Sitting of 16 March 1917

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
Account presented of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof and the interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1915–16 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
TEMPORARY BUILDINGS, ETC.
Return presented of Temporary Buildings erected or contracted for and of Premises hired or requisitioned by His Majesty's Office of Works during the year 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 918 (St. Lucia, Report for 1915–16) [by Command]; to He upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN WALES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on University Education in Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:
Copy of statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1917 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MUNITIONS.

      LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been directed to a decision given by Mr.
      1428
      E. H. C. Wethered, chairman of the Bristol Munitions Court, in the case of a man who asked for a leaving certificate on the ground that he was a fitter and was not paid the standard rate; whether he is aware that, despite the disagreement of the assessors, the chairman refused the certificate on the ground that the work done by the workman did not require a skilled all-round fitter and was therefore semi-skilled work; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made?
      Mr. KELLAWAY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I understand that the complainant was employed on one of some forty operations which were necessary for assembling engines. The chairman found that a journeyman fitter was not required for this work, and that the district rate for a fitter was not applicable and refused a certificate on these grounds. As I understand the chairman's report, the assessors were not agreed among themselves; and in the circumstances the decision rested with the chairman.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Do I understand that a workman who is a skilled and fit engineer in a controlled establishment may be put to a less skilled job and get the wage of a less skilled job, and have no opportunity of getting redress?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The decision both on the facts and on the law rests with the tribunal, and in the event of dissatisfaction with it, there is an appeal.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that appeals are only allowed on the very narrowest grounds of law, and that consequently there is no remedy in appeal at all?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: No: there is also an appeal on mixed law and fact.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such an appeal is not-entertained?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I think that my hon. Friend is misinformed.
      Mr. PRINGLE: No, I am not.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a distinct breach of the promise made to skilled workmen working in controlled establishments'?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That is the question which is in dispute. If there is any breach of the undertaking arrived at

      1429
      between the Government and the trade union, attention can be directed to it by the machinery provided under the Act, by which questions of that kind have to be decided.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Will the hon. Member undertake to make inquiry into this, seeing that he has this decision, that a skilled workman in a controlled establishment can be made a labourer and get the wage of a labourer?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: If there are any grounds such as to justify an inquiry I should not hesitate to have an inquiry immediately.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Would the hon. Gentleman see that a general inquiry is made as to how far the administration of this provision is carrying out the intentions of Parliament?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I would rather not go beyond the particular question which has been asked.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I will raise it in Debate.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will cause in vestigation to be made into a decision given by Mr. C. E. Godwin, chairman of the Southampton Munitions Court, in the case of a carpenter who applied for a leaving certificate; whether he is aware that this workman, who has been ejected from the Army for heart trouble, is obliged to cycle eight miles daily to his work and finds it too hard for him and has been offered employment nearer his home; and will he ascertain the reasons for which the leaving certificate of this workman has been refused by the Court?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I am making inquiries into this matter, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

      RAILWAY FAKES (MUNITION WORKERS).
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he will arrange for work men who are employed at munition works and in controlled establishments, and who live at considerable distances from their homes, to travel to their homes during the Easter holidays at cheap rates?
      Dr. ADDISON: In view of the great pressure on the railways I regret that I am unable to press for further special railway facilities of the kind desired. I should, however, state that an arrange-
      1430
      ment has been made with the Railway Executive whereby the issue has been arranged of a limited number of permits to enable married munition workers living away from their homes to return there occasionally at week-ends. The method of applying this arrangement is at present under consideration, and every effort will be made to bring it into operation as soon as possible.

      SHIPPING LOSSES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether at any time since his accession to office information has been withheld from the public of this country of the sinking of ships by submarines; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the enemy is already in possession of such information, he will reconsider this hide-the-truth policy and so put an end to disquieting rumours?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend the First Lord wishes it clearly to be understood that there has been no concealment of losses. The weekly return of losses published by the Admiralty includes all losses that have been verified within the period covered by the return.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he is well informed of the doings within the scope of his own Department, and that trouble is taken to verify it?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; certainly.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is there any objection to reverting to the old system of allowing the loss of a particular ship to be published as soon as it is known in London without waiting for the publication of the weekly returns?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend, in introducing the Navy Estimates, said that he would have returns prepared and issued not daily, but in as rapid succession as he could, and he came to the conclusion that a weekly return, which would give time for verification, is the best form. All losses are included.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that in addition to the number of ships the weekly returns will give the tonnage, as a mere statement of the numbers would be misleading?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That was a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton. He had a question on that point for next week, and I would prefer to wait until then.

      SUMMER TIME (IRELAND).
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the ordinary day's work in Ireland ends at 6 o'clock; whether he is aware of the injustice of imposing the Summer Time Act upon Irish agriculturists, which would mean that one hour and a half, and in some cases two hours, of the very best part of the day would be taken away from those engaged in food production; is he aware that its passage would only give the farmer by sun time, which is the method by which he can save his crops, six hours a day in a year in which he is asked to do abnormal harvest work as against eight hours per day heretofore, and which was absolutely essential for his requirements even with the lesser amount of tillage he turned out; and will some regard be had to the wishes of those who are increasing enormously their work, as if the Act applies to Ireland it will mean that the crops now being put into the ground cannot be saved?
      The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present. The whole question is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when an answer may be expected?
      Sir G. CAVE: I hope early next week.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received this week a resolution of the society representing the farmers and agriculturists of the whole of Ulster, passed unanimously and protesting against the extension of summer time in Ireland?
      Sir G. CAVE: No. I think that in the agricultural districts of Ireland there is a preponderance of feeling against the renewal of the Order, but I know that in the urban districts of Ireland opinion is the other way.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the agricultural districts of Ireland opinion is unanimously against the Summer Time Act?
      Sir G. CAVE: No. I have resolutions from the rural districts in favour of it.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the suggestion which I made a few days ago, that this Bill should apply to those parts of Ireland which want it, and not to those parts which do not want it.
      Sir G. CAVE: That would not be within the purview of the Act of Parliament.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    IRISH BACON (PRICES).
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there are over thirty bacon-curing establishments in Ireland; whether any of the owners or managers of any of these bacon factories were invited to confer with, or were consulted by, the Food Controller at or before the date he fixed the prices of Irish bacon at 10s. per cwt. under the price of English bacon; and whether he is now prepared to place the Irish bacon on the same level of prices as English bacon?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The prices referred to were settled by the London and Provincial Produce Exchange at a meeting which included representatives of Irish bacon curers. The prices will be subject to revision after a fortnight, when the Food Controller will be careful to consider any representations which may be made to him on this matter.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Why was the price of Irish bacon fixed at 140s. per cwt., seeing that leading wholesale provision dealers in this City are advertising Canadian bacon, which is inferior in quality and cheaper in price, at a wholesale price of 152s. per cwt.?
    Captain BATHURST: There is always a difference in the English market between prices of English and Irish bacon. These differences have to be taken into account, but should not be exaggerated.
    Mr. LOUGH: Why were these prices fixed? Why was the point touched at all

    1433
    with the Food Controller, and what benefit can the public receive, seeing that no price is fixed to the public?
    Captain BATHURST: The prices were not fixed by the Food Controller, But were fixed by representatives of the trade, and assented to by him. As I have already informed the hon. Gentleman, if there is any danger of food prices being raised unduly against the public, the Food Controller will certainly interfere.
    Mr. FIELD: In fixing those prices were representatives of the Irish bacon curers consulted before the prices were fixed?
    Captain BATHURST: That was the actual original question addressed to me, and I replied that representatives of the Irish bacon curing trade were consulted.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Were the Irish bacon curers living in Ireland consulted directly, or was it only their English representatives here in London?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot add to the answer which I have given. I can only say that that section of the trade was duly consulted. If the hon. Gentleman has any representations to make, as I have already told him, they will be most sympathetically considered before these prices are revised.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Irish representatives who are supposed to represent the Irish bacon curers?
    Mr. FLAVIN: As a very important question arises out of the supply of food—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have to give notice.

    TONNAGE SHORTAGE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the shortage of shipping is the sole cause of the restrictions placed upon the export trade of France with this country; and, if so, whether he can state what use is made of the cargo space of ships which have been employed in conveying troops or cargo to France?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The shortage of tonnage is not the sole reason for imposing restrictions on the importation of certain goods into this country,
    1434
    such considerations as the difficulty of finding adequate labour for loading and unloading in the ports and for transport on the railways, etc., being of considerable weight. The fact that some ships which carry cargo to North France return in ballast, is therefore not sufficient to justify the removal of restrictions on the importation of non-essential goods.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether arrangements could not be made for loading these ships on their return with French exports and if any arrangements could be made at French ports for discharging cargo?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I fully appreciate the motive which leads my hon. Friend to ask his questions, but I beg him to believe that every interest concerned has been fully considered and consulted. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had personal conversation with the French Government on all the details, and so far as such a matter can be said to be satisfactory, satisfactory conclusions have been arrived at.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the hon. Gentleman sufficiently aware that in this consideration the French Government are actuated by motives of generosity towards the Allies, and often strain, out of natural politeness, that generosity to the dis-dvantage of their own commerce and to the advantage of British commerce unfairly?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The fact of the matter is, and I think the French Government fully realise the fact, that we imposed restrictions which severely affected important trading of our OWE before we touched trading in which our Allies are interested.
    Mr. THORNE: Have there been any cases where the ships have left French ports empty?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is implied in the answers I have given to my hon. Friend opposite.

    SHIPPING PROFITS.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the estimated profits on shipping for 1916 as compared with the profits for 1913 recently published; whether he is prepared to inquire into the accuracy of these figures, having,

    1435
    regard to the dividends which have been declared by shipping companies even after provision has been made to meet the Excess Profits Tax; and whether he is prepared to apply to shipping profits the method adopted in respect of the railways when they were taken over by the State?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I hope to be able to state very shortly the intentions of the Government in this matter.

    POLICE RAID (GLASGOW).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the reason for a further police raid inspired by the military authorities on a trade union meeting in Glasgow organised by the Shop Assistants' Union; whether a meeting of hairdressers to discuss the question of wages was entered by an Army sergeant and half a dozen police officers, who demanded the immediate production of military exemptions; whether two men, who were not carrying their papers with them, were accompanied by the police to their homes and were found to have served with the Army in Gallipoli and been discharged; whether one man, arrested as an absentee and taken to prison, had to be discharged because it was found he had already reported for Army service and been told to go back to his work until he was called up; whether the two raids on trade union meetings, though causing much ill feeling, have yielded even one absentee; whether he is aware that it is generally believed among the shop workers in Glasgow that these repeated raids are instigated by the employers, and are therefore embittering industrial relations; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into all the circumstances, and meantime take steps to put a stop to proceedings which create resentment without any service to the Army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox has also addressed me on this matter. I explained to my hon. Friend on 28th February that be was under a misapprehension as to the objects of the so-called" raids." An examination of registration cards and
    1436
    exemption certificates was made at a meeting of the hairdressers in Glasgow on 6th March. A police inspector explained the purpose of the examination to the chairman, and my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that a most amicable spirit prevailed, and the members were thanked for their courtesy. There were about eighty-persons present, and all the cards were found to be in order. There is no foundation for the suggestion that these raids are instigated by employers, or are in any way directed against trade unions. In this particular case I am informed that the officer responsible was not aware that this was a trade union meeting.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my hon. Friend say whether this is a round-up or a comb-out of the whole of the hairdressers?
    Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of the reply, can the hon. Gentleman say what has come of the National Register, and why the military authorities do not use the National Register which is kept?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a separate question.

    TAXI-CAB DRIVERS (WOMEN).
    Mr. NEVILLE (by Private Notice)asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a representation on behalf of the drivers of taxi-cabs against his decision to approve the issue of driving licences to qualified women, and with what result?
    Sir G. CAVE: I received on the 9th instant a deputation representing the London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle. Workers, who put before me their arguments against the issue of licences to women. I informed the deputation that I had never intended and do not now intend to sanction the issue to women of licences to drive trams or motor omnibuses. I reminded them that it was well understood that the places of those taxi-cab drivers who have joined or may join His Majesty's Forces will be kept open for them by their employers on their return, and I added that the whole question of the licensing of women to drive taxi-cabs would be reconsidered at the end of the War. The deputation appeared to be satisfied with the statements made.
    No woman has yet obtained a driving licence, although it is understood that a few of them are seeking to qualify for the purpose.

    1437
    I regret to say that an attempt is now being made to misrepresent the facts to the men and to induce a strike not only of taxi-cab drivers, but of tram and omnibus drivers. The Minister of Labour met a deputation of the men last night, and it is still hoped that the proposed stoppage, for which there is no reasonable cause and which may seriously hamper the issue of munitions, will not be persisted in.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable, before doing anything as regards this question, to make quite sure that sufficient women can be found to take up this work?
    Sir G. CAVE: No woman can possibly be licensed unless she qualifies.

    REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intelligence to give to the House as to the situation in Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There have been a few messages, but nothing I can communicate to the House now. Messages are coming almost every hour, and if a question is asked at the close of business today, I shall be pleased to give what information there is available.

    DUCHESS OF CONNAUGHT.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I take this opportunity of saying that I propose to put down a Motion on Monday expressing the sympathy of the House with His Majesty and the Royal Family in the death of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Connaught.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Are we to have no message of sympathy with the Russian Duma?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend need be in no anxiety on that point, but I think he will recognise that we must see the situation a little more clearly.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether steps will be taken to recognise officially the new Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That question is really answered by the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend just now.

    IRELAND (ST. PATRICK'S DAY).
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether, in the course of the proceedings to-day or on the Adjournment, there will be anyone to answer for Ireland? A rumour has reached me that orders or warnings have been issued to the people in Dublin to keep indoors on St. Patrick's Day, and I am very anxious to get some authoritative statement.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say that I know nothing of the circumstances to which the hon. Member has alluded, but, as it happens, the Chief Secretary went to Ireland only yesterday, and I do not think there will be anybody here who will be able to answer with authority for the Department as to anything that is being done in Ireland.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not blame the Chief Secretary for having gone to Ireland, and of course he cannot be in two places at once; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire if anyone of his colleagues will be able to inform us on the Adjournment whether there is any truth in this rumour as to warnings addressed to the people of Dublin to remain indoors to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly I shall be pleased to give any information that is in the possession of the Irish Office.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether it would be possible in this troublous time for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to spend more time in that country, and will it be possible for one of the Under-Secretares to answer questions? In my judgment the people in charge of the Government of Ireland at the present time are trying to provoke the people of Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a speech which can be delivered later.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY. — [15TH MARCH,]
  Resolution reported,

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1916–17.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress: and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The Vote which has just been submitted covers naval and military operations in connection with the War. I desire to ask the Government for a little information in regard to the military forces at present in Ireland. I think that the House generally will recognise that the policy both with regard to both military and civil administration in Ireland was left in a very unsatisfactory state when the matter was last before the House, and in these times, when revolutions are in the air, it seems to be opportune, in view of the grave state of things in Ireland, that we should have a frank declaration from the Government both as to the present position and as to the future policy. Revolutions, if they fail, are a crime against humanity, and if they succeed are a blow for freedom. I should like to ask the, Government whether they intend to leave this matter exactly where it was left in our recent Debate. At that time the Government expressed itself willing to consent to the appointment of a Commission in order to see whether this opportune moment could not be taken advantage of
  1444
  in order to bring about a better understanding between this country and Ireland. There are only three courses open to the Government. They may leave matters exactly as they are and allow them to drift, which is, I think, an impossible, and certainly a dangerous policy. There is the other alternative of accepting the suggestion put forward by the late Prime Minister that a Commission of powerful representative men, with a Colonial element, should be appointed to try and bring about a peaceful settlement between the two countries. And there is the third alternative, that the Government itself should provide the machinery for carrying out the declared policy of the Government, which, as I understand it, is that every portion of Ireland which is favourable to the immediate establishment of free institutions there should have the opportunity of declaring their will, or, in short, I take it that means what is commonly known as county option. I invite the Government to face this question at the present moment, because it is essentially a war question. My information from Ireland is not at all of a reassuring character, and I do not know whether anyone acquainted with that country will deny that fact. There are greater Imperial issues even than the domestic position of Ireland. There is the Irish element in America, and there is the overwhelming necessity that no domestic questions should interfere with the concentration of public opinion on the vigorous prosecution of the War. I look forward with dismay to the possibility of party debates in this House during the very serious times through which this country is about to pass. I think every Member's mind ought to be on the War and on nothing but the War, and in the interests of the Government itself, not to speak of the country, I invite my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, to be as frank as he usually is with regard to this question. Ten days have elapsed since this question was before us, and practically nothing, so far as the House knows, has been done. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if he can, whether the Government still adhere to their approval of the appointment of a Commission to deal with this matter. And are they willing, as far as possible, to collect the views of the House in regard to that policy. Let me point out this is no-longer purely a Government matter, it is no longer an Irish matter, it is a matter which belongs to this House. Judging

  1445
  by the manner in which we have pressed Governments in regard to previous procedure, I do not think we are justified in being absolutely silent so long as we have responsibility. I regard this as of a most pressing character. I would not have intervened to-day, but I invite my right hon. Friend to tell us whether the policy of the Government is still a conciliatory policy. Is it still their policy as to the whole of Ireland that desires self-government that that desire shall be fulfilled? Are they themselves prepared to take some steps in order to settle what I think is a most dangerous problem at the present time?
  Major G. P. COLLINS: No doubt there are many causes which have brought about (he revolution in Russia, but undoubtedly one of the main causes is the lack of transport facilities in that country, which has brought about scarcity of food in that wide area. Contrast the position in Russia with the measure of success of our forces in Mesopotamia. Up that long winding river of some 500 miles our troops have gained a great success, and that is largely due to the excellent transport facilities up that river. I had hoped yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have told us something further about the successes in that part of the globe. The House may be interested to know that I had a letter a few days ago from a responsible officer in that part of the sphere of operations, in which he assured me that the arrangements for the sick and wounded, taken by motor ambulances and by quick steamers to their hospitals, left nothing to be desired. My object in rising is to see if this country cannot gain some experience from what has happened in Russia during the last few days. The revolution there, as I have said, has come about from scarcity of food and scarcity of transport facilities, largely due to men being taken from productive industries in Russia and transferred into the ranks of the military. No amount of management will control famine. We know full well that in Germany to-day food tickets are plentiful, while the food itself is scarce, and it is true that the gaunt spectre of famine is stalking through the world today. I say let us be on guard against it in this country. The advance of famine will have far-reaching results, not only on ourselves, but on our families, and if we are to avoid being driven into any dishonourable peace we must face this matter "with more determination and more cour-
  1446
  age than we have even during the last few months. Scarcity is apparent, because the high prices of foodstuffs speak for themselves. Profiteering no doubt exists, but that would not exist if the supplies were plentiful, and to ward off famine I think the Government should take further steps to deal with two items. We have too long neglected our agriculture. We are neglecting it to-day if we withdraw a single man from agriculture in this country. We are neglecting it to-day if we do not return to the land its skilled men who are now in the ranks of the Army. On Wednesday I was in Scotland, and a man who came through from Edinburgh told me a large number of ploughmen had been withdrawn from the military to be lent to farmers in Scotland. But they are withdrawn only for a few weeks. Has not the time arrived when the Government should insist on those men being permanently retained on the land instead of being withdrawn for a very few weeks, and then returned to the military?
  We have not only not to neglect agriculture, but we must also not neglect our transport and our mercantile shipping. I remember well, in 1915, seeing the largest yard on the Clyde, noted for building merchant ships, and not a single ship was being built in that yard. We have altered our policy, no doubt, in that respect, but to-day there are large numbers of skilled men in the Army whose place should be in the shipyards of our country and in the engineering shops of our country It was wise, perhaps, to withdraw those men in 1915 and 1916, but to-day, in the early months of 1917, they should be ordered back from the Army and sent to the shipyards and engineering shops and other productive industries of this country, and until the Government take these steps they are neglecting the vital questions which will settle this War in a satisfactory way to ourselves. I say also that the Government are neglecting our merchant shipping if they do not review our expeditionary policy. It is true to say that the failure of the Dardanelles Expedition in the early months of 1915 brought down the Government of that day, and perhaps, if the truth were known to-day, the Salonika Expedition will bring down the present Government. These matters must be reviewed in the light of subsequent knowledge, and our merchant ships should not be used for these distant expeditions, which use up such a large number of ships not only in carrying men and stores, but

  1447
  also in the long distances they have to follow, and their number being such that they are unable to be adequately protected by torpedo boats in the dangerous waters of the Mediterranean. It is true also to say that many engines in this country are not being repaired and many merchant ships are not Toeing repaired in our yards because of lack of labour.
  On these points I do not think the military are to blame. You cannot blame the military for trying to lay hands on every available man. They would be false to their duty if they did not try to do so; but the responsibility rests, and must rest, solely on the War Council for determining these points, and I appeal to the Leader of the House to review these questions in the light of the knowledge which they possess to-day. The practical suggestion which I have to offer as a contribution to this Debate is this, that the onus of proof should not as in the past be, "Why should not men be taken by the Army," but instead the position should be reversed, and it should be placed upon the military to justify in every case why any man should be taken from a productive industry and transferred into the ranks of the Army. In addition, why should not the Board of Agriculture have the same power to give badges to their men as is possessed by the Ministry of Munitions? We know full well that there is only one reason that has accounted for that lack of power in the past. It is because in this country we have, rightly or wrongly, looked upon the Board of Agriculture as a secondary office. Their powers have never been so great in this House—with all respect to the men who have held that position in the past— and it has not been an office sought after by the leading members of the different Governments; the powerful men in each Government have sought to preside over more important Departments, and so, little by little, the Board of Agriculture has sunk in the past to a secondary position. If the Board of Agriculture to-day had power to give badges to men, we would not see the position which we have to-day.
  I have only been here a few weeks, but every day I have been in this House hon. Members have risen from all quarters to urge that men should not be withdrawn from agriculture and from different trades. As far back as 1915 in this House I ventured to question the wisdom of the policy of withdrawing men, as we were doing at
  1448
  that time, from every trade in the country. I wondered then as I wonder now, whether we could stay the course successfully. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is worse than ever."] I do not think it is too late even yet if the Government will take definite steps to withdraw men from the Army, no matter where they are, and send them back to the vital industries without which this War cannot be waged successfully. As I have said, I do not think the responsibility in this matter rests with the War Office. It is essentially a matter for the War Council to determine and for the War Office to carry out the policy laid down by the War Council itself. The day has long since gone by when this War can be conducted with vigour in every part of the globe, and the time has arrived, I think, when we should seek to conserve our strength. The nation which conserves its strength and has the largest margin to spare at a given moment will) win this War. The War, I think, will be won on margins. Germany to-day is withdrawing to conserve her strength. Are we withdrawing to conserve our strength? Are we reviewing the actions of the past to conserve our strength? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have noticed yesterday, after Questions, the restlessness which was shown by this House at the restrictive tenor of the Debate. That restlessness is a fair indication of the uneasiness which exists outside these doors. We are asked by the Government to pass another £60,000,000 to carry on the War. Day after day recently the public have been asked to lend their hard-earned savings, obtained after much toil and work, and before asking for this further £64,000,000,I think the Government should have sought instead to find that money from other services. They should have attempted to economise in other directions. That, I think, would have been the policy of any wise business man. Instead of coming down and asking for further money, he would have gone through his various Departments to see whether he could have got so much from one Department and so much from another, but the ease with which this House in the past has voted large sums of money to the Government no doubt would encourage them in the course which they have taken. I am sorry also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us no assurance that an attempt had been made to economise in public Departments. I listened very

  1449
  closely to what he said in introducing the Vote. We had no assurance in his speech that any attempt, or any further attempt, was being made to economise in the public Departments. When it is considered that the amount of this Estimate is some £64,000,000, and that the first item is £18,000,000 to buy wheat from Australia, the question that at once arose to my mind was: here we are using foodstuffs for alcoholic beverages—is it not rather a tragedy to think it?—when we should conserve our foodstuffs for the vital necessities of the people. The Government in this matter will have an awkward time if, any time in the next twelve or eighteen months, there is any real shortage of foodstuffs, because the public will then say, and rightly say, "Why did not the Government take steps to conserve every pound of foodstuffs in this country, rather than allow us to drink it at our own pleasure?" I do not know the exact position in this matter. But it seems to me the wisest course to conserve our foodstuffs for the future, because the public may say, as they did in Scotland when I was there this week, "Surely the Government would not allow us to continue to make beer, or other liquors, if there was any real shortage of foodstuffs in this country!" This is the outlook of the public to-day. They trust the Government to take the necessary steps to curtail these articles, and their production, if there is any fear of any real shortage of food in the future. Although, perhaps, I have spoken in a critical spirit of the Leader of the House, may I, before I sit down, say that I appreciate very much the frankness shown by him in these matters. I appreciate very much the tenor of his speeches since the outbreak of the War. He has realised the seriousness of the situation. He has realised that the War will not be a short one, and that this country may have to undergo great hardships. I have no desire to increase his difficulties, but rather to support him in any action he may wish to take, no matter how stringent, if it reverses decisions which in the light of present knowledge have been a failure.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I ventured yesterday to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that in connection with the three Votes of Credit which he has introduced into this House he has dealt hardly at all with the question of what effort the Government are making to secure that we shall come to some larger approach to value for our money in the
  1450
  enormous expenditure that is going forward. It is staggering to think that the Votes of Credit this year, 1916–17, amount to £2,010,000,000. The saving of a paltry 3 per cent. on this two thousand millions means £60,000,000. If that small saving had been effected all through there would have been no necessity to ask for this £60,000,000 Vote. The expenditure of the year now exceeds the original Estimate by no less than £410,000,000, and brings up the expenditure to five and a half millions per day. The total Votes since the beginning of the War amount to £4,042,000,000, and it increases the deficit of the two years ending 31st March to £2,955,000,000. The War Loan was an enormous success, on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend. The spirit of sacrifice entered into it and made it a success. On the occasion of the last Vote of Credit I ventured in this; House to say that if the new money did not amount to a thousand millions it would be inadequate. I was laughed at for that prophecy. I am glad to say that it was realised. It included £130,000,000 of Treasury Bills which were transferred into the War Loan, and were, therefore, not exactly new money. That reduced the new money to £870,000,000. What do we find as the final result? When the War Loan closed we still had outstanding £920,000,000 of short-dated Treasury Bills, with £870,000,000 of new money to place against them with which to liquidate them. Therefore, the position in which we stand to-day is that if we pay off those Treasury Bills we shall have a deficit of £50,000,000, with £276,000,000 of short-dated Exchequer Bonds standing over. What does that mean? It means that we need to conserve our financial resources more than ever before, because after our present expenditure we shall merely have begun to pile up short-dated borrowings again.
  The main object, however, of my rising is to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as did the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, to make some statement to the House as to what effort the Government have been making to secure better value for the expenditure of their money to the taxpayers of this country? The control and supervision of national expenditure in all Departments in normal times is in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that owing to the enormous pressure or crises through which we are passing that that Treasury control has largely to be in abeyance during the War. The last

  1451
  Report of the Public Accounts Committee made some drastic strictures on the unnecessary waste of money, especially in connection with the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions. I will not recapitulate the points raised by the Public Accounts Committee. I have already banded notes of them to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they are accessible to Members. Indeed, I stated them in the House on a previous occasion, but was not honoured with a reply from the Government. What I ask broadly to-day is: What effort have the Government made to give effect to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, so that a continuance of the huge waste of money in the two places which were reported upon in the 1915–16 Report of the Public Accounts Committee is not being continued to-day? An Estimates Committee was appointed two or three years ago. It has not, I believe, met for two years. The Public Account Committee's Report deals with the period 1915–16, now so long gone by that really all it amounts to is to record the waste that took place rather than to be an instrument by which we shall effectively prevent waste for the future. The subject is of vital importance.
  You substituted for the Public Accounts Committee a Treasury Committee, a Public Accounts Control Committee, and an Estimates Accounts Control Committee. We tried to get Committees appointed to endeavour to effect economies in connection with the Estimate for the Navy, Munitions, and the Civil Service Department. We have only had a Report of what work has been achieved by these Committees in connection with the Civil Service Department, and they say they have effected an economy of 4 per cent. If other Departments had effected an equal economy, this Vote of £60,000,000 would not have been required to-day. Therefore, the House is entitled to know what has been the result of the work of these several. Committees. I am perfectly certain they have done good work, and the House ought to be informed of it. We all know that millions of money have been wasted, especially in the earlier stages of the War, and millions have been wasted through the want of proper management of the commandeered shipping alone. A Controller was appointed for the Clothing Department and the clothing depots, and it is most unfortunate that the Controller's
  1452
  Report is not in our hands to-day, so that we could know of the economies effected in regard to the extraordinary waste of money which took place in the Pimlico Clothing Depots and the other clothing depots throughout the country. I suppose we shall receive that Report when it is too late to prevent any waste, as in the case of the Public Accounts Committee. That was not the fault of the Public Accounts Committee. We ought to be grateful to them for the evidence we have in their Report of the immense pains they have taken in investigating and endeavouring to point out the extravagances which ought not to have taken place. In the Auditor and Controller-General we have a most splendid and valuable public servant, who discharges his duties exceedingly well.
  What we want is some authority that will act to-day to stop the waste of public money. We have had a new Controller appointed for the management of shipping. The House wishes to be assured by the head of the Government in this House that the Shipping Controller will be really allowed to control and that he will no longer be subject to have his control upset by the Admiralty Transport Department officials, who have been transferred with him to the new office which has been set up. We all learned with pleasure yesterday that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is to be an additional controller or director, charged with the working of the commandeered and requisitioned ships, amounting in all to a tonnage of 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 tons. All I can say is that, glutton as the hon. Member is for work, to our knowledge, and great as is the energy he possesses, I think he has got a big job in hand. We are grateful to him and we are grateful to the Shipping Controller for coming forward and giving freely their services in this respect. I desire to know, and the House desires to know, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the lack of ordinary control and supervision of expenditure which has fallen into abeyance during the War is being met by these various Committees that were appointed. I am sure that, after the magnificent response to the War Loan on the part of the nation, it would be a great satisfaction and encouragement to the people throughout the whole country if my right hon. Friend is able to give us this assurance. We know that waste cannot be altogether stopped in the middle of a great War like this, and

  1453
  we would not be so unreasonable as to expect that, but we ask that when the matter is being seriously considered in connection with Votes of Credit, we shall from time to time, have some statement with respect to the savings that are being effected. Since these Committees were appointed we have had no Report as to the result of their labours, and I invite my right hon. Friend to give us a statement containing information on this most important subject.
  1.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friends have mentioned a subject to which I desire to call the attention of the Chancellor of Exchequer, namely, the need for some economic control of this vast expenditure. If ever there was an occasion on which the House ought to be willing to consider this matter, it surely is to-day. It is only a month since we had the largest Vote of Credit which any Parliament has ever had to face, and yet within a month of that time we have to supplement it by this extremely large amount. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends are well entitled to call attention to this question of the necessity of some machinery for more economic administration of the resources of the country. About a month ago we had the pleasure of receiving a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was marked "Private." The preliminary sentence of that letter I should like to read to the House, with his consent.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Certainly.
  Mr. LOUGH: With the leave of the right hon. Gentleman, I will read it to the House. I will not go into the private part at all.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps it would be interesting to the House.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do not want to commit any breach of the ordinary standard of House of Commons morality, but I will read the first sentence. It produced a powerful effect on my mind.
  An HON. MEMBER: On your pocket too!
  Mr. LOUGH: Yes, on my pocket too.
  The letter says:
  "The War has reached a position in. which it is evident that the issue must largely depend upon the staying power of the combatants, and in my belief there is
  1454
  nothing which would do more to hasten a satisfactory peace than evidence of the financial stability of the United Kingdom."
  The War Loan was an excellent answer to that letter.
  Mr. LYNCH: While not wishing to interrupt an interesting discourse, I should like to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. A letter has been produced, which may be an official document. Part of it has been quoted. I would like to know whether Members of the House are entitled to have the whole letter laid on the Table.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) occupied the position which ho did at one time as a member of the Administration, he would have been obliged to produce the document, but in his present position the rule does not apply to him.
  Mr. LOUGH: I can assure my hon. Friend that I only quoted that which was relevant to my argument. It is our duty to do everything we can to maintain the financial stability of the United Kingdom. We are concerned with the expenditure of vast amounts of money, and I can well understand that my hon. Friends feel deeply concerned if every step is not taken to secure economy. I want to make two or three specific proposals in regard to this matter, and I would be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other responsible Minister would give an answer. The complaint we make —it was voiced by my hon. Friends and I desired to put it forward—is that we get no answer. There were four speeches about economy in the earlier part of a debate some months ago, but no reply was given. Where a reply is given it is something to this effect—a particular case is dealt with, and there is a promise given that that case will be looked into. This House wants something more than that. We want an alteration of the system, and we want to be assured that the old economic principles which Parliament has set up are going to be brought into operation once more. I have no desire to embarrass the Leader of the House, because I think he is performing a very difficult task, but I wish to remind him that the instrument of economy in every Government is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have not yet seen the new Financial Secretary, and we cannot see him because he is not a Member of

  1455
  this House. We know this member of the Government has been engaged on very important work, and we know that he is a man of great ability, although I have not the pleasure of knowing him myself. My point, however, is that the work that used to be discharged by the Financial Secretary in this House wants doing, and, with great respect to my right hon Friend, I do not think it is being done at the present time. What is the duty of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He has always been regarded as the watch-dog of economy, and there never was a time like the present when a watch-dog was so much wanted. We wanted an assurance that the will of the House of Commons will be carried out, and that is not being done at the present time.
  The same point is raised in almost every criticism, and we want some machinery to control the expenditure of the country to secure economic administration. In the past the Financial Secretary to the Treasury used to be the instrument through which the machine of economy worked. We do not appear to have one now, and I want to know what is being done in this matter, which is causing so much concern in the House. I shall not be satisfied on this point with any arrangement made inside the ranks of the Government. The fault of the last Government in this respect was that whenever they saw a storm coming in the House of Commons —I would ask the present Government to be careful how they deal with storms—they appointed a Cabinet Committee. None of us knew what that Committee did, what evidence it proceeded upon, when it began or when it finished, and I have no confidence in that mode of procedure. The constitutional procedure with regard to this matter is the House of Commons itself. The great mistake made by the last Government, and which I fear will be made by this Government, is that Parliament itself, the mighty force of this House, is not used to effect the great work of economy which my hon. Friends and myself have so much at heart. I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he could use his influence to appoint a Committee of this House to consider the national outlay, with a view of restricting the total expenditure. I would suggest that such a Committee should make inquiries into the expenditure in such a way that no delay shall be caused to the progress of any military operations.
  1456
  I have never been satisfied with the reasons given for excluding the House of Commons having control over the expenditure which has arisen since the War commenced. The House of Commons could, by means of a large Committee, without obstructing military operations, see that the Government get the best value for their money. I want Parliament called to the assistance of the Government, and in some safe way an arrangement made by which this House shall discharge its ancient obligations to the taxpayer of controlling expenditure.
  When I see the Ministers opposite every one of their Departments suggest to me waste. When I open my newspaper in the morning I see some scandalous example of waste which shocks the public feeling of the country. Take the "Times." I saw there a very interesting leader relating the story of a field of 22 acres of young wheat, which some young officer of the Army gave instructions to dig up in order to build hutments. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for War here. Probably he has read the "Times," and has seen this case. On one side of the road near this wheat field there was another field in which the hutments could have been erected without waste or loss, and yet the officer orders the wheatfield to be dug up. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is too bad!"] What is going to be done about this? We know the answer, and we are sick and tired of it. We shall be told that the matter will be inquired into, but we never hear the result of those inquiries. I remember in the last Debate half a dozen of my inquiries received no answer.
  I will turn for a moment to another case which has been mentioned in this House. It is the case of a farmer who had some hay which the War Office had bought. He asked permission to take some of this hay away for his own necessary purposes, and he was told, "We cannot weigh this hay, but you can have some of our hay from a distance." Of course, you can never get a businesslike answer, and whenever any difficulty occurs we are told there will be an inquiry, and we get no assurance that any economy will be effected. The point I have in view is illustrated by every one of these cases, and the manner of conducting our affairs is not businesslike. The Army is a great offender in this respect, and I am the last person to say a word against the War Office, or the gallant soldiers who are doing so much for our

  1457
  country. We all have an admiration for them. But we are deeply convinced that, owing to their profession and a thousand reasons which I could give, they are not men calculated to carry through simple business operations. This question of 22 acres of young wheat does not appeal to them. There ought to be an authority to give the word of command in such an instance as this field of young wheat, "Go on the other side of the road." In the other case the word of command might have been given, "Supply this hay from the stock farm." But the War Office seems to be destitute of any capacity of exercising business functions. I do not want to make an attack upon the War Office, and I will now turn to the Department of the Shipping Controller. Yesterday we had made out the case of the Government—the weak case, as I thought —about the prohibition of imports, and I want to suggest that there may be great waste in this wide and broad prohibition of imports. I hear that ships are coming over from France almost in ballast or half empty because some of the goods which they might bring are prohibited.
  Sir J. WALTON: Luxuries!
  Mr. LOUGH: It is very difficult to say what is a luxury, and, as the hon. Member has just addressed the House, I would rather that he allowed me to submit my own argument. The House will see how necessary it is to be careful in this matter. The Government now take all the ships it needs and sends them where it pleases. If the Government does not fill up a ship on a particular occasion, why should it be prevented from bringing some of the necessary commodities to this country? Supposing a ship is passing down the St. Lawrence to Halifax, and Halifax has 1,000 cases of apples, why should it not bring those apples? Is not this general broad prohibition likely to result in great waste, causing ships to come with half cargoes or no cargoes at all? Would it not be better if the Government allowed the commercial community to bring in all the commodities they can? It appears to me that this matter has not been fully thought out and that the operations of the Department of the Shipping Controller may involve the country in great waste and loss in a most critical time. We had a most extraordinary scene in this House on Tuesday. I went upstairs and found the greatest deputation I have ever seen in this House. It represented all the 3,500
  1458
  controlled establishments of the country, and we heard from my hon. Friend who introduced it that there was £2,000,000,000 of capital represented in the room. They all put one plea to the Government. What was it? It was that the various Ministers should consult with the trades that were represented there before issuing their Orders. That is all. They asked that you should speak to the people who know about things before you act. The moment we say that it appears to drive the War Office wild. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is done!"] It is done in the most restricted way, and it is not done until the last moment. Why did that deputation come to the House of Commons? Would all those gentlemen have come here to talk nonsense and waste their time if the thing were being done? They mentioned case after case of the most ridiculous Order-having been issued. Many of these Orders were afterwards withdrawn, and they were only issued because the trades affected were not consulted. Whenever a particular trade is mentioned, attention is directed to that trade, whereas my object is to get the principle looked into and some economic machinery set up, such as any business man would create. It would be a disgrace to any business to have anyone of the thousand things which goes on in connection with the Government. Still, I will break the rule that I have been trying to lay down, and I will say a word about my own business—tea. That business was carried on in a most creditable way from the standpoint of the trade of the country until about two months ago.
  Mr. G. FABER: Not with regard to the paper in which it is sold.
  Mr. LOUGH: That is a detail.
  Mr. FABER: It is not a detail.
  Mr. LOUGH: I assure the hon. Member it is a perfect detail, and I will not digress and go into it. It was examined by a Committee, and I do not speak of that branch of the business at all. As lately as October last the State was buying tea at 10d. per lb., and it is now paying between 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5d. per lb. That alone represents a loss of about £25,000 per week. The House may say, "Why did not you go to the Government and speak to them about it?" I have been speaking to the Government for sixteen months, and trying to get them to consider the general interests of the country and to make a businesslike arrangement. I went

  1459
  to the present Prime Minister when he was at the War Office, but I could not interest him in a trifle of this kind. That was fifteen months ago. I also spoke to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have spoken to the present Financial Secretary. All I did was to ask them to consult the trade before they took violent steps with regard to the matter. Look at the example we have had within the last fortnight. Happily this does not affect the War Office. I do not want to be hard upon the War Office, because I believe in a great many respects they have placed the country under the most lasting obligation, but I do appeal to them that, in matters of business they should adopt the principle of consulting those who know before making their purchases. Look at what another branch of the Government did a fortnight ago. The Food Controller, a fortnight ago, plunged into this tea question.
  Mr. HAZLETON: And the bacon question.
  Mr. LOUGH: I will leave the bacon question to be dealt with by my hon. Friends from Ireland, although I agree it is a question of vast importance. What occurred? Really, if it were a comic opera the thing could not be more amusing. The Food Controller sent for a few representatives of the business and then swept them all aside and said, "I know all about it. The price of tea must be reduced by about 40 or 50 per cent." He did not take into account the operations of the other members of the Government. He fixed a certain price, but the Government themselves were giving 33⅓ per cent. more than that price for all the tea that they could buy. What was the good of one member of the Government stating this and another member of the Government stating exactly the opposite? The effect was that the tea sales almost produced a famine. In the same way a famine in potatoes has been produced. The Government makes everything dearer it touches. It creates scarcity and famine instead of cheapness and plenty. The Food Controller said to this tea deputation, "If you do not behave well and alter the price immediately, we will treat you as we do sugar." How did they treat sugar? They doubled and trebled the price of sugar, and within a month of taking it over they made the people suffer more
  1460
  both in the price they paid for it and in its scarcity than ever the unhappy people thought they could suffer.
  The Government are full of the idea that they have managed sugar exceedingly well. We cannot get it into their heads that they ought to drop sugar and leave it to the people who understand it. If the Government would only allow sugar to be imported freely—why should it be a crime to bring in sugar? that question has never been answered—if they would only allow sugar to be brought in by the people who understand it, the whole of their difficulties with regard to sugar, its scarcity and dearness, would be solved. There are constant complaints coming from Ireland about sugar. It is a crime for any man in Ireland who knows where to get it to bring in sugar. Would it not be safe to give them the liberty? I shall be told by the Government that they could not do it. But why not try? Why not open the gates and let them bring it in if they can? If they can, nothing but good will be done. The House will see the difficulty I get into the moment I mention any particular case, and yet there are one or two as to which I want an answer. Some of them were mentioned a month ago, but we have not yet had any answer. The House will remember that the Food Controller, as I think very wisely, recommended a system of voluntary rationing. He recommended everybody to bring down their consumption. But it was discovered a month afterwards that the Government had not put this rationing system into effect in the workhouses, or the prisons, or even in the prisons where the Germans are confined. Had they done so in the case of the German prisoners alone, and had they reduced the amount of bread to the standard fixed by the Food Controller, they would have saved 107 tons of bread weekly. I want to ask a question now, What has actually been done in this respect? Has the system been applied in the workhouses and prisons? Has it been applied to the numerous officials who are fed everywhere by the Government? Have they been put on the ration fixed by the Food Controller? If not, why not? Surely example is better than precept.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the Treasury Bench feeding itself on rations?
  Mr. LOUGH: We were promised some information about the appointment of Mr. Tristram Eve by the War Office to grow

  1461
  corn at a salary of £3,000 a year. When this case was raised two things were said —one was, is it not extravagant, and the other was, is it not a matter which the Board of Agriculture should take in hand? We were promised that it should be in quired into. We have heard nothing more since. I want to know if the case has been inquired into, and, if so, what is the result? I do not want the Government, or the House, to think that because I have laid emphasis on these matters I desire to make any attack on the Government. I quite appreciate the fact that they are faced by extraordinary and extreme difficulties. I am only anxious to help them, but we are grieved at the waste we see going on, and every one of these things adds to that waste. They add to the huge sums which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide, and enormous economies would be effected if the reforms we suggested were carried out. It is the system which is wrong; it is the system which will have to be altered. I would like to quote, in conclusion, without asking the House to endorse the sentiment, something which was said by Thomas Paine in this House, and I quote it because I want the House to realise that we here are only expressing public opinion when we raise these questions. Thomas Paine said:
  "A change of Ministry amounts to nothing: one goes out another wines in, but still the same measures, vices, and extravagances are pursued. It signifies not who is the Minister: the defect lies in the system. The foundation and superstructure of the Government is bad. Prop it up as you will it will continually sink. England has been the prey of jobs ever since the Revolution."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend has dealt with many interesting subjects. The beauty of his speeches is always that he does not confine himself to any particular point; he has a fertile mind which ranges over the whole field of politics.
  Mr. LOUGH: By way of illustration.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: And he has done so to-day. I cannot deal with all the cases he has mentioned, but I would like to refer to one or two. I am told to be on the look-out for storms in the House of Commons. I do not think that that warning is necessary. I do not think that anyone who occupies my position is likely to neglect that field of his duty. Anyone on this bench would try to avoid storms at any rate, and I will certainly make the attempt. But obviously a mariner in the sea of politics like a mariner on the ocean
  1462
  cannot always avoid storms, and when he cannot, he has to make the best pace he can to try and get through. That is what the Government are trying to do. My right hon. Friend gave a number of particular circumstances, but it is impossible obviously to judge even the value of his illustrations till we hear what the other side have to say. As it happens, I was myself able to understand one case which he gave, and that was when he spoke of the Shipping Controller. He said that if a ship was going empty down the St. Lawrence he could easily stop a little while in order to take on board some apples. That is what every sensible man who is not a shipowner might do, but it is the last thing which a sensible man, who is a shipowner, would do and for this simple reason that every hour's delay means so much money, and if the loss of freight corresponds to the amount of the delay, nothing would be more foolish than for a shipowner to stop to take on board a very small quantity of cargo.
  Then take a case of which I know nothing. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the stupidity of some officer in the Army in building huts upon a field of young wheat. On the face of it, I admit it seemed a very stupid thing to do. But I understand the building that has been erected there and the work which has been done is in connection with the Flying Service, and it seems possible that the ground is needed to enable those who are flying to land in safety. The paddock is exactly suited for that purpose, and probably there was no alternative than to use the field of young wheat for the huts and the rest for the purpose of housing the air machines. I can assure the House that no member of the Government is less aware of its defects than the critics are, but, of course, it is always his business to try and make out that things are better than is supposed.
  One point was raised yesterday, and that was the taking away of men from agriculture for the purposes of the Army. I am sure I do not need to tell the House that probably the most difficult of the many difficult problems which the Government is called upon to face at a time like this is to try and keep some reasonable mean between the men who must be got for the Army, if we are to keep up our forces in the field properly, and the men needed for essential services. It is difficult in every direction, and this question of

  1463
  agriculture has been before the Cabinet many times. None of us are so foolish as not to realise that it would be idiotic to make an appeal to the country to produce more food because of the need of it, and at the same time to take away from agriculture the men who are needed to produce it.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the problem could easily be got over by giving the President of the Board of Agriculture the power which the Minister of Munitions had of deciding what men should be taken. I believe the Minister of Munitions had that power at one time, but he has not got it now. I will say this about agriculture, that we have had the Departments before us, and in every case an agreement has been arrived at between them. Of course individual cases must arise—you cannot avoid that—where the wrong thing is done. But this has been made quite clear both to the War Office and to the Board of Agriculture, that in this particular case the Cabinet regard the production of food as even more important than the sending of additional men into the Army. I do not know whether we can do more than that. The Minister of Munitions has not the power to say who is to go and who is to stop. The power has been taken out of his hands. The point put to me was that the Minister for Agriculture should be given the same powers as the Minister of Munitions, but he has not that power. Obviously it would not be right to give to any Department the final power to say whether any man should be taken. I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of extravagant expenditure is one of those which causes as much annoyance to the Government as to their critics. Since I occupied my present post it has not been a pleasant subject to me. The House knows—it must know, and it could not be otherwise—that in the stress of war the Treasury cannot exercise the same amount of control in detail that it exercises in time of peace. That is obvious. Even in time of peace nothing was more frequent than for critics in every part of the House to complain of the delay of the Treasury in settling this matter. It would be fatal in time of war. We must try to find some other means of getting a good system of expenditure. Both the last Government and the present Government have made constant efforts to secure that object. That they have been completely successful I do not pretend, but I am quite
  1464
  certain that much more has been done in that direction than the House imagines to-be the case. The House will easily understand that with this enormous expenditure the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone trying to exercise control would be very foolish if he spent his time trying to save £100 here and £100 there. The most he can do is to try and see that there is a system of control in connection with all the big spending Departments. I should like to tell the House, for what it is worth, what has been done and is being done now in that direction. Before I come to the three big spending Departments I must refer to the Civil Service. As the House-knows, a Committee was appointed in regard to that two years ago, and I think some economies resulted.
  Sir J. WALTON: Four per cent.
  Mr. BONARLAW: That is not so easily secured. I wish the House to realise that, on the whole, pressure from this House, even in time of war, is not in the direction of cutting down expenditure, but in the direction of increasing it. Let me give an. example. Since I went to the Treasury the new scales of pensions have gone through. I confess to the House—no; it is not a confession—I say it to the House that from the beginning of the War I have taken the view that that was not a field in which we ought to exercise economy, and it did not seem to me, because I happened to fill that office, that, owing to the universal rule that the Treasury is to try to cut down expenditure of that kind, I ought to be expected to take a different view from that which I should have taken in any other office. The result of that has been—we do not complain of it—that a tremendous new burden has been added to this country for that purpose by this House.
  Sir J. WALTON: Quite right, too!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, quite right. I think we ought to have taken that course. I only mention it to show that while the House criticises the Government for its expenditure, the general pressure so often is in the direction of increasing expenditure. In regard to the big spending Departments, there are three of them—the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, and the Board of Admiralty. I wish to tell the House what has been done to try to control expenditure in these different Departments. A Committee was appointed by the late Government in connection with

  1465
  the Board of Admiralty, a Committee which, I think, did useful work. What happens now? The Treasury Committee, on which, of course, the Admiralty are represented, meets two or three times every week, and goes over the expenditure, and knows what is being done. So far as it can be done without encroaching on policy, which is generally decided by the Cabinet as a whole, but so far as it can be done we know of the expenditure, we make our representations and, I think, have some effective say in seeing that contracts are properly placed. I do not pretend that if the Admiralty were not over head and ears in work that has to be done I would be at all satisfied with the arrangement as it is, but it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman—if he will excuse the expression—it is not correct to suggest that you can have an overhauling of these Departments during the War, to have them up before Committees, and to get them to go into all the details without taking away to an enormous extent the very men who are necessary in carrying on the War. I will take next the War Office. I think the House has the impression that it is worse than the Admiralty.
  Sir J. WALTON: It is according to the Public Accounts Committee's Report.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There are difficulties in both Departments. What was done in the War Office was to set up a Committee, not from the House of Commons, but from other members of the Government, to examine the methods which are followed in spending the money. That Committee met regularly, and issued two Reports, and the result of that was useful. After all, that is not enough. I am only repeating now what I used to say in Opposition. I do not think myself that Committees are the best way to see that this kind of work is well done. I think it is best done, as a rule, by a man who under-stands the job, and can take it in hand himself. That has been done in several particular Departments, particularly in relation to the Clothing Department to which reference was made. More than that, the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Cabinet, has appointed a well-known business man, Mr. Andrew Weir, who is well known to the President of the Board of Trade, to go to the War Office, and to make it his job to look into all questions of the way in which contracts are placed, to make a report as to where he sees extravagance, and, if necessary, to
  1466
  suggest even a reorganisation in the way that this Department is working contracts. I only say that to show that we all realise how vital this is, and that, whether we are taking the most effective method or not, we are taking some methods to try to keep down expenditure.
  Then we come to the Munitions Department. Probably because it is a newer Department—I may be wrong in my view— they have better methods for controlling the expenditure. The method adopted there is that there is a Costs Committee, which goes into the cost of every contract before it is placed. I will tell the House of what that Committee consists. It consists almost exclusively of outside accountants, who understand the business, and who go into every one of these accounts with a view to seeing how much the Government is paying for the supply of materials for the Ministry of Munitions. There is the same kind of Committee in this case, presided over by a skilled engineer, which goes into all expenditure, and in addition to that there is a general Finance Committee composed also of experienced business men, who supervise what has been done by the other Committees and try to see that no waste takes place.
  But my right hon. Friend made one criticism which I really think is entirely undeserved. He spoke about the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and thought that his absence from this House made for less control over this kind of expenditure. He is mistaken—at least, I think so. At the time the Government was formed there was great delay in filling up the post of Financial Secretary. Ultimately the present occupant of that office, who had been employed in the Ministry of Munitions mainly for the purpose of keeping down expenditure, was appointed by the Prime Minister with my complete approval for this sole purpose, that his knowledge and experience would enable him to exercise control over the other spending Departments in a way the ordinary political representative of that office could not do. That is the reason why it was done. My right hon. Friend, I quite admit, would be justified in his complaints if the Parliamentary work was not respectably done also. It is. I asked my hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin) to undertake the Parliamentary work connected with that office. He works at the Treasury precisely as if he were Financial Secre-

  1467
  tary, and I say this to the House that so far as I can judge, after the experience I have had of him, I would not have the smallest hesitation in appointing him as Financial Secretary. Surely the public service does not suffer because we have one Financial Secretary who is devoting himself inside to keeping down expenditure.
  Sir J. WALTON: He is a keen economist.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is why he is there, and we have here a competent re-presentative doing the work here of Financial Secretary.
  I think this is all I have to say except on the subject which was introduced by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel). He did not tell me he was going to raise this subject.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I did two or three days ago.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman suggested it. I do not complain of that, except that I really should have liked to have more time not only to think about what I would say, but to consult the Prime Minister about it. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to speak frankly. I think if I make mistakes it is on that side, and I am going to risk making the same mistake now. Nothing that has happened in the House of Commons since I became a Member of it has seemed to me so deplorable as the ending of the Irish discussion the other day. There is in the House of Commons, among all parties a stronger and more universal desire to get some settlement of this question than has ever before existed in the House of Commons. That at least is my belief. If good-will would do it, it would be done to-morrow. But, as Burke said, "Idle wishes are the most idle of all things," and though what I am saying certainly shows the spirit with which I should like to deal with this question, that is not of much value unless you can find some practical way of dealing with it. I said that the whole House of Commons desires a settlement, but I am not sure that there is as much sympathy with hon. Members below the Gangway in the country as there is in the House of Commons. Hon. Members are doing what they think their duty—they must be the judges of their own action—in going into opposition in something like the old way to the Govern-
  1468
  ment. It might happen, because the Government could not be conducted at a time like this with the ordinary methods of Parliamentary opposition, that their action would have an effect which I should deplore above all others of compelling an. appeal to the country, and, what is worse for the future of the Empire, having to appeal largely on the ground that the Nationalist Members would not let us get on with the War. I do not think anything could be worse than that, and I am sure hon. Members opposite as well as we here would desire to avoid it. The House knows that the Prime Minister clearly indicated, and it was the suggestion afterwards made by the late Prime Minister, that if he thought there was any hope of a good result from appointing a Commission in any of the ways suggested, he would be glad to do it. Since then we have received no communication from any of the parties in Ireland, but in spite of that, we are now, as a Government, considering whether any action on our part is possible. That is all I have to say, and I am afraid it only comes down to this. We recognise as well as anyone that this is not a domestic question alone. If any method can be found for solving this old sore it would be one of the best things, even from the point of view of bringing the War to a satisfactory conclusion. I should like, if I may, to ask the House if they could not allow us to have this Vote pretty soon so as to enable us to get one or two other things this afternoon. The House heard yesterday the news from Russia. They realise, perhaps on that ground, that there is no want of respect on the part of any of us for the House of Commons, but that we really are taken up every hour with things that are pressing and vital, and I hope the House of Commons will do what they can to enable us to get through.
  Sir J. SIMON: The conciliatory tone which the Leader of the House has shown, and which indeed we are accustomed to find in him in the exercise of his present most important duty, will, I am sure, be responded to, and I think there are many in the House who feel that the very important statement he has just made is one that they would rather think over and consider than debate, at any rate in any controversial spirit, or at any length. But as he has made on two separate subjects statements of the very greatest importance, I should like to be allowed to say a word about each, certainly not in any

  1469
  hostile spirit, but rather marking, for my Friends on this side and for myself, our sense of the importance of what he has said. He began by dealing with the immensely important question of the relation between the claims of agriculture at this moment and the claims of the Army, and the House will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman made this statement. He stated, as I followed him, that at thi8 time, and in so far as these two great services may be said to come into competition with one another, the Government regard the production of food as more important even than the addition of men to the Army. That is a most notable statement, for, of course, judgment on this matter must primarily rest with those who have the facts and the figures before them, and I am sure that the country will note the great importance and the great gravity of that statement. But that being the conclusion to which the Government have arrived, we may be well assured that they have arrived at it, not because they have any doubt as to the great importance of keeping up the supply in the field. It-must be in spite of the immense importance of that that they feel there is something of more importance still, and, that being so, it must be of course for the Government to make that policy good. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's statement on this point leaves the matter, if I may say so, quite clear. He gave us some information as to what Government Department it is which does not decide these things. He told us, for example, that it was not the Board of Agriculture that decided these things.

  2.0 P.M.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), soon after he had assumed his office, expressed a strong opinion that it was the duty and business of the Board of Agriculture to decide this very thing, but it is conceded that they did not decide it. Well, who does decide it? This matter is vital. It so governs, it may be, and affects profoundly the whole prospect and future of the War, that the House of Commons would, I am sure, wish to know, and I think the country would wish to know, since the policy of the Government is now declared, what is the machinery by which that policy is going to be put into practical effect. Yesterday the Financial Secretary to the War Office made some interesting statements on this matter.
  1470
  It was pointed out to him that there were a number of skilled agriculturists who had been spared by the War Office until the 1st January this year. That was for the purpose of contributing toward the necessary work in connection with the provision of crops this year, but, since that arrangement was made, we have had from the Prime Minister the statement that, unfortunately, so far as the autumn sowing is concerned, what has been accomplished falls far short of that which was desirable, or even expected. That leads me to the remark that these skilled agricultural hands are not less wanted after the 1st January. They are more wanted, and yet the Financial Secretary to the War Office yesterday was constrained to tell us, and I use his exact words from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "I cannot give any undertaking with regard to men who are working on the land who are included in that category."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1917, col., 1378.]
  That is A 1 category. Of course, from the point of view of the War Office, and those who wish—and very properly wish—to add to the utmost of their powers to the strength of the Army, any A 1 man is the best man. Of course he is, but he is also the best agriculturist, and I would venture to suggest to the Government that this declaration of policy having been made, and the House and the country now being assured that that is the Government view, surely better steps ought to be taken to secure that the very men who are most skilled and most strong for the purpose of the heavy work of the early spring should be protected from being called up to join the Army after 1st January, and as much as, and indeed more than, they were protected in the last month of the last year. If that is not done, it does not appear to me that the arrangements which at present are working for the security of agriculture are really consistent with the declaration of policy which the Leader of the House has just made.
  Another subject on which I should like, in passing, to say one word is the position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in relation to this House. It must be admitted—and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit—that it is in a high degree anomalous, and, from the point of view of our historical Constitution, most surprising that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who in ordinary times expounds and justifies and explains details of expenditure, should not himself

  1471
  be in the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend made a reference to the hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), and I think we all would be anxious to join with the Leader of the House in recognising what good service the House does get from the hon. Gentleman when he answers the many difficult and intricate questions put for the purpose of obtaining information from the Treasury, only surely the way to solve that question is not to say that the hon. Member for Bewdley answers questions very well, but it is to make the hon. Member, or whoever else is discharging his functions, if not the sole, at any rate the joint, authority as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If you do not do that, you do in effect break the historic connection between the House of Commons on the one hand and the finances of the country on the other. Accepting, as I do most fully, the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he has no intention of making such a breach; realising, as I am sure we all do, that anybody who is Chancellor of the Exchequer must wish to keep in touch with the House of Commons on matters of finance, I hope very much this anomaly will not be one of long standing.
  The other, and by far the most important, subject raised was that upon which the right hon. Gentleman concluded. I am sure I would be doing a very rash thing if I attempted to make a speech about it. I would venture to say only this: I feel sure the whole House and the whole country will warmly welcome the news that the Government is not allowing the present situation to rest, but that the Government is itself engaged in seeing if it cannot make a contribution, as a Government, toward the solution of this grave situation. I believe it is quite true to say that in the House of Commons there is a stronger desire, and a more widespread desire, to see the Irish problem settled, and settled while the War is going on, than has ever been the case before. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the possibility, as an alternative, of a General Election. Whatever may be said about that, a General Election is not an alternative solution. It is no solution at all. So far from solving the question by that means, you would merely, as it seems to me, aggravate and intensify the feelings of bitterness and opposition on the one side or the other, which we are now, I trust, in a fair way to see
  1472
  assuaged. Two days ago the House of Commons was appealed to to consider the sentiments of one of the great Dominions of the Crown, and the House was willing to take a bold step in the face of some objection. In a few weeks, as I understand, there will be a consultation of representatives of Dominions of the Crown in order that we may be sure that we are doing all we can to make the unity of the Empire a fact and a reality. Whatever we think in the case of India or of the Dominions, no Englishman who really considers the past and the position at the present moment can fail to see that, rightly or wrongly, the present situation in Ireland is one which is made a matter of reproach among all the self-governing Dominions. I hope that nothing which I have said has been other than entirely conciliatory, or can do any conceivable injury to the good intentions which the Leader of the House has expressed. But I thought that it was right, while preserving as he must do at this moment great caution in what he said to point out that every quarter of the House has welcomed the declaration as to the Government's intentions to take up this matter again, and to take it up for themselves.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not wish to have any misunderstanding. I did not say that we had given any pledge to do it. I said that the Government were earnestly considering whether it would be possible.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to have the accurate statement, and to know that, at any rate, the Government is undertaking the responsibility of considering it, and that is a matter in which conciliation is obviously the only way by which this problem can be solved. It involves, no doubt, sacrifices, but it involves sacrifice from all parties and from all sides.
  Sir W. BYLES: Some reference has been made in this Debate to the startling news received from Russia this morning. If Kings and Governments will make playthings of their people, and set them up to shoot and to starve one another, they must expect that their thrones will be shaken. I want to suggest to the Government—and I am rather sorry that the Leader of the House has just gone out—a different way of winning the War. We have been two and a half years striving to overcome our enemies by physical force. I think that a better method would be to try to arrange with them by reason. I

  1473
  believe that we could get a satisfactory settlement and a durable and honourable peace more easily by the weapons of diplomacy than by the weapons of artillery. I know that the Prime Minister has not got sympathy with any such suggestion. I remember very well his famous interview with an American journalist, generally known as "the knock-out blow interview," in which he warned off all influences that approached us in the direction of making peace. He said, in effect, "If a dove flies to you with an olive branch in its mouth, do not open the window of the ark to him; drive the bird away—shoot him." A few days before we adjourned for the long Christmas recess the evening paper placards —for we had placards then—announced an offer of peace from Germany. Hopes sprang high in millions of hearts in this country because people thought that this meant the beginning of the end. What happened? We waited—day by day—and no answer. The day that we sing "Peace on earth, goodwill to men" came and went, and some weeks later the whole invitation was thrown back in the face of the enemy. I think that that was a remarkably fine opportunity for beginning negotiations which might result in ending the War.
  Just now there is an interesting election going on in the North to replace my old friend Jonathan Samuel, who was so suddenly taken from our midst, and a week or two ago there was an election in Rossendale. At both these elections there was a, candidate before the constituency with the simple programme of peace by negotiation. I hope for a good result on Tuesday, when the polling takes place at Stockton. I think that we had a very remarkable result in Rossendale, where nearly 25 per cent. of the votes polled were cast in favour of the peace candidate. The hon. Member who has been returned for Rossendale is an old friend and colleague of mine, and I have a great respect for him. He is a man of great influence in that valley and a large employer of labour, and I think that he has been twelve times mayor of the principal town in the valley, and he had the support, of course of both the Liberal and Conservative organisations. His opponent was a working man and a conscientious objector, and by our Anglo-Prussian militarism he was cast into gaol on the very day on which he was nominated as candidate. Considering all the circumstances, I think that his poll was a very remarkable one. I am con-
  1474
  vinced that there is a very large body of opinion in this country in favour of a policy such as I suggest, and I believe that Germany is quite ready to receive any proposals which we might make. I believe that the reason why the great mass of the people are so determined to defeat Germany by military methods is that then-want to punish Germany for her atrocities and inhumanities towards us, towards neutrals, towards Belgium, and towards our prisoners; atrocities and inhumanities which I fully recognise and deplore. It seems to be thought by most people that Heaven calls upon us to avenge these things. Heaven does no such thing. Heaven says "I will repay," and He will, you may be quite sure of that. I have only one word more to say. We have made England a smithy, Europe a shambles, and grim death stalks over Europe. It is not through the result of pestilence, sent by Heaven, it is the deliberate act of two powerful, educated, civilised, Christian nations that have come into conflict and are trying to destroy one another. I would ask is there no way by which to try and break this frightful conflict—by diplomacy, by conference, by reason? I long to see the rising of some statesman who will attempt it, and I cannot believe that England is so poor as not to produce him.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I listened with very great interest indeed to that part of the speech of the Leader of the House which dealt with the demands that are being made to introduce some economy into the great spending Departments. I agree for the most part with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington and the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnsley in all that they said upon the subject of waste. We all recognise that in the midst of a great War such as this, it is hopeless to expect that where a country is spending between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a day there will not be a considerable amount of waste. That is absolutely unavoidable. But I do think that the Government should direct its attention to devising the best means of confining that waste within the narrowest possible limits. I welcome the statement of the Leader of the House in so far as it indicates that the Government are taking some steps in this direction. But I do not think his statement was altogether satisfactory. He told us of some new arangement that has lately been made with regard to the War Office—he did not say much about the Admiralty—then he

  1475
  went on to use words of considerable eulogy with regard to the cost of the system at the Ministry of Munitions, The impression left upon my mind, and I think upon the minds of Members of the House, by his speech was that in each one of these great spending Departments there is a different system, and he praises that system most which is in force at the Ministry of Munitions. From all I also have heard, I believe that is the most efficient system. But if that be so, why does not the Government introduce that most efficient system into the two other great Departments, as well as the Ministry of Munitions?
  We are told that there has been appointed a gentleman with full power to overhaul the system in the War Office, but surely, if you have discovered a system that works well in one Department, you ought to introduce that system, with any necessary adjustment that may be required, into all your other Departments as far as possible. The right hon. Member for Islington told us that in the days of the late Coalition Government, whenever there was a storm brewing, that Government used to appoint a Cabinet Committee, but that the present Government, whenever there is a storm brewing, adopts an entirely different method. I think it does, and its method seems to me to be that, whenever there is trouble, to appoint a new Controller and to create a new Department.
  Apparently we have not yet come to the end of all these new creations, either in the way of Controllers or in the way of Departments. I hope, however, that the Government will be very slow indeed to further add to the enormously complicated machinery which they have now at their disposal for the prosecution of the War and the carrying on of the administration of this country. Before I leave this subject of waste, I would like to make this suggestion to the Government. The Leader of the House, I think rightly, told us that this was not a time when you could encourage the system, which we were starting on the eve of the outbreak of the War, of seeking to get some control by Parliamentary Committees over expenditure. As to the Public Accounts Committee, I think that all my colleagues on that Committee will agree with me that for the purpose of checking expenditure, and the amount of expenditure, that Committee is of no use whatever. Although another
  1476
  Committee did succeed in bringing about a reduction of, I think, 4 per cent. in certain Estimates laid before the House, it is not a method that can recommend itself to anybody of common sense, that officials whose whole time is absorbed in looking after details connected with administration or prosecution of the War should be brought up here before Committees of the House of Commons and have their whole action inquired into, with very great consequent delay, even if by that means you were to make certain. economies.
  I think there is another method. We know that, in connection with the publication of many of these Orders made by various Controllers, the Food Department, the Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of National Service, and in other directions, a great economy of time and money could have been effected if they had consulted, before issuing those Orders, the opinion of those who were best entitled to speak upon the matter with which the Orders dealt. I think it would be better if the Government were to set up a Committee of the House of Commons, not to supervise the Estimates or the expenditure of these Departments but to inquire into the methods of checking, and into the systems in vogue, for the purpose of seeing how to get the very best system that could be obtained introduced to the various Departments. That would do a great deal to meet the defects which undoubtedly exist and, as far as possible, would check the waste and extravagance that is going on. In the course of the discussion, in the Committee stage of this Vote of Credit yesterday we had three speeches from these Irish Benches. One of them, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo dealt with the financial condition and situation that has been brought about by the introduction of Supplementary Estimates: the second speech was by my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, dealing with the military position: and the last was by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, who spoke of the conditions to which the House of Commons had been reduced by admitting so many Members to the Ministry. I wish to refer to some of those very important aspects of the questions that have been raised and first the financial aspect created by the Vote of Credit. It was rightly pointed out that although we have been for two and a half years engaged in this War, and although almost four

  1477
  thousand millions of money has been spent, this is the first time the Government found it necessary to come to the House and ask for a Supplementary Vote of Credit and that there has been no precedent for this course. It may be said that this was an expenditure that could not be foreseen. It is very easy for the Leader of the House to put forward a case of that kind, but he gave us no evidence whatever of any real substance in his contention. I could understand if the Government, on account of the existence of the submarine peril, had found it necessary to make a new departure with regard to the purchase of foreign ships which they had to pay for on the nail. But what is the fact about this Vote? We were told yesterday that it covers a considerable and varying number of different classes of expenditure. It covers the purchase of wheat and matters dealing with ships and munitions and loans to our Allies. Mention of loans brings me to a very important and significant announcement made in the newspapers this morning in a telegram from the temporary capital of Roumania, sent by Renter as follows:
  "Jassy, 9th March.—At a Cabinet held here yesterday it was announced that Great Britain had agreed to advance to Romania the sum of £40,000,000 at par. The loan will bear interest at 5 per cent."
  That is a very remarkable statement and, so far as my memory goes, is the first statement of particulars made inside or outside of this House with regard to those financial transactions. We know that these loans amount to very nearly a thousand millions. Did that announcement escape the notice of the Censor or has it been published with his permission? If with his permission, why was not an announcement of that importance made in the first instance to the House of Commons? The whole policy of these loans to our Allies is one of very considerable importance to this country. Everybody, of course, recognises that they must be helped, but neither the House nor the country has been told anything whatever before with regard to the terms and conditions of any of these loans. I would like to know when the interest on this money lent to Roumania is to accrue. How can they possibly expect Roumania in its present position to pay interest upon a loan of £40,000,000. If they have adopted that policy with regard to a country in the unfortunate position of Roumania at present, what are the terms and conditions
  1478
  of the loans to our great Allies in other parts of Europe? Is France and is Russia being asked to pay interest for the hundreds of millions of money that have been rightly lent to them for the prosecution of the War? What are the terms and conditions, because if details are allowed to be published in the newspapers of this country with regard to Roumania I can see no object whatever in declining to give the House and the country information with regard to the other of our Allies engaged with us in the prosecution of the War. I hope before the Debate concludes we will have some statement from a representative of the Treasury or the Leader of the House upon that important aspect of this question.
  I have criticised, as the hon. Member for East Mayo did, the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, but it appears to me -and I think a large section of opinion in the House will agree—that the real truth about this Supplementary Vote of Credit is not that it is a Vote the necessity for which could not be foreseen, but that it is one of the many signs and tokens and indications that are accumulating that this great new Government machine for the conduct of the War and the administration of this country is not working with that smoothness, skill, or efficiency that the country has a right to expect and was led to believe. I have endeavoured to show that at this stage there was no earthly reason, if the Government administration was being efficiently run, for this Supplementary Vote; for this expenditure covers not one or two special points, but many points that have been dealt with under previous Votes, why those should not have been foreseen by the Government Departments. Those are now so numerous, and there is now so much overlapping, and, as it appears to me, confusion, that for the first time in two and a half years after the House had voted practically about four thousand millions, we are landed in what looks like a financial muddle. I do not think there is anybody in any quarter of the House who is not anxious in the prosecution of this War to give this new Government, no matter what may have been its origins or the way in which it was brought about, a fair chance to prove whether or not they can run this War better than the Government that went before them. But they have been many months in office now. They have got a great part of their machinery at work, and, so far as the House

  1479
  and the country can judge, they have already landed the people of the United Kingdom into one muddle after another. Will anybody deny—will even the Treasury Bench deny—that there has been a muddle about the question of food production and food supplies? Will the Treasury Bench venture to deny that there has been a muddle about this new scheme of National Service? Will anybody venture to deny that there has been a hopeless muddle about the treatment of Ireland and the Irish position? Will anybody venture to deny that there has been a muddle with regard to the way in which the shipping problem has been dealt with? And new, on top of all this, we have got this financial muddle, and I say that I believe it is owing to the new, cumbrous, and inefficient machinery which this Government has set up.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Agriculture.
  Mr. HAZLETON: That is covered by the food question. It seems to me that this Administration has got so large that an old motto may be applied to it: "What is everybody's business is nobody's business," and it is almost impossible for people from outside, who want to get things done, to know what Department they are to go to. There was a great campaign in the Press when the late Government was in office, about the Cabinet of 23. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now it is a Cabinet of 84."] I do not know whether there is a Cabinet at all, or not, but there is an Administration of 84, and I say that, so far as all the indications that one can judge by go, the country was much better off under the Cabinet of 23 than under the Administration of 84. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is now 86!"] I am told that 86 is now the correct figure, but the House must remember that the list is not nearly completed yet. The hon. Member for Barns-ley (Sir J. Walton) yesterday said there was a new Controller appointed, but I did not catch what he was appointed for— [An HON. MEMBER: "Cat's meat."]—or who he was. I am not going, on an occasion like this, into purely Irish questions, but I would like to give one or two instances that have come under my personal observation to help to prove the case I am making with regard to the inefficiency and cumbersomeness of this present machinery.
  When this new food production scheme was started in Ireland it was necessary for
  1480
  those who had control and responsibility in that country to come over here to London to interview the heads of the various Departments of this Administration. Our chief administrators in Ireland had to come over here instead of preparing their own plans in Ireland, and as a result of having to interview one Minister, one Department, one Controller after another, the new food production scheme in Ireland was delayed, even in its coming into operation, not by days, but by weeks and weeks. Before they could do anything they had to come over here to see the Food Controller, then they had to go to the Board of Agriculture, and then of course they had to go to the Irish Office, they had to go to the Treasury, they had to go to the Ministry of Munitions; and, mind you, all these were not merely formal visits or matters of a few minutes or even a few hours, but to each of these Departments they had to produce their proposals for Ireland, and they had to argue with them, and persuade them, and convince them, one after the other, before we could get a single Order issued for Ireland or a single item in the plan for Ireland adopted. Many valuable weeks were lost through this extraordinary procedure having to be gone through, and I say that if that was our experience under one head in Ireland, you may depend upon it that the same thing is going on day after day and week after week in Great Britain, and that far from having a speeding-up, far from having a driving force behind this new machinery, it is getting clogged and confused to the detriment of efficiency and to the great disadvantage of the proper prosecution of the War.
  Before I leave that aspect I want to give one other illustration again having come under my own observation from Ireland. We were told yesterday that one of the items in this Supplementary Vote of Credit is for munitions. We did not get any information as to why, in the case of munitions, it should be necessary to have a Supplementary Vote of Credit at all, but that fact brought to my mind a very glaring instance of the delay and the bungling that have gone on with regard to one important aspect of munitions in Ireland. While the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for War last year an important question was raised in Ireland as to the setting up there of a Receiving Depot for War Office supplies. Ireland was at a great disadvantage, because whenever a contractor wanted to

  1481
  enter for a contract for War Office supplies he had to come over here to London to see the samples. He had to go backwards and forwards, and even if he got the contract or wanted to put in an estimate his supplies had to be sent over here, tested, and sent back again, and there were all sorts of confusion, delay, expense, and unfairness in the system. The Secretary of State for War recognised that. He asked one of his colleagues in the Liberal party—I suppose one might say, one of his former colleagues in the Liberal party—to go to Ireland. He asked the hon. Member for Loughborough (Sir Maurice Levy) to make a report with regard to certain aspects of the resources of Ireland from the point of view of the War Office. He went to Ireland in October, and spent a considerable time going up and down the country. He was in Belfast. He went to the principal cities in the South and West of Ireland and interviewed many people on these subjects. He came back, and in October or November made a report to the War Office. I asked a question, I think the day before yesterday, of the Financial Secretary to the War Office in regard to this Receiving Depot, as to the recommendations of the hon. Member for Loughborough, and as to what had been done. After six, seven, or eight months, the Financial Secretary told me that the matter was under consideration, and that they had communicated with the Chief Sescretary on the subject.
  An HON. MEMBER: Do it now!
  Mr. HAZLETON: When I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Government would publish the report he said, not that they were considering it, but that they would consider it! I want to know is that a fair way, when supplies and munitions are urgently needed, and have been for many months past, to come to a decision on this industrial question so far as War Office supplies are concerned in Ireland? What has the Chief Secretary got to do with it? He cannot establish this Receiving Depot in Ireland; that is a matter for the War Office, or for the Government as a whole. But this is only one more instance of the extraordinary methods of delay and confusion with which this Administration is run, and with which the affairs of Ireland are managed. Having given these few illustrations—which could be multiplied by the hundred and thou-
  1482
  sand in the case of Ireland, only I do not want to delay the House by raising purely Irish affairs, which I have only referred to because they illustrate the case I have been making, that the new administration is not working well—I only now want in a few words to deal with a few other questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, in his speech from these benches yesterday, dealt with the military aspect of the War. I do not feel competent, or possessed of sufficient information and knowledge, to raise the important questions of policy upon which he touched. I do, however, feel that there was one matter that ought to have been dealt with from the Front Bench opposite when this Supplementary Vote of Credit was brought down to the House of Commons. That was the present position of the submarine peril.
  It is now many weeks since we had a statement in regard to the submarine position. There has been ample time in the interval for the Government to be able to report to the House of Commons as to whether the measures taken by the Admiralty are a success, or are likely to prove successful in the future. It is not merely idle curiosity on the part of the House of Commons, because the country ought to know the truth without equivocation or concealment; for if there is no prospect of dealing effectively with the submarine campaign the country should know, that it may be able to address itself with renewed vigour to the increased production of food at home. Under this new system of government, however, the First Lord of the Admiralty is as great an absentee from this House as is the Prime Minister. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think it worth his while to come here at all. He sends his Under-Secretary to answer questions. As we saw at Question Time to-day, that hon. Gentleman is not always supplied with the latest information. In regard to the list of submarine depredations, sinking of ships, and so on, he was asked to supply the tonnage. He replied that that was a matter which would have to be considered, and upon which he would have to consult the First Lord of the Admiralty. Why is not the First Lord himself here to answer these questions? Why is he not here on the occasion of the Vote of Credit to give the House of Commons information on vital matters about which the House has a right to have information?
  Mr. PRINGLE: He can go to the Aldwych Club.
  Mr. HAZLETON: My hon. Friend reminds me that the First Lord could go to the Aldwych Club. It appears to be the practice of the Ministers in this new Administration to give as little information as possible to the House of Commons, and to make as few speeches as possible here, but to come here, as does the First Lord of the Admiralty, as seldom as they can, and to treat the House of Commons with the utmost contempt. The House of Commons will remember the howl that was set up in the days of the late First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to the attack upon the shores of this country by German overseas craft. He was called to account. He was asked to give information, and compelled to do so—I think by an hon. Member who himself is now at the Admiralty. We were told that he must go; that he was not the man for this position, and that this sort of thing must not be allowed; must not occur again. He did go. Since, however, the last statement was made in regard to submarines, there has been another attack upon the shores of this country by the German overseas craft. English towns have been bombarded, and the enemy has got away unscathed. The First Lord of the Admiralty seems to be protected all round from attack from any quarter of this House. He was asked to make an explanation, or to give an assurance that this thing would not happen again.
  All I can say is this: that I hope that the Government will not continue the policy which they pursued yesterday—to attempt to carry out this new scheme of theirs to belittle, to ignore, and to flout the House of Commons. If we are not to get answers to our questions, if speeches from various quarters of the House are to be ignored, then I say it would be better for the Government to dissolve, or to adjourn the House of Commons altogether, so as not to be going through a farce here! [An HON. MEMBER: "Russia!"] If they want a Vote of Credit, if they want Estimates, or new legislation, let them do it all by an Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act. The present system, so far as democratic control is concerned, and so far as public opinion, or even opinion inside this House is concerned, is very little better than such a system as that would be. We have had an assurance to-day, as we had last evening, from the Leader of the House, that he did not intend any dis-
  1484
  courtesy or disrespect to the House of Commons. A tribute was properly paid to him last evening by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) with regard to his own personal position in the House of Commons. But take the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to-day. He dealt with a few general topics which had been raised in the discussion, but to-day, as yesterday, he was not able to give any information or details with regard to any matters that have been raised. There has been no other speech from the Front Bench to-day on the Report stage of this Vote of Credit. I do not know whether any of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen who occupy that bench now are prepared to answer the speeches that have been made and to give us the particulars that we have requested. I think it will be an evil day for this country and for the democratic institutions of this country if the Government continues a policy of that kind any longer.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is such a rare privilege to see the Attorney-General in his place that I should like to take this opportunity of ascertaining the position of certain members of the Government who fall upon this Vote of Credit. We have at the present time, not only the ordinary official members of the Government— Ministers, Under-Secretaries, and so on— which appear in ever-increasing numbers from day to day in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but we have a new series of officials, many of whom are Members of this House. Some of them we are told are not paid, but we know they are discharging important Executive functions, and it is therefore a matter of very high constitutional importance from the point of view of the independence of this House to know first of all whether they occupy proper constitutional positions. They are understood to be discharging the Executive functions indicated by their names as Directors or Controllers. For instance, we have a Controller of Margarine and there is a Director of Enrolment. Their titles indicate that they are exercising independent functions of Government. We therefore, are naturally interested to know from the Attorney-General what is his view of the position of these gentlemen, and whether he thinks that they are occupying a proper constitutional position in the Government as Members of this House who are apparently discharging these Executive functions. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is

  1485
  the only proper authority who can inform us whether the Government are pursuing proper procedure in this matter, and seeing that he has come in when we are in the midst of this afternoon's Debate, it would be well if he would place his knowledge on this subject at the service of the House.
  3.0 p.m.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to say a few words in reference to the statement made by the Leader of the House regarding the obstruction of the Nationalist Members and the threat which he held out that if the obstruction, as he seems to consider it, was continued there might have to be a General Election. I do not think he used the word "obstruction"; he used the word "criticism." It is, therefore, rather remarkable that if the criticism continues—as if the Government could not stand criticism at a time of war—they would have to consider the question of having a General Election. As has been already pointed out, a General Election would not preclude the Irish Members from this House. I enter a protest against the threat which was held out. A General Election would not be a solution of the problem of Nationalist criticism. The solution of the problem is to grant Home Rule to Ireland and to see that the opposition of a small portion of Ireland does not overrule the granting of justice to Ireland. I would reply to the Leader of the House that if he wants to have a General Election he could not choose worse ground for his own purpose than that of the suppression of Ireland. It would be an absurdity to appeal for support of War measures and go to the country and say, "We have spent £4,000,000,000 for the purpose of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives to uphold the rights of small nationalities, and at the same time we ask you to vote to enable us to suppress the legitimate demands of Ireland." There is such an extraordinary analogy between the position of those for whose liberation we are fighting and the position of Ireland that I have been trying by question to elucidate the point. I would remind the Leader of the House of the extraordinary position he will land himself into if he goes to a General Election on this issue. Suppose you go to this General Election, what will be your position? According to the statement which we furnished to the President of the United States, we
  1486
  are fighting for the liberty of the Slovacs. I put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this question yesterday. I asked:
  "Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Slovaes are to be found principally in the counties of Nyitra, Treucsen, Turoez., Arva, Lipto, and Zolyon, and to a minor degree in the counties of Abuj and Saros; and can he state whether these latter counties will come into the scheme of liberation proposed by the Allies on the same basis as the other six?
  Lord R. Cecil: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his last question.
  Mr. Outhwaite: Can the Noble Lord say if the considerations which prevent the granting of Home Rule to Ireland are not to have effect as regards these Slovac minorities?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this question. The information can he obtained from any encyclopedia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l5ath March."1917, col. 1244.]
  I have not been able to find any encyclopædia which will furnish me with any information on the problem of Ireland and the parallel of granting independence and liberation to the Slovacs. How absurd it would be to go to a General Election and to say, "We are fighting and spending our money for the liberation of the Slovacs, where exactly the same problem arises as in Ireland—four counties with a great Slovac majority and two counties with a Slovac minority, and the same conditions in regard to religion." You would have to say that you are able to solve that problem amongst people thousands of miles away, whom we never heard of until we saw their names in the Notes of the Allies, and at the same time you would be asking the people to vote to suppress the men of Ireland close to our own doors. The Leader of the House would have an exceedingly difficult election to fight. On the one hand he would be asking the people to vote to suppress Ireland because Irishmen in this House are criticising the Government at the time of the War, and, on the other hand, he would have to admit that we are spending thousands of millions of pounds for the liberation of the Slovacs, where exactly the same problem arises as in the case of Ireland, for they have an Ulster there. That holds good also with regard to the Czechs, for whom we are also fighting and who inhabit the State of Bohemia. I think there are about 6,000,000 people in Bohemia; 4,000,000 are Czechs and 2,000,000 are Germans. Now we are going to liberate the Czechs in Bohemia, but what are we going to do about the Germans in Bohemia, who have different institutions and a different language? That problem of dealing with the rights of a minority arises exactly the same way

  1487
  in Bohemia as in Ireland, and yet we are told that we are going to have an election at which the people are to be told that the problem of Ireland is unsolvable and that they have to have martial law when it is quite easy to deal with the Czechs and the minority of Germany in Bohemia. In regard to this question of the liberation of foreign people the same difficulty arises in Dalmatia.
  I pointed out to the Leader of the House what a very difficult problem he would be presenting to the country if he forces a General Election on the grounds that the Nationalist party are denied rights which he says we are fighting for in other parts of the world, and they are to be denied those rights because they actually criticise the Government. The only solution is to grant Home Rule for Ireland. These are not the days for oppression on the part of bureaucratic governments, because Russia has had to put all her bureaucratic leaders into the palace. The people of Russia have so long tolerated bureaucratic methods that they have had to deal drastically with the situation. With regard to loans to our Allies, it has been announced in the paper to-day that £40,000,000 has been granted as a loan at 5 per cent. to Roumania, and we want to know why the House of Commons has not been informed upon that subject. I do not cavil because a loan has been granted to a country that has suffered so grievous a fate, but a long time ago, at the beginning of the War, I asked questions about our loans to Russia, but, of course, my questions on those matters were always regarded and stigmatised by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs as being unpatriotic. I have my own view of the Russian Government, and the view I held is now being disclosed to everybody. I wonder what guarantees we have for the vast loans we were granting to Russia through the medium of her Minister of Finance, M. Bark. I am told we have granted £600,000,000 in loans to our Allies, and I should think that quite £400,000,000 has gone to this Russian Minister of Finance. We have heard extraordinary stories of corruption and bribery going on in Russia, and no doubt that was with our money; and, what is more, we see now this Minister is laid by the heels as a pro-German, and he has been put into the Palace.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not think the hon. Member is right in saying that he
  1488
  is a pro-German, and I am quite sure anyone who has been in Russia would not say so.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Well, at any rate he was associated with M. Protopopoff.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: He was given leave of absence because he did not agree.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Of course, I entirely withdraw that. The Russian Government has been getting these vast sums of money from us, and it seems to me that we have a right in a case like that to make very serious restrictions as to where these vast loans are going, and if that had been done there seems no reason why the House of Commons is not informed upon the matter. It is just because we are willing to vote hundreds of millions to anybody, and because those who asked questions are stigmatised as pro-German and seditious that hundreds of millions of our money have gone to be used for purposes against us. In this loan we are expending a large sum of money on the purchase of wheat from Australia. If there is anybody here to answer a question on this subject I should very much like to know what is the sum we are paying for Australian wheat. I have seen it stated that Australian farmers last year got about 4s. a bushel or 32s. a quarter for their wheat, and I am interested to know why the Australian farmers-are getting 32s. a quarter while the British farmers have been guaranteed from 64s. to 80s. a quarter? I want to get the price that is being paid to the Australian farmer in order to compare it with what the British farmer is extorting, and I should be very glad if the figures could be furnished of the price which is being paid to the Australian farmer. I should also like to know whether the Australian wheat is coming entirely to this country, or if it is largely or in part being sent to supply the demands of Italy. It seems to me to be rather unfair that whilst the British farmer should be extorting the enormous price of 80s. a quarter from the British public that the Australian farmers should only be getting 33s. a quarter for wheat sold to the Italian consumer.
  We have been speaking upon the question of waste, and we have heard a statement from the Leader of the House who dealt with the various Departments and stated that an endeavour had been made to effect economy. I would like to ask

  1489
  for information on one more point. It may be a mistaken view held in the country, but everywhere one hears criticisms directed against Government Departments for getting work done and making payment on the basis of a percentage on the gross expenditure. I would like to ask if that is still being done. Instances which scarcely seem credible are brought to my notice of manufacturers doing work for the State actually instigating their men to demand enormous wages, and saying to them: "Go ahead. It suits me all right. The higher the wage you get, the greater my expenditure, and therefore the greater profit I shall make out of this Government contract on which you are engaged." It seems to me that is a profligate method to adopt, and it is open to every kind of objection. It means the more waste the greater the profit accruing to the individual working for the State. I should therefore like to ask if that method is still maintained. Generally, there is a wide impression abroad that in relation to expenditure on the War anything like patriotism is left out of sight, and everybody is out to make as much as possible.
  Mr. G. FABER: You, talking about patriotism!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: No doubt, like many others who talk about patriotism, if I were able to make a fortune out of it, I should be able to deal more directly with patriotism, as understood by the hon. Member opposite.
  Mr. FABER: Do you mean that personally?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Certainly; just as you do.
  Mr. FABER: Do you mean that I have made money out of the War? If so, I tell you that it is a gross falsehood.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I have no doubt that the hon. Member has not made a penny out of the War, but he is the associate of people who have. He began the offensive-ness, and now he pretends, as a thin-skinned individual, that no retort should be made. [Laughter.] Let him laugh. I think it was Goldsmith who said
  "The loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind."
  There is a general view, and there are evidences of it before us, that in every direction plunder is being made out of the needs of the State?—go wherever you will. Take the food of the people, and the huge
  1490
  prices being got to-day for wheat, potatoes, and all the necessaries of life. Take the question of tea raised to-day. Take the question of clothing. Everywhere we see prices enormously raised without any satisfactory evidence that the rise is due to the increased cost of raw materials or the increased cost of labour. Consequently, there is all the more reason why some member of the Government should give a reply to the query that I have raised in regard to the methods by which these contracts are given.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I wonder if I might-venture to make an appeal to the House to let us have this Vote now. We have endeavoured, as far as we could, to meet. the crticisms that have been made, but if the House will allow me I will reply to two points in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The first is in regard to Australian wheat. Of course, it is entirely a question of freight, and, as a matter of fact, the wheat could not be-brought here at all except by requisitioning the ships. It is true also that the wheat is going to Italy. Obviously that is right, because Italy is nearer to Australia, and it pays us better to bring wheat here from America.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: What is the price-paid?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot tell the-exact price, but I can assure the hon. Member, and indeed he may trust the Australian Prime Minister to see to that, that the full price will be paid. The other point was with regard to the payment of contractors by commission. The disadvantage of that is as obvious to us as it is to the hon. Member, but there are cases where there is no other way. It is difficult sometimes to estimate exactly what is the-cost, and if you leave it to the contractor, when there is great pressure for the-article, it is obvious that he will name a price which will make himself secure, and which will result in the Government paying more rather than less. It is a kind of contract, however, which the Government does not like. I should be very grateful if the House would now give us this Vote.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to rise only for a few minutes to enforce a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Hazleton), that when important questions are being raised there is no one on the-Front Bench to hear our remarks or to

  1491
  reply to our questions. Last night the Leader of the House went to dinner. It was natural, but in view of the importance of the occasion it reminded me of the bad steward in the Bible who hid his talents in a napkin. To-day I listened to his previous speech with great pleasure, because he spoke with confidence on subjects with which he is thoroughly conversant, and when a man speaks on any subject, whatever, which he knows au fond, he speaks with authority. The Government are excellent men in a groove and in routine. They are excellent men to drift, but, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, there is not one man amongst them with a formative, creative mind which entitles him to be a Minister and the Leader of a nation in a great crisis.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Pringle) suggested that I was seldom in the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I said it was such a pleasure to see you.
  Sir F. SMITH: That is an assurance I welcome from the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman might have reflected, in fairness, that I am never absent from my room from the time the Courts rise at 4 o'clock till dinner time, in consultation, and I am immediately available for the service of the House if the House wants me. There is no difficulty at all about the particular question which he put to me. As I understand it, the matter which has excited his curiosity is that various Members of this House. I will not say have assumed functions but have had spheres of activity given to them under the Government, and my hon. Friend is apprehensive as to the constitutional position. I can assure him that there is no constitutional ground for his anxiety. I do not pretend to keep closely in contact numerically with the various posts—
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is impossible.
  Sir F. SMITH: But various Members have undoubtedly attempted to discharge functions which are auxiliary to those of the various Departments, and my hon. Friend is anxious to know whether any constitutional difficulty is presented. My own Department has no knowledge of the usefulness of the functions performed by these gentlemen, but I should certainly be slow to assume that they have been
  1492
  invited by Government Departments to place their services at their disposal unless it is anticipated that they will be useful. My hon. Friend is attaching excessive importance, I think, to the labels. If A can do certain work which no one anticipated before the War would be required, surely it is right of the Government to require the services of any Member of this House and to invite him to undertake this work. No one can dispute that those who have been asked to discharge these services, and have willingly undertaken them have been given certain labels, but I think my hon. Friend is unduly impressed by the sonorousness of the different titles.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Window dressing, in fact.
  Sir F. SMITH: I do not know whether it is due to those who have undertaken these functions or those who asked them to do so. I am certain of this: that they would not have been asked to undertake the functions if the heads of Departments had not believed they would be useful. Hon. Members of this House have shown undoubted willingness to undertake the work, apart from the labels or anything else, and I do not think that any constitutional question of any kind is involved. Under the circumstances I hope the House will realise that the great readiness shown to undertake this work is but a measure of the resources of this country.
  Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Without wishing to delay the passing of this Bill I should like to make a few observations by way of winding up the Debates we have had, and I propose to suggest one or two points of a general character which, although critical, will also I hope be helpful. As the administration of the National Service Department from St. Ermin's Hotel goes on I think the country and those who are watching it get more and more apprehensive lest the system itself should break down in such a way that compulsion becomes inevitable. It is on

1493
that particular point I wish to say a few words. We must admit that there is a problem of National Service before us now, a problem which has been created very largely by our civil needs. These needs are coming up in this House day after day. There is hardly a Debate that takes place in which we do not hear either some serious criticism or some attempted jokes on the relations between the Board of Agriculture, the War Office, the Ministry of Food, and so on. To my mind, the difficulty of the problem is to be found in the fact that up till now in the matter of recruiting for National Service the War Office has been supreme. It has been able to take what it likes, and as many as it likes, from whatever profession or trade it cares to take them, and the result has been that while our Army has mounted up in the most satisfactory way, the production of essentials, food and other things, has begun to go down.
Until now, in the prolonged War which is becoming, in official opinion, a war of attrition, we have been paying too much— of the House will allow me to use language which I hope may not be misunderstood—we have been paying too much attention to the military side of the War and too little attention to the economic and industrial side. If we could have finished the War in six months it would have been all right. But the War is dragging on, and we are discovering that the industrial army and the problem of production come up shoulder to shoulder with the military problem, and we have to face and solve both if we are going to reap success. Mr. Neville Chamberlain and his Department has been produced for the purpose of solving the problem. The very first point presented to the Director-General of National Service should have been the problem of the Army itself. He should have considered how far the Army had been badly recruited, and how far that bad recruitment can be readjusted by taking back men into civil occupations who have been taken from them and put into the Army. Instead of having a great pool of registered men now, and of registered women later on -instead of having a pool of registered people, three-fourths of whom will never be able to be made available for national service, his first step should have been to ascertain their nature, and from that he could have built up a system of National Service, every stage and step of which could have been so arranged as
1494
to give no cause for fear that instead of helping to organise his Department it was really going to hamper it. That Is my first point, and I regret that the Bill to which we are asked to give a Third Reading to-day was not amended in the manner suggested from these benches by giving the Director-General power to control all other Departments which themselves have power to take men from industries and put them into other forms of National Service.
There is another point of very considerable importance, and, although it may not be very popular, I hope the Director-General will pay attention to it. There is at the present moment a body of men under the Home Office scheme—conscientious objectors, who have gone through the tribunals, and I would suggest that the Director-General, if he wants labour, has it there ready to his hand. The work of these men, their ability, their physical and mental power, are at the moment going begging. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to go and see these men at the work they are doing, to examine their capacity, and to see if the sort of national work which is given to them enables their efficiency to be used at its maximum, I think he will come away with a feeling of disgust at the attempt made by the Home Office to put these men to a proper occupation. The Director-General ought to have the power to at once take the whole of these men, whose efficiency and ability are beyond doubt, and he could put them to occupations which they would be glad to accept, and in which they would be of real national service.
You want to go on building up from detail to detail, laying the foundation and building up stage by stage and storey by storey upon the foundation, and by that method you would get a scheme of National Service where there is no groping or moping about, where everything that is done is known and is definite, and is of such a character that its consequences can be readily calculated, so that very few mistakes will be made. That is the proper method of National Service. Instead of that the other method was adopted, and this Bill gives powers to carry it on. We have this Register. I wish to protest against the way in which this Register is being compiled. Mr. Neville Chamberlain has told us, and we had it repeated here last night, that everybody is expected to register. I do not think that it becomes any Member of this House to throw him-

1495
self directly athwart a decision to which the Director-General of National Service has come after full consideration, but it seems to me that that decision is so contrary to common sense that I would venture to put in a plea against it. Why should everybody register? It is like hunting for a needle in a haystack. First of all, you make the haystack. You know that in that haystack there is a needle somewhere, and then you hunt for it. If you had a lot of inefficient and needless people to do the hunting, I would not object at all; but you are creating a huge Government Department. You take a big hotel and you staff it. That is a waste of public money, a waste of energy, and a waste of good men and good women, who ought to be doing other things. That is not all. Then you throw your tentacles from John O'Groats to Land's End and from the North Sea to the Atlantic, you increase the work of your Labour Exchanges, you create new duties, you take more men away from National Service in order to attend to them, you create new tribunals, and so forth, all for the purpose of making something that will act as a sieve through which needless hay will go, and you hope by some miraculous process to track the needle. The system is an absurd one.
The hon. and gallant Member (Major Hamilton), in a very interesting speech yesterday—his enthusiasm and devotion to his Department strikes us all, and we are always very glad to see it in the speeches be delivers here in defence of his Department—referred to the case of Lord Rhondda. We know what Lord Rhondda has done. That eloquent and not at all exaggerated description of Lord Rhondda's work which the hon. and gallant Member gave us yesterday was known to us all; but where we could not follow the hon. and gallant Member was that all this was to be supplemented by Lord Rhondda writing his name upon a slip of paper in order that we should not fail to understand the sacrifices which Lord Rhondda had made for the nation in its hour of need. Everyone knows that Lord Rhondda laid his business aside, went to America, came back, started his business again, accepted the appeal made to him by the present Prime Minister, laid his business aside once more, went to the Local Government Board, where he is still doing work, and yet in order to show us his patriotism and a good example, he has to register. I do not think we need
1496
that. We have got more appreciation of the realities of life than to require that sort of thing to make us aware of what Lord Rhondda has done. In order to show that, this ticket has to go through four or five different processes. It has not only to do that, but it has to be transported from one part of the country to another. That means clerks, transport, book-keeping, paper and house room. This-tremendous haystack you are building up is not the kind of thing that is done as a by-product of the time of lazy people. In order to keep it going and make it worth anything at all, in order to get the needle out of the hay, you must have a tremendous organisation of rent, labour, ability, time, and all the paraphernalia of correspondence and transport. Then when you get all that, the chances are that you miss the needle in the end. To vary the simile, you then put your round peg in a square hole and excuse yourself for doing so on the ground that the task was so great that it was practically impossible.
However, this is the Third Reading of the Bill. We have discussed its details tried to improve it in every way we could, and moved Amendments, some of which were accepted, as, for instance, that in regard to the Advisory Committee, which I think I started, perhaps in a different form, although the idea was the same. I hope this scheme will succeed and will produce the result that is wanted, but I do not believe that the method that is being pursued will make it succeed. I feel that this system of registering all will defeat the purpose. It would be far better if the Director-General would try to retrace his steps and, instead of scheduling—of course, he did not do it, but it was for his purposes that it was done—lists of industries that are essential or non-essential or primary or secondary, or whatever adjective you like to apply, if he would begin and discuss the actual definite difficulties that have arisen, meet them, and then go on and on, he would do better. He might have a little time to solve the agricultural difficulty straight away. That is the pressing one. Having done that. he could go on to build up a system of National Service and in that way it would be a success. If he pursues his present methods, before many weeks are over we shall be told that the scheme is a failure and, although there are hundreds of thousands of people enrolled, yet among them the effective percentage is so small that

1497
something else will have to be done. They will come here and say, "We gave the voluntary system a chance," when, as a matter of fact, they are not giving it a chance. They will say, "Having given it a chance, we must ask for compulsion." When they get compulsion, the muddle will be worse than ever, and the threat of the National Service organisation will be more serious under the compulsory system than it will be under the voluntary system. I hope that, although my speech is of a critical character, it will be helpful to those upon whose shoulders the heavy responsibility of this almost thankless task has been laid.
Mr. CARADOC REES: There are a number of naturalised aliens in this country who, if they were not naturalised, would either be enemies or friendly aliens. Many of those who would be enemy aliens at the outbreak of the War volunteered for military service and were rejected, and I hey hold their rejection forms, and although they are of military age they carry on business throughout the length and breadth of the land. One of the prejudices that I feel and hear about is this, especially since the tribunals have been closing down, with some degree of ruthlessness, the single men's businesses. It is almost more than flesh and blood can stand to know that your business is going to be closed down to-day in order that the profits may go to some alien to-morrow. I want to know what is going to be done in this case. It is bad enough now for men of military age to know that the goodwill of their business is going to be reaped by some alien but if men over military age are asked to volunteer for this scheme and know when they volunteer that aliens under forty are going to reap the profits of their business, how can you expect them to come in? I want to know whether the Home Office is handing over to the Director all the names and addresses of all these people and their occupations, and how you are going to deal with them; and I want to know whether the War Office is handing over to the new Director the names and addresses of all aliens who have volunteered, and what you are going to do with them? There was a great deal of talk of taking trade from the Germans at present and after the War at the time of the Military Service Act, and I am afraid the way we shall work this National Service Act will be to transfer the profits of British traders into the pockets of aliens
1498
in this country This is not a question that affects only the East End of London. It is all throughout the United Kingdom, and I have even had letters from Wales, and in the smaller towns it is more difficult to get people to volunteer when they can point to this, that, and the other alien who are prospering and making excess profits. This is a grievance which must be dealt with officially, and some authoritative statement should be made if we expect men to volunteer for National Service.
There is one other point I wish to deal with. We are told that it is no use to volunteer for National Service unless we give the whole of our time. My submission on that is this. It is quite true that the skilled labour of a part-timer is not of any use, but what we are wanted for in this country is not skilled labour. Professional men and shopkeepers could not do skilled labour, but they can do unskilled labour, for unskilled labour you can work by a rota. There is no need for unskilled labour for whole-time men and the men in this country who are asked to volunteer for National Service are trying to solve two questions. They want to help the country on the one hand if they can and they want to save their businesses on the other hand if they can. If men could volunteer for two complete days in the week on rota for unskilled work and devote the other five days to their business there would be far more readiness to come forward than there is at present. Rut a man at present is told "You must give the whole of your time. You must not have regard to your business. You must leave it to us. We know what we can do for you better than you know yourselves." The men feel that these tribunals, these labour bureaus and officials do not know and they want some security. My suggestion is that if men could be enrolled, say, for two days in the week for unskilled labour, leaving the other five days free to carry on their businesses, nearly the whole of the people of the country between forty and sixty would enrol for National Service. But if it is to be put down once and for all that one must hand himself over to the Government completely, I am afraid very few people will come forward, and you will come to this House some weeks from now and say voluntary National Service has been a failure. To say that obstacles to voluntary

1499
National Service are being put by the people who are trying to work it would be an insult to the intelligence of the House.
Sir H. CRAIK: Throughout the whole of this Debate I have rather been struck by a wrong note having been touched in the discussions on this Bill. Admittedly this is a great and difficult problem, but I suppose the great majority of us will go through the country and say what we can in favour of the Bill. But has the note of earnestness for the new effort made on behalf of the nation been struck fully in our Debates? I know its proposals are against many of the prejudices or opinions held most sincerely by those of my own political way of thinking. I, as a Conservative, am probably held to be bound to reactionary views. As a University Member I am, of course, a defender of lost causes. I have been astonished now when a great effort is being made, that some of my own party have not spoken with a clearer note in favour of this national effort than they have done. I feel that in this scheme there is much that is running counter to many of our own prejudices. When I have listened to some of the speeches of the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) I could almost have believed I was listening to some reactionary Tory, or to some quotation from the now defunct and almost forgotten philosopher, Herbert Spencer, in his claims for individual liberty. We are trying a new effort, a new scheme and a new movement. But how can we do it unless we are to organise labour? From the very first my own view has been that military service was not the only thing that ought to be organised, and that every man throughout the country in a time of strain and stress like this should be called upon to do the very best that he could for his country. Is there anything more involved in the principle of the Bill than this?
Surely we should not be given that new work in our political history by raising all sorts of difficulties, carping criticism, possible doubts as to details, accusation that individual liberty is being interfered with and that organisation of the nation on what I admit are more or less socialistic lines is being undertaken. Did we expect that to come from those who have been defenders of these views? Surely there are other things involved in this. Is not the minimum wage a very important achievement? We should not have looked at it some time ago. Those who think as I
1500
do upon political questions hesitated about it. If we admit the infringement of those principles which all our life we have adopted, are not hon. Members opposite prepared to go equally far in abandoning their own? It seems to me as if those hon. Members are now out of love with their Socialistic principles, because they find that the application of those Socialistic principles may be useful in a great emergency and for the prosecution of the War. We abandon principles which we have held all our life because we think the abandonment of those principles is demanded in a great emergency and in the interests of the prosecution of the War. I know that many of those principles we have fought against will have come to remain; that the minimum wage, once established, is not likely to fall away: that the organisation of the nation on a fairer basis, and in the common interests of the nation, is likely to last. We are not the least afraid of that. Do any of us think that after this War things will be exactly as they were before? Do we not know that all our principles will be changed, that all our organisation of society very likely will be revolutionised, and cannot we have the boldness to go forward, not merely with carping criticism, with doubtful support, with questioning and hesitating adherence to the principle put forward, but with enthusiasm and earnestness, on behalf of this Bill?
I know difficulties will arise, but surely they are not too hard to be overcome, if we meet the proposals of the Government in a fair and generous spirit, and do the best we can for Mr. Neville Chamberlain in the difficult work he has to carry out. I know there are difficulties and stumbling-blocks which may very likely impede the organisation of National Service, but let us go forward boldly. I hope there will not be an over-increase of that bureaucratic pressure which I dread perhaps more than hon. Members opposite. I hope there will not be a vast increase of officials tumbling over one another. I hope the Director of National Service will take a wide view of what he has to do and that he will keep clearly in his mind two points, namely, first to measure what work there is to do and then to call upon the workers to undertake it. It will not do to put the cart before the horse and first call upon an unduly swollen army of workers, and, when you have got them, then begin to find out the work they have to do. Let him keep those two points clearly in view.

1501
Let him take care that first he knows the work, and then he can call for the workers. But is there any danger of that not being done? Have not we an assurance from the Leader of the House that the needs of agriculture will be weighed perhaps before, and, at all events, equally with, the needs of the Army and munitions? Cannot hon. Members who doubt this Bill trust the Leader of the House as to that?
4.0 P.M.
I am ready to support the Bill. I am quite with those who think that a voluntary system is the best in the first instance, but I am quite prepared to say- and anyone who has supported in the past the principle of Socialistic organisation of labour in this country must also, in their heart and in their conscience, be prepared to say—that if voluntary measures do not succeed, you must come to the exercise of Stats authority. If you do, it will be done with the assent of the nation, and the nation will follow you, looking to the great emergency that has arisen, and which it is determined to meet. I think, perhaps, there has been throughout these Debates a little hesitation and doubt, and an attempt to conceal what, in certain eventualities, must come to be the sequel of this Bill-— something like compulsion. I was glad to hear the bold words which, before the Bill was introduced, were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson). He recalled his previous pledges, but he distinctly faced —and perhaps faced in that speech more boldly than anyone has faced throughout these Debates—the possibility of compulsion, and declared, with a great deal of boldness resoluteness and the right spirit of statesmanship, that in such a case he was prepared to ask the House to allow him to withdraw his previous pledges and to face, if necessary, compulsion. Whether we have, unhappily or happily, to take to that second step, let us accept this Bill for what it means, not in merely a carping, critical, doubtful spirit, but with the unhesitating determination that each of as, in his own sphere and as far as in him lies will help to make it palatable to our; countrymen, and I believe, if we are ready to trust our countrymen, they are ready to accept the principle of discipline and public service which this Bill will involve.
Mr. DENMAN: With the criticism that the hon. Member for Leicester adduced, I cordially agree, but not with the conclusions. The last speaker seemed to think
1502
that the spirit with which this Bill was welcomed was inadequate. My own experience, in conversation with a large number of different persons, is that the spirit is willing but the Bill is weak, and personally, if I could collect together in one Lobby as opponents of this Bill only those-who would accept some simple measure of immediate compulsion for Great Britain, I. should certainly divide against the Third Reading of this Bill. The Bill, and the method of administration, are impossibly weak. This subject of National Service: has a history the House is apt to forget. In June, 1915, nearly two years ago, the Prime Minister said in this House:
"We have for the moment one plain paramount duty to perform—to bring to the service of the State the willing and organised help of every class in the Kingdom."
In introducing the Bill the Minister in charge said that the object of the National Register was to secure a complete general and satisfactory organisation, and on the Second Reading we were told
"We shall only succeed in the struggle in which we are now engaged by the organisation of all of us and the fullest possible use of all the resources which we, as a nation, possess."
Accordingly the National Register Bill was produced. In vain it was pointed out in this House that the Bill, so far from assisting organisation, would almost certainly be a danger to it. We went on for over a year, a year and many months, without any attempt to organise the National Service scheme of the country. Last December the present Prime Minister urged the great importance of the mobilisation of the country.
"Without this, "he said," we shall not be able to pull through."
Three months have elapsed. We were told a few days ago that the result of the National Service scheme up to then was that 125,000 persons had enrolled, one-third of them being men already occupied in work of national importance. We are therefore left with, say, 85,000 men, which is approximately equivalent to the ordinary number of registrations in the Labour Exchanges in the course of one month. We were further told that men had not been transferred to other occupations because the machinery of transfer was not yet ready. General criticism of the measure and the method by which it has been administered I will not press. I only want now to enforce the criticism made by the hon. Member for Leicester. It is sheer folly to go on

1503
enrolling essential men. The one serious argument which has been given for that— I will not take seriously the argument of example to other people—is that you create mobility of essential men. When one reflects that one of the chief effects, and indeed one of the chief industrial objects of the Defence of the Realm Regulations was to prevent the mobilisation of essential men, and to secure them in the factories in which they were working, it is really rather comic to be told that we are now to have a device for securing their mobilisation. In fact, if you want to move a man from one factory or another, of course your machinery is the local inspector of the Ministry of Munitions, who knows the staffing arrangements of the different factories, and if they want to set up fresh factories or increase the labour in any existing factory, he knows the only places where supplies can be got. It is quite absurd to go to munitions factories and say, "Enrol, so that there may be mobilisation." In one factory everybody might enrol and in another factory no one might enrol. Clearly as a method of mobilisation it is ridiculous.
There are other persons whom you want to bring in; there has been a vigorous attempt to enrol Civil servants under this scheme. Do you want to move all the officers skilled in colonial affairs for example, and turn them into some business to deal with excess profits? That would dearly be ridiculous. It is not merely a thing that is not intended to produce any result. It is a very serious thing indeed to many agriculturists when they are asked to sign their names to these forms, and when you expect them to understand, after you have taken great pains to persuade them to sign and to undertake service elsewhere, that you are really quite sure that nothing whatever will be the result of your action. The rural mind is not made that way. The Civil servant can -understand the joke, but the rural mind cannot. You are only wasting time and producing unrest among the rural population, which you should seek to keep as steadily in its present position as you possibly can. Anybody who has had to deal with the organisation of large numbers of men knows perfectly well that each particular paper they have got to file at the central office or any office means an additional clerk. To issue these millions of forms that you know you are not going
1504
to use is doing the utmost to make your machinery unworkable. Everybody knows what the problem is, and the only real solution of it is very simply put by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who said:
"The problem of organising the nation for war resolves itself into the practice of transference from non-essential to essential trades."
It follows from that statement that your organisation will start by recognising that the vast mass of labour in this country is engaged in the very best way it can be engaged and that the area of your action is that a limited pool which is engaged in non-essential trades ought to be transferred from them. The procedure follows from that basis. You begin by collecting your non-essential trade, and you compulsorily enrol everybody in that trade. You then consult the trade as to what its real value is, for I very much doubt that all the trades treated as nonessential will, on close examination, be found to be as valueless as they are represented to be. No doubt you could come to an agreement with the trade as to the proportion of labour you can take. You then take that labour, voluntarily if possible, compulsorily if you cannot get it voluntarily. Of course you will have the tribunals to protect workers from bad employers, and also from the wrongful action of fellow workers. It may be asked, "Why is compulsion necessary for that scheme?" I will tell you exactly why. If it is organised properly, you must be able to regard any given trade as a whole. It has been argued with great justice that you do not want to destroy nonessential trades, and that you must, if possible leave a nucleus of the trade, so that it can be rebuilt after the War. If you simply rely upon volunteers from non-essential trades you will never know with sufficient accuracy what is the effect of taking those men is on the number of men remaining in the trade. It is obvious in a manufacturing trade such as jewellery. It is equally obvious if you consider what I believe will be found to be a much more productive source of labour, the distributing occupations. We found by the census that there were some 160,000 grocers in England and Wales. I have no doubt that there are still a large number of grocers who could be replaced and could be taken for more valuable service, but clearly you must take your grocer under some orderly system as you might leave some districts entirely without grocers, and you might take none at all

1505
from others. If you could review your grocers as a whole, you would be able to take a fair proportion from each given district. But I think in some ways what is much more important is the fact that you could act with speed, and with order, and without the great waste of time and energy which this voluntary system has already involved and will continue to involve. You are asking a, number of people who ought to be very much better occupied to spend their time going up and down the country enrolling a number of people you know will be of no use to National Service. You are sending out forms broadcast all over the country at a time when you say there is a great shortage of paper, and you want to keep down imports as far as you may. You are going to spend weeks and weeks, if not months, in slowly collecting names of very doubtful value, instead of having been able to begin several months ago to start this thing on an orderly and matured basis.
What stands in the way of compulsion? I know of nothing except the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) I think that people, when they hear statesmen giving pledges of that kind, are apt to feel some irritation. The only pledge which any Minister is entitled to give in times like these is a pledge to constantly do what he knows will be the best for the country. When he deliberately ties himself up, and says, "I will not take given action, no matter how important or obvious it is to me, unless after considerable experience (which will take weeks or months) it is proved to me I am right and you are wrong—unless that happens I will not act." Your soldier gets tired of that politician. After all, in this matter of compulsion, we are led to reflect that the right hon. Gentleman assented easily enough to military compulsion. He has agreed that men may be compelled to go and fight in France, and the man who is so compelled does not quite understand why he should not agree that a man should be compelled to transfer from one occupation to another in this country. I do not know whether civilians really always understand the strain or the sort of life to which they compel people to go to in France. In the course of every month there are a number of persons who have not succeeded in maintaining the standard for a soldier, who have not turned up in the trenches
1506
with the rest of their unit, and who have been found, weeks after perhaps, wandering about somewhere behind the lines, or maybe it is a soldier whose comrades have gone over the parapet and who has not gone with them, but has hid away somewhere; and every month there are a few men of that kind who are court-martialled and shot at dawn, and they are not people who are by nature cowards; very often they are people who have simply given way through the prolonged strain of the life of the trenches. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) freely compels people to face that life, and yet, because apparently he is afraid of certain trade unions, he will not compel men to transfer from one occupation to another. Your soldier in France docs not understand that attitude, and I do not think any argument which the right hon. Gentleman can produce will make him understand it.
We are told, of course, that you cannot compel a man to transfer labour, because you are then compelling him to work for the profit of an individual. In the first place, I think there is an answer that would apply to a great number of cases, namely, that when you are transferring from non-essential to essential industries you are very often transferring into controlled establishments in which the individual profit does not appreciably apply; but, in any case, I deny the whole theory that a man will decline to work at a particular job where he is decently paid and where he knows he is doing work of value to the State, merely because, incidentally, he happens to be benefiting a fellow-Englishman. Of course, the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle speaks with an authority about trade unions that it would be an impertinence in me to deny, but I am quite sure his theory, however well it may apply to trade union ideals and practice, does not apply at all to the ordinary human being. In France men used frequently to go and work for farmers who had to get in their crops or who had to thresh them. They were only too glad to do the work. They knew the work was of value, and, of course, it was of great advantage to the individual farmer that it should be done, but that fact did not make them think it was a disgrace that they should do it, and I am perfectly certain that the vast mass of normal Englishmen whom you transfer on compulsion from one employment to another will readily do the new employment, even though there

1507
may be a few shillings profit in it to another person. The afternoon is late, and there are many other points I should have liked to deal with, but I have submitted, what I am sure the great mass of soldiers in France also feel, that there is no case for this slip-shod and really impossible scheme of National Service which you are now attempting to work. You must do the thing properly in the complete and compulsory way at the earliest possible moment. It has already been delayed two years, and if the Government is to maintain amongst the soldiers a reputation for appreciating the urgency of things and for promptness in getting on with the work the sooner it makes the system compulsory the better.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Before we take the Third Heading of the Bill, perhaps it will be as well that I should reply to a few of the criticisms which have been put forward, and more especially that I should acknowledge the speech from the hon. Member for Leicester. It was not only intended to be helpful, but it was helpful. He said, and said rightly, that whilst the Army required, in order to finish this War successfully and quickly, some hundreds of thousands more fit men to fight at the front, that the industrial side of this question had also become more than ever prominent, and that we were all feeling the necessity of having men of physique. I will not say men necessarily of military age, but fit men of good physique, accustomed to hard work, to take the places of those whom we may hope to obtain from protected industries in order that they may go to the front and do a portion of the fighting. We all know that when we take men from these protected industries, we want to replace them with men of muscle and brain who will be able to do the work in our shipyards, mines, transports, munitions work, and fields of that kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester said that he had three criticisms to make. The first was that the Army should have returned more men to industrial life. Well, perhaps the Army was not at the first alive to the necessity of returning men who were perhaps more suited to industries than they were for the Army, and they perhaps did not return them as quickly as they might. But every week that goes by the Army is becoming
1508
more and more alive to the fact; and I know from constant conversation with those who are responsible for our Army, that men are being returned now every week to the plough, the shipyards, and; the mines; and the disabled soldiers are being trained day by day for munitions work. This criticism was well worth making on the part of the hon. Member for Leicester, but it was a criticism which had already been anticipated. To the extent that the criticism was well-founded, it will undoubtedly be more and more attended to by those who are responsible.

The hon. Member for Leicester said, "Why do you not make more use of conscientious objectors?" I am thankful to-say that so far as numbers are concerned there are only 3,520 of these. The composition of the conscientious objector is such that he pays far more attention to the exercising of his mind than to the exercising of his body. That constitutes him such that while I will not say he is softer in mind, he is softer in body; and I do not think you could expect very much help from that class in any of this extremely hard work that has to be done either in the coal mines, shipyards, or munitions work. The third criticism was one which was not confined to the hon. Member for Leicester. It is said, "Why are you asking everybody to enrol; are you not clogging your machine; why do you not address yourselves much more pertinently, cogently, and sensibly to what you actually do want?" I do not altogether find fault with that criticism. After all, however, we appointed a Director-General of National Service, and we left it to him to find the scheme. No doubt his endeavour has been to find a scheme which appeals, not only to certain classes or sections of the communities, but to all. Such a scheme is very difficult to frame. I think that my hon. Friend the Director for National Service will meet the criticism that has been levelled at his scheme to-day, and will probably say to himself,. While I run my scheme, it seems to me that perhaps it would be as well if I tried to go in more for inners and bullseyes than for outers. I want to get men rapidly to replace the men who are coming out of these protected industries, and out of, I will not say non-essential industries, but less essential industries, and I had better say plainly what industries I want; see where those industries are carried on. Then look on the other side, and see where I am likely to get these men, and by all

1509
possible means persuade them, by giving them very good terms, for they are worth it, and by telling them they will not, perhaps, have to leave their homes if the industry is fairly close to their own home. So, by applying his big brain and energy more directly and in a mere concentrated form, actually getting, say, 200,000 or 300,000 men, and 200,000 or 300,000 men whom we hope will be attracted to the Army, who will, in the ease of necessity, give up the occupations in which they are now engaged, if men of physical training and capacity—it is no good having any other men—can be found to take their place. I believe that we want men much more of muscle and brawn than we do men of brain, and I cannot help thinking that there will be a very great deal of disappointment amongst professional men, because, although some of them undoubtedly will be wanted, it is an undoubted fact that, so far as retired Civil servants and retired schoolmasters and men, of that class are concerned, although their patriotism is splendid, and their desire to help the nation cannot be exceeded they are not possessed of those particular gifts and those particular qualities which are needed at the present time.
The hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Caradoc Rees) asked what we are going to do in regard to the enemy aliens who were rejected from the Army in the early years of the War. I have to say to him that the oversight of this has not been neglected by the Director-General of National Service. Already they have been approached, and I am told that in nearly every case they are willing to enrol for voluntary service, and inquiries are being made as to what they are at present engaged in. Endeavour will be made to induce them to give up their employment wherever that employment is in less essential industries and to transfer themselves to industries which may be primarily essential at the present time. One other criticism was made to the effect that compulsion is at the bottom of this scheme, and that compulsion will become inevitable. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) said he was not at all afraid to face the possibility of compulsion. Neither am I. Neither is anybody afraid, provided always that we prove to the people first of all that we have tried a good voluntary system. Let us try a good voluntary system first. I do not want compulsion if we can help it. We must get men, and
1510
I believe we shall get the men; I do not say exactly by this scheme, but by this scheme altered in some important particulars. At all events we should give this a fair trial before we adopt compulsion. This scheme may not be the most perfect scheme, but it is a scheme well thought out, which takes stock of the mind and muscle of the nation and does its best to employ the mind and muscle of the nation for the proper prosecution of this War.
Mr. ANDERSON: I do not intend speaking for more than a few minutes because not only has this Bill to foe got through, but we are hoping that some statement will be made by the Leader of the House on another matter before we adjourn. A great deal that I might have wished to say has been said already with far greater force and ability by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The criticisms we have made again and again are the points he has made in regard to getting this done, not with the largest amount of disturbance but with the smallest possible amount. When the hon. and learned Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) spoke, he appeared to think I was guilty of some inconsistency because, being a Socialist, he said I ought to shut my eyes and open my mouth and take whatever comes in the way of State action. If he had studied Socialism as long as I have he would know that that is an impossible position to take up, because there may be all the difference in the world between wide and foolish State action. There may be all the difference in the world between good and bad State action.
We are told that we should make enthusiastic platform speeches on this question, but that is not our business. It is our business to examine the details of the scheme brought forward by the Government, find out where they are weak and try to make them strong. I do not oppose the principle of National Service, and I did not vote against the Second Heading of this Bill. I do not even propose to vote against the Third Reading. We have tried in Committee to make the Bill better and stronger, and although it still falls short of what it ought to be from my point of view, I do not believe anybody can look at the present economic position of the country without concluding that we ought to do something from the point of view of food supplies and other

1511
necessities. It is most important, especially from the point of view of those who believe in wise State action, that we should examine the details, so that State action will not be discredited by unwise methods of procedure.
With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman), I would only say that I quite concede that I do not see much difference in principle between military compulsion and industrial compulsion, except that the principle of private profit does come into industrial compulsion in a way that does not enter into military compulsion. But apart from that, the question of expediency will still arise, and it will still have to be debated as to whether this measure is going to give you the result you wish and whether it might not defeat the object you have in view. Those points will have to be debated in the House itself. I do not propose to go into that matter more fully at the present time. I am sorry we are not going to have a larger measure of Parliamentary control over it, but no doubt we shall have someone representing the Department in this House to whom questions may be put. I have tried to make my own position clear in regard to this measure, and I have examined it critically. I think some of the details are weak, but if National Service is really the highest form of service I want it to be directed and guided into proper channels.
Sir C. WARNER: I think it is wise that we should express our opinion even though we do everything we can, not only in regard to this measure, but in regard to every measure the Government brings forward to help to carry on the War. When the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities said that some of us lacked enthusiasm he forgot that the scheme is not the scheme which has been so far carried out, and if it had been the original scheme we should all have been enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. Unfortunately, the scheme has gone the wrong way, and it has been a case exactly as the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) said, "of hiding a needle in a haystack to get it out afterwards." I want to put one point with regard to the return of men from the Army. It is true that they are returning as substitutes for somebody else, but they are not returning to their own homes. That is a most impor-
1512
tant point, because the labourer, who is in a strange country, is only half the use that he would be in his own country. It is quite well known that when the labourers in the Eastern Counties struck and went up to Yorkshire they could not earn a living and had to come back starving. It is equally true, if you took a labourer from Cornwall and put him in the Eastern Counties, he would be perfectly useless, and if you took a labourer from the Eastern Counties and put him in Yorkshire or in Scotland he would be of very little use. You have also the difficulty of housing them, and I want to plead, when the Army send back men for agricultural purposes, that they should send them back to their own districts where they can do the most efficient work. That applies to other trades. Great care should be taken, moreover, to find the right substitutes. I believe, for instance, that there are 500 classes of engineers, and it is no use sending one class to replace another. If the Government will only take sufficient care and carry out the scheme as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to-day, we shall get great good out of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1916–17.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will ensue in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1017, for Pay, etc., of the Army."
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This Estimate is presented in order to obtain Parliamentary authority to enable us to appropriate receipts in aid of expenditure and so to reduce the amount to be taken out of the Vote of Credit. We are not allowed to use our cash receipts unless we receive the prior sanction of Parliament. In ordinary times authority is given when the Estimates are first passed, but during the War, when the Army Estimates are presented in Token form, the amount authorised by Parliament by way of Appropriation-in-Aid does not really

1513
represent the full amount of cash which we receive in the course of the year. We have at present authority to spend up to £1,500 by way of Appropriations-in-Aid, whereas we shall have received by the end of the financial year something like £40,000,000. It would be possible for those receipts to go into the Exchequer and for us to draw a corresponding additional sum on the Vote of Credit, but the Treasury considered the course now taken to be the most convenient, and it was therefore decided that a Supplementary Estimate of this kind should be presented before the close of the financial year, by which time we should be able to make a fairly close estimate of the total amount of the receipts. Perhaps I may say that the principal source of the receipts are repayments by the Indian, Colonial, and Allied Governments of expenses incurred by the Imperial Government on their behalf, and this includes large sums for the maintenance of the Dominion Forces in the field. The House will bear in mind the fact that the splendid patriotic assistance of the Dominions includes the cost of their troops as well as the provision of their food, clothing, etc. This is a technical matter. I do not think there are any questions of policy arising, and what is done is really to preserve the full authority of Parliament over the expenditure.
Mr. KING: Having followed the matter with very great care, I must say it is most encouraging to those who have so often stood up for financial control that the Treasury should now bring this money under Parliamentary control when they might have done otherwise. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman and the Treasury for the line which they have taken, which is correct and useful from a Parliamentary point of view.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of
1514
£60,423,575 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]
Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, the sum of £38,025,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
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."

REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA.

  STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At Question Time to-day, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), the Leader of the House said that if further information were received from Russia he would be glad to communicate it to the House in answer to a question at the time of adjournment. I beg now, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any statement on the subject to make?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be remembered that, in the message which I read to the House last night on the abdication of the Czar and the establishment of a Regency, I was careful to read the exact words of the telegram, which were that the message had been received at the Embassy from the Duma. I noticed at the time, to my regret, it did not say it was from the President of the Duma, and of course I was well aware that the impression on the House would be that it was an accomplished fact. Since then we have received the following message:
  "What was stated in my previous telegram does not appear to be quite accurate. The Emperor's abdication and the appointment of the Grand Duke Michael as Regent have not as yet been carried into effect, although decided upon by the Executive Committee."

  1515
  I have only to add that we have received another telegram to the effect that it is not known where the Czar is. That is all the information we have received on the subject. I am sure that the House will feel that in these circumstances our knowledge is so meagre that it is impossible to formulate an accurate estimate of what has taken place.

  IRELAND (ST. PATRICK'S DAY).
  Mr. DILLON: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any foundation for the rumours about Ireland? First, I would ask him whether any warning or Proclamation has been issued asking the people to remain indoors; and, secondly, I would ask him whether there is any foundation for the rumour that ten rounds of ammunition have been served out to the Dublin Metropolitan Police?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I informed the hon. Member earlier, the Chief Secretary is in Ireland. I communicated at once with the Irish Office, and they have been in telephonic communication with him. He has sent the following message, which I am pleased to read to the House:
  "No such order or warning has been issued hy the Government. Some apprehension has been caused by rumours of intended demonstrations, but I believe them to have been circulated by mischief makers. I am confident that disturbances on St. Patrick's Day would he resented by responsible people of all shades of opinion in Dublin."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Five o'clock till Monday next.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation, from Aberdeen, Auchencairn, Banchory, Carluke, Glasford, Glenluce, Keig and Tough, Killin, New Leeds, and Strachan.
TUESDAY.
Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation, from Barr, Glasgow, Inveraray, Kilbrandon, Kirkwall, Peterhead, Rattray, Sanday, and Sandbank (two).
WEDNESDAY.
Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation, from Alloa, Belhelvie and Shiels, Chapelknowe and Gretna, Craigdam, Druiuoak, Eccle-fechan, Fyvie, Glasgow (two), Kirkurd, Monquhitter, Peebles (two), Rayne, Scaur-bridge and Burnhead, and Wishaw.
FRIDAY.
Intoxicating Liquors (Prohibition during the Period of the War and Demobilisation),—Petitions for legislation, from Chirnside West, Deskford, Elgin, Inch, Kirkmuirhill, Peterhead, and Stranraer.
WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    SUGAR.
    SUGAR.
  COUNTESS MARCKIEVICZ.
  COUNTESS MARCKIEVICZ.
  REMOUNT DEPOT, DUBLIN (DISMISSALS).
  REMOUNT DEPOT, DUBLIN (DISMISSALS).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
    TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
  MEDICAL STUDENT (GOOTMAN).
  MEDICAL STUDENT (GOOTMAN).
  TAXI-CAB FARES.
  TAXI-CAB FARES.
  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES).
  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS (PUBLICATIONS SEIZED).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS (PUBLICATIONS SEIZED).
  Stokers, Royal Navy (Sight Tests).
  Stokers, Royal Navy (Sight Tests).
  Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Workmen's Compensation Act.