quarters of the House what are, I believe, described as derisive cheers. I do not think that derisive cheers will be heard now. We are in 1917. We are within reasonable distance of the requirements of 1918. I do not think that any hon. Member will say now that we have not got to consider what will be our requirments for 1918, and possibly for a considerable time after that.
    I would earnestly press upon my hon. Friend that he should, in the course of this Debate, give some more information than we have had on the question of recruiting, and the measures the Govern-

    75
    ment is considering, or is prepared to take, in order to prevent the possibility of those fluctuations which the non. Gentleman has informed us do exist, and which are a source of serious danger to the Army. I do not wish to deal with any other subject, but the paramount question of provision of men for the Army. There is another point connected with this question. It is a delicate point, but I shall endeavour to deal with it in a manner which I hope will not give any offence. I am glad to see opposite to me my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), because it is the question of the supply of recruits from Ireland. I wish to approach that question in a manner entirely detached from any other question connected with that country. For that reason I think it very much better that it should be spoken of to-day than at another time, when possibly the question of that country will be before the House. I should have rejoiced if hon. Members from Ireland had been able to see their way to join in the legislation which was carried out last year, which took the form of the Military Service Acts, and that Irishmen should be at the present time under the same conditions as Englishmen with regard to the national duty that they owe to their Sovereign in regard to the War. I believe, and I hope that many others will agree with me, that the very fact of the two countries having been dealt with in the same way, and all men having been brought together under the same conditions, would have aided materially in settling those other large differences of which I do not feel myself competent, even if I was in order, to speak. But that, unfortunately, is not the case. Therefore I should like to consider, and to learn from my hon. Friend what is being done in order to utilise that great reservoir of the finest fighting material in the British Empire, because there is a great reservoir of fine fighting material in Ireland. Has anything been done in order to utilise it?
    In a speech which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the beginning of October last year, he went in some detail into the grievances, I think, probable legitimate grievances, of Ireland, in regard to recruiting for the Army. I will not touch upon them. They are a record of petty annoyances. I can well believe that they produced a very bad effect in that country. I can only say that
    76
    I have had experience of the same sort myself in regard to Wales. When we attempted to raise an Army Corps on a national basis in Wales, we were met with every kind of petty opposition by the authorities of the War Office. Instead of giving way to it, we fought it, we beat it, and the end of it was that the Service recruiters had to come to us on their knees to ask to have a few of the men that we were getting by thousands. I would like to see something of the same sort occur in Ireland. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was at the War Office, sent an Irish officer—-who is well known and who has done a great deal of work, especially in recruiting, over to Ireland—to inquire and report upon the subject. He travelled all over the country, and he made a very elaborate report, which was supported by Sir John Maxwell, by the present Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and, I believe, it had also the approval of the present Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. DILLON: We never had the report.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: I am informed that the report was made, though I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has not heard of it, for one ought never to be surprised at anything which concerns Ireland. I am informed that the report was made, that it is in existence, and that it has the support of all those authorities whom I have named. Why is nothing done? If there are practical suggestions contained in the report, made by an Irish officer who knows the country, and who has been backed up by those who ought to know something of the country, why is it that the authorities in the War Office are so hide-bound that they cannot break away from their antiquated methods in order to try something new? That is a question I should like to have answered. In Ireland we have close at our own doors as fine a recruiting ground as can be imagined, and a race who have certainly made the most brilliant of recruits during the present War —men who, whatever their divergencies of opinion politically when they are at home, throw them aside and combine in face of the enemy, thus showing the possibility of bringing them together for a national purpose in a great emergency. I would urge my hon. Friend to take this question seriously into consideration, and I hope that before this Debate is over I shall hear something which will be satisfactory not only to me, not only as one who is

    77
    interested in the Army, but also to my hon. Friend opposite, who, I should have thought, would be consulted in the matter.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I do not propose to move the reduction of the Vote standing on the Paper in my name, owing to the more or less satisfactory reply last week of the Under-Secretary of State in regard to the matter of man-power. But there are just two points I desire to emphasise in dealing with this question. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down that we cannot too often think of this whole big question of man-power as it affects the House. I also agree with him that we have to get rid of the habit of considering only to-day, and not looking ahead, and it is for that reason I hope that the hon. Gentleman representing the War Office, reversing the old order of things, will really map and plan out the question of getting manpower over the next few months, and, if necessary, the next few years. The Debate has shown very conclusively that the actual calling up of men of military age is not so much a hardship to industry; it is the way in which they have been called up. Above all, it seems to me that the War Office should give warning and notice to the industries of this country as to when, and in what numbers, they are likely to require men in the near future. That is why I urge this evening that we should decide now what number of men we require, not only to-day but three months hence, nine months hence, and a year hence. If the Under-Secretary could give, in the near future, if not to-day, more definite notice to the manufacturers and agriculturists of this country of what men they would lose, and when they would lose them, I believe, despite what they have got to face already, that they would make preparations to meet those requirements and find substitutes.
    Since the previous Debate, it has been announced, I think, that all exemptions—so far as I understand—other than those engaged in certified industries, will be reviewed. That seems to me good, but there, again, it seems to lack precision, and I think it most important that, even in this case, as far as possible, industries should know exactly where they are and exactly what they have got to arrange for. The House of Commons has got to face this question, if not to-day, in the very near future. The whole of this most important subject is going to come up again and
    78
    again, and if we only can get a definite plan we shall know where we are. I read in the nespapers, a day or two ago, a telegram from Italy estimating that the enemy has no less than 166 Divisions on the way. That may be accurate, or it may be not, but at any rate it is possible, and the question I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider first is, whether he can be quite sure that we have sufficient superiority of divisions to make our offensive decisive; secondly, that we have recruits in view for the next year at least, in order to provide reinforcements? I can conceive of nothing, and I think the House can conceive of nothing which would be more tragic than the fact—when we see all these great efforts that are being made, when we see all the ability of our generals and the valour of our troops, when we have the great hope that our offensive is going to be decisive—that we had not organised in time the reinforcements necessary to take their place.
    The hon. Gentleman last week gave the House some figures which interested the House very much with regard to developing military education, if I may so put it, whether in connection with the New Armies or the Territorial Forces. He told us, and this is interesting, that of those who are at present at the Staff, the Regular officers number 31 per cent., and those of the New Armies and Territorial Forces 33 per cent., so that the latter forces actually have 2 per cent. more officers on the Staff than the Regulars. I welcome the new step which is being taken, but I would point out that, as a matter of fact, the Regular Army, compared with the New Armies and the Territorial Forces, is, of course, very small. I do not know the exact figures, but I believe there is as great a difference as between 300,000 and 3,000,000, and the consequence is that this measure has not been very general, especially when it is recognised that almost every Staff appointment at the present moment is from amongst the Regular officers, and there are unhappily very few now who are not so engaged. A fact that the whole House will be ready to admit is this, that nearly all these Staff appointments for a very long time have been filled by Regular professional officers. That, I think, will be admitted; but now that the original supply of these who are specially fitted for the Regular Army can no longer in fact be obtained, or, at any rate, does not exist, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take further steps to give

    79
    opportunities for men of military genius among the officers in the New Armies and the Territorial Forces at the present time.
    I want to say one word with regard to the question of volunteers, debated last week. On that occasion I said that in my opinion the volunteers at the present moment, as an organisation to defend our shores against raids, were a sham, a delusion, and a snare. The Under-Secretary of State for War, in a sense, rebuked me for that statement, and pointed out that my argument was hardly fair, that after all he had only been a very short time in his present office, and that the Bill was only introduced last September. Although the hon. Gentleman has been appointed to a higher position, the War Office has not changed; in fact, that Department is only now beginning to move in regard to the volunteers, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman that he is the man of push and go who has done it. There are two questions which I want to address to the Under-Secretary of State, if he can give an answer. I do not think there will be any difficulty, but if he cannot, I shall quite understand it. First of all, are the volunteers organised as Reserve complete formations, or are they battalions, which are automatically to come under the command of various Home defence formations, in the event of liveliness in the North Sea? Secondly, are the county commandants to command formations in the field—I mean whether they are called county commandants or county colonels, are they to command in the field, and, if so, will they be selected from men of military experience to take the command, for that would be rather important? The next point I want to deal with is whether the name "Volunteer" can be got rid of. There is reason for getting the name changed because the confusion which is arising is very great owing to the big National Service movement, in regard to which those who seek to be included in that service are also called "volunteers." In reference to the Volunteer Force, I think the name is not really a good one, and I believe the volunteers would be very glad to get rid of that name, because they feel it is one that might give rise to the false impression that they would only go up on parade when they wanted to do so. That idea did get abroad, and I therefore submit that it would be well if the name were changed. I trust the Under-Secretary of State will consider that point.
    80
    I would submit, though it is not my own idea but that of an hon. Gentleman who has taken a great and splendid part in the Volunteer movement—and it is a view largely held by those interested in the movement—that the name should be the Reserve Army of this country. I convey that idea to the hon. Gentleman. I believe it is a description which the volunteers would prefer. It has been stated that I urged that this half-time force should not be converted into a full-time force. I entirely agree; but I never suggested that the volunteers should be turned into a full-time force. What I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider is the possibility of taking compulsory powers in respect of the whole community for a limited number of drills, which are necessary for the Volunteer Force. Obviously they would only be engaged if necessary, but it seems to me that it would not be a very great strain upon the people of this country if every man was liable when so-required by the War Office to do ten drills a month or whatever it may be. So long as we have volunteers we must have in the different battalions men who have received that training which is so desirable. I can only say I rejoice to hear that the War Office is determined to make the Volunteer Force a real thing. When we were told as we have been, that within a month the War Office hopes to have professional adjutants and to hand out rifles to the whole Volunteer Force—
    Mr. MACPHERSON: To Section A.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: To Section A of the Volunteer Force, I think it will be admitted I was not far wrong when I said that at the moment it could not be claimed that the Volunteers were an organised part of the defence of the country. It seems to me essential that the Volunteers should be made into a real reserve army of defence and that every encouragement should be given them from that moment forward. If we adopt that policy, there is no reason why we should not have a very considerable Army of Home Defence Volunteers, which would make our position more secure than it has been in the past, and at the same time give us the power of forming a new defensive body to take over parts of the line in France and so free more offensive divisions. If these courses are taken, I believe we shall be on the high road to meet the dangers which I foresee. But unless the War Office takes the country into its confidence now and

    81
    says precisely how many men it wants and when it will want them, it will be making its own task very much more difficult and at the same time giving industry no chance of making preparations to meet its demands.

    SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 1,000 men.
    I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Brigadier-General Croft) into the details which comprised the greater part of his speech, but I would refer to the opening parts of his observations and those with which he concluded, as well as to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the new Chairman of the Liberal War Committee (Major-General Sir Ivor Herbert). It is strange indeed to find hon. Members of this House still asking the War Office for an estimate of the number of men they require. We have had these estimates asked for time and again, but no estimate has been given, and it is unlikely that any will be given. The failure to obtain estimates in the past might have been a lesson to hon. Members not to encourage the War Office to demand further men, but rather to insist that the War Office should make the best possible use of the men it has. It is in reference to that that I desire to move the reduction of the Vote which I have placed on the Paper. I believe that at the present time our Government are making a wasteful use of our armed forces. On former occasions this allegation has been made, and it has been put forward in this House already in the course of the present Session, but up to the present time no answer has been vouchsafed by any responsible member of the Government. On the first day of the Session I drew attention to the useless and wasteful adventure at Salonika, and I then asked for a statement of policy from the Government. Since then hon. and right hon. Members have made a like demand, but with no better result. My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. McKenna) referred to the subject in one of his speeches, and a very able and remarkable speech on this subject was made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), but, in spite of all these things, the only statement we have heard in regard to the Salonika
    82
    Expedition has come in this House, and it is to the effect that there is nothing to say about Salonika.
    But it is very significant that while the Government tells us there is nothing to-be said about it, they expressly forbid comment and criticism on the expedition in the public Press. It is therefore only in this House that it is possible to discuss and criticise that policy, and, if possible, to secure a modification in the action the Government are taking. There has been one exception with regard to this veto upon comments on Salonika, and I find in a periodical called "New Europe," published last week, a defence of the Salonika Expedition. Apparently the Government policy is that all criticism and all-attacks are to be banned, but if any writer is prepared to defend the expedition then there is no embargo whatever upon its publication. What is the defence which has been put forward of this expedition? We have, as a rule, long disquisitions on the respective merits of what are called the Eastern and Western policy. A certain number of people who are alleged to believe that a decision can be reached on the Western front are described as extreme Westerners, and it is alleged of them that they are of necessity opposed to any expedition in the East, no matter what its merits may be. On the other hand, we have people who call themselves Easterners, who say it is absolutely necessary for this country and her Allies to counter German ambitions in the East, and what is called the design to link up-Berlin with Baghdad they say must at all costs be checked, and that the only way to do that is by sending an expedition to Salonika.
    Has this expedition to Salonika, at any time since it went there—I think it was in October or November, 1915 —really seriously threatened the German communications with Constantinople or Baghdad? It certainly did not do so in 1915, and even during the slight advance in the autumn of last year there was, I think, no reason to believe that either Germany or her Allies felt that their communications with the East were seriously menaced. Indeed, at no time during the whole of that period have the German communications been seriously menaced. But we have to deal with the situation as it now is. It is common for the defenders of the expedition to say that had it been undertaken in the early months of 1915, or had it been pressed when it was advocated by

    83
    the present Prime Minister, or had it been undertaken before the invasion of Serbia, or pressed forward when Roumania entered the War, substantial results would have been achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo put forward a very strong case to show that the expedition had been systematically starved by the War Office against the will of the late Cabinet. That indicates that the expedition was undertaken by the late Cabinet under somewhat peculiar conditions. That it was undertaken unwillingly, we knew from the circumstances of the resignation of the present First Lord of the Admiralty from the late Government. At that time there was revealed hesitancy and indecision. We also know that during the remainder of the life of that Government the expedition to Salonika was a constant source of division among its members; and because there was division among the members it can hardly, I think, be alleged that it was the military who succeeded in starving this expedition. If there has been any indecision, then the responsibility for that indecision must rest with the responsible head of the Government.
    5.0 P.M.
    But there has equally been indecision since the late Government fell. We were told when the new Government came into power we would have an immediate and definite decision and that something would be done in the East at last, that Serbia would be rescued, and that Roumania would receive assistance. We were told that one reason for the present Prime Minister's visit to Rome was to see that the forces in Salonika were adequate, succoured, supported, and reinforced. But has that been the result of the Rome visit? I think the most significant statement which was made in regard to the Rome Conference appeared in a leading article in the "Times," to the effect that the Conference had been completely successful, which indicated that nothing was to be done for Salonika. We know, indeed, that certain reinforcements have been sent out since the new Government came into power, but these reinforcements have simply increased the burden which this expedition has cast on the country and have done nothing whatever to make the force in Macedonia a strong and adequate fighting force. It is common ground that this expedition, unless it is reinforced, can be of no military value. This is the situation. We see the expedition, as it were, apparently hung up and capable of effecting nothing. In view of that
    84
    we are entitled to ask what is the military view of the present situation. We are entitled to know what the military advisers of the Government think should be done in regard to this expedition. It is now common property what the earlier military view was. We know that the late Lord Kitchener was opposed to it. We know that the present head of the General Staff was opposed to it. We know that General Munro, who was on the spot, was equally opposed to it. It is, therefore, only fair we should be told what is the present view of the General Staff. During the later days of the last Government there were stories going about among those well in the confidence of the present Prime Minister to the effect that he had asked for great reinforcements, and that the late Government had shown incapacity to take action and had turned his proposals down. Indeed, I believe that was one of the reasons for bringing that Government to an end. But is it not the case that his proposals for reinforcements were turned down by the General Staff, and not by the Government at all? It is important that the House and the country should know of these things, because they are all important factors in enabling the country to come to a decision upon the value of this expedition. It is not only on these grounds that I allege that this expedition is a useless drain upon our resources. I have much stronger grounds. We all know now how serious the shipping problem in this country is. Twelve months ago, when I first raised this question, my speech was received with derision and contempt. In those days nobody believed that shipping could be a serious problem to this country. Transport, it was often thought, was a matter which could be played with with complete impunity. When I suggested then that we were in a state of partial blockade hardly anybody would believe it, but we have seen month by month since March of last year that blockade increasing in stringency. We had a serious warning by the late President of the Board of Trade in November last, when we were told of the necessary steps which must be taken in regard to food supplies, but the gravest warning of all was the speech of the Prime Minister a week ago. No graver warning has ever been given to this country, and in face of that warning we have the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who represents

    85
    the Liberal War Committee, coming here and talking about the absolute, paramount importance of bayonets in this War. Ships are far more important than bayonets. Sea power is of far more importance than man-power to this country, and it is because the present Government and the late Government have, by these useless military adventures, reduced our transport facilities, that they have menaced our sea power. There could be no greater symptom of the failure of British sea power than the fact that at present you are sending supplies overland through France and Italy. That is not a triumph of organisation; that is the measure of your necessity, and it is because of the reckless demands upon the man-power of this country by those who talk about scientific organisation that we are reduced to these straits. This Salonika Expedition is now a large expedition.
    In the defence of the Salonika Expedition, which occurs in the periodical which I have mentioned, and which I assume has passed the Censor, the figure of 500,000 is given. These, of course, are not all British troops, but it may be said that for every British soldier who is sent there four tons of shipping are required. You may take it as a certainty that over 1,000,000 tons of shipping are at the present moment withdrawn from supplying this country with food and with the necessary raw materials in order to supply this Army which is held up uselessly in the hills of Macedonia. But that is not all. We know that the Mediterranean is infested with submarines. Nearly all our merchant ships are now warned off the Mediterranean. The situation is so serious that all your supply ships and your transports going to Salonika have to be convoyed, and you are thereby taking away destroyers which would be useful in hunting the submarines simply for the purpose of convoying the transports and the supply ships for the Salonika Expedition, so that in two ways you are weakening your sea power. You are, in the first place, directly withdrawing ships which are absolutely essential for maintaining the home supplies of this country, and, in the second place, you are weakening the Admiralty's power of dealing with the submarine menace.
    When such an indictment can be made against this expedition under present conditions, I think that this House is untrue to its trust if it allows that case to go without answer from a responsible
    86
    Minister. The situation is far too serious. We may talk glibly of taking another 1,000,000 men into the Army, we may talk of amateur schemes of increasing food production, we may talk also of the building of standard ships. All these things are as dust in the balance. The fact stands revealed that if you could release 200 ships to-day from Salonika you would relieve the tension of this serious situation at home. If that is the case, why should the Government not give an answer to the House and to the country as to its reasons for maintaining that expedition on its present scale? Why should it, on the other hand, be allowed simply to muzzle opinion and to silence criticism? This Government has made great play of its frankness and of its candour. The First Lord of the Admiralty came and told us the other day that he, for the first time, was going to tell us the facts about the submarine situation. He has told us some things, but he has not made a great addition to our knowledge. In this, as in other Departments, the practice of the present Government is not unlike that of its predecessor. It is very careful not to disclose anything which is inconvenient to itself. That, I believe, will be the practice of every Government, but that is no reason why private Members of this House should not insist in the public interest on full disclosure.
    It is nonsense to believe that the people of this country cannot stand the truth, and it is equal folly to believe that full disclosure would convey anything material to the enemy. After two and a half years we surely have had enough of that fiction. We may take it for granted that our enemies know a great deal more than the average man in this country or the average man in this House; that there is very little which the average private Member could communicate to them. I believe, however, on the other hand, that the people of this country can stand to be told the truth. They have not been afraid to face disagreeable facts when disagreeable facts have been disclosed, and their temper has not been unlike the temper of ancient Rome, when the Senate announced in the Forum that the Republic had suffered a great defeat, and when the same body passed a vote of thanks to the demagogue who had lost a great battle on the ground that he had not despaired of the Republic. These examples would appeal to the people of this country. It is because the situation is grave that I think its gravity should

    87
    not be hidden and should not be covered up by a general statement. We have here a concrete instance. We have here the case of an expedition which is very largely at the root of our difficulties, and because it is at the root of our difficulties we ask the Government to make a full statement, and, if they cannot make a defence, then to reverse a policy which is so disastrous to the country.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No one can quarrel with my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the Committee to the grave question of military and foreign policy which has occupied the most interesting and powerful speech which he has delivered. The Army at Salonika is certainly a factor in our military arrangements which touches, as he has so well pointed out, not only the man-power problem, but the tonnage problem, and which affects both of these problems to a very marked degree. All enterprises in the Balkan and Turkish theatres are limited by the carrying power of our mercantile marine. In 1915 great and dazzling opportunities, all of which were lost, were presented to us in those theatres. In those days decisive results could be obtained by armies whose size was not beyond the limits of our available carrying power, but from the moment that Bulgaria entered the struggle against us, and the Germans obtained a through route to Constantinople whereby they could organise the forces of the Turkish Empire effectively and sufficiently for war, from that moment it was obvious, or it should have been obvious, that the size of the armies needed to achieve a result exceeded the carrying power which we should have at our disposal, and a very great revision of opinion and of plans from that moment became necessary. It ought to have been frankly recognised that our successful amphibious intervention in this theatre on a great scale had passed, and that this method of influencing the main decisions of this war was no longer open. There is no reason to suppose that these facts, which were apparent since the autumn of 1915, and have been fully apparent during 1916, will lose any of their force or power in 1917 or 1918. On the contrary, we shall steadily require, to achieve any decisive—I do not say effective—results in those theatres, to use larger Armies with a tonnage which, from many points of view and from various causes, will steadily
    88
    diminish. That is undoubtedly the situation which exists to-day, and which my hon. Friend has called attention to in his able speech.
    Having said so much, it is not at all easy for anyone not possessed of the fullest information —which only the Cabinet has—to advise as to what course should be taken at the present time. We have not to deal with a situation in which, or as if, we could blot out all that has happened, and could choose to-day whether we would or would not like to have a great Army at Salonika. We have to deal with the fact that there is a great International Army there, with the history of that Army and the obligations which it has necessarily contracted. The problem is one of the utmost complexity and gravity, and it involves considerations of honour as well as considerations of military and diplomatic importance. We have to consider the position of Monsieur Venizelos. That remarkable man, throughout the whole of this great War, has shown the utmost wisdom and courage in all the counsels he has offered to his country, and has shown himself not only a wise statesman in regard to Greece, but has evinced a perfect grasp of those great international and human issues which are at stake. He has claims upon the Allies which certainly one cannot conceive that honourable Governments would brush aside or be unmindful of. We cannot possibly look at this question as if we had a free hand in dealing with it.
    Four great Powers, of which we are one, and three minor Powers, are, as my hon. Friend knows well, involved in the operations which are proceeding there. It is not possible, however clear the arguments may appear at the present time to those who feel themselves perfectly free to take a new view—it is not possible to treat this question as one which can be swept aside by a few bold and decided gestures. Neither is it a question which lends itself to reproaches and recrimination. I was very glad that my hon. Friend did not in any way mar the cogency of his speech by making, in the light of after-knowledge, reproaches upon the past. When the whole story of the Salonika Expedition is made public, as I trust some day it will be, it will be found to be a very long one, and full of all sorts of unexpected tangles and complications. Certainly it is not one which lends itself to terse and dogmatic judgment from anyone. It is quite impossible that any

    89
    Government should be insensible to the force of the arguments which, for instance, my hon. Friend adduced this afternoon. They readily occur to all of us, and we must assume that they will present themselves with increasing force as the months go by. I share very fully the view which the hon. Member has expressed that the House would do well to consider these questions in connection with the War and in connection with the supply of men and the general policy of the country more carefully and more fully than it has done in the past. I myself believe that the institution of Secret Sessions, which are so frequently adopted in France with great effect, would enable us to give a much fuller and more careful examination to these matters than have hitherto been possible. In regard to any speech made on these military matters during the course of the War there are two considerations which have to be borne in mind. First of all, that information should not be disclosed that benefits the enemy. I agree with the hon. Member "who has just spoken that it is really not a very likely contingency. As he says, the enemy have very good information on a great many subjects, and detailed military and technical information is really not required by the House of Commons to discuss the broad issues of policy with which they would probably deal. Therefore, I do not think that a Secret Session would lead to the disclosures of information given in Secret Session to the enemy. It would be possible to conduct the Debate without touching upon these matters of secret information which it would perhaps be unwise to discuss.
    There is another fact which one always has to bear in mind in speaking in time of war. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line between fair criticism and overstepping fair criticism. We do know that things should not be said which encourage the enemy or discourage our own people or our own Armies. It is a very difficult question, but that difficulty is entirely removed if the House meets in Secret Session with no reporters present. The Government can keep their own technical, military, naval, and diplomatic secrets, and the broadest discussion can be indulged in without the country being unduly alarmed or our troops being discouraged or our enemies gaining a lot of material which they can quote to
    90
    hearten up their own people. Therefore I am much in favour of a discussion of that character. The House of Commons would be to blame and failing in its duty if upon all these great questions connected with man-power, the supply of men, and our military policy, they do not insist upon some serious discussion in which the Ministers could take part, and in which hon. Members could really address themselves to questions in which the life and fortunes of the country depend. In the absence of such a secret discussion, the best attitude which in my humble judgment the House can take in regard to the question raised' by my hon. Friend, is to make the Government feel, that in the absence of fuller information the House does not desire to fetter any action which they may take, and that hon. Members will not make reproaches if that action should be difficult to reconcile with the course which has been taken in the past. The Administration have enough difficulties to face, and they ought not to be deprived, by any criticism or reproaches for the inconsistency of their policy or a change in their policy, of the benefit of any measure which they may think necessary.
    Perseverance is usually described as a great virtue, but it has two aspects. Perseverance with an eye on the future; perseverance towards a definite objective is a great virtue; perseverance with an eye on the past is an equally' serious vice. I hope most earnestly the House will return to these topics before the Session is much older and that we shall hear from the Government some serious and responsible statement upon the question. The question of the Army at Salonika and the number of men we should have for the service of the year is affected by another very important consideration—I mean the assistance which India gives us and how far it is possible to supplement our resources in man-power from our Asiatic Possessions, and particularly India. I referred to this matter last year. It is, I know, a course which is usually unwelcome to the House to make quotations from one's own speeches, but I should like to remind the House, for it illustrates my point, of the serious consequences which follow from our not attending to these things. What I ventured to say to the House about this time last year was:
    "What part is India going to play in 1917 if the War should be continuing then?"

    91
    Then I went on:
    "What is there to prevent you if you start now—munitions are not going to prevent you —from taking ten or twelve new Indian divisions or their equivalent ready to throw in in 1917 wherever they may be most effective and most needed? Are you really going to allow the fate of India to be settled in this world-struggle while she is represented only by the Tigris Corps, whatever it is, and a few detachments at other points? There are i315,000,000 people in India and less than 100.000 men in the line. It is a wrong to India. It is wrong to Europe. I say to the Government, Do it. Do it now. Do it at once. Start to-night. Make your plans for your Indian Army of 1917."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1916, col. 2026, Vol. LXXXII.]
    That was a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, his Department, and his Council have fought an astonishing rearguard action, and have been driven back slowly, foot by foot, in regard to the utilisation of the resources of India. It must be admitted that they have defended every position with tenacious skill. They have refused for many months to give India the opportunity of assisting financially in the War. That opportunity has just been accorded to India. They succeeded in delaying the application of compulsory measures to the white population of India for nine months after they had been introduced here. We all remember how-well my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) pressed this matter in the House before we separated last November, and the asperity with which his questions were answered by the Secretary of State. It is a fact, and we ought to recognise it, that the policy of the India Office, of the Secretary of State, and of the Council has had the effect of largely shielding India from the horrors of this War. Her economic development has proceeded. Railways and public works, for purely peace objects, are proceeding at the present time.
    Sir J. D. REES: Not at their normal?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; they are not proceeding at the normal rate. Her enormous manhood is practically untouched. She has a financial surplus, and her military expenditure has hardly been increased during the War. She has, I believe, no what is called dead-weight, unproductive debt. Of course, in a material sense, all this is a great benefit to India; but there are serious losses to set against these material gains. This was India's great opportunity. This was her chance of establishing her title deeds
    92
    by taking a notable part and an effective part in proportion to her strength and her people in this great world-struggle. It was also our chance to allow her to share our burdens, to share our fortunes, and to share our counsels. Is there any reason to suppose that India would not have responded? If there had been an appeal, having regard to the different conditions prevailing in India and the native mind, if at the same time there had been a kind of effort and pressure which has been applied in so many other parts of the British Empire, and has been applied in this country, is there any reason to suppose that the people of the Indian Empire would not have responded?
    On the contrary, the whole spirit of India has been manifestly in favour of great exertions on behalf of the common cause at this time. Everything shows it. The ardour of the princes, the loyalty of the people, the fidelity of the Indian troops wherever they have been employed, all show that there was not only a readiness to do all that has been done, but a latent feeling which could have been appealed to, and through which greater efforts might have been effected. But the Secretary of State for India and his Council have taken the great responsibility of drawing a curtain of official correctitude and complacent departmentalism between the aspirations of the Indian people and the needs of the British cause.
    If this time last year, when I pleaded with the Secretary of State—and that was late enough, in all conscience—he had endeavoured to raise only half the divisions which I then urged upon him, not without making some inquiries before as to what was reasonably practicable, we could now have relieved for service in France 70,000, 80,000, or 90,000 British troops from Egypt, from Salonika —the French have several native divisions in the line at Salonika—and possibly even from Mesopotamia, although I am not sufficiently acquainted with the composition of that force to say whether that could be done. But, at any rate, that which I am saying now would certainly have been done if the measures had been taken this time last year, when they were first asked for, and when already the need of them had been apparent for a very long time. You would have got 70,000 or 80,000 men at the most moderate computation—that is to say, twice or three times as many as they are now trying to scrape from agri-

    93
    culture, munitions, and the industries of this country. I think it was a great responsibility to take. It is no use throwing statistics and official excuses at our heads in this matter. I am tolerably well acquainted with the Departmental conditions which prevail in this country. I remember what we were told last year, and I see what is being done now, which absolutely stultifies everything that we were told last year. Even now that immense pressures have compelled action, have forced the India Office into action, have forced the Secretary of State to bow to the storm which was about to break—even now, I say that this action which is taken, tardy though it is, is not adequate, that a greater effort is needed, and is possible, and that if there is neglect and failure this year, as there was neglect and failure last year, then the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman will be even greater than it is to-day.
    What applies to India applies to Africa, too. There, again, measures have been taken at various times which could well have been taken this time last year, and from which we should have derived immense benefit if taken last year—measures not only with regard to fighting men, but with regard to labour of all kinds in the zone of the Army, and, whatever opinion may be entertained about the use of African fighting men—I know some hon. Members entertain a strong opinion on that—there can be no objection whatever in any mind to their employment for labour—or, at least, I should have thought not—behind the lines to relieve other men for the fighting service. If the House of Commons this time last year had devoted itself resolutely to this question of manpower, and had gone into the whole subject and discussed it with something like the vigour they discuss a great controversial Bill in time of peace, you might have had the equivalent in one form or another of 200,000 or 300,000 men you have not got to-day. If you devote yourself resolutely to this question now, you will have next year 500,000 or 600,000 men; but if you allow this question to drift, you will find yourself deprived of them next year, and where are you going to find men to fill the ranks of your Armies? When I look back on what I ventured to say to the House last year—I do not refer to this subject in order to boast of superior foresight—I say quite frankly I have a feeling of despair, because it does seem
    94
    to me that the House of Commons, by not grappling with these questions, by not following them up with intense attention and even ferocity, is allowing power to-slip from its hands and is allowing itself to be made a useless addition to the Constitution. Can you wonder that on every side you see the power and influence of this House menaced, when you see it is the one place where these great questions are left with scarcely any discussion, except, perhaps, a few perfunctory speeches from the Treasury Bench.
    I hope the House will permit me to-touch on a few more points connected with, the question of man-power. I admit most gladly the immense improvement which, has been made in the utilisation of the men whom the War Office already have under their control in the field Armies and the Armies at home since General Macready became Adjutant-General, assisted by that most able officer, General Geddes. An immense system of substitution has been worked throughout the Army at home and abroad with a view to liberating fit young men for the fighting-line, and their replacement by substitutes less efficient—wounded men and others—behind the line. I am told—it is not an official figure, but I believe it is fairly accurate—that between 20,000 and 30,000 officers' servants alone were found capable of being moved up as drafts to support the fighting battalions. Now we see that the Volunteers are being assigned a real function for the defence of this country, and that women are being utilised in large numbers also to discharge certain functions which they perfectly well can discharge behind the lines. But there is no-reason at all why this should not have been set on foot earlier, and it would have been set on foot earlier if the House of Commons had studied the question with resolute attention.
    There is only one point in connection with the man-power at the disposal of the War Office on which I wish to make a comment at this moment, and that is in regard to the great masses of Cavalry which are kept in France. Out of all the enormous masses of Cavalry which are kept there-only one squadron was found an opportunity for tactical use during the whole campaign of 1916—in fact, since I last mentioned this subject. What is true of the Cavalry applies also to the enormous number of horses which are kept with the Armies in France. I suppose that the-carrying capacity of our mercantile marine

    95
    is strained very nearly as much to supply the horses in France as it is to conduct the Salonika expedition. At any rate, enormous demands are made not only on manpower—because the horses all employ precious man-power—but also on the food of this country and on our limited tonnage. It does seem to me that, when you survey all this, the use of only one Cavalry squadron in exceptional and almost fantastic circumstances in 1916, is rather a small dividend to pay on this enormous expenditure of money, food, tonnage, and man-power. Of course, if the orthodox military view should prove to be correct, and that at some moment in the future great masses of Cavalry will gallop through a gap in the lines, leaping trenches and barbed wire, scrambling over the shell-holes and craters, making a way through the Artillery barrages, and gaining open country beyond—or what is assumed to be open country beyond—and, having got there, are able to achieve permanent and decisive results, then we shall all frankly admit that all this expense will have been justified. There is, however, to be noted that the power of even a few rifles and machine guns to bring large bodies of mounted men to a standstill continues quite unabated, and consequently, on the Russian front, where there are large gaps in the line, where the fronts are not continuous as in the West, and where great bodies of Cavalry have frequently penetrated, on both sides, far beyond the lines, no decisive and scarcely any important, result has been achieved by the mounted men. I say if, at the end of the War, it is true what some people have always contended that the utility of horse soldiers in the West finished when the trench lines became continuous from the mountains to the sea, and that no effective opportunity for their use has been presented—if that is the result when we get to the end of the War, then I say we shall have suffered all the time very serious injury through the waste and misdirection of a portion of our limited resources.
    There is another matter in which the military authorities in France have been somewhat slow to appreciate the conditions under which war is now carried on, and that is in the provision of light railways and tramways, and by their undue reliance on motor transport, which, with an immense consumption of money, men and petrol, yields results which can never compare with those which can be reaped
    96
    from the use of rails. That is being patiently and painfully remedied, and it is very much to the credit of the present Prime Minister that, when Secretary of State for War, he should have been able to insist, in spite of formidable opposition, on a great development of railway policy in France, and on the changes of personnel which were necessary and indispensable to give effect to it. In fact, you may say that in railways, as in heavy guns on a gigantic scale, and in the provision of tanks and other mechanical additions—in fact, in all these great man-saving processes—civilian influence and civilian thought have painfully but eventually triumphed over the orthodox professional views, to the great advantage of our fighting men, and the prospects of oar cause. It is far better to speak the truth about this sort of thing, and to face the real facts, than to live in that world of ceremonious fiction which has been rendered so fashionable by a certain class of writers in the Press. Sir William Robertson said the other day, "War exposes frauds." War certainly should dissipate delusions, and there is a number of delusions which, it is greatly to be hoped that the course of this War will dissipate. You may, if you wish, believe that all generals are geniuses, and all civilians are half-wits unless they happen to be journalists. You may, if you will, believe that the military and naval commanders always give clear and resolute opinions, and that politicians are always timid and procrastinating. You may believe, if you like, that our misfortunes in this War have been due to our neglecting to follow expert advice. You may believe, even, that all the Ministers who left the Government the other day were incompetent, and slackers, and that all who remain are warlike and heaven-born men of action. You may believe that if you like, but remember Sir William Robertson says that war exposes fraud. I demur altogether to the view put forward in many powerful quarters, not inside, but outside, this House, that all we have to do is to gather and sweep together every fit man in the United Kingdom who can be made to shoulder a rifle and rush them forward into great battles such as those which we fought on the Somme. The vital part of the problem of man-power is frugality of its use. The French learned this terrible fact after the fighting in Champagne in 1915. Then the word was spoken, Il faut

    97
    ménager les hommes. That has been accepted as a governing condition of French generalship ever since. We see in General Nivelle, in whom so many hopes are centred, an officer who, by the perfection of his arrangements, by the great employment which he makes of the machinery of attack and organisation, has been able to achieve most striking results with comparatively small loss of French life.
    Machines save life, machine-power is a substitute for man-power, brains will save blood, manœuvre is a great diluting agent to slaughter, and can be made to reduce the quantity of slaughter required to effect any particular object. Generally it is not considered in the simple use of force but in the adroit augmentation and application of force. A great manœuvre of war, the kind of manœuvres for which the great generals of the past were rendered famous, bear the same relation to the ordinary application of force as the pulley or lever in its ordinary application to power. Past commanders won fame by novel and unexpected methods. In the first two years of this War there were great possibilities of manœuvres, both geographical and mechanical, and there are still great possibilities. I say this to the Committee, and it is quite necessary they should view the solid facts of the situation, that unless manœuvre devices—I use the word in its widest and not in its narrow sense—can be called in aid of our man-power, I do not see how we are to avoid being thrown back on those dismal processes of waste and slaughter which are called attrition. It is not easy to see how, with the present forces, we can expect this year to obtain decisive results from mere attrition. Those results may come from other quarters. They may come from internal conditions in Germany, the chance of accident in war or new forces coming to our aid, but the balance of forces on the fighting front at present is not such as to offer any prospect of speedy victory as a result of a straightforward process by an exchange of lives however pertinaciously that is adopted by the Command, and however valiantly and devotedly the sacrifices are made by our brave troops. That is surely a very serious fact. Who always begin a campaign each year with a feeling that we have got very much larger Armies than we had before. It is true that our Armies have steadily increased, but the balance of forces on the
    98
    fighting front now is not such as to justify any supposition that a mere process of mutual attrition is going to produce decisive results—1 do not wish to state that more definitely or precisely than I have done in the words I have used.
    What I do hope is this: I hope that whatever the Government do they will proceed upon a clear-cut policy. I hope they will not commit themselves and their Armies, or, so far as they can influence them, allow their Allies, to commit themselves to a vast policy of attrition on a gigantic scale unless they are absolutely certain that they will be able to pursue it to a point where it will become decisive. I hope that they will not launch out on vast offensives of the kind we had last year unless they are certain that the fair weather months at their disposal and the reserves they command relatively to the enemy are such as to give an indisputable result. Unless a decisive final blow can be struck it is better to develop our superior resources wherever inequality of the fighting line may be. The resources behind the fighting line are enormously in favour of the Allies, and it is better to develop those resources patiently until the moment comes when a decisive blow can be struck. In any case, if a policy is to be adopted, let the end be fully studied and let us be sure that who do not embark upon it unless we can carry it through to a result which will be achieved proportionate to all our sacrifices. In any case it seems to me it would be very foolish not to make our preparations now for the campaign of 1918. Success may come, success will come, but we have no right now to count upon events turning decisively and immediately in our favour. We have no right to build on that assumption, and now I say to the Government and the able representatives of the War Office who are here to answer for the Department, where are you going to get the preponderance you need in 1918? There is no large preponderance now. I do not believe you will get from this country alone, even if you ruin its agricultural and maritime interests, that preponderance which is needed to cope with the kind of warfare which is now going on.
    We must avail ourselves of manœuvres which involve risk. We must avail ourselves of mechanical aids which require intense exertion of thought. We must

    99
    also avail ourselves of the native resources of the Empire and of the population resources wherever they can be found for the infinitely varied tasks which are open, and on which we can lay claim. We must use all these methods simultaneously and to the highest pitch if we are to avoid next year the same outlook as that which confronts us to-day. I said last year to the Indian Secretary, "Do it now." I say again to the Government, who are making great exertions and who are doing a great deal and who naturally feel the weight and burden of the difficulties with which they are confronted, you must begin now with your preparations to obtain a preponderance in 1918. You must use the manhood of the whole world; men of every race and clime must serve behind the lines, and where possible within the lines, according to their quality, not in tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands must be brought in. In this way alone can you free your offensive divisions for that period of rest and change which is vital to them if they are to be able to conquer.
    You must make all your Armies play their part in holding enemy forces on their fronts. With regard to the Salonika Army I have heard it said that the Germans describe that as their best internment camp. There may be some truth in that, but it is well to remember that it takes an array of a quarter of a million to guard that internment camp. Every employment of force must be scrutinised by the proportion of the enemy which it is holding at a given time on their front. Then you must utilise machinery at its highest form. It would be a fatal thing to reduce our output of machinery and weapons by taking the skilled men who are working with our Army and sending them off to work in the trenches. But the skilled production of weapons of war must proceed at its very height. All these devices which multiply the powers of the human arm and save human life must be studied and adopted. Then you must look boldly for new fields and new methods of manœuvre. The Armies and foreign policy must go together on that question. We can make a certainty of 1918. You can get no results in this War short of eight or nine months or very likely twelve months, but you can get great results after such a period of time, and we can make a certainty in 1918. There is still time for
    100
    that. Do not let us always be behind the march of events. We are doing in 1917 what we ought to have done in 1916 and even in 1915. Do not let it be said when 1918 arrives that we find ourselves in agreement at last with all those measures which it would have been proper to have taken in 1917.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel YATE: I cannot attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman in all the subjects he has dwelt upon in the great address he has given us. I must say when he talked of man-power I found myself so much in accord with some of the points he made in regard to it, that I could not help wishing I could have heard him speak with, as much vigour on the subject in bygone years when he was in the Government as he has spoken now that he is out of the Government. With regard to man-power, it is the vital question before us at the moment. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we must make use of all the man-power in our Overseas possessions, wherever they are. I should like to refer to the different sources from which we can draw. There is one source nearest home which has not been drawn on adequately at all. In the papers the other day we saw it reported that the Military Service Act had been applied to the Channel Islands. Is there any reason in the world why the Act should not be equally applied to the Crown Colonies in the Mediterranean? I refer especially to Malta and Cyprus. If we look at the population of these places, we find that there is a civil population in Gibraltar of nearly 20,000. in Malta of 228,000, in Cyprus of 294.000.
    We have raised here in England an Army of 5,000,000 out of a population of 45,000,000 at the outside, or not including Ireland, 40,000,000. That is one in eight of the population. Now, supposing the Act applied to the Crown Colonies in the Mediterranean, and we took one in ten of the population, we should have a force at our disposal of no less than 54,000 men. That is the Mediterranean alone. In Malta, with a population of 228,000, if we called out one in ten of the population we-should have a force at our disposal of 22,800 men. Malta has local Militia and local Artillery; Militia Infantry and Militia Artillery. I would give those in Malta who wish to volunteer for military service every chance to do so, but all the remainder might be formed into labour battalions, and brought over to do their

    101
    share in France or wherever required to relieve the British labour battalions now working there for service at home where labour is so much in request. Cyprus, with a population of 294,000, would give us a force of 29,000. There has been an increase in the population of 20,000 since the census of 1911—a most remarkable increase. Of those 294,000, 56.000 axe Mahomedans; there is no reason why we should not raise Mahomedan troops or labour battalions in Cyprus any more than in Egypt or in India, but if you raise Mahomedan troops you must take care that they have not to fight against Turkey.
    Turning to Egypt, I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, although we cannot introduce the Military Service Act in Egypt, we could not call upon Egypt to protect its own frontiers? We see an enormous number of British troops, mostly Yeomanry, held up defending the western oases of Egypt against the attack of the Senoussis. I ask him whether he does not think the time has come when Egypt should raise its own troops, and should be in honour bound to garrison the western oases of its own country? This would permit of the British troops which are held up there being brought back for service elsewhere. Then, again, the canal is an international concern. We have to garrison it, but has not the time come when the canal might be garrisoned and defended by troops from India? In India the Military Defence Act has just been brought into force, and orders have been given for making service for Europeans compulsory; also to raise an Indian force for internal garrison duty. That measure ought to have been taken two years ago, but we only trust it will be pushed through now with all possible speed. I ask whether arrangements could not be made for local defence battalions to be raised in India which should free regular Indian troops required for Egypt, Mesopotamia or East Africa. I am delighted to see that the question of raising irregular troops in India for local defence has at last been brought to fruition, and I hope they will be raised and trained with the utmost expedition? possible. India did magnificently in the early stages of the war. She sent us a splendid body of 70,000 troops in the autumn of 1914, just when we were in most want of men, before we had had time to organise
    102
    our New Armies. Those Indian troops did heroic service for us all through the winter of 1914–15. What those men went through we never knew. I remember an officer who saw the Sikhs in the trenches speaking of their feet as being so swollen that they could hardly bear the weight of their bodies upon them; they could hardly crawl. As to the Ghurkas, an officer told me it required two men to pull out each of the men in the trenches who were standing in mud almost up to their waists. These Indians can stand heat and they can stand cold, but they cannot stand cold and wet combined. Yet they stuck it in the trenches in a way that the Empire ought to be grateful for.
    As regards Africa, I desire to support what was said by the hon. Member for East Dorset, who told us on Thursday last of the number of African Labour Battalions employed in France. He told us that five times the number could be easily obtained, and why should not these men be enrolled and brought over to France and the other theatres of war, so as to relieve the British Labour Battalions now employed there, and permit them to return home, where labour in every industry is so much in demand? I see no reason either why a brigade or even a division, of South Africans should not be enlisted in South Africa and sent over to India to be armed, drilled, and disciplined, and used for internal defence, or service in Mesopotamia, as required. The experiment might well be tried. We want men, and what I do ask is that a real attempt should now be made by the Government to organise the man-power of the Empire, not only the man-power of the British Isles, but the man-power overseas.
    I should like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for War for the statement which he gave us about the volunteers the other day. He told us they were going to supply them with overcoats and were going to pay their fares for musketry and training work. Both of these will be welcomed by the Volunteer Force, on whose behalf I thank him for the concession, which I hope will be given at once. Once they have rifles the volunteers will feel that they can be of real use. He also said that he was appointing adjutants to act as county adjutants and group adjutants. I am not quite sure of the difference between the two, but the colonel commanding battalions of county regiments must have some other officer with

    103
    him to help him to do his work. I ask him if he will give to the County Commandant a Staff officer, otherwise it would be difficult for him to get through his work if he has the whole county to look after. The Financial Secretary told us the other day the steps we are taking to provide maintenance allowances for the families of married officers below the rank of major in cases of necessity. I ask him to see to it carefully that the rules regarding these cases of necessity are very widely drawn. These cases of necessity are not only numerous, but also heartrending. I have a letter which arrived this morning. Here is an officer appointed for Home service at the beginning of the War, and I know he has done excellent service. He writes me:
    "All my pay has been stopped as I have been ill for over three months. We are utterly penniless, as I have no private means. I have applied to the Prince of Wales' Fund, but that does not apply to officers. I have written to the Officers' Families Fund, but have had no reply."
    He has now been sent from hospital to his home, where his wife is devotedly nursing him. He writes:
    "I hope to be on crutches next week, but I shall not be fit for work for another two months. I have not 10s. left in the world. If I am unable to get temporary help our home will be sold; that will be the end of everything."
    These cases are continually arising. I do not know whether this officer has any children, but he is married, and he is penniless through an accident, having broken his leg. I trust that the maintenance of junior officers will be taken into consideration.
    Sir H. DALZ1EL: I think it will be generally agreed that the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) has raised an issue this afternoon of very great importance. I think the occasion is one which might well have called for a declaration of importance on the part of His Majesty's Government in regard to the future of our policy in Salonika and elsewhere. The appearance of the Committee this afternoon suggests that even the House itself does not realise the important issue that is under consideration at the present time. Slowly we are getting light upon the real military situation, far too slowly, and a great deal too late. But I think in a very short time the people of this country are likely to realise the seriousness of the present position much more than they have done at any previous time of the War. That is largely due to
    104
    the Government, the late Government particularly, in regard to the general management of the War. Take the position in regard to Salonika, which has been raised. We have not yet had up to the present moment any full complete statement of policy on the part of either the late Government or the present one. I do say that the time has gone by when private Members of this House can sit in silence and have denied to them the most elementary facts in regard to the military position. I do not know who is going to reply this afternoon. I imagine and anticipate it will be the Under-Secretary for War, than whom there is no more popular Under-Secretary or even Member of the House, or no one more able to deal with the situation. But with great respect to him, the issue this afternoon is one that ought to be replied to by a member of the War Cabinet. The War Cabinet, and the War Cabinet only, are in the position to give information to this House, which this House is entitled to have, before it allows this Vote to pass. And I do beg of this Government that they will not follow the precedent that was set them by the late one, and try to treat the House of Commons with absolute contempt in regard to the vital issues of this War. We are entitled to have a Cabinet Minister to reply to a question which is of great Cabinet importance, because it is a member of the Cabinet who alone can know the various changes which are going on from day to day in regard to the situation at Salonika and elsewhere, and who alone is entitled to speak as to the military policy of the future and in its wider and more important aspects. Therefore, I regret that the Government have not thought fit to have a Cabinet Minister to reply in the first place to the very able speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, which called for reply, and to the subsequent speeches which will no doubt be made in this Debate.
    There has been a good deal of mystery about Salonika, so far as the House of Commons is concerned. Does the House of Commons know the number of casualties there? We have had no very frequent communications in the Press or elsewhere as regards what is going on to-day, and it is practically a barred zone, so far as military information is concerned. That ought not to be. I hold in my hand a secret communication which is sent to practically every important newspaper in the country. It gives minute details of the

    105
    state of things in the different positions on our military front. I do not know why that has been issued. It cannot be used, and I think information which is given to ordinary journals ought to be given to every Member of the House of Commons. It will not do to tell me that hon. Members can go to the War Office and there seethe military position. I believe they are allowed to see it with an official standing over them, and they are not allowed to take notes. My hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) need not shake his head, for Members have told me that that is the process gone through. I do plead that any information which is given practically broadcast to the newspapers of the country ought to be available to every Member of the House of Commons, or otherwise stop the communications that have been sent, because they ought not in my opinion to be in a more privileged position than the Members. What information have we had from Salonika during this year? Very little indeed. The expedition itself has never been fully justified to this House.
    Take the kind of view which the Government have taken, and which I much regret, with regard to the character of the information that is being supplied to the people of this country in regard to Salonika. I saw with amazement the other day an official photograph sent to the newspapers to publish. Was that a photograph of our Army in Salonika? Nothing of the kind; but a photograph of the graves of our British men who had died in Salonika—an official photograph taken for the Government and issued by the Government. So, therefore, what we get is the photograph of the graves of our brave men. I say that that in itself ought not to be published. I calculated the number of tombstones according to the space of the photograph, and, as far as I can see there is no fewer there than from 15,000 to 20,000 men. When you issue the tombstones I want you to tell me what is the purpose of doing so, and when we are getting any other information. We all know that the graveyards do not show the losses we have had in that part of the country. I have made no calculation from any secret information I have got, but I am prepared to say—and I am only speaking as a guess —that we have lost and had almost as many casualties in that part of the country as we had in the whole of the
    106
    Boer War. My hon. Friend can deny that if it is not so. There is a great mystery, and, so far as we can see, no really great purpose has been served up to the present time.
    I plead, therefore, and I plead earnestly, to the Government to take the House more fully into their confidence and the country more fully into their confidence with regard to these vital questions in the issue of this War. The suggestion has been made today by the right hon. Member for Dundee that we should have a Secret Session to discuss these matters. If we cannot get the information that we ought to have as the representatives of the nation upon the conduct of the War in public, then by all means let us have a Secret Session. There is a great deal too much mystery about a Secret Session. Germany is as well informed in regard to our whole position and its aspects, naval, military, and domestic, as almost any man in this country. That has been proved from time to time. To say that we are going on after two and a half years' war with absolute secrecy with regard to matters which may determine the fate of our country is being asked to give up too much. I, therefore, hope that the Government, as they have been more frank than the previous Government in regard to the naval position, will be utterly frank in regard to the position of man-power and the military position generally. I take the view that the situation is a serious one. I have done my share of criticism since the War started, and I say deliberately, with the facts in my possession, I was never more pessimistic at any moment of the War than I am at this moment. I am not complaining of the present Government. They undoubtedly are doing in many directions everything they can do—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"]—in many directions everything they can do, I think so, in order to win this War. I do not say I agree with them in everything, but I agree with them in the spirit that they are determined to do everything they can within their power. But they have come into a terrible legacy of things waiting to be done, which everyone knows should have been done at least two years ago; and there are some things which time cannot give us the opportunity in order to put right. That is the trouble which the present Government have got. They have to bear a terrible responsibility. They have to face issues during the next I three months that may alter the whole

    107
    political and military situation. I would say to them this—let them take the people of this country into their confidence, and let the people of the country know the situation and let them know how to face; the difficulties that arise. And in that way, and in that way only, can they possibly carry us to victory.
    Mr. DILLON: While I differ from the view held by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) as to the policy of the Salonika Expedition, I desire most thoroughly to support his appeal for some information as to the policy and justification for that expedition, and as to the question, to which I think we are entitled to an answer—Where do we stand to-day? Is that expedition going to be maintained, with the great sacrifices which have been so clearly put forward in the course of this Debate, or is it going to be abandoned? If it is going to be maintained, is it to be treated, in the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, as an internment camp for Germans, or is it to be made an efficient instrument in carrying on the War? The attitude of the Government in this matter is, I venture respectfully to submit, entirely without precedent in the history of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the House of Commons was treated with absolute contempt. I am afraid there is a good deal of foundation for that charge, for a long time—for the last two years—and this particular instance appears to me to be beyond all record, and I have a very long recollection of the House of Commons. On the 20th of February I spoke on this Salonika question in the course of the Debate on the Third Beading of the Appropriation Bill, and I made a series of very, very serious charges, which were given more publicity in the Press than is commonly given to speeches by private Members. They were extremely serious, and I invited the Government to contradict them, if untrue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House, spoke later, but never said one single word in reference to any one of those charges.
    In a sentence or two I will venture to repeat the charges that I made. In the first place I said, and I think I proved, that since the present Government came into office the censorship has been enormously increased in severity, and that it
    108
    had been increased on lines wholly inconsistent with the statements made by the Prime Minister himself, both in this House and when he spoke in Carnarvon the other day, that he was in favour of allowing the people to know all about the War, and not to conceal it under the cloak of mystery, which had been thrown around it in the past, and to know all the adverse circumstances of the War. Instead of that being the case, the censorship has been carried on to an extent during the last two months quite unparalleled in the whole history of this War. I stated in the Debate to which I have referred, that Roumania went into the War under the severe pressure and persuasion by the Allies, and on the distinct faith of an offensive promised by us in Macedonia under the leadership of General Sarrail. I stated that when the hour for that offensive which had been promised to Roumania, and on the faith of which she came into this War, came, that General Sarrail was perfectly unable to give her substantial assistance or to carry on the offensive which we had pledged ourselves to give. The right hon. Member for Dundee spoke about honour. He said, that this question of the Salonika Expedition was a tangled question, and that considerations of political and national honour are bound up in it, as well as considerations of military tactics. I quite agree, but what about our honour and Roumania? What has become of that? If I am met in making these statements by the plea, as I have been met before, that there is no use in going back on these matters, I wholly deny that. If we had any grounds for believing that the same blunders will not be committed in the future as have been committed from the very beginning of the Balkan troubles, then I admit there would be a great deal to be said for the contention that there is no use in going back on discussions of what occurred in the past. What ground have we for believing that the same controllers of policy who landed us into all these blunders in the past and who have brought about the; state of disaster which to-day exists in the Balkans will now turn over a new chapter and adopt a wise policy? The Prime Minister himself, in the very first speech he delivered as Prime Minister of England, declared that the Balkan situation was the result of a series of blunders and that it was a muddle from beginning to end. Then he asked
    "What is the use of going back?"

    109
    The Prime Minister may have had his own views. I dare say he had. It is rumoured that he was always in favour of making the expedition to Salonika a reality and of redeeming our pledges to Roumania. But he belonged to the Government. So did the present Leader of the House, and many members of the present Government belonged to the same Government who, according to the present Prime Minister, had up to this very hour passed from one blunder to another until the whole situation in the Balkans had been reduced to chaos. Therefore I re-echo what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, that the House of Commons will be false to its duty and to the country, and would deserve to some extent the contempt continually poured upon them in the popular Press of this country now, if they allow this question to go by without some demand for further information. I put the question clearly, and I hope the Government will be able to tell us the answer: Is it or is it not a fact that we pressed Roumania to come into this War, and that we gave her distinct pledges on the condition that she came into the War which we were unable to redeem? Is it a fact that General Sarrail, for months and months before Roumania came into the War, had told his own Government and our Government that, owing to the way in which he had been treated and his expedition had been served, he was not in a position to make an effective diversion in Macedonia? These are categorical questions, and I assert, according to my information, that this is a correct description of what occurred.
    Since I spoke the other day a fact has come to my knowledge and a document has fallen into my hands which support enormously the strength of the case I then made. First, I have been assured, on what I conceive to be excellent authority, that the generals in command of Russian Armies on the Roumanian frontier warned their Government and our Government of the fatal results that would follow if Roumania came in, and that General Brussilov and all the great tacticians of Russia were opposed to the entry of Roumania into the War. If that was so, they being on the spot and having told our Government and the Russian Government that they were acquainted with the character of the Roumanian troops and their equipment and the character of the great disaster which would happen if Roumania came in, that they were op-
    110
    posed to it, and that it would interfere with their plans, which at that moment they were carrying out with great success—who overruled them? We are entitled to know if that statement, which is made on very good authority, is a fact. Here is another very remarkable and most interesting document. This is a private letter which has been published in three leading German newspapers and published broadcast over Germany. It has been handed to me by a friend who cut it from one of these newspapers. I am not in a position to say whether or not it is an authentic document. If it is not an authentic document, it ought immediately to be repudiated and contradicted, because it has obtained publicity over the whole of Europe. If it is an authentic document, Lord Hardinge ought to quit the Foreign Office at once. Here is the document. Remember that this has been published broadcast all over the world and is only unknown to us in England:
    "Foreign Office, 21st July, 1916—"
    That was the very time when the great advance was going on in France, and when the question of Roumania coming in was in the balance—
    "My clear George,—"
    "George," I understand, is Sir George Buchanan, our Ambassador at Petrograd.
    "My dear George,—Your private telegram of this morning announcing the retirement of Sasonoff is decidedly depressing. It is very unfortunate that at a moment like this a change should be brought about, especially during the progress of the negotiations with reference to Roumania coining into the War—negotiations which will probably have a satsfactory result. It is astonishing what an evil role is always being played by these Russian reactionaries. I am glad you sent your telegram to the Czar, and hope that it may prove effective. Benckendorff seems at present to be very depressed on account of the difficulties which he experiences in his financial arrangements with McKenna. There is a real bother about money which he wants to get from us in order to maintain the rouble exchange. McKenna, like all financial people, is narrow-minded and pedantic, and asserts that the rouble exchange is a question which docs not concern the War. His opinion is a false one. It is possible that we may have to intervene in order to convince him in case no agreement is reached. The negotiations with Roumania appear to proceed satisfactorily, but I shall not be convinced of their success until I see Roumania's declaration of war; for Bratiano is one of the most evasive fellows, and always has been. Even at this moment ho is endeavouring to wriggle out on the alleged pretext that our offensive at Salonika is not everything which he desires."
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: Signed by whom?
    Mr. DILLON: Signed by Lord Hardinge—that is to say, I have told the history of this document, which is published in the three great German news-

    111
    papers, and, I assume, has been seen by some of our Ministers. The letter continues:
    "Yet he must recognise that Roumania will not obtain the enormous tracts of territory for which she is striving as long as she does nothing to secure these. I still hope that everything will go well within the next few days. Everything is going well in Flanders; we have masses of men and munitions, and by all accounts the Germans are suffering very heavy losses."
    If it be true—I do not say whether it is true or not, because I am not in a position to say so, although it looks rather like it—that Lord Hardinge wrote to Sir George Buchanan that private letter, it gives a most appalling idea of the operations of our Foreign Office on this occasion.
    Mr. KING: And the War Office!
    Mr. DILLON: The War Office may have been acting in concert. The next charge I made was that the weakness of General Sarrail, which made it impossible for him to give that support to Roumania by a counter-offensive which apparently we had promised and pledged our honour to give, was due to the activities or the want of activity on the part of the War Office and that they had carried on—I repeat it now —from the day on which the French General came over and addressed the British Cabinet, a boycott which deliberately starved, obstructed, and crippled General Sarrail's forces, and that General Sarrail has sent in, placed on record, and carefully preserved, the successive detailed protests which he forwarded to this country and to France against the way in which he was being treated which made it impossible for him to take the offensive, He had no proper roads. I had that myself from an officer who rode along the entire front of our lines early in the month of May last. I asked him when the advance was going to take place in Salonika and he said:
    "My dear Mr. Dillon,—There is going to be no advance. There are no railroads, no roads, and the country is of such a character that it is utterly impossible to bring up any kind of gun except on the back of a mule. The mule paths are very bad, and a very small force can hold the whole Salonika Forces. There is not the smallest notion of an advance."

    That is the situation. The point I want to make clear is that I charge the Government—they ought to clear themselves from the charge—that knowing all that and having brought about that condition of things deliberately, or rather the War Office having brought it about deliberately, they then brought pressure to bear on Roumania to come in, and promised,
    112
    making it a condition of their coming in, that they would make an effective offensive in Macedonia, when they knew perfectly well that no such offensive could be made. I come to the next point in my charge, which is that last autumn, when my friend, Dr. Dillon, wrote a series of telegrams and letters warning this country of the condition of things in Salonika and of the condition of General Sarrail's Army, all those telegrams and letters were heavily censored or suppressed. There was one in particular which ought to have reached this country before Roumania came in. In that telegram he explained the position in Salonika and said there could not be any effective offensive and that Roumania ought not to come in. He drew attention to the disasters that followed. All these telegrams and letters are censored. During that very same time Colonel Repington, the "Times," the "Daily Mail," and the "Morning Post" were encouraged or allowed to go on writing about the Macedonian situation or the Roumanian situation to delude the people of this country and to persuade them by false statements and by misrepresentations as to the truth of the situation that all would go well in Roumania, and, as the Committee will remember, to work up such a public opinion in this country that the public were excited and delighted when they heard that Roumania had come in. That is a use of the censorship which is simply infamous. To suppress a man who is telling you the truth if it is unpleasant, to encourage and give every scope to men who are telling falsehoods, and to set the whole of the country into a fool's paradise is a perfectly monstrous thing. The Government are bound to give an explanation of on what principle or for what purpose they allowed such a use to be made of the censorship. When the Roumanians came in that process was continued to an even greater degree. We all remember what happened after the War broke out. The Roumanians, misled, as I believe, by the promise which I assume we had given of a powerful offensive from Salonika, and misled also by the statement made by our Foreign Office that unless they took possession of Transylvania and the other districts which they looked to obtain they would not get them, poured the whole of their arms across the Carpathian Mountains and seized upon a portion of Transylvania. This country was nursed in a perfect fool's paradise by magnificent

    113
    statistics in the "Times," "Morning Post," and other newspapers, of the overwhelming onset of Roumania and the disaster and smash of the German and Austrian armies, until the public, I believe, thought we were on the eve of the conclusion of the War. At that very moment Dr. Dillon was writing letter after letter to newspapers here and sending telegrams warning the public of England that they were in a fool's paradise, and that to his own knowledge great German armies were being collected which would fall upon the Roumanians before long. They were all suppressed by the Censor, whereas Colonel Repington, who was the prophet, the accepted military expert and instructor of England, was allowed to have his optimistic letters printed in the "Times," describing the tremendous onset of the victorious Roumanians. In doing this they left their southern frontier wholly unprotected, with practically only small guards, and to their horror and surprise—and it was a surprise —the Bulgarians attacked them. So outrageous was the conduct on the part of these gentlemen, who call themselves Westerners, and who have conspired all along to destroy the Salonika Expedition and make it worthless, that when the Bulgarians fell in force upon the rear of Roumania, overran the Dobrudja, and seized Costanza and the great bridge across the Danube, what did I read in Colonel Repington's letter? He says in one of his dispatches in the "Times":
    "The Dobrudja which the King of Roumania has always attached for too great tactical importance to, but which the Roumanian generals consider to be a matter of very little consequence, has been overrun by the Bulgarians. But that will make very little difference to the result of the War."
    I myself do not pretend in the least to be a military expert, but I do pretend to some slight common sense, and I must say some military men are not always infallible even when they occupy the position of military critic of the "Times," and having this information at my disposal from private sources I raised this whole question on 15th October in the House of Commons and I expressed the opinion that the situation was much more serious than the "Times" allowed. Then, to my amazement, Colonel Repington honoured me with a special reply. Here is what he said:
    "Circumstances, as Mr. Dillon himself recognises, do not allow us to enter into details for the moment, but I believe it to be true that at Salonika, as on the Somme and on the Russian front, the conditions laid down by Roumania"—
    114
    Observe that he knew and he knows all the secret transactions of the War Office. He has their sympathies and he knows that Roumania had laid down conditions—
    "I believe that the conditions laid down by Roumania before she took the field were fulfilled by the Allies, and continue to be fulfilled to the present hour."
    I believe that to be an absolute falsehood, and I am confirmed in that belief now, and yet the censorship never interfered with them, and the "Times" and the "Morning Post" went cheerfully on declaring that the Roumanian danger was not a serious danger at all. Here in the "Times," Colonel Repington again declares:
    "Possibly the bulk of these reinforcements are Turkish.…The Dobrudja is a separate and not a vital theatre which the Roumanians can afford to lose without great hurt."
    It did not require a military expert to-know that that was humbug and false and it was cruel, because the moment the Dobrudja went and the Costanza and the bridge across the Danube, the cause of Roumania was lost. That fraud was kept up deliberately for six weeks until Bucharest fell. These learned military critics, who treat us poor outside ignorant laymen with such scorn, contended that all would be set right and that the whole fortunes of the War in Roumania would be set right. I said then that if we allowed Roumania to be overrun we should undoubtedly prolong this War to a terrible extent, and I was denounced by all these military critics as, in the first place, an ignoramus, which I admit I am in military matters, but also as a pessimist who took too gloomy a view. What happened? Bucharest fell, and I believe it has added a year to the duration of the War, for I am as convinced as I am of anything under the sun that if we had kept our pledges to Roumania, or kept Roumania out of the War, who should be close upon the end of the War at this moment. It was the fall of Bucharest, and the consequent impulse given to the Germans by the conquest of Roumania—the first great resounding victory they had had since their defeat in France—that enabled them to raise their population up again to face the continuation of the War. I have here an article by the military correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian." I do not know his name, but I judge that he is a military officer of a friendly neutral Power. I judge these military gentlemen, being unable to judge them from military knowledge myself, by results. Colonel

    115
    Maude used to bring the War to a conclusion every week. He did well for a time, but he has disappeared now, and has lost all his occupation. Colonel Repington, of the "Times," stands condemned by results on this Roumanian question. Here is what this gentleman says in the "Manchester Guardian" on 26th October, at a time when Repington and company were declaring that all was going well:
    "The situation in the Balkans is very serious. If Roumania is overrun the great fortress of the Central Empires will gain in strength, both strategically and economically. The increased food supplies will enable Germany to hold out longer—"
    So they will, of course.
    "She will build more submarines and more Zeppelins. She may resort to new methods of warfare."
    Is not that prophecy fully borne out by what has happened? Since Bucharest fell and since Roumania was overrun she has built more Zeppelins and more submarines and has resorted to new methods of warfare. She has dared great additional risks, because she was able to encourage and lift up the spirit of the people by the conquest of Roumania and of Bucharest. The writer goes on to show that the French and the Russians are not in a position to give more men, and that
    "It is therefore to Great Britain that the Allies must look for the immediate reinforcement of the forces of General Sarrail, which would enable him to make an energetic attempt towards Adrianople and the railway to Constantnople, thereby not only cutting the communication with Turkey, but also diverting some of the enemy's troops from Roumania."
    He goes on to say that, in his judgment, that is not a side theatre, but one of the most important theatres of the War, and if the Allies do not take steps accordingly they will live to repent it. I pin my faith to that. It has turned out to be accurate. Bucharest fell. There cannot be the slightest doubt to anyone who is as close an observer as I am of the proceedings and the temper of this House that it was Bucharest and Roumania that gave the finishing stroke to the late Government. That being so, I think we are entitled to demand and, to keep demanding until we get some satisfaction, not from the Under-Secretary for War, whom we all like and who is a most efficient Under-Secretary, but he is not in the Cabinet, what is the policy of the Government in this matter?
    Tied up closely with Roumania is the question of Greece. Last month, when I was discussing this matter, I said that according to my information the state-
    116
    ments spread broadcast in the "Times" and elsewhere that the Greek situation had been cleared up and satisfactorily settled by the Roman Conference were utterly without foundation, and all the information I have received since bears that out. The Greek situation is not cleared up, and, as far as my information goes, it is just as it was and full of danger. In fact, if I am to believe a telegram which has been placed in my hands to-day, and which has been denied publication in Paris, coming from the Venizelists in Salonika, begging that the people of this country would open their eyes to the terrible situation in Greece—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A passing general reference is permissible, but the question of Greece, I think, is well beyond the scope of this Vote.
    Mr. DILLON: Surely a question which vitally and perhaps urgently affects the safely of our soldiers in Salonika—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that any questions he addresses on that subject at Question Time are always addressed to the Foreign Secretary and replied to by him. It is outside the scope of the Vote. The Roumanian question, of course, is well within it.
    Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that no censorship on news is now exercised by the Foreign Office, but, on the other hand, a very strict censorship on all news is exercised by the War Office, and if it is a question of the censorship of Greek news, is it not more to be debated on the Army Vote than on the Foreign Office Vote?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the censorship is exercised, but I know that questions of policy in regard to Greece are outside the scope of this Vote.
    Mr. DILLON: I will reserve that for another opportunity. I will content myself now with saying that according to my information, and I think it is good information, the position of our troops in Salonika is still one of great danger, and the situation with regard to the men who have gallantly joined our troops, the Venizelists, is worse than ever, and they are at the mercy of a camarilla paid by Germany, which is an abominable state of affairs. I would again ask the Government, and I think we are entitled to press for an answer, what are the

    117
    principles on which the censorship is conducted in this county? I am entitled to say—can I not truthfully say, after what I have read?—that the censorship is conducted now in this country on these lines, that certain newspapers which write on lines acceptable to the Government get full scope, no matter how false their information is, and if it be false it must be known to the Government that it is false, while other newspapers which tell unpleasant truths are shut up and censored and compelled to be silent. I think that is an abominable condition of things, and it is idle for Ministers to come here or go to the country and say they are in favour of letting us know all about the War. As long as that system is in force they are not in favour of letting us know all about the War, but they are trying to make the public of this country live in a fool's paradise.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the Committee will find it convenient if I intervene at this point to answer some of the arguments which have been raised in the Debate. I think the Debate divided itself very conveniently into two parts. The last part, which was the more important, dealt more with questions of Colonial, foreign and home policy, and very little with matters which concern the War Office. The first part of the Debate dealt with purely administrative points, mostly small points, the largest of which dealt with agriculture. I propose to take the last part first. This House is accustomed to speeches from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and as an old Friend I should like to congratulate him. I will do him the credit to say that he was the first to raise these matters in this House. I have heard his arguments before on this subject, and I must say he has put them to-night most cogently. Probably the excellence of his speech may account for the brilliance, if I may respectfully say so, of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). Everybody who has spoken on this part of the Debate made it perfectly clear that although they would like to hear me I was not the person to answer these questions of high policy. I think they are right. This question has been raised on the Shipping Controller's Vote, and it has been raised on at least three or four occasions. It was raised in a special Debate set apart, if I remember rightly, and I think it would
    118
    not become me, even if I were able, to reply to the various arguments which have been adduced in regard to this subject.
    Mr. ROCH: Is anybody going to reply?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to emphasise one point. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark dealt, as I said, with this question of high policy, and he was immediately followed by the right hon. Member for Dundee, who, in the first part of his speech, made an appeal for a Secret Session. I must say that I agree with him. I think that questions of that sort ought not to be discussed on the floor of this House except when Parliament is meeting in Secret Session.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is that the view of the Government?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend that. I rather fancy it may be. If it is the intention of my right hon. Friends and hon. Members who have spoken to press this subject, if no reply is given on this particular point, I venture to think that it may come to this—that if the Government is pressed to give their view on this question of high policy and strategy, it may very likely be given in Secret Session. Of course, I am not the Leader of the House nor of the Government, and consequently I cannot say. The right hon. Member for Dundee said that I could not reply to this because I was not possessed of Cabinet knowledge, and that the question was one of the utmost complexity and delicacy. I think I ought to leave this question of high policy as my right hon. Friend says. Coming to the question of man-power which my right, hon. Friend raised, he put forward only one specific case of the abuse of manpower. He referred to the use of Cavalry at the front. As he knows very well, nobody knew what forces at the beginning of the War would be most used. Cavalry, it is true, have not been much used, but they have the barest minimum of men looking after them behind the lines. If we were to take them to this country the question of transport would be almost insuperable. We had not at any time sufficient transport to effect this. To show that we are alive to the proper view and the proper estimate of Cavalry, I may point out, as my right hon. Friend knows, that all the Yeomanry that we had in this country who have gone to the front have gone without horses. I must say this for the Cavalry, who are attached

    119
    to their own particular branch of the profession and their own traditions, that the loyalty and gallantry of these men whenever they were asked to leave their own regiments and their own horses and go into the muddy trenches is one of the finest things that has happened in the course of the War.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out how he had, a year ago, emphasised the need for this country to use the man-power not only of this country, but throughout the Empire. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend did me the honour to read the short reply I made to some observations by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset (Captain Guest) on Thursday. I then pointed out what we had done in this respect, and how we were utilising native forces all over the country. I pointed out that in France at the present time we had very fine battalions of native troops, who were comfortably housed and well looked after and were doing excellent work. I understand that we are not only hoping to keep these men usefully employed in the various theatres of war, but we are to have an enormous increase from all parts of the Empire from our native resources. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton Mowbray (Colonel Yate) also emphasised that point. He raised a further question with which it would be rather delicate and difficult for me to deal, which is largely a Foreign Office question, and that is as to how we could use native Egyptian troops for defensive purposes in Egypt. He also raised the question of the utilisation of the native resources of our Crown Colonies in the Mediterranean. I think that is a very difficult question, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will bring it before the Army Council and the Colonial Office, whenever I have the opportunity. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) rightly emphasised the desire of the House to know what is happening in the East. There is one observation to which I think I ought to reply at once. He rather suggested that we should have a continuance of the meetings between the Secretary of State for War and the Members of this House upstairs, if we do not have a Secret Session I know that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War is only too anxious to meet Members, not only of the different groups in the House, but all Members of this House, at any time when they feel
    120
    they would like to have more distinct information than it is possible to give within the limits of a question and answer in this House, or within the limits even of debate. The last speaker on this branch of the Debate was the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He has raised this subject a great many times, and I hope he will forgive me for saying that he knows that particular branch of foreign policy as well as any hon. Member of this House. I regret very much the action he took in reading a letter from Lord Hardinge to Sir George Buchanan.
    HON. MEMBERS: An alleged letter.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so. I think that any Member of the Irish party ought to read a letter like that with great hesitation. I am not quite sure as to the genuineness of the letter; but in any case it was a private letter, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he had the permission of Lord Hardinge to read that letter?
    Mr. CONDON: Has not the letter been published broadcast throughout the world?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand it was not published in the Press of this country. I am quite certain that even if it was published abroad, and whether the letter be genuine or not, it was never published in this country. Accordingly, I should have hesitated long before reading that letter, and I should first of all have inquired whether the letter was genuine before I read it to the House of Commons. Now I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for South Moulton (Mr. G. Lambert), who was very anxious about the question of agriculture. I think I explained in the speech I made the other day, and the Secretary of State for War made similar references to agriculture in another place, that whatever it is possible for us to do, consistent of course with the efficiency of the Army, we should be prepared to do for agriculture. My right hon. Friend is one of those who regards the tribunals as a military body. As a matter of fact the tribunals are nothing of the kind. They were created in order to stem the tide, as was then thought, of the Prussianising influence in the British Army. They were created as civil tribunals to decide questions of fact between the civilian element and the military, and to introduce prejudice by calling them military tribunals is not fair either to the tribunals or to the War Office. What is the position? If you want a

    121
    thing well done locally you appoint a man by the common-sense selection of the people, by vote or otherwise, to look after local interests. These men have been appointed in order to safeguard the interests of the community, the interests of agriculture, and the interests of other industries. We appointed these men because they were known to be men of public note and public value in that particular part of the community. Not only is that so in regard to the local tribunals, but also in regard to the appeal tribunals; and when my right hon. Friend comes forward and blames the War Office for what he regards as the stiffneckedness of the tribunals, I think it is unfair, and he ought to blame somebody else.
    He also said that we were taking away from agriculture 30,000 men. As a matter of fact we are not taking 30,000 men. We were told that 60,000 men were available. We arranged, not to take these 60,000 men, but to take 30,000 men, and that arrangement was come to at the War Cabinet, which not only looks after the man-power of agriculture, but the man-power of every other industry in the State. We were told that we could get these 30,000 men, and I think we should have been very great fools indeed, particularly on the authority of the War Cabinet, if we did not try to get them. As a matter of fact, the moment that we realised that there was such an outcry on the part of agriculture in the country, we never fulfilled our desire to have these 30,000 men, but we stopped at 10,200, and we are leaving the others for agriculture. In view of these facts, and in view of other efforts we have made quite recently, where we are trying as far as possible to get back from the Army skilled men, such as cowkeepers and ploughmen, and that we have already sent 2,400 of these men to the various districts, I think that my right hon. Friend dealt too hardly with the War Office in ascribing the whole cause of the absence of men to that particular Government Department. He poured ridicule upon the statistics which we produced. He tells us that we published statistics showing that 250,000 men had gone into the Army from agricultural districts. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) at once saw the point. It is not really into the Army; they have gone to munitions as well. Let my hon. Friend go to agricultural districts in the South of Scotland. He will find near there the largest of munition factories, and that every single
    122
    able-bodied man has left the neighbouring farms and gone to munitions, because, as my right hon. Friend realises—and I say it in no offensive way, because he is a farmer, and a very fine farmer—the farmers refused to raise the wages of the men, and consequently, being tempted by wages which could be earned near at hand, naturally they rushed wherever possible, able-bodied men as they were, and boys, too, into the munition factories.
    My right hon. Friend again went on to pour ridicule on my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. He told us that in 1902 my Noble Friend was Financial Secretary to the War Office. He went on to say what did he know about certain things, and referred to a person called Julius Weil. All this was to show that my Noble Friend knew nothing about agriculture. If my right hon. Friend is going to argue like that, the retort is very obvious. He was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and if he laughs at my Noble Friend's agriculture, I am afraid that others might laugh at his Admiralty. His second point was that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office did not deal specifically in his speech with the cases of illness in Mesopotamia and Salonika. So far as Salonika is concerned I do not deal very fully with it, because I had the extreme good fortune of knowing before I started that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Colonel Sir M. Wilson) who himself looks in good health, has told us that the health of the troops was excellent. That seemed to me as good an argument to meet arguments in the Debate as any which I could put forward. My right hon. Friend ended with an appeal to have no more distant expeditions. That, again, is a question of policy which it is not for me to deal with, as my right hon. Friend quite recognises. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Sir Ivor Herbert) put forward a very strong plea, but it is a plea that is an attack upon this country for its lack of organisation in the essential industries not during the War, but long before the War. As I understand it, the whole point of his argument was that we were so unprepared. I do not think that is the fault of the War Office. I think myself that if any Government Department has made preparation, not only in regard to the present position but to the future, the War Office has done so. I think that I am right in saying that from the very beginning we took a long

    123
    view of the matter, and having prepared for the first year of the War we were actually prepared for the second year, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee talks about preparations for 1918 I can assure him that the War Office is continuing that policy, and that, so far as men, munitions, and everything else is concerned we are looking well in front.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: May I remind my lion. Friend of the definite question: What was the cause of the falling-off in the supply of men under the Military Service Acts, and what were the measures which were being taken to remedy it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As my hon. Friend knows, these causes vary from time to time, but I could suggest one or two to him. One was, no doubt, the action of the tribunals in certain places where the tribunals would not send the men into the Army. Then, again, the very best men, the men who were most fit, rushed into the Army in the beginning, and you are coming to the end of your selection In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), it would be a source of delight to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State to meet not only the group of which the hon. Baronet (Sir Ivor Herbert) is chairman, but any of the Members of the House, in a Committee Boom of the House of Commons upstairs, to discuss questions which we cannot ourselves discuss on the floor of this House. In reply to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Sir Ivor Herbert) with regard to recruiting in Ireland. I am one of those who have a very great admiration for the Irish soldiers and for Ireland, and I am convinced of this, that what the Irish Nationalists' party cannot do for recruiting nobody else can do.
    Mr. DILLON: Were not allowed to do!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I know myself two or three hon. Members of the party of the hon. Member for East Mayo who did a great deal to help recruiting after they had shown themselves very gallant soldiers in the trenches in France. My hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Page Croft) asked the War Office to pay-more attention to the method of calling up men and the desirability of giving men, particularly in the industries, a greater amount of notice.
    124
    I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it has been the practice of the War Office to give to the men in the various industries as much time as possible. We have always given a reasonable amount of notice, and I am quite certain that as time goes on, with industries so cramped for men as they are at the present moment, we will do our best to fall in with the wishes of the industry and the people-employed in it. It must be remembered that all those questions are now under the joint review of the Director of National Service and the War Office. My hon. and gallant Friend asks, "Why do you not utilise all the man-power of the country, and not merely that of certain age?" As my hon. and gallant Friend knows very-well, the Director of National Service has now got the opportunity of asking volunteers of all ages to come to his assistance. What the future may be so far as National Service is concerned it is not for me to say, but meanwhile every man between the ages of seventeen and sixty-one has got the opportunity of serving his country.
    His last point was with regard to volunteers. I thought that I made a very full statement on that on Thursday, but I am anxious to make quite clear the point which my hon. and gallant Friend raised. He drew particular attention to the statistics which were given with regard to the number of Territorial officers and new officers who were sent to the Staff College as compared with the number of officers in the Regular Army. I think that his point is a very fair one. I think that the figures may show that at the present time the Regular Army has really got a greater percentage there than the other forces. But we have all got to remember that the Regular officer enters the Army as his profession. It is his bread; he loves his work, as it is his life's work, and he tries to work harder and better than any other man. I have also been asked with regard to the distinction between various adjutants in the volunteers—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton Mowbray (Colonel Yate) asked the same question—which we were going to give the volunteers. I am glad to say that we are going to give them adjutants, among them Regular soldiers who are on sick leave from the front.
    We cannot promise that the adjutant will stay with the Volunteer Forces permanently, but what we have arranged is this: we can guarantee him for six months, and if at the end of that time he

    125
    is well and strong and fit to go on active service, he will be allowed to go back again. As I understand the system, you will have a battalion adjutant, a group adjutant, and county adjutant, a group being a collection of two or three or four battalions. I think that its] equivalent would be a brigade in the ordinary Army. Then the group arjutant would be in the same capacity as a brigade major, a man who would be a right-hand man or the staff captain of the group commandant. I hope that I have made that clear. Then I was asked two specific questions with regard to the nature of the work of the volunteers. That is rather a difficult question of military policy, but my hon. Friend will remember that Lord French, with a very competent staff, is at the head of the volunteers, that the Duke of Connaught also takes a very great interest in the formation of the volunteers, and that Lord French's competent staff will, of course, be the agents of military policy so far as the volunteers are concerned. I have no doubt that a great deal of control will be given to local commandants. As I understand, the volunteers will not be mixed up with the Royal Defence Corps or any other corps of the old Army utilised for Home defence, but will be by itself a single and unique corps, and I am hopeful that very soon Section A will be entirely equipped, and will be a very good fighting unit. I have endeavoured to meet all the points that have been raised in the Debate, but if I am asked to meet any further points raised in the Debate I shall be very happy to do so.
    Mr. HOLT: I am very glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and I hope he will be able to give a large section of the Committee satisfaction on a point on which it has had no satisfaction at all. A very large part of this discussion has been concerned with the expedition to Salonika, and some very important speeches have been made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark, by the right hon. Member for Dundee, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy, and others, and the Under-Secretary of State in reply has told us that he is not in a position to give any answer as regards matters of policy raised in connection with Salonika. That is what most of us knew beforehand, that this expedition is a matter which could only be dealt with by a member of
    126
    the War Cabinet, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now think it fitting: to tell the House whether he proposes, some time during to-day's Debate, to give any answer on the point raised in regard to Salonika. In order to avoid waste of time, I do not want to recapitulate what has been said, but I desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to give an answer to what has been said on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, or whether he prefers a fresh Debate on it on another occasion, or proposes to adopt the suggestion of a Secret Session of the House, so that it may have a full opportunity of debating the whole subject. If the Committee allows this Vote to pass without having either a definite reply from the right hon. Gentleman, or the promise that an opportunity to discuss the subject, with a statement by a member of the War Cabinet, will be afforded in the very near future, then I say that the Committee will be allowing itself to be regarded as absolutely impotent, and will utterly fail in its, duties towards the constituencies in the country. If this House is to have any self-respect amongst the people whom it represents, it must be allowed to get to the bottom of this most important matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he proposes to do, and if he will do that, I shall not attempt to belabour the question at the present moment.
    Sir J. D. REES: There was one important subject to which the Under-Secretary did not reply in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee laid about him with great impartiality, and amongst other things castigated the Government of India. The Under-Secretary did not reply to that. I venture to do so, because it is perfectly regrettable that on a day like this any stricture should be passed on the Government of India. The Secretary of State announced to-day the most generous and courageous action taken by the authorities with regard to India that has happened in my lifetime. Only last week there was announced most generous concessions in favour of British officers in the army of India. The right hon. Gentleman opposite distributed praise and blame without any misgiving. He classified Ministers as workers and shirkers, and he divided mankind into geniuses and asses. I think it really should be considered whether he is justified in taking such a serious line as

    127
    regards the Government of India. He remarked upon their not having sent over to the War a larger number of troops, forgetting that they have not arms, and that there was not transport, and that there is none at the present moment, to send troops from India or from Africa to help us in this great conflict. He said that it was only now that the Government of India had announced a great loan to this country for the War, overlooking the fact that they have expended some £35,000,000 in paying the troops while they were serving out of India. The Government of India have also now raised a loan of £100,000,000 to assist the home Government. In spite of this, my right hon. Friend attacked them with a great deal of asperity, and I am quite unwilling to let the occasion pass without defending them to the best of my ability, especially now that the countervailing duties are going by the board. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State and the Indian Council were forced by public opinion into helping in the War. That is an unfair attitude to take towards the Secretary of State and the Indian Council. He knows that India was not until now financially in a position to enable them to help, but since they have reached that position they are helping. The House will remember that the finances of India have been prejudiced by the sentimental and deplorable action of this House depriving them of the revenue which they got from opium.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not the Indian Budget.
    Sir J. D. REES: I hope you will excuse me, Sir. I only trespassed for one moment, but as the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to attack the Government of India, I am merely defending it. However, I have no intention of going further. I repeat, that on! a day when the action of the authorities towards India has proved to be most generous, I have the utmost objection to any attack being made, which I think will not hold water. I have no intention of dealing with strategic questions. I believe myself that
    "Men serve apprenticeship to every trade,
    Except the critics, who are ready-made."
    Much of the criticism passed to-day upon the authorities with regard to Salonika and other matters, is not, I think, based on actual knowledge or experience, and I shall endeavour to avoid a subject on
    128
    which I feel that I myself have no title to address the House, and in which there has been, I think, that perseverance towards the past which the right hon. Member for Dundee so strongly deprecated. The question which I wish to bring before the House has reference to the tribunals and their action. A gentleman, Mr. C. A. Andrews, who lived at East Sheen was refused exemption by the Mort-lake and Barnes Tribunal on the ground of conscientious objection, and it had never been known before that he w as a conscientious objector. When he became liable for service there was was an appeal to the Surrey Tribunal and the Central Tribunal, who dismissed the appeal. Nevertheless, this man was subsequently exempted on the ground—will the Committee believe?—that he suffered from acute agora-phobia, not amounting to certifiable insanity. Ho had not made complaint of having suffered from agoraphobia, a Greek word meaning a fear of open spaces.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in referring to a decision of a local tribunal, who do not come under this Vote? I respectfully submit that the War Office has no control over the tribunal.
    The CHAIRMAN: I certainly think that this has nothing to do with the War Office or the Army Votes at all. The questions in relation to tribunals do not come under the Army Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: I did not venture to take up the time of the Committee for one moment without asking whether the subject would be in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman did make some remark, I recollect now, but I presume that he is sufficiently acquainted with the Rules to know that questions relating to the tribunals are not matters with which the War Office are concerned.
    Sir J. D. REES: I will postpone the subject. I have persisted in bringing it before the House, and I will go on until I do get it brought forward in some way for consideration. I think it is an extremely bad case, and on another occasion I hope to be in order in bringing it forward. Would I be in order in bringing it forward on the salary of the Secretary of State?
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no action of the War Office in regard to these cases which could be brought forward on this Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: I will refer to the matter on another occasion, for I am anxious to get it before the House, and I will persist until I do so.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I wish to elicit, if I can, from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to respond to the invitation given by the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) to make some reply from the Government upon the question of policy in reference to Salonika. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee urged the House very strongly to discuss these matters of policy, but the Under-Secretary for War, in his reply, deprecated the idea that he was in a position to reply to the various speeches made on that subject. Therefore I think we should have some intimation whether the Government can give us information on this subject now or at some future time; if so, when, and whether by means of a Secret Session or otherwise. My right hon. Friend was not in the House when the Under-Secretary for War intimated that he himself agreed with the idea that this matter should be dealt with at a Secret Session. He was not in a position to say whether the Cabinet shared that view. I do not venture to express any strong opinion when the best time would be for the Government to decide, but I do think that the matter is of such great importance and interest to many Members of the House that it would be very unsatisfactory if the whole of the War Office Votes were to pass away without some opportunity of discussing the matter. For myself I shall be content with saying that I think it would be very undesirable that the idea should get about on this subject that independent Members of the House to any large extent share the views which have been expressed this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton. Those two Members have in very strong terms expressed the opinion that, apart from the difficulties of carrying on the Salonika Expedition, the actual merits of that part of the War have been very much overrated, and they intimated pretty clearly that in their view the expedition ought to be abandoned The right hon. Member for Dundee dealt with the subject in a very judicial speech, and I do not think he intimated any very strong opinion on that point. Of course, on a matter of this sort anyone occupying an independent position must necessarily
    130
    speak with very great care, and I can only touch on the subject with such information as I have gathered from sources open to all the world.
    I differ very strongly indeed from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) with regard to the expedition. I realise, as I am sure we all do, the very great difficulties in carrying on that expedition, both from a military, and from a shipping and transport point of view. But, nevertheless, I am strongly of opinion that the Salonika theatre of war is second to none in importance for gaining the ends for which we are now fighting. I do not believe that any decision which can possibly be reached on the Western front alone can gain for us the objects for which we are fighting. I believe very strongly if we were to defeat the Germans on the Western front with even more decisive effect than I am afraid there is any immediate prospect of our doing, if we did abandon the Salonika Expedition and the Germans were given practically undisputed possession of the Balkan Peninsula, we could by no possibility attain our war aims. The Germans would be glad to make very considerable sacrifices on the French frontier, because they would feel that they had gained so much for which they were fighting in the Eastern theatre of war.
    Even from the military point of view I think the hon. Member for Lanark appears to miss the significance of the expedition. He approached the subject from the point of view of man-power. He spoke of the difficulties which were being caused by taking so many men from agriculture, and he suggested that that might be avoided if the Army were withdrawn from Salonika. I think the hon. Member put the figure of 500,000 as representing the whole of the Allied Army in the Salonika theatre of war. Suppose, for the sake of argument, those 500,000 men were taken away from Salonika to-morrow. What would be the result? They could only be taken away by sea transport, they could only be brought laboriously round to France and landed for use on the Western front. It would involve the use of a tremendous quantity of shipping. The operation would also take up much time, and, seeing that our enemies possess interior lines, the result would be that while they would have an equal number of men now held up by the Salonika Army set free for use elsewhere, long before our

    131
    men could be placed on the Western Front their men would be operating either against Russia or on the French Front. Consequently from the mere point of view of man-power, the abandonment of the Salonika Expedition would be sheer madness.
    Some of the results would be very far-reaching. First, we should be finally abandoning our Allies in the Balkans, and we should be giving up any hope of being able to redeem the pledge given by Lord Grey that we would restore Serbian territory to Serbia and place at their disposal the whole resources of our Empire for that purpose. We should be absolutely giving up any hope of supporting our friends and proteges in Greece, to whom we are under special obligations. We should be enabling Germany to get the whole of the Balkan Peninsula into her own hands, and to use the Grecian Archipelago as a perfect nest for submarines. The Central Powers would become dominant in the whole Eastern Mediterranean. We should endanger our position in Egypt, and we should be giving up all hope of destroying the German idea of dominion from Berlin to Bagdad. The hon. Member for Lanark asked when during the War had the Salonika Expedition ever seriously interfered with the German communications with Constantinople? I agree that so far as we have gone we have not been successful in interfering with those communications. But many of our war aims have not yet been successfully achieved. Still we hope by staying there we shall be able to interrupt those communications, and even cut them permanently, and, at any rate, the presence of our forces at Salonika constitutes a continual menace to those communications. If we were to withdraw them not only would it mean despair to our Allies in that district, but it would give to the Germans a prospect of the permanent retention of their dominion over the Turkish Empire, both in Europe and in Asia. Possession, we are told, is more than nine points of the law, and it seems to me almost inconceivable that we could hope by any victory in the West alone to succeed in driving German dominion from the Turkish Empire in Europe and Asia Minor. Although in one sense a breach in our lines on the Western front might be fraught with infinite disaster and danger to the French and to ourselves, I submit that, from the point of view of achieving
    132
    our War aims, the Salonika theatre of operations is not less important than the Western Front.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) will have quite understood that it was not from any lack of courtesy that I did not at once rise to say a few-words in reply to him. But I have more than once hesitated whether I should say anything upon this subject of the Salonika Expedition. I have hitherto refrained, for the simple reason that I do not feel there is anything it is possible for me to say to the House which would be in the least interesting for the House to hear. This is obviously a question not so much of the past as of the present and of the future, and I think the House must see it is quite impossible for the Government to give any indication at all of what our intentions are in regard to this force. I have heard in the course of a previous Debate an hon. Member ask the simple question, "Is the force at Salonika intended to be offensive or defensive?" I am sure the Germans would like it very much if I were to give an answer to that question, and it is precisely the point upon which it is impossible for me to give any hint or statement. In listening to the speeches I have heard the same line of argument put many times. There is one section of hon. Members who, of course, have more freedom in talking on this subject than I have, who have taken the view that we ought to abandon the Salonika Expedition. There is another set of hon. Members, represented by the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. R. McNeill), who thinks it is one of the vital operations in this War. I am not going into the merits of the expedition, but I wish to point this out to the House: We are engaged in this War with many Allies, and the policy of the War cannot by any possibility be the policy of this Government alone. Therefore, even if we took the view which some hon. Members have expressed that this expedition is useless it does not follow that we could act in any other way than we have acted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) put the case quite clearly when he pointed out that we must act in concert with our Allies. The Allies have taken upon themselves certain obligations which it is necessary for us if we can to fulfil.

    133
    Let me point out what must be obvious: that if by any chance this expedition were withdrawn, the first result would be that the whole of the Balkan Peninsula would fall into the hands of the enemy, and those who have helped us from the beginning would be at the mercy of our enemy. We know precisely how they would treat them. It is quite natural the House should desire to have an opportunity of frankly discussing the subject, but I do not think it possible.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Not in a Secret Session?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be very unwilling to have a Secret Session unless there was a very strong body of opinion in this House which desired it, and I do not think that even in a Secret Session we could discuss this question quite frankly.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did not the French Chamber discuss it in secret?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That I do not know, but I do think it would be very dangerous for us to discuss it. I think my hon. Friend will see what I mean. We could discuss the general line of policy of the Government so far as that policy is directed to the attainment of objects which are quite plain and about which there is no doubt. But we could not possibly discuss the policy if there is any doubt at all as to the use which is going to be made of the force at any particular period of the War. I recognise as strongly as anyone, as I expect my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham recognises, the disadvantages to us of the expedition, and I think my hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. R. McNeill) did not exaggerate the difficulty when he pointed out the tonnage which would be required to bring the troops away. Of course, one of our difficulties arises from the amount of tonnage needed for keeping up the supplies to that force. But I can assure the House that all these considerations are as fully in the minds of the Government as they are in the minds of Members of this House. I am sorry I can say nothing more explicit on this subject, but perhaps I may add it has been one of our difficulties that the Allies who are interested in Greece and in the Balkan Peninsula have not always taken the same view as to the policy which ought to be adopted. But I do believe that now we are carrying out a common policy and the main
    134
    object of that policy for the moment is to make sure that if our German enemy chooses to advance against us there we shall not run the risk we would have run a few months ago of being attacked from behind. That is a great gain. There has been some discussion about Roumania. Some observations were made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) who I am sorry is not now here. But it is really impossible for me to deal with the subject which he has raised. I was told he said that Russia was against Roumania coming in.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think he said it was the Russian General Broussiloff who was against it and not the Russian Government.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All I am prepared to say in regard to Roumania is that no threat of any kind was used towards Roumania to induce her to come in, and, although her coming in has proved so disastrous to her and has inflicted losses upon Roumania which the Allies would have done anything to prevent, I do not think that in itself prevents the Allies welcoming the assistance of Roumania. I hope the House will agree with me this is not a subject upon which any member of the Government should talk and will therefore excuse me from saying more.
    Mr. KING: May I ask whether the letter which has been attributed to Lord Har-dinge is genuine or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) for calling him to order just now. He has since shown me evidence that the decision which he wished to discuss was one given by an Army medical board and not by the tribunal, and he is therefore entitled to raise the case.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir J. D. REES: I feel sure that if my hon. but impulsive and inaccurate Friend opposite had not forced your hand, Sir, the case would have long since been concluded. The fact is—and I should point out that I am bringing this case forward, though it is not in my Constituency, with the complete consent of the right hon. Gentleman who sits for the constituency—from the answer given me by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, that this Mr. Andrews was called up and was specially examined by each member of the medical board separately, when it was found that he was unfit for

    135
    any form of military service, and he was accordingly rejected. But my point is that really in this ease it is necessary for the War Office to criticise the action of the medical board. I know that seems a rather large order, but many great precedents have gone by the board during the War, and I want to know if the War Office really adds agoraphobia to the list of complaints which excuse the sufferer from active service? Equally well every thief in the country might claim exemption from going to gaol on the ground that he suffered from the contrary complaint of claustraphobia, or fear of confinement. I apologise for putting this horrid hybrid word before the House, but it is the recognised nomenclature. Here is a man who, when he is called up, develops a complaint and he is forced to go before the board. He had it from a local practitioner that he was not well enough to appear before a board because it sat in an open place—a large room, I suppose. He was called up, but finally was specially examined by the medical board, which found him unfit for military service because he suffered from agoraphobia, not amounting to certifiable insanity. I have now a man urging me to bring before the House a claim for exemption because he cannot travel by train without serious suffering, and, following upon the Andrews precedent, he thinks he ought also to be exempted. I think it would be comic, if it were not, to my mind, rather tragic. I beg the Financial Secretary to remember that when a man who is well-to-do and apparently strong and well behaves in this manner and gets an exemption it has a seriously prejudicial effect upon recruiting. Has any poor man obtained exemption on the ground that he suffered from agoraphobia? What would he be told if he came, without specialists from Harley Street, distinguished alienists, and the like, to help him to claim an exemption? I think he would not get it, and I submit that this man should not get it, and I ask the Financial Secretary to give me some answer which will satisfy me better than that which he gave me; and I hope that he will not be deterred in this case by medical etiquette from dealing with the actual merits of the case.
    Colonel WEIGALL: After the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously no good purpose could be served by discussing the Salonika Campaign, and I
    136
    desire to draw the attention of the Committee for a moment to a question of Army administration here. I do so with a certain amount of misgiving, because I feel strongly that any serving officer ought to be extremely chary of attempting to criticise in any way the War Office administration. I desire not to criticise, but I hope to bless to a certain extent, and also to correct and amplify a statement of the Financial Secretary in the excellent speech he made last Thursday. It is in connection with the feeding of the whole of the Army here at home. During the last eighteen months the Army at home has entered on a new era, chiefly due to the enthusiasm of regimental officers, but to a very large extent due also to the enormous efforts that have been made by the branch at the War Office known as "Q.M.G. 11, General Landen." Under that branch regimental officers for the first time during the last year have been made to feel that they are trustees for the country for everything the Army issues, whether in cash or kind. Eighteen months ago it was often said by the senior officers, "Why make a fuss about it? If the country does not want the soldiers to have this, why not cut it off at the source?" The obvious answer is that all the country requires is that the men should belong to the best fed Army in the world. The country says. "Here is a standard which will satisfy everyone, and we look to you to utilise the whole of this as trustees, with two main obligations—first, that the man should be handed over to the Army in France a physically fit fighting man, and, secondly, that it should be done at the least cost to the country." As the Financial Secretary was able to tell the House, so well have regimental officers responded that a saving in cash and cash value amounting to something like £4,000,000 was made last year. The one detail on which I wish to correct the Financial Secretary, if he will allow me, is in connection with the final stage of the man's food, and by that I mean the whole of the by-products. Last year it occurred to responsible officers in one command, which consists of twelve counties—but, of course, I cannot mention the number of units—to alter the system which prevailed by which every commanding officer was allowed to dispose of all the by-products, and that it should all be dealt with comprehensively by the Headquarters of the Command, and that the by-products of hundreds of thousands-of troops should be dealt with by one large

    137
    contract. That was arranged and carried out in all camps for three months, and in the one camp it was taken one step farther. A certain camp was found with 40,000 troops, and there was no sale whatever for their by-products. Owing to the intervention of one individual officer what was called a waste eliminating plant was established in camp for the production of glycerine. The War Office, after three months' negotiations, were unable to sanction the erection of this plant, and where I want to correct the Financial Secretary is on this point. In his speech on Thursday he said that one plant had been set up and that another was going to be erected in France, and that the one had been so successful that orders had been given for others. I do not want to lay any blame whatever, but the fact remains that had it not been for the exertions of an individual officer and the Ministry of Munitions the War Office could show no Vote at all on which the expense of this plant could be carried. The usual combat went on using subject as shuttlecock and minute as battledore, and no end of officers did what they could, and the Financial Secretary, from the personal point of view, whenever he was approached was as charming as he always is, and, from the official point of view, as accessible as he always is, but owing to the want of initiation and imagination it resulted in having to go to another Government Department. That other Department, the Ministry of Munitions, took the reasonable line of a new and untramelled Department and said, "Satisfy our advisers that this will produce glycerine in order that the output of shells may be increased, or at any rate maintained, and then we will hand over the cash." Within eight days, I think it was, the cash was forthcoming, and the plant was erected. In the first six months it produced, after paying the troops the full market price of everything delivered, an average per month of 600 cwts. of pure tallow, and that at a profit of £250 per month. At the end of six months £1,200 was produced, and those responsible at the War Office said, "No, this money has been made in trade." I must inform the Committee that one individual officer made himself responsible, and ran the show as a civilian, which was wholly reprehensible from his position as an officer, but the only possible way under the existing system of the War Office by which this could be done. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not lay
    138
    blame on any individual at all, but I deplore the system under which a new thing of this sort, initiated from a civilian source, could not be got through. I agree that in the middle of a great war you cannot scrap the whole machinery from an administrative point of view, but what I deplore is that there is still a system in force at the War Office by which a scheme of this sort could not possibly have been got through unless an individual officer or a civilian or another Government Department came to the assistance of the War Office, and that at a time when you have at the War Office Ministers like the Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary, who are all out to help, and at the same time at the head of administrative branches of the War Office keen, zealous, and enthusiastic officers, who are doing all they can in their own branches, but co-ordination and co-operation have not been screwed up to the necessary point. It is obvious that in a disciplined service like the War Office you cannot expect the elasticity of a business firm, but I mention this incident to show that the War Office might have lost an extremely useful, economical, and effective new enterprise if existing rules had not been broken.
    May I say to the Financial Secretary that the speech he made the other day is likely to be of the greatest help to a large number of officers who, I know, for the last eighteen months have been doing all they could not only to improve not only the standard of living, but the health of the troops under their charge. They have saved an enormous amount for the country. But this matter goes further than the actual feeding of the man. It has been my privilege to be able to watch the actual results in respect of a very large number of troops both here and in France. It is an extraordinary fact that the units which have turned out the most efficient drafts have cost the country the least. Efficiency and economy, therefore, go hand-in-hand. If one stops to think for a moment it is obvious that if you screw up the administrative side the best results are bound to follow. You get officers who, from the administrative point of view, look at the man merely as a product, and the Home Army as a manufacture, so to speak, training, and draft battalions, to be turned out at the least cost and as physically fit as possible. The atmosphere in which this has been done has been produced by the Financial Secretary, who,

    139
    after all, is the Minister responsible. The speech he made a few days ago will galvanise into further activity the whole Army. I hope to see a tremendous improvement even on the results of the past year. In conclusion, may I point to a certain lack of co-operation and co-ordination in administration. It is not for me as an individual to push this, nor is this the time or place to go fully into that matter, but I long for the day in the War Office when, paradoxical though it may seem:—
    "Minutes shall cease from passing,
    And files go by no more."
    Mr. PETO: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has made a plea for a little elasticity, so that we may get the advantage of the initiative which, he has shown, has been of such immense value in the particular case he quoted. Before I proceed to my main observations, may I make one remark in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very able summing-up of the Debate on the larger question of our Eastern and Western military operations? Nearly all hon. Members in the House who have criticised the present Government have done so on account of the largeness of its size and the multiplicity of its Councils Yet in a Debate like this we have one of the most delicate parts of the diplomatic side of the War solemnly put before the Committee, and a proposal made that we should debate, in secret or in public Session, those matters which really should only be controlled by the most limited few that you can possibly make responsible for the conduct of the War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said more. He said we in this country and the Government itself wore not free in these matters; that they, of course, had to co-operate with the Allies. Again I say, can we have a more complete answer to those claims for publicity which are always being put forward in this House. If we go in for that extreme form of democratic rule in the middle of a war, we can only produce disastrous consequences. At this time of the evening, when most hon. Members are dining, I find myself with the singular privilege of being able to have a little heart-to-heart talk with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me said quite truly that there was no man more accessible or receptive than the Financial Secretary.
    140
    I want to talk to him for a moment or two on the subject he touched upon on. Thursday last: the question of the competition—the inevitable competition, as I admit it must be—between the agricultural requirements for labour and the military requirements for soldiers. It is quite inevitable, and it came in the very earliest speeches made in the Debate to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the-Member for South Molton referred to-it from an agricultural point of view, I want to hold a more even balance between the two great demands, and to make one or two suggestions to the hon. Gentleman which, I really think, if he will take them into consideration before he finally hands over this question of substitution to the Director-General of National Service—as he said he was going to do—he may find helpful. He can hand over the suggestions. Some of them have already been made in this House. They may help to save us from what I regard as a really disastrous result during the coming season and in respect to the future of agricultural production in this country. The Financial Secretary, after referring to what the War Office had already done in sending ploughmen and the like to different parts of England, said:
    "Fifteen thousand Class W men have been promised by the War Office as substitutes. That is in addition to the 18,000 who are being found by the Home Forces. These men are being organised into agricultural companies, and will be placed at the disposal of the War Agricultural Committees in the localities where labour is most urgently required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1917, col. 2188, Vol. XC.]
    What I want to point out to the Financial Secretary is that we do not want agricultural companies and we do not want military battalions to carry on agricultural operations. What we want is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been asking for in another respect, a little elasticity in the arrangements with the War Office, or whatever Department is going to take the matter up in the future; above all some give-and-take between these two great demands. When the present Prime Minister went to the Ministry of Munitions the munitions supply for the Army was utterly deficient. He had to organise a new supply on a new basis after it became apparent that the greatest possible output that could be produced in the country would be required. He had to-take power to bring back from the. Army the men required for this essential purpose. Things change greatly in the course of war, and have done so in the course of

    141
    this War. The demand for food in this country is likely to be as serious a factor in the conduct of the War as was the demand for shells eighteen months ago. To have one Department like the War Office considering themselves absolutely in a position of authority to demand men indiscriminately—because that is what it comes to—from agriculture, is really a very serious position indeed. Now the tribunals cause an extremely unequal distribution of the available labour, and yet when I go to the Director-General of Recruiting and point out some extreme cases I have had brought to my knowledge, he says that these cases have been decided by the tribunals, and there is no power to go behind the tribunals. I say the same body that has produced this unequal distribution cannot possibly be looked to to equalise it. That is the first thing. The second is that if we are to carry on agricultural production in this country you must give the responsible authority, the Department of Agriculture, the power to revise the decisions of tribunals in extreme cases where it is shown that a mistake has been made in taking away some essential man.
    I want to give a few instances to show this unequal distribution. A gentleman who owns a small estate in the extreme south-west of Somersetshire wrote me only two days ago to say that in his opinion in that part tenant farmers ought not to be on tribunals at all. He said that when going round the farms the other day with two tenant farmers to make a report they said straight out that they meant to draw up a Report to show the extreme shortage of labour though there was none. He says, with regard to his small estate, the major part of which he cultivates, that one of his tenants has three bachelor sons and his carter's bachelor son all exempted. His other tenant has a bachelor and a youth, seventeen years of age, more than he had before the War. I ask you to contrast that with a case from Wiltshire which I have brought to the notice of the Director-General of Recruiting. Here we have a case where both the agricultural representative on the tribunal and the representative of the Board of Agriculture for the district have written to me to say that a great mistake has been made in the decisions arrived at by the tribunal. The facts are these: Here is a farm of over 800 acres, with a breeding flock of 500 ewes, with horses and the rest, of course, all in proportion, where the man
    142

    who is reputed to be the farmer is a hopeless dipsomaniac. He had three brothers, who died at the ages of forty-one, fifty-one, and fifty-two. He has a son only twenty-two years of age, who has been the effective farmer for some time. There were sixteen labourers on the farm before the War. He is now left with four men, three of whom are warned for military service, one is a man over military age, and, in addition, there is a boy who has just left school. That is on 850 acres of land. There is no shepherd to look after the flock, and I hear a pitiful tale of the condition of things in consequence. The shepherd has gone into munition works at double the wages ever paid in any agricultural employment. I make that frank admission. I say in a case of that sort there ought to be somebody for the Board of Agriculture who could rectify that at. once, so as to prevent those 850 acres going derelict during the coming season. That is the first point I want to make, that we must have some elasticity in these matters. The final word ought to be with the people responsible for feeding this country, and the Board of Agriculture ought to have a Department concerned specially with labour on the land, which ought to be a sort of ultimate tribunal to decide whether men are absolutely essential.
    The next point is this: The War Office gives substitutes in the case of very essential men. They are supposed to be there on the farm before the men are taken away. As a matter of fact, great pressure is brought to bear on the men. I am told they are warned to be at the barracks on a certain day, and I have had cases brought to my notice showing quite clearly that it is impossible for the farmer in the vast majority of cases to keep the men and prove to them that they have the right, over and above the order of the military authorities, to keep them there when the military authorities say they ought to go to the barracks to report. In the theatrical world no understudy would think of playing a part without having seen that part played by the principal actor or actress. That is far more essential on a farm. There is a chance of these substitutes being of real use if they are able to see exactly what work they are expected to do. I should like to see them given a month to go round the farm, and eight days as an absolute minimum before a man is taken, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he hands over this question of substitution to the National Ser-

    143
    vice Department, to make it an absolute rule that none of the remaining men in agriculture are called for service until a substitute has been on the farm for at least eight days. In support of that I should like to call attention to this fact. The Chamber of Agriculture, immediately after that fatal 17th January, when the 10,000 men first began to be taken up, many of these men being the absolute linchpins in the coach, passed this resolution:
    "This council regrets that agricultural labourers have been called up for military service before adequate arrangements had been made for the provision of efficient substitutes, and views with alarm the effect that this will have on the food supply of the country."
    Cases were quoted to give illustrations of that point, and one gentleman who spoke in the debate said that, "The action of the authorities during this week was a gigantic and irretrievable blunder," and more to that effect. I do not complain about the numbers taken. I do say that they are taken in many instances from the wrong places, that there is no power in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to give a final decision where specific cases are brought to their notice, and the third thing I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider is this: All over the country there are a very large number of men who were either passed for class C 3 or who have been wounded in the War, and are more or less crocked. I can give one case in particular of a man who has only one eye, having lost his other eye in the War. He is detained in the 13th Devon Works Battalion, whereas on the farm, where he knows all the work, where his knowledge, quite apart from eyesight, which is quite good enough for agricultural work, although no good for military purposes whatever, is absolutely essential. His three brothers have already gone. One has been killed in the War, and two are serving in France, and this man is detained on digging work, or something of that kind, whereas the large farm to which I have just referred is hopelessly under-supplied with labour, and, still more, with supervision, which would make the employment of the labour which can be brought to the assistance of farmers of really rapid and effective application to the land. Surely there ought to be some means of bringing quickly out both the men who are not fit, and have not been passed fit for any active military employment, and men who are detained in these works battalions.
    144
    Another case I can quote is that of a man who has a small farm of his own of 30 acres at Bletchley. He was wounded in 1915 so severely that he was, for a whole year, in hospital, his principal wound being a very bad septic wound in one of his legs. He is now able to walk about, and feels that he can work his 30 acres, there being no one to work it except the chance help of neighbours. What has happened to him? He is kept at Hythe doing work, as reported to me, which any ordinarily intelligent woman could be trained to do in a week. That is wrong in the present position of food production as an absolutely essential factor in carrying on the War. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this question not from the point of view of labour battalions, not as a mere question of counting heads, or as if this was a military problem, because it is not, but I ask him to look at it as a question of taking away the actual man who may be working a little or a big farm upon whom the working of that farm depends. Let him look at this question from a point of view which shows some discrimination, introducing a little elasticity, and recognise in the system outlined by the Financial Secretary that when his military battalions go down to certain districts they should remember it is not advisable to introduce cast-iron into a delicate machine, where it is necessary that you should have more elastic material.
    I have given notice of a specific case. The point I want to make is that for two years nothing has been done in the case of a particular non-commissioned officer, Sergeant Perrett, who committed, I will admit, a grave offence against military discipline early in 1914, when the 2nd Wiltshire Regiment was at Gibraltar. The case has been brought to the attention of this House and the War Office. The present Colonial Secretary raised the question on the 11th March, 1915, and then the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who was Under-Secretary for War, promised that he would look into the matter. A long correspondence ensued, and finally, about the 20th October, the case was turned down with the usual result that nothing was done. I want to take the Committee through the facts. This is the ease of a man who enlisted in 1903. He arrived at the rank of sergeant in 1913, after ten years' service. He was made gymnasium instructor in 1914, but he had an unfortunate difference with his company sergeant-major coining from India, and it is necessary to say what happened. The

    145
    company sergeant-major, who was already unfriendly to this man, came down to Catalan, a place near Gibraltar where there were forty men under an officer, and stated that he wanted some coal. The sergeant said there was no coal to spare and what was there would be wanted by the detachment coming in, and no other remarks were made at the time. Two or three days afterwards those forty men were relieved of their guard at that particular place, which was handed over to another detachment.
    A case of small-pox arose in the detachment, and in consequence the men were marched back and were kept there until well on into the evening in the broiling sun, and they were not allowed to go into the barracks or fall out. Sergeant Perrett telephoned to get an order that these men should be allowed to go into the barracks, dismissed, or go back to Gibraltar, and he finally asked whether they would be relieved on Saturday, Sunday or Monday, and he was told to stay where he was and keep his men there. I admit this sergeant said that these were not reasonable instructions. He said, "Give me any reasonable instructions and I will obey them." And over the telephone came the message, "Consider yourself under arrest." These facts have not been given before, and it was under those circumstances, while suffering under a burning sense of injustice, with twelve years of an absolutely blameless career, this man took two or three drinks of a concoction called brandy. This man was without a stain upon his character and not a single mark against him in twelve years, and the result was that he broke his arrest and was drunk. He was reduced to the ranks in May, 1914. In June, 1914, he obtained his discharge, and on 5th August, 1914, he rejoined. On the 7th he met his late company commander, who said to him, "Perrett, are they not going to give you back your sergeant's stripes?" This officer went back to the commanding officer and put forward a strong recommendation that Perrett should be reinstated in his former rank.
    On the 13th August Perrett went out with the Expeditionary Force, was through the retreat from Mons, and in constant fighting, and was only absent four or five days with a poisoned foot, due to taking part in those historic marches. Near Neuve-Chapelle he was hit with a high explosive shell which nearly severed his right arm. He had to lie out in the open all night, and afterwards it was
    146
    found necessary to amputate his arm, and he was not expected to live. All the same, he pulled through. He was discharged from the hospital in January, 1915, and he went to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) and said that he had been recommended for reinstatement in his former rank, and was very soon going to be dismissed from the Army, and asked if anything could be done to help forward his case. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to the General Officer Commanding, who said that it was contrary to the Regulations, and nothing could be done. I will read to the Committee the actual recommendation on the 30th December, 1914, from the commanding officer of this non-commissioned officer. He writes to the Staff Captain, No. 8 District, Exeter:
    "I have the honour to submit the case of No. 3212, Private J. W. Perrett, 1st Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment, for the most favourable consideration of the Officer Commanding No. 8 District. This man served nearly eleven years in the Wiltshire Regiment, and was highly thought of for keenness and smartness and general trustworthiness. He was first promoted non-commissioned officer 21st February, 1905, eventually being promoted to the rank of sergeant, 1913. He was reduced to the ranks at Gibraltar, 18th May, 1914, for drunk and breaking escort, this crime being the first and only regimental entry in his period of eleven years' service. He was relegated to Army Rserve, 3rd June, 1914, rejoined on mobilisation, 5th August, 1914, proceeded to the front with the Expeditionary Force. He has now returned incapacitated for work owing to the loss of his right arm, blown away by the bursting of a lyddite shell in the trenches at Ypres on 20th October, 1914. The arm was blown off at the shoulder joint, and as there is no stump the medical authorities state he cannot have an artificial arm attached. Under the circumstances, inasmuch as he must now be finally discharged from the Army, his first and only regimental entry causing his reduction from the rank of sergeant will tell heavily against him when his pension is considered, and I would ask and strongly recommend if it be possible that his case may be weighed with a view to reinstatement in rank, so as to improve his position as far as can be. It is deeply to be regretted that most of the officers who can testify to his worth have either fallen in the field or are not available. Further, I am of opinion that had this man joined the battalion in which he was well known, it is more than probable he would have received promotion on joining or in the field."
    That is from the colonel commanding the depot of the Wiltshire Regiment, and the colonel commanding the 1st Wiltshire Battalion says:
    "I agree with the commanding officer of the depot, Wiltshire Regiment, in recommending Private J. W, Perrett be reinstated in his former rank."
    Dealing with the case as I have now put it before the House, on the 11th March, 1915, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) said:
    "When I heard of this case I wrote to the general officer commanding and begged him to take the matter into consideration. He told me he

    147
    could not do so because it was contrary to the Regulations. I say that the country wants not only to help men with money but in every other way, and if there is a Regulation that stands between this man and the reward to which he is so justly entitled it should be swept away. I say that a Regulation of this kind is an injustice, is unreasonable, is an anacroni3m during a war like this. I say it ought to be the business of someone at the War Office to see these things do not occur."
    For two years this matter has been constantly brought before the attention of the War Office, This Regulation apparently still exists. When the change of Ministry took place about November last I brought the matter to the attention of the present Secretary of State for War. He asked me to let him have the whole case before him in writing. I did so. He said it would assist him very much in going into it. That was on the 7th December last. On the 21st December I received this letter, which I am sure the Committee, whatever they think of its form, will at any rate agree has the merit of being definite:
    "Dear Peto,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, re. J. W. Perrett. By his instructions I have inquired into the matter, and am informed that the request cannot be granted. I return to you the documents herewith.—Yours faithfully, George Stanley."
    I ask the Committee to remember that after the offence for which this man lost his rank he has been engaged as an instructor at a school of Cadets in York-shire and that the loss of his rank has caused him to have diminished authority and less usefulness than he ought to possess for the country. Moreover, it is a constant and daily reminder of the one mistake that he made in May, 1910. It has not been washed out by any expenditure of blood or by the loss of his arm in fighting in the War. I ask the Committee to contrast that with the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Elkington. I welcomed, as I am sure every member of the Committee welcomed, the announcement on the 20th October that Lieutenant-Colonel Elkington had been given a chance of wiping out his offence. After his brave conduct in fight-in the Foreign Legion of France he received two distinctions from the French Government, the Medaille Militaire and the Croix de Guerre, and finally he received back his commission from His Gracious Majesty. We welcomed that statement, but I ask the Committee to consider what was the mistake in each ease. In one case, in a fit of intense irritation against what appeared to be the unjust conduct of a
    148
    non-commissioned officer only just one degree above him in rank—his company sergeant—a glass of brandy was taken, a momentary indiscretion, folly, anything you like to call it, was committed, nobody concerned but himself and military discipline I agree; the other case, a whole battalion of His Majesty's Army might have been surrendered to the enemy, would have been surrendered to the enemy, I do not believe from lack of courage, but from want of discretion. And, after all, one man is a lieutenant-colonel and the other is an ordinary sergeant, a non-commissioned officer. One has his chance of making expiation, of being restored to the rank in which he served His Majesty before, the other, who has lost his arm, in spite of the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand, in spite of every representation that has been made to the War Office for over two years is not given the chance, because we are told it is contrary to War Office Regulations. I ask for a little elasticity in a war like this. I ask that these things may not be repeated from mouth to mouth. I ask that a man who has fought and bled for his country and lost his arm after twelve years of meritorious service in India and in other parts of the Empire may not always have to-repeat the same story: "A commissioned officer gets his chance to go back again, but if you make a mistake when you are only a Run-commissioned officer you never get a chance to make good, no matter even if you have lost your arm." I hope we shall get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will tell me—as I have been forced to state these facts here in the House after having done everything I could to get what I will not call justice—that is a matter of opinion—but that the hon. Gentleman will tell me some wisdom will be brought to bear on the decision of these matters at the War Office, that some human sympathy, some discretion, some sense of proportion, will be introduced into this flat-iron military rule. Surely I may now hope that he will tell me—not only in respect of the particular man whose ease I have pleaded—that at least he is in agreement with me that there should be no discrimination and no distinction between the ranks of non-commissioned officers and the commissioned ranks in the Army.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to one or two points arising

    149
    out of the speech made by the Financial Secretary the other day. We are engaged in voting 5,000,000 men for the Army. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke just now said that it was our duty to send these men into the Army fit, that it was our first duty to see the men who fight are fit physically, morally, and in every way to do the work that we have engaged them to do. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has given an illustration of one of the causes for unfitness on the part of some of our men. I want to speak for a minute or two on that point; I was informed the other day, in reply to a question I put, that during last year between one and two million gallons of ale were supplied for consumption for our troops. I have asked from time to time what quantity of rum has been supplied to our troops, but I have never got a definite reply. I do know that the facilities for obtaining drink are very much greater than they need be or ought to be. I do know that it has a most deplorable effect on the character of large numbers of young fellows who have joined.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Do I understand the hon. Member is referring to the small quantity of rum which is supplied?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am speaking on the general question of wet canteens in this country and in France. I heard a most pathetic story from one of the hon. Member's colleagues the other day of a young fellow who joined the Army from a total abstaining home. Through the rum ration he was induced to partake for the first time of intoxicating liquor, and was subsequently drummed out of the Army for drunkenness. A short time afterwards that information had to be conveyed to his broken-hearted parents, who were desirous that he should find some other field to wipe out his disgrace. We have by the provision of wet canteens in connection with various camps deliberately damped down the patriotism of many of the inhabitants of the Dominions, and caused many a mother to hesitate to allow her son to join in Canada and elsewhere. I have that on the evidence of more than one officer of the Canadian troops. I think it a great pity that we cannot, if we must provide these facilities for men in our own ranks and recruited in our own country, at any rate place those young fellows who come from dry territory, where they have never been subjected to the temptation, in camps where, at any rate.
    150
    drink is not kept during the period of their occupation. That is one point which I think is very important. I believe that if we took action along those lines we should stimulate recruiting in the Dominions, and we should, at any rate, remove an objection that at first had a tendency almost to stop recruiting in Canada.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think Canadian regiments have their own regimental institutes.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether they have their own arrangements, but I do know that Canadians are supplied with drink which they were not allowed to have under their own Government and in their own territory and which they never could have got until they came to this country. It is well known that the provision of drink has a tendency not only to make soldiers less effective and less resisting to hardship and exposure to which they must be subject in the course of campaigns especially, but it makes them less capable also of restoration from wounds and detains them longer in hospitals. Any medical adviser of the Government could tell them that, and that they are almost-afraid to operate on soldiers having severe wounds which require operations if they have been known to have previously indulged in alcohol. If the Government would do something to increase the restrictions to prevent soldiers from obtaining alcohol, at any rate, in quantities, we should he saved many humiliating pictures in our own streets in London and on the railways, and we should be adding largely to our manpower. As has been said this evening, it is important that we should make our men fit and keep them fit, and in order to do that we should eliminate the causes of unfitness.
    I desire to refer to one other point. The Financial Secretary, in his speech last week, gave us a very optimistic account of the health of the troops. I think it is true that this War has been waged with less disease of a certain class than ever before.
    "He told us one of the roost remarkable phenomena is the almost total disappearance of enteric fever, that dread scourge which in former wars had decimated our Armies even more effectually than the efforts of the enemy."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1917, col. 2184, Vol. X C]
    He went on to say that the total number of cases on the Western front of the

    151
    typhoid group was 4,571. He compared that with what happened in South Africa, where nearly 60,000 cases were admitted to hospital, with 8,227 deaths, which, he pointed out, were four times as many—that is, the deaths—as there were cases in France up to the 1st of November last. It is a very remarkable fact that during the first six months up to January, 1915, of this War only 112 cases altogether arose of typhoid, which is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the world. In all former wars no sooner had the troops been brought together in large numbers than typhoid and similar diseases spread amongst them, and in South Africa that was, of course, far more fatal than the bullet wounds. Why was that? An hon. Member suggested the other day that the reason was the magnificent service of our medical men in inoculating those troops against typhoid fever. That is the claim put forward.
    Major NEWMAN: It is true.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument in my own way. It is very remarkable that during the first six months when we had from a quarter of a million to three or four hundred thousand men in France only 110 or 112 cases arose and a very large proportion of those men had not been inoculated. Inoculation only began seriously two or three months after the War had broken out and a very large proportion of the troops in the first six months gathered together in France were without inoculation and did not catch the disease. Why was that? The reason was because our sanitary corps of officers had prepared the way by removing the causes of those intestinal diseases, of which typhoid is one, thus bringing about the result I have named by removing the causes. What happened in South Africa? I am dealing with this matter, because although I think it is right to be optimistic, and I am glad the hon. Member was, it is also right to have some proportion in our optimism and to see that it bears some relation to the facts. In South Africa you had hundreds of thousands of doses of anti-typhoid serum inoculated into the men and yet those 60,000 cases of typhoid arose, with 8,000 deaths. Those men when protected by that process died like flies. Why? There they had not been preceded by sanitary science and you had not removed the
    152
    causes and thereby prevented the disease arising. I am quite prepared to admit that inoculation will protect any man against a disease which does not exist. I am also prepared to contend that if you remove the cause of a disease the disease will not arise. The Financial Secretary the other day did not tell us, what is the fact, that in Gallipoli, where the troops are very much less numerous than they are on the Western front, where I suppose they never exceeded 250,000—I do not know what the number is—no less than 27,891 cases of intestinal trouble of various kinds arose. Why was that? No troops on earth were ever inoculated so definitely and with so few exceptions as the troops in Gallipoli. They consisted very largely of New Zealand and Australian troops, every man of whom had been inoculated before he was sent out. It arose simply because the conditions which created the disease were there. There was no proper system of drainage, and there was a shortage of water.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Did these men die?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not know how many of them died. I am giving the figures which were given to me by the Financial Secretary in a letter dated 30th October. In the case of Gallipoli, he admitted, there were 27,891 cases, 17,873 of which were dysentery, 1,490 pyrexia—
    Major NEWMAN: That is not enteric.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will my hon. and gallant Friend permit me to proceed—8,103 were cases going by the alias of paratyphoid, and 425 typhoid. It is very remarkable that the number of typhoid cases is so small. For a number of years we have been perfecting the serum against typhoid, and it is essential that the credit of this serum should be sustained. Large financial interests have grown up behind it. The manufacture of these serums is an important business, and there are great financial interests depending upon its perpetuation. Curiously enough, on 1st January this year, the serum which has been so successful during the whole of this period was discontinued and a new serum has been introduced for the Army. I wondered how it was these figures came out in this extraordinary way until I came across a report of two officers whose duty it was to investigate these matters. These were officers who had sent to them cases clinically diagnosed by the medical

    153
    officers attending them as typhoid. They examined 325 cases, which, under any previous conditions, would have been diagnosed as typhoid and reported as typhoid, as the cases in South Africa were. They explain in a most ingenuous way that whenever they got a case of typhoid from an inoculated person they regarded it with suspicion. The names of these officers are Lieutenant Colonel Martin and Major Upjohn. Whenever they got a case from an inoculated man they regarded it with suspicion, and so they succeeded in discovering that out of the 325 cases 300 were not what the medical officers attending the cases thought them to be, and only 25 were actually typhoid cases. That is a very extraordinary state of things. It means one of two things: either that our medical officers into whose charge we have committed our soldiers are so ignorant and incompetent that they do not know the diseases of the men they have to treat, or that the bacteriologists are throwing dust in the eyes of the public, and that these Returns upon which the whole credit of the system is based are falsified; or it means that the bacteriologists themselves do not know their business. You cannot get away from one or other point of that dilemma. Therefore I ask the Committee to suspend judgment as to the value of these figures until after the War when it becomes possible to have some outside non-medical statistician to examine both the figures themselves and the conditions under which they have been circulated, so that we may get at the truth in regard to this matter. Why do I say that? It was important that our men should be fitted as soon as possible for their duties in the field. What does this practice mean? It means that every man who can be persuaded—there are many men who can be forced indirectly though not legally to undergo this operation—is made incompetent for his duties for at least a fortnight.
    Major HILLS: No! For a day.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Every man has forty-eight hours' leave. Is not that true?
    Major HILLS: Yes.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Each time he is inoculated. That is four days.
    Major NEWMAN: Only once. He gets only one lot of leave.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: That is not my information.
    Major NEWMAN: I have been through it, so I know.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I have had correspondence from large numbers of these men. During the intervening period they can only perform light duty. If they are put to strenuous exercise they are only capable of performing it with dangerous results.
    Major HUNT: That is not so.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I contend that it is. I have plenty of evidence that in most cases it is. It means that each man is practically incapacitated from his training for ten days. An Army of 5,000,000 men means 50,000,000 days that might be used for exercise taken out of the life of the soldier. That is not all. It is not only once that these men are inoculated. Sometimes it occurs again and again. This morning, quite unexpectedly, I received from Salonika from a young friend of mine who was formerly in the service of my firm and with whom I have kept in correspondence, this letter, showing how he believes in this practice. He says:
    "I am very well, and just recovering normal from vaccination, which has lasted six weeks. I am of the opinion that my baby girl will not be done. Since joining the Army I have been inoculated six times and vaccinated once."
    During the year and a half since he joined the Army his active service has been made imperfect by this great waste of time, which personally I believe to be quite unnecessary, because nothing can resist disease like a healthy body, and the proper thing to do is to remove the cause of the disease, as our sanitary officers have done so successfully. Look at the waste of time and the number of men you have lost, who, when entering the Army, have been incapacitated and have had to be turned out of the Army, many of them thrown on the world as wrecks, incapable of earning their livelihood in civil occupations. Tens of thousands of men might have been serving if this practice had not prevailed. I want to express my gratitude to the hon. Member and his predecessors and colleagues for having mitigated, to-some extent at any rate, the old harsh, cruel treatment meted out to men who had a conscientious objection to this practice, and for having made it possible for them to retain their legal right, which in so many cases has been overridden by their officers. They have made it possible for men who really disbelieve in this practice to keep their blood pure and serve their country with a whole skin, and to a large

    155
    extent they have mitigated that treatment. But the evil still exists. The objector is still often denied leave and is often put to do fatigue work, and is differentially treated in various ways, but I am hoping that will disappear altogether. I am sure it is not in accordance with the wish of my hon. Friend, and whenever I have brought a case to his notice I believe he has looked into it. But I have had news only to-day of a rather alarming character. In one of the camps in this country the Hereford Regiment has lately been inoculated. I am told there has been a sudden outbreak involving from 700 to 800 cases of serious illness, and there have been a number of deaths. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can give me any information on that?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot. I -should like to get particulars.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I will see my hon. Friend on it afterwards. May I suggest that as far as possible subjection to this practice shall be really what it is legally, an absolutely voluntary act on the part of the soldier, and that the officers shall be discouraged from putting any pressure upon the men, so that they shall have a chance at any rate to serve their country in perfect health, without having their blood poisoned by the introduction of diseased matter from other human beings, and I am perfectly certain that if that is carried out in the spirit a great deal of discontent, a great deal of harsh treatment, and a great deal of ill-health will be saved, and our man-power will go much further than it would otherwise.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) on behalf of the soldier he referred to. Speaking simply as a Member of the House who has not paid any attention to the case before and has heard the details for the first time to-day, I should like to say how much impressed I feel, and I am sure everyone here must feel the same, at the severity with which the case has been treated. I am sure the feeling in the House will be that when a man has served his country, often through periods of extreme danger, for more than eleven years, and has lost an arm, so that his capacity for active employment is almost entirely interfered with for the rest of his life, we may all agree that we should be extremely glad if my hon.
    156
    Friend on the Front Bench is able to see it in the same way that the Committee sees it, and hope that the man will have his rank restored to him as far as possible,—altogether I hope—and that he will be left in such a position that the closing years of his life may be passed in tolerable satisfaction and comfort.
    The point I am anxious to bring before my hon. Friend on my own account is one which on a former occasion he said his office would consider, namely, the question of the expenses of the staffs of volunteer bodies throughout the Kingdom. These expenses, which have to fall largely on the personal expenditure of the Colonel Commandant and the officers of his staff, if the work is to be well and efficiently done, make a heavy call on their private expenses. I should like to suggest that it might be possible for all these officers whose duties are spread over a whole county to have a free pass given them over all the railways of the county they have charge of. In the county I have to do with an endeavour was made to get all the railway companies to give free passes, but it was pointed out that the railways are now under the charge of the Government and it would fall on them to issue free passes. I hope the War Office will be able to act on this proposal The expense in reality would be a small one.
    The other point I have to refer to is what we have heard this evening with regard especially to the Salonika Expedition. It is quite evident that there are two bodies of opinion in the House, those who think the expedition was absolutely required and those who are prepared to find fault not only with its inception, but with its present position and the results that they think are to be looked at. On these occasions I am very much reminded of the Scottish proverb, that it is no use keeping a dog and barking yourself. I really think if public opinion in this country would direct itself towards the understanding of a principle of that kind it would save us a great deal of trouble. It seems to me that all the military developments we have been so intimately concerned with for a long time have been seriously interfered with by various classes, in the country, the slackers who remain at home and say, "We are going to stay here till we are sent for"; the shirkers, for whom I do not think anyone here has any use at all; and the worst of all, in my mind, the crabber. Surely when all these serious things are

    157
    going on every day we might abstain from finding fault. Napoleon, Wellington, and those sort of people may be looked upon as great authorities in military matters. I forget which of those great authorities said that the greatest general is the one who makes the fewest mistakes. During the South African War, it you travelled anywhere in a third-class carriage, you would be sure to fall into the company of men who would tell you how to put a stop to the Boer resistance in a few weeks, and you found to your very great sorrow that these men, endowed with natural military genius, who ought to have been Field-Marshals or Admirals of the Fleet, were only commercial travellers. No doubt their opinion was just as good as ours, but they confined it to third-class carriages. We are apt to desire that our opinions should be spread over the whole world, and they do not do anybody any good, except, perhaps, the enemy. I cannot help wondering whether any hon. Member here to-night is capable really of understanding, or even forming an opinion, upon the campaign that is going on at Salonika. It strikes me that we might leave that to the War Office, and the generals and the efficient men who are brought up to this sort of thing. We might satisfy ourselves of the truth of the proverb I have quoted, that if you have somebody acting for you you should leave him to carry out the work to the best of his ability, and if he is a failure you should have the courage to make a change.
    Those who sit still and do not talk too much are apt to begin to understand the atmosphere of the House of Commons. I will tell the Committee what this Debate has brought strongly before my mind, especially when we got on to the question of Salonika and the whole question of the conduct of the War. We had an excellent speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he carefully refrained from saying anything—which I think was perfectly wise. The question remaining on my mind —and it must be present to other hon. Members is, where is the Prime Minister? How long are we going on in this House without the advantage of communication with the Prime Minister? It has always seemed to me that the Prime Minister has two great objects in life, one is to be, whenever possible, in the House of Commons, and to understand the views, the wishes, and the objects of the House of Commons, and the other is to be able to communicate with the Crown as to the
    158
    opinion and decisions of the House of Commons. How can the Prime Minister do either of those things if he never comes here?
    Sir S. COLLINS: He is coming on Wednesday.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: I feel I am raising a large question, and I can only say, speaking for myself, and I have no doubt I am speaking the view of others, that when these questions of Imperial and national policy arise, we want to be advised and informed by the man who has been chosen to represent the country and the House of Commons, the Prime Minister.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: With reference to the last remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Ainsworth), I want to say that the Prime Minister of this country, and now of the Empire and largely of the Allies, should come down to this House when great questions of policy are raised, and should not waste his time in dealing with matters which, I think, can be dealt with by Under-Secretaries like my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) or other members of the Government, who can speak with greater Departmental knowledge than the Prime Minister has time to acquire. I want to speak in reference to some other remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor), who indulged in his hardy annual of introducing into this Debate the question of inoculation and vaccination, and, as he suggests, the intemperance of our troops. I have been inoculated, and have not suffered that poisonous effect which the hon. Member suggests is the result of inoculation. The ordinary man or officer who is inoculated suffers no ill effect whatever. In cases where a man or officer is in an unhealthy state he suffers slightly or in some degree from inoculation, to his own betterment, and the more he suffers the more clear it is that he required that inoculation. If there is one thing more than another which has been proved in this War it is this: that inoculation is all but an absolute protection from typhoid.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has it protected thousands of people from being affected?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The statistics given from the Front Bench many times go to show conclusively that the lives of

    159
    men have been saved by inoculation from the ravages of typhoid.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What about sanitation?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Sanitation has always something to do with it, but vaccination and inoculation are two things that have more than justified their use in the colossal Army which is now on the various fronts. With reference to what the hon. Member said concerning drink, I want to join issue with him, especially as I happen to be a man who does not indulge in any alcoholic liquors. I am bound to say that the more I see of men who do, the more sad and solemn they appear to be and the more cheerful I, appear to be. When the hon. Member suggests that by taking the minute rum ration which is occasionally issued to men in the trenches, at the discretion of the colonel, the individual soldier is going down the slippery slope of ruin, I protest against such an exaggerated statement. First of all, no soldier is compelled to take it. Secondly, this rum ration is issued on rare occasions, entirely at the discretion of the commanding officer, who would be the last man to jeopardise in any way the physical, mental, or moral fibre of the men under his command in a front line trench. The hon. Member referred to wet canteens in terms which show clearly that he cannot have had any personal experience of these regimental institutions throughout the country, least of all at the front. The regimental institute in camp, however large or small, is under military control. It is regularly visited by officers under the colonel, and by the colonel himself, and on the slightest sign of intemperance the place is shut up, and the persons guilty are dealt with as men can be dealt with under military control. If you could put this country under a system of wet canteens, you would have the country consuming less alcohol than it does now, and there would be less hard drinking. The drinking in my experience is very small in proportion to the enormous number of men that are in camps of various kinds. In every camp there is an alternative to the wet canteen. You have the Church huts of various kinds, you have the Y.M.C.A. huts, and all forms of recreations and amusements, and to suggest that soldiers are compelled to go through some process of compulsory-gulping of alcohol is wrong.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not say that.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The suggestion is that the wet canteen is a place where these soldiers roll up in large numbers and come away intemperate, wrecked in mental, moral, and physical fibre, and not as good as they would be without the wet canteen. That is the suggestion.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: No!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: He said that the wet canteen degenerated the soldier. That was the gist of it. I protest against that. In reference to the remarks of the hon. Member, I can speak with great sympathy there. The Canadian Government is very jealous of the Canadian soldier, not only in this country but at the front, and the War Office has nothing to do with the Canadian soldier in his barrack, hut, or camp life. The regimental duties of these soldiers are under the control of the Canadian Commander, quite apart from the War Office altogether, whether they are here or in the British lines on the Western Front. The Canadian Government is very jealous of the control of the Canadian soldier, whether in Canada, England, or on the Western Front, and if they have a wet canteen it is because they want to have it, and not because it is forced upon them by an autocratic War Office or some British general. Though I am myself a lifelong teetotaler, yet if a soldier at the front feels that he wants a little alcohol, I am the last man to interfere with that—first, because I think that he is entitled to nearly everything he wants, for the whole Empire depends on him, and, secondly, because I know the drastic military supervision with which all these matters are controlled, and it would be impossible for him to indulge too freely in the wet canteens here or in the canteens abroad, or in the little estaminets, where no spirits whatever are sold, and where the wines and beers are so feeble in their alcoholic powers that no harm can come to any soldier who indulges, as he does in those places, moderately. Speaking generally, there never was an Army in history, whether at home or abroad, that was more sober, more willing to be sober, or more drastic in its discipline in the interests of sobriety, and to suggest anything like overindulgence in rum rations is the last thought that would occur to anybody who had the smallest experience of the facts. I have always thought that in these matters it would be an excellent thing if the Govern-

    161
    ment could make up its mind to send to the front for a week, in the deep salient trenches, these hon. Members who find fault with the Army. They would come back with their minds cleared of this exaggerated nonsense about over-indulgence, and filled with pride in these splendid men who deserve more than we could ever give them for the hardships through which they have gone and the hardships they may face.
    And now a word in reference to the War Office generally. It is a curious thing that the War Office, more than any other Department of State, gets criticised by certain Members of this House and by certain persons outside. I think that the reason is that the War Office is blamed for mistakes in policy with which the War Office has nothing whatever to do. The War Office, from the first, is the only Department that realised the need for men in this great War. And when Lord Kitchener spoke of raising an Army of 3,000,000 men I can remember that everybody laughed at him. But from that day to this the War Office has seen clearly that we must number our armed forces by millions if we are to equal the armies against us, let alone overwhelm them in a decisive victory. The War Office has-seen this and has advised Conscription, which was adopted by this House under the preceding Government The War Office was supported by the last Government in the establishment of tribunals, local authorities for administering it, who have done their work splendidly, on the whole. They are made up of hard-working, self-sacrificing men in the localities, whose popularity is jeopardised, whose work goes without reward, and whose stern duty often brings upon them criticism which is ill-deserved. Those tribunals during last year passed 60,000 agricultural labourers for military service, exempting them until 1st January this year. The tribunals who did that are tribunals of farmers who are interested in farming.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the work of tribunals?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is a military matter. The War Office is represented before every tribunal.
    Mr. KING: May I call attention to the fact that the other day when I was raising this matter I was told that it was not in order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what was said on another day. I am just dealing with what is before me now.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is concerned with Vote A, for raising men. Men are raised through the tribunals, which are attended by a military representative of the War Office. These tribunals, representing agricultural interests, passed 60,000 men for service. It was cut down to 30,000 men, and out of the 30,000 men only 6,200 have been taken. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ten thousand."] Ten thousand were called, but I believe that only 6,200 have been taken. It is not the fault of the War Office. It is that of the farmers and agriculturists, who foresaw the need of manpower in other walks of life. The business of the War Office is to get men through the tribunals, the institutions set up and appointed by this House; and to condemn the War Office for carrying out this very stern duty is, to my mind, mixing up again the administration of the War Office with the policy of a particular Government. I myself believe, taking it all in all, though exceptions are bound to arise in raising an Army of over 5,000,000 men which is always growing, that the War Office are carrying out an almost superhuman task fairly, justly, and with splendid results, though here and there many hard cases may occur. The great result of having these magnificent Armies in the field, splendidly equipped, with fine moral and under good leadership, is a great tribute to an overworked and over-criticised Department, in which I myself had the honour to serve for a short time, which, I think, ill deserves most of the ill-considered and all but ignorant criticism that is bestowed upon it.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I was much interested earlier in the evening in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman below me and on the other side of the House who complained of the cast-iron system in vogue at the War Office and of the want of elasticity in the War Office regulations. While admitting that from their point of view they made good their cases, I have to put before the Committee that my complaint against the War Office is of an exactly opposite character. War Office Regulations have been made, but when it suits that Department they regard them

    163
    as absolutely cast iron, without any elasticity whatever. When it does not suit them to observe and follow those Regulations, they ignore them completely. It will be within the recollection of this Committee that many months ago Irish Members had to complain of the fact that Irishmen who had joined the Army either at home or in this country, in a great many instances, were not allowed to join Irish regiments. We also brought forward case after case of Irish units in France being transferred to English or Scottish battalions. While we were told that it was not always possible to regulate this at once under military necessity in France, we did succeed in getting the pledge and guarantee from the Government and the War Office that, so far as possible, at home at least, Irishmen when they expressed the desire would be sent to Irish regiments. As I understand that was put definitely into the Regulations of the War Office, and I want to tell the representative of the War Office on the Government Bench now that the Regulation has been grossly and shamefully ignored.
    I am not going to say much about Irish recruiting, but within the past few months a very special effort has been made to recruit men in Ireland for the Mechanical Transport department of the Army Service Corps, and that effort has so far succeeded that over 700 men have been got in various parts of Ireland for mechanical transport. They were brought over to this country to a camp outside London, and after a couple of months' training hundreds of these men were turned down from mechanical transport, and were sent into Infantry battalions. When they asked to join Irish regiments they were flatly refused. I say that is the kind of thing that has occurred in hundreds of cases, in spite of the War Office pledge, and it is going on to this very day. I hope the Under-Secretary, who is responsible to this House for the administration of the War Office, will look into this matter, and see that the pledge given to the House of Commons is kept at the War Office. I say there were hundreds of these cases. Let me read to the House only two letters which I received through the post a few days ago from a man who makes complaint in regard to this matter, and I will give this case to the Under-Secretary
    164
    himself. The letter is dated 17th February, 1917, from Swindon:—
    "Sir,—In the month of October last, in response to an urgent appeal made by the military authorities for the M.T. of the A.S.C., I offered my services as driver at the City Hall, Belfast, and proceeded to Grove Park, London. At the end of two months I was compulsorily transferred into the Infantry. I at once applied as an Irishman to get put into an Irish regiment, which I have been refused. If, when enlisting, I had known I would be transferred into the Infanry, and into an English regiment, I would have at first joined an Irish regiment. I beg to appeal to you to use your influence to get me transferred into an Irish regiment, when I will be able to fight alongside my fellow countrymen."
    The second letter is dated 19th February, two or three days later, and, strangely enough, is also from Belfast. It is from the father of a man:
    "Dear Sir,—I heard from a friend that you received an assurance from the Government that no more Irishmen would be transferred to English regiments against their will; therefore, I would like to tell you of my son, who, in October, joined the Army Service Corps, and after a few weeks was changed to an English Infantry regiment. He would not have joined had he known that this was before him. I wrote to his commanding officer claiming him, for he is only seventeen years of age, or as an alternative to get him into the Royal Irish Rifles. Without avail. I now presume on your kindness to see if anything can be done either to have him returned to the Army Service Corps or transferred to an Irish regiment."
    My information is—and I heard of it long before these letters and similar letters reached me—that there are hundreds of these cases of men who were practically secured for the Army on the false pretence that they were for mechaical transport, but who were turned down after a few weeks training and shoved into English Infantry regiments, and refused permission to join an Irish regiment. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary what is the explanation of that. This Regulation was made at the War Office, and the assurance to which I have referred was given to the House of Commons. Does it mean that the hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to speak for the War Office, has no real power there, that he is turned down by these Army officials in the War Office, as has been too often the case with his predecessors, and that he is not able to enforce the Regulation which the House of Commons was told would be put into operation?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In every single case that has been sent to me the man has been transferred into an Irish regiment.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I will be perfectly satisfied if the hon. Gentleman will tell me that in cases of this kind where men have been refused who have applied for Irish regiments, they will be transferred
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in all such cases that have been sent to me the men have been transferred to Irish regiments.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that statement, and I trust that as the result of it he will see that these cases are dealt with on the same basis. I hope that the fact will become known to these many hundreds of men who have been turned down when they applied to join Irish regiments. There is only one other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman. I wrote him a few days ago relative to a statement made by Captain Gate, of the Travelling Medical Board, recently, at a place in the Rhondda Valley. The statement was made to the local member of a miners' lodge of the South Wales Miners' Federation, and it was to the effect that there were in America 2,000,000 Irishmen ready to fight against the United States if the United States went to war with Germany at this moment. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that that statement has caused very serious indignation among the Irish community in South Wales. They bitterly resent it, and look upon it as an attempt on the part of an official of the War Office to stir up hatred, passion, and prejudice against the Irish community. I hope that this charge against this captain will be fully investigated. In the first place, it is a scandalous falsehood, and for any man to make a statement of that kind in the circumstances is so utterly wrong that I consider justice will not be done unless the whole thing is probed absolutely to the bottom and, if the officer is found guilty, he should then be dismissed from his position.
    10.0 P.M.
    Major NEWMAN: I want to ask the Under-Secretary for War what is the exact present status of an officer holding a temporary commission? Evidently his status is changed when he gets a permanent commission. As the Committee will remember on Thursday last, we were told that Lord Derby had set up a Committee, to be presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), which was to inquire into the various anomalies of promotion, not only in the Territorial Force, but in the New Army. The terms of reference to the Committee are pretty wide. I hope that the Committee, in addition to inquiring into those terms as regards officers of the New
    166
    Army and the Territorial Army, will go into the cases of officers, either of the New Army or of the Territorial Force who have been placed in the Reserve against their will, although medically fit for work in this country. I came up against a case the other day where an old soldier who had served in the ranks of a Yorkshire regiment and had reached the rank of quartermaster rejoined, was appointed quartermaster and went out to France. He was taken ill and came home, but when he got better he was attached to one of the Reserve training battalions. After a short time he was suddenly informed that he was going to be placed in the Reserve, and that man, who had served so many years as a Regular soldier, was chased out of the battalion, though there were in that battalion five or six officers who had never been at the front, and who were perfectly fit. That should be inquired into. May I ask another question? Why should a quartermaster not be allowed to rise above that rank? He cannot become a Staff officer. He can never wear the red tabs. He cannot command his battalion. I came across a case the other day of a quartermaster who was the only senior officer left of his battalion, of which he took command when they were on the advance. He kept the command for several weeks, but was suddenly superseded by a man junior to himself, who was made temporary major over his head and took the command. He was superseded simply because he was a quartermaster.
    But the real question I want to get at is the status of an officer with a temporary commission. Several cases have been brought to my notice of officers who have been dismissed the Service and denied all right of inquiry. Of course, as the Under-Secretary knows, under the Royal Warrant, Article 527, it is provided that an officer who has been guilty of misconduct may at any time be called upon to retire or resign his commission should the circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the Army Council, require. The Committee will observe he may be called upon to resign. Surely, if he is called upon to resign, he ought to be in a position to say, "I want an inquiry, and I will not resign until my conduct has been gone into and reasons shown why I should resign." But, as far as I can make out, a temporary officer has not this protection at all. He can be called upon to resign his commission, or, what is worse, he may be dis-

    167
    missed without inquiry being given him at all; and, as a matter of fact, he may be dismissed at something less than a month's notice. I have had several cases of this sort brought to my notice. I am going to give one, not the worst by any means, but one which I personally investigated, I do not propose to give the names unless any hon. Member presses for them.
    This is the case of a married man over thirty years of age, a noted athlete, who occupied a good position in the City at the outbreak of the War, and who, like many others, immediately volunteered and enlisted in one of the crack London battalions, the Queen's, Westminsters. He served in it from September, 1914, to March, 1915, when he was given a commission, and shortly after, in view of his athletic record and skill, he was sent to Aldershot, thoroughly trained there, and became a gymnastic instructor and an instructor in bayonet fighting. This was in November, 1915, and his battalion went abroad. Just before they went he was promoted captain. He served a winter in the trenches, and one day, in March, 1916, he was asked to see his commanding officer. He did so, and his colonel told him that he had become so gloomy, so depressed, and so morose that, in his opinion, he was not competent to do justice either to himself or to his men, and, as they were in the trenches within a hundred yards of the Germans, the colonel told him he would have to make a report to that effect to the general officer commanding the Brigade. The officer was naturally very much upset and surprised, and he at once, in accordance with the King's Regulations, wrote through his commanding officer to the general officer commanding asking for an interview. It was granted him, and he duly saw the brigadier who had received the report of the colonel. The officer gave his explanation, and then asked if, providing it was decided that he must go home owing to his depressed condition, the brigadier and the colonel, as they knew him to be a competent man to instruct the troops in bayonet fighting, would recommend him for an instructorship at home. The general officer commanding brigade said he would, and the officer thought the matter was as far as it could be all right. He went back to his lines, and in two or three days he was suddenly informed by the adjutant that he had been dismissed
    168
    from the battalion and must leave the battalion lines. He had to leave his hut, and for several days he did the best he could behind the lines, and atone time lie was in danger of being had up as a spy. After a few days of this terrible treatment he was informed that he was to go back to England and report to the War Office. On his way back to the railway station he was unfortunately thrown out of a mule cart and severely hurt, his arm being badly damaged. When he got back to England, as soon as he was fit enough, he formally reported to the War Office that he had arrived and went back home again. A few days afterwards he received notice from the War Office that he was going to be gazetted out and that his services would be dispensed with. He at once wrote and asked for an inquiry, but was told that he had had his chance of an inquiry when in France and that the case could not be reopened now, and that within two or three days he would be gazetted out. Sure enough, on 13th April, he was gazetted out. All this officer had was a five minutes' chat with his brigadier, who told him he would recommend him for an instructorship at home, because he thought the case was rather a hard one. I may mention that in this interview with the brigadier his colonel said, "As far as your personal courage goes, there is nothing against it, and if it was a question of man to man against the enemy now you would be a man who would do good fighting, but it is against you that you have fallen into a state of depression." He was given no chance of an inquiry at all, but simply had a five minutes' interview with the general officer commanding brigade and this promise, and the general officer commanding brigade reported the case to the general officer commanding division, who put it up to the Commander-in-Chief, and it was sent back, I presume, to the Army Council, with the result that the man was "outed" without any attempt at giving him the chance of an inquiry.
    But more than that has happened. He was dismissed the Army, and was once more a civilian. He was laid up for some time with his bad arm and general shock, but he recovered, and one fine day the recruiting officer sent round to say he was once more to be called to the Colours. He appealed to the local tribunal and showed his certificates from the doctor, and the tribunal gave him six weeks' exemption. He came again before them, and again was able to show that his arm

    169
    had not made a complete recovery, and they again gave him a further term of three months' exemption, but that was too much for the military representative, who at once appealed. He went before an Appeal Tribunal, and the military representative won his case, so that now this ex-officer is waiting to be called up any day as a conscript. I put it to the Committee that it is not fair. Here we have a man who gave up a good position in the early days, of the War, when men were badly wanted, and enlisted as a private, got his commission, rose to captain, went to the front, served his winter in the trenches, and got this unfortunate opinion formed of him by his colonel, with the result that he was deprived of his commission. He was then called up again by the military authorities, and, in the course of a few days, if something is not done, will again find himself in the ranks, not as a volunteer, but as a conscript.
    I have given that one case, but I can give even worse cases where these temporary officers are dismissed in a most arbitrary way with no appeal whatever. Something ought to be done by the War Office to meet this sort of case. To my mind, where an officer has been deprived of his commission, not by reason of misconduct, he should not be called upon by a recruiting officer at all, or, at any rate, the recruting officer should not call him up without the direct leave of the War Office I quite admit that at the present moment a general officer commanding brigade or a general officer commanding division cannot perhaps give the time that lie ought to these cases and may perhaps come to hasty and even unjust decisions, but if that is so, there ought to be some sort of court of inquiry or appeal, sitting at the War Office or elsewhere, to which these officers could bring their cases. All the documents would be obtained from France, and the court would decide whether or not the decision given by the officer at the front was right. I submit that the question of these temporary commissions ought to be inquired into, and unless something like this is done these cases will go on growing in numbers, and there will be a feeling of disgust amongst the officers of the New Army which ought not to arise.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The first point to which I desire to call attention is the question of promotion in the Regular Army. In former wars substantive pro-
    170
    motion was granted on a war basis. Owing, however, to the introduction of the system of acting-rank, there are many officers who do not receive the promotion they deserve. Take, for instance, the case of a colonel of a battalion who is made a brigadier-general, or is given the command of another battalion, or is told off for instructional or other home duties. What happens? In a very large number of cases it is pretty evident that the colonel will never return to the command of this battalion. The major or some other subordinate officer is appointed to the command. He goes out and has all the responsibility and danger of the position. If he is wounded while in acting-command as colonel or lieut.-colonel, and is invalided home, he at once reverts to his old position as major, and loses entirely the temporary rank of colonel. My attention has been drawn to a very large number of cases where majors of twenty to twenty-five years' service have in this way been given command of battalions. They have been in command for some considerable time at the front, and yet they have never achieved the substantive rank of colonel. I am not going to suggest that if there is a casual vacancy in the command of a regiment that the major or other subordinate officer who has been called upon to perform the duties of the colonel should at once be given substantive rank. But where you find, as I think you will find, that in a very large number of cases the actual colonel is not likely to, probably never will, return to the command, I do venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that the major or whoever it is that is in de facto command of the battalion should be given substantive rank with all the privileges attaching thereto.
    There is another point. That is the question of weeding out men who are on the lines of communication at the front. Many who are fit for active military service are in the position of orderlies and doing hospital work, are military police clerks, batmen, and in other non-combatant positions. They should be put into the firing-line. A very great and needed improvement, I believe, has taken place in this matter. There is no doubt that a year ago there were a very large number of young and fit men who were stationed on the lines of communication in one part or another. They were put into the fighting-line. I shall, however, be glad to hear from the Under-Secretary that this process is still going on. Perhaps the hon.

    171
    Gentleman will also tell us what progress has been made with the formation of a woman's corps in France? In France, as in England, there is, no doubt, a very large number of duties that women could perform either quite as well, or possibly in many cases better than men. If the proposed corps is formed—and I believe it is in course of formation—it will undoubtedly release a very large number of fighting men. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the case of Mr. Perrett. He was reduced to the ranks, rejoined immediately after the War, and was wounded. He was declared to have done most valiant service. It has been urged that he should be restored to his former rank. Unfortunately, before he was actually restored, as I think he ought to have been, he was discharged from the Army, and when the case was brought up again we were told that, inasmuch as he had been discharged from the Array, there was some technical difficult—I venture to think a purely technical difficulty—in restoring him to his former rank, and that therefore the application could not be entertained. If the position is this, as I venture to think it is, that a complete case had been made out before he had been discharged for restoring him to his former rank, and if, owing to some neglect, or some delay, at the War Office—my hon. Friend opposite was not there at the time—this man was not restored to his former rank before he was discharged from the Army, the fact of that neglect or delay at the War Office ought not to deprive him of his right to be so restored. Therefore, I do beg of my hon. Friend to get over this technical difficulty, and to restore this man to the rank, which by common consent of his colonel and all who knew him, he was entitled to receive. There was a case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham of a very extraordinary kind. It was the case of a conscientious objector, whose conscientious objection failed, and he was then exempted from military service because he was said to be subject to a disease, which to me, at any rate, up to the present moment is unknown—the disease or complaint of agoraphobia, which, I think, interpreted in the vernacular, means cowardice.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Hatred of open spaces.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I should have thought there were plenty of places in the Army where that could be avoided, and probably if he went into the front line trenches he would find that particular complaint would not stand in his way. A bogus conscientious objector is bad enough, in all conscience—a contemptible form in which to evade his country's service—but a gentleman who, when his bogus objection has failed, sets up the disease of agoraphobia, or dislike of open spaces, is a person to whom, I think, no tribunal ought to show any undue leniency, and I would ask my hon. Friend to have that case reviewed, with the assistance of a competent medical authority, and to send this gentleman to a place where his particular troubles would not prevent him from fighting. There is just one point, which is rather more in the sphere of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, to which I want to refer, and that is the question of sick pay of an officer who is temporarily incapacitated owing to a disability not caused by the performance of his military duty. I understand in that case, by an Army Order, he may be allowed sick leave and pay for a period of three months and no more, and if he is not well at the end of three months his sick leave and pay stop.
    That seems to me a somewhat unreasonable limitation, all the more so when compared with the case of civilians employed by the War Office who, with none of the dangers and anxieties of active service, when they are ill are given full sick pay for six months, and if at the end of that period they are not well it is within the discretion of the authorities to give them further sick leave at half their salary for another six months. Why a soldier or an officer who become ill can only be given three months' sick pay while a man at home, in comparative comfort and safety, should be allowed six months and a further period at half salary for another six months I cannot understand; arid this appears to me to be an anomaly which I hope my hon. Friend will remove.
    With regard to the question of savings, I am sure the House was gratified to hear from the statement of my hon. friend last Thursday that large and substantial savings had been made with regard to rations all over the United Kingdom. I think the men who introduced and carried out those changes are deserving of the thanks of the nation for having stopped this wasteful expenditure and saved these

    173
    very large sums. I want to know if my hon. Friend is able to give some comparative estimate as to the savings produced in the different commands. To ask for the actual figures I am aware would show the number of men, and this might be undesirable, but ray hon. Friend might be able to give, say, the proportionate savings per thousand men, so that we might compare the success which this savings movement has met with in the different commands throughout the Kingdom, and then we should be able to give credit to those commands which have effected the most savings, and in that way had proved that they possessed the greatest administrative capacity. I think if those figures were given it would produce a healthy rivalry between the different commands in the United Kingdom to see who could effect the greatest amount of savings consistent with the proper feeding of the troops. Those estimates would be of interest to the House and of value to the persons concerned, and I should be very glad if my hon. Friend could see his way to give us that information.
    Mr. FORSTER: The Under-Secretary for War will reply to the major portion of the Debate, but I will answer one or two specific questions. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butcher) has asked me to publish some figures from the different commands in connection with the saving effected in these commands. I have some figures, but I am not sure that they are very valuable or directly appropriate, and I am rather loth to publish figures which might appear to favour one command or reflect adversely upon another command, unless the basis is strictly comparable. I will, however, look into the matter, and if it can be done it shall be done. Of course the figures are too long to publish except by way of circulation with the Votes. My hon. and learned Friend asked me another question with regard to the period of sick leave on full pay for officers who are suffering from illness or disease not due to military service. He stated the rules with regard to the officers holding temporary commissions who were suffering from disease not due to military service correctly. They do get a period of three months' sick leave on full pay, and after that their pay stops. My hon. and learned Friend compares their case with the case of the civilian in the War Office. Their case is not comparable with that of the civilian. Let me tell my hon. and learned Friend what the position
    174
    is. The cases of the officers of the Regular Army and of the Civil servants in the regular establishment of the Civil Service are comparable. In the case of the officer of the Regular Army who falls sick he gets sick leave on full pay for twelve months. It may be extended to eighteen months. The civilian who is on the regular establishment gets sick leave on full pay for six months, which may be extended to a further six months on half-pay. That is the Regular officer and the regular Civil servant. Then you have the temporary officer, who is dealt with as I have described. If he suffers from illness or disease due to military service he is treated like the Regular officer—that is, he gets eighteen months on full pay. If he suffers from disease not due to military service, he gets full pay for three months. The temporary civilian employed in the War Office gets sick leave on full pay not for six months, but for six weeks—that is to say, half the period allowed to the officer holding a temporary commission. Roughly speaking, therefore, the officer gets twice as much sick leave on full pay as the civilian in either case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Colonel Weigall) spoke a little while ago and said at the beginning of his remarks that he wished to correct and amplify what I had said on Thursday. I noticed the amplification, but I listened in vain for the correction. My hon. Friend, whom I am very glad to see in his place, has done a very great deal, and so have other Members of this House who have served in similar positions under the Chief Inspector, Quartermaster-General Services. My hon. and gallant Friend has done a very great deal in this direction and spoke with some feeling in regard to the difficulty and delay in erection of certain glycerine plant at the camp to which he made reference. He spoke with an intimate acquaintance of the Departmental difficulties. I think it will be obvious to everyone that when you are starting an entirely new business it may be that the scheme appeals to everybody, and where you have some question as to whether it is going primarily to benefit munitions or the War Office, then I submit it is a proper subject of negotiation between the two Departments as to who should pay for it. I think that is the history of the delay which occurred in connection with the erection of this plant, and I am sure that nobody rejoices more than

    175
    my hon. and gallant Friend and myself that the plant has been so singularly successful.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I would like to say that the information I have had respecting the Western Command is that a great deal has been done to reduce the amount of waste that has occurred at the camps, but I would like also to say in connection with that matter that you cannot get a comparative table dealing with the various commands or depots. It is absolutely impossible to do so. You might get a report from a certain depot which indicated that a saving had been effected and that might be caused by the extremely bad cooking and which might result in the men being obliged to use some of their pay to buy food in the canteen or outside. The Army representatives ought to do their best to get better cooks. Less than forty-five minutes ago I was speaking to two soldiers who told me that whilst the supply of food at a depot in Ireland was extravagant they really could not eat 25 per cent, of it owing to the cooking. Within seven weeks they were moved to a depot where there was 50 per cent, less food and it was sufficient because of the cooking. Thus it is absolutely impossible to get a comparative table of results between depot and depot.
    Colonel WEIGALL: The hon. Member's complaint lies against commanding officers. Every command in the United Kingdom now has opened schools for cookery. They are supplied with all the instructors that the Army can give them, and, in fact, the whole field of instruction is as wide as it can be. As long as you send keen, alert, intelligent men to be trained your cooking will improve. I am afraid up to now what has been the practice in regiments, when they have a slovenly, dirty soldier, is to say, "Do for goodness sake make him a cook, and we will never see him again '"
    Mr. WILSON: I would not like to condemn commanding officers as strongly as the hon. and gallant Member, but I quite agree with the condemnation. In the direction of cooking I think a great deal of economy can be effected. In connection with the Financial Secretary's Department I have received a large number of complaints regarding the abolition of working pay for men in the Army who are really doing the work of skilled engineers. Up to December last those men received 2d.
    176
    per hour working pay, but from the 1st January that pay has been stopped. Those men are working longer hours and probably harder than men who are doing military duties. They contend, and in my opinion rightly, that they ought to continue to receive working pay. They are doing extremely valuable skilled work which can only be done by skilled men. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to take the position of these men into his sympathetic consideration. I know that a great deal can be said in favour of the argument that these men are soldiers, and that therefore their services ought to be utilised with the best possible advantage to the nation. If these men are really doing important work, and working longer hours than men putting in a number of drills, those services ought to be recognised.
    The question of promotion and the manner in which young officers are dealt with was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman). I have had quite a number of instances given to me—I do not give the names—where young officers trained for two or three or six months in this country and then sent to the front have been called on, in one instance after seven days and in another instance a couple of months, to resign their commissions as officers. In one instance a young officer, who is in the Artillery, never had charge of a section in this country, but when sent over to France he was put in charge of a section and in some way or other technically failed to perform the duties he was expected to perform. My point is that the judges of these men are, generally speaking, old military men who have been accustomed to dealing with young officers who have probably had two or three years' training in connection with their work. Some of these young officers have been trained under high pressure without the full knowledge of what they were expected to perform, therefore, if it is found that they had been insufficiently trained they ought not to be called upon to resign their commissions, but ought to have an opportunity of making good and an opportunity for further training. I have come in contact with one or two of the men who are acting as judges upon these young men. Some of them do not understand company drill themselves, but they can, practically speaking, ruin the career of men in the Army. The men may have been bank clerks, solicitors or

    177
    accountants who are sent out. If they fail, in the opinion of these military men who think they know something, they are called upon to resign their commissions. If the men who are acting as judges are unable to put a company of men through company drill, they are not fit to be judges. Unfortunately there is a very large number of these men in the Army at the present time. It is not only the military career but the civil career of these young men which might be ruined. For that reason they should not be told that they have failed to perform their duties, unless an absolutely unprejudiced tribunal has heard their appeal and inquired into the full particulars of each case. I have several cases in my possession where the officer who has made a report with regard to a second-lieutenant had not had the second-lieutenant under his command at all. Such a man is not in a position to judge the capabilities of these young men. I know that the hon. Gentleman is desirous of seeing fair play meted out to these men, and I hope he will see to it in future that these young men have a fair chance of proving that a mistake has been made with regard to their capability to perform military duties. I do not ask for anything further than that.
    Several cases have been sent to me in which men have been pitchforked into higher positions over the head of men who really ought to have those positions. One case was sent to me—I do not know whether I should mention the name—in which the Earl of Shrewsbury has been pitchforked into a position over the head of a senior officer, and he has been given certain opportunities or certain privileges which are not conceded to the ordinary officer in the Army. This ought not to be. If the Earl of Shrewsbury is not entitled by merit to the position he holds, he ought to go out and give the man who is entitled to the position an opportunity of filling it. The hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Greenwood) stated that the Army Department was the only Department that realises the position. It realises the position to this extent that it got all the men it possibly could, irrespective of whether they would be serving their country better by remaining in the positions they occupied than if they served the Army. With regard to the tribunals, in my opinion they have endeavoured so far as they can to perform the duties allocated to them fairly and impartially; but when we compare the
    178
    decisions of the tribunal in district A with those of the tribunal in district B, those who go fully into the matter have to come to the conclusion that they differ so widely in the decisions they arrive at that either one or the other must be wrong. What we want in connection with the Army and the men required for the Army is more co-operation and co-ordination between the War Office and the various Departments dealing with the supply of labour. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that whenever I have brought a case before the Under-Secretary of State or the Financial Secretary they have given it the most careful and sympathetic consideration they possibly could.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will deal first with the case mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) and others. I have nothing to object to in the tone and temper of any of the speeches which were made. I have had an opportunity of going into the various statements which have been made. I consider it an extremely hard case, but there is this Regulation which was mentioned by the General Officer Commanding. The facts appear to be as they were stated by my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, this soldier asked for his own discharge in pre-war times; then he enlisted again. The contention which is made in support of the Regulations is that he had his opportunity, during seven months of the War in France, of regaining his stripes on his own merits. It was perfectly possible for his commanding officer at any given moment—the non-commissioned ranks were greatly depleted—to restore his rights and privileges. But that was not done. The analogy, therefore, is not the same as in the case of the officer who has been mentioned, who had had no discharge and who made good. It was quite within the prerogative of the King to restore him to his old rank. I have had to state what is the official view of this case. In view of the representations which have been made, I will try to reopen it and bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State, to see whether, in the very exceptional circumstances, such a hard-and-fast regulation cannot be in some way modified.
    With regard to the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) I have a great deal of sympathy with the case of the man who is acting Lieut.-Colonel at the front and may, for

    179
    weeks and months, endure the dangers and difficulties of the position of full commanding officer, and yet, should he be wounded, he has immediately to go back to his former rank. A great many cases of the kind have been brought before me. I am hopeful that the Committee which has been appointed will consider that as a very special case. I will not go any further than that, but I will make it my duty to see that such a case as that will be brought before them for consideration. With respect to the other point raised, I cannot state exactly the figures, but they are very high. Of the number of men who have been taken from the non-combatant services at the front and placed, when they are physically fit, in the firing line, we are doing our level best not only at home, but in France, to get men who are physically fit into the firing line. In regard to the women's corps we published the terms on which they will be used at the front, and I have no doubt that in the course of a few days we shall be able to make a public announcement of the work exactly for which we shall require these women at the front. They will be able to relieve able-bodied men who will be able to go to the firing line. In regard to the rather technical point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman), I know the case intimately, and I would like to assure him that a temporary officer in the New Army has every single right that is enjoyed by an officer of the Regular Army, and he cannot be dismissed in the summary way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I can assure him that before an officer is dismissed a report has to come from the colonel to the brigadier, then from the brigadier to the Divisional officer and so on to the Commander-in-Chief in France. If he appeals—I speak with knowledge of this particular case—it comes before the Army Council. No officer can be turned out of the British Army in the summary way suggested. He can only be dismissed or asked to resign when his case has been considered and decided against him by three members of the Army Council. My hon. and gallant Friend tells me that this officer was a very morose officer.
    Major NEWMAN: I said he was somewhat melancholy.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I ask the hon. and gallant Member, who has been at the front, would he like to be led by a man of
    180
    that caliber? It is all very well to come to this House and denounce a certain system and a certain commanding officer, but you must remember that a commanding officer is very often a kind-hearted fellow and the last thing he wishes to do is to oust a young officer. But if he thinks it is necessary in the interests of the men it is his obvious duty to report against the officer. I happen to have been one of the three members of the Army Council who considered this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend tells me there is no Court of Appeal. There is. We have considered this case, not only once but twice.
    Major NEWMAN: Did you see the officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I did not see the officer. Even in civil life the Court of Appeal never sees the appellant. It is a system of the Army which has been in existence for years. It always has been the case that every officer whose conduct is in question can appeal under the Army Act. Before he can be asked to resign or be turned out of the Army he has got his chance of appeal, and a very sound appeal it is. We do not turn a man out except for very good reasons.
    Major NEWMAN: This officer did appeal while in France and he was told by his brigadier that his appeal would not be considered.
    Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot say about that. All I know is that no such statement was made. All the facts were placed before me and my colleagues. We take a great deal of pains and devote a good deal of attention to considering fully every single case. I think that these were all the points which my hon. and gallant Friend raised.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Is an opportunity given to the appealing officer to bring any fresh evidence before the Army Council?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly that was done in this particular case. Not only did we decide once, but we decided twice.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Could not the man in the old days have the right to appeal to his Commander-in-Chief? Was not that a much better arrangement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know. Here you have three against one. Then you have the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France.
    Major NEWMAN: He never sees him.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: His commanding officer sees him. The last point raised by the hon. and learned Member for York was about agrophobia. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that this conscientious objector was very carefully examined by a very distinguished medical board, and that he produced to this board wonderful medical certificates from distinguished men, and it was really impossible to decide otherwise. This agrophobia, which I heard of for the first time, this hatred of open spaces, is a disease which, though I understand it is not certified, renders a man quite incapable of performing any duty connected with the Army. In reference to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) I can assure him that all the individual cases receive the very careful attention of the commanding officer, but any individual cases which are sent to me will be considered.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the hon. Gentleman promise me an inquiry into the case of Captain Gate?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know anything about the facts, but if the hon. Gentleman will communicate those facts I will see that they are carefully investigated.
    Mr. KINGrose—
    Mr. FORSTER: I would appeal to my hon. Friend to let us have this Vote. An opportunity for further discussion will be given next week, I think, on the Report stage.
    Mr. KING: I cannot give way. It is not the case that I am the only Member wishing to address the Committee. About
    182
    half an hour ago six Members rose, which would only have left the five minutes for each Member to speak. A great deal of interest is taken in this discussion, and I wish to speak on a most important subject. Last Thursday I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on the distinct understanding that I should be allowed some opportunity on to-day's discussion. This has not been allowed to me and I cannot give way now.
    Mr. BUTCHER Mr. BUTCHER rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can you not speak on the Adjournment?
    Mr. KING: It is too bad. I will not give way. There is plenty of time before eleven o'clock. I will just state the subject I wish to lay before the House.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  FOREIGN PRINCES (BRITISH TITLES).
  FOREIGN PRINCES (BRITISH TITLES).
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS (COFFEE).
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS (COFFEE).
  SPIRITS (HOSPITAL SUPPLIES).
  SPIRITS (HOSPITAL SUPPLIES).
  GREENWICH TIME (IRELAND).
  GREENWICH TIME (IRELAND).
  DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  WAGES BOARDS (IRELAND).
  WAGES BOARDS (IRELAND).
  PORTOBELLO BARRACKS (SHOOTING).
  PORTOBELLO BARRACKS (SHOOTING).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (IRELAND).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CAHIRCIVEEN CASE.
  CAHIRCIVEEN CASE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  TILLAGE SCHEME (IRELAND).
  TILLAGE SCHEME (IRELAND).
  OATS.
  OATS.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  MEAT (ALLEGED GAMBLING).
  MEAT (ALLEGED GAMBLING).
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  FARM WORKERS.
  FARM WORKERS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  PERSONS CALLED UP (TOUTING).
  PERSONS CALLED UP (TOUTING).
  GAZETTED OUT.
  GAZETTED OUT.
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
  30th MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  30th MIDDLESEX REGIMENT.
  MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
  MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
  TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
  TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
  KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS (MEALS).
  KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS (MEALS).
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
  TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (RE-ENGAGEMENT).
  MEAT COMPANIES (EMPLOYES).
  MEAT COMPANIES (EMPLOYES).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  C0URTS-MARTLAL (IRELAND).
  C0URTS-MARTLAL (IRELAND).
  CURRAGH CAMP (ROAD MAINTENANCE).
  CURRAGH CAMP (ROAD MAINTENANCE).
  RAILWAY FARES.
  RAILWAY FARES.
  ARMY MEAT CONDEMNED.
  ARMY MEAT CONDEMNED.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MESSRS. BURBERRY).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MESSRS. BURBERRY).
  YORKSHIRE MUNITIONS EXPLOSION (COMPENSATION).
  YORKSHIRE MUNITIONS EXPLOSION (COMPENSATION).
  COTTON GOODS IMPORT DUTY (INDIA).
  COTTON GOODS IMPORT DUTY (INDIA).
  COCAINE.
  COCAINE.
  RESTRICTED BEER OUTPUT.
  RESTRICTED BEER OUTPUT.
  WOOL (TRANSPORT).
  WOOL (TRANSPORT).
  Malicious Injuries (Ireland).
  Malicious Injuries (Ireland).
  Cow Pastures (Ireland).
  Cow Pastures (Ireland).
  Revaluation Expenses (Dublin).
  Revaluation Expenses (Dublin).
  Stewart Estate (County Donegal).
  Stewart Estate (County Donegal).
  Craughwell Constable's Death.
  Craughwell Constable's Death.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.